Howard Griswold Conference Call

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, January 21, 2021


Howard Griswold Conference calls:

218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes),

Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.

‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes

Conference Call is simulcast on:

Starting in the second hour at 9 p.m.

Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #.

Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.)

Mickey’s debt collection call is 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Wednesday night. The number is 712 – 432 – 8773 and the pin number is 947975#.

All correspondence to: Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940

(do not address mail to ‘Howard Griswold’ since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since he’s on good terms with his wife he isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.)

"All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, has
been gathered, combined and collated into 3 "Home-Study Courses" and
"Information packages" listed at  "Mail Order" DONATIONS
and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line)

Dave DiReamer can be reached at: [email protected]

Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website:


When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!!

It would be best if you mute your phone when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and then re-mute it.

You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute button

Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop up the call badly occasionally.

If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please mute!!!!!

Note, on October 30th someone left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult.

When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception zone can couple noise into the call.

Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call.

Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes.

Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox and bop you one.


Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words and meaning will be lost.

Suggestion to everyone (even Howard):

Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it.



[Bob] Howard, Hi, this is Bob from Long Island, New York. How are you doing?

[Howard] Pretty good; I'm improving considerably.

[Bob] That is fantastic. I want to change the subject a little bit. I want to ask you, what is your opinion on fighting a camera picture taking summons that I recently got for going through a red light.

[Howard] Comes back down to private property. It has nothing to do with the camera. It has nothing to do with the eyes of a police officer seeing you do something. The question is whether or not the law applies to your private property and it doesn't. Now, if you're driving on a privilege such as a CDL license then you come under their regulations but you had to have been driving the thing that the CDL licenses were intended to apply to. If you get out of your tractor trailer truck and get into your private automobile and drive home, guess what, those laws don't apply to you anymore because you're in your private car. Now, this is going to be a hard argument. These lawyers have been making a fortune off of this scam called traffic control for years and the judges are part of the lawyers. You're not going to win in the lower court. You probably will win if you can take it all the way up to the highest courts because there are dozens and dozens of cases that can be found in the higher courts that are found in the higher courts that are reported cases that show exactly what I just said, that it doesn't apply to your private automobile.

[Bob] Yeah. That's the question that I wanted to ask you about. I just picked it up today in the mail.

[Howard] If you don't feel strong enough to fight this, don't feel that you know enough about private property, don't feel that you understand the rules of court well enough to go through the courts and file the appeals and do things according to the rules properly then go pay the ticket and go on in life. We've had to give in a lot of times. A smart military leader will surrender or retreat when he knows he's being beaten and regroup and re-attack so we have to learn to do that. We aren't always totally prepared and ready to carry all these things all the way through so sometimes we have to retreat. We have to yield a little bit and go do some more studying and regroup and get ourselves together and ready for the next time. So if you're not entirely ready don't fight it. But if you feel that you're ready call me, I'll help you with any information that I can get to you including Boyd v. United States, Bob. You should look that case up and read it; it's a New York case.

[Bob] This is Bob again. I just want to say one thing. I thank you for that information but I want to let everybody know: remember the show called The Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura? It's been cancelled here.

[Howard] Yeah, we found that out last night.

[Bob] I was looking forward to seeing that last night.

[Howard] Jesse does not even live in this country. There's not much they can do to him other than cancel his cancel his show-that they can do. He was revealing too much information about the evils of government and they canceled his show. I'm surprised that they haven't canceled Fox News because Fox is doing a lot of the same things and has people on it that are revealing things that really aren't supposed to be out here for the populous to learn about. But strangely enough CNBC, a guy named McCafferdy, he's one of their news reporters, even he's picked up on some of this stuff and that surprised me no end the other day. He was talking about Haiti and the earthquakes and the problems that are going on down there and the fact that this country is not prepared for a disaster like this in any way at all. They have a very corrupt government just like we have in America he said.

[caller] It was the British that set that colony up anyway.

[Howard] It matters not who set it up. It's corrupt and he pointed out the fact that the government is corrupt-it doesn't do anything for the good of the people. And that's why the people are poor and are not in a state of monetary gain that they are capable of handling problems like this and the government isn't either because of the corruption. Even though the government brings in money it ends up in somebody's pocket. 'It is as corrupt,' he said, 'as the government we have here in America.' Now, isn't that interesting that CNBC News reporters would start talking like that about this government in this country. All these news medias are starting to follow the lead of those who are talking and exposing the wrongs that are in this government. We need to bring this stuff more to their attention because I guarantee you that what I told you about the pale horse is not known by any of these people. The Christian teachers, preachers, whatever you call these little morons in churches do not talk about these kinds of things. They are stuck on what I call the Jesus Christ syndrome. If you don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins you're going to hell. That's the Jesus Christ syndrome-that's all they preach. They don't go into the Bible and tell you about these things. They don't teach you what's in the Bible, what we were meant to learn and understand about nature, about our Creator, about the different forms of creation that are here on this planet. None of that is talked about. They don't explain anything that we should know. They just stuck on this Jesus Christ is going to save your stupid butt-well, that's a ridiculous thing. Your butt is physical and it's going to deteriorate and it can't be saved so why would we worry about saving our butt? It's physical-it can't be saved. The only thing that can is the sole. Well, the sole is energy. That's all it is, is energy. You wouldn't exist without the energy that's within your body. And it matters not what religious belief you have as to the energy that's in your body. We all have energy or we wouldn't be walking, talking and doing things. That is the sole, the spirit in your body. Energy always was and always will be. Energy wasn't created and it can't be destroyed. It is transformed and transposed in many different ways but it cannot be destroyed. So if it can't be destroyed then the sole can't be destroyed. There is nothing to save. What's this salvation crap about? Answer my stupid question. I don't understand what this salvation crap is all about. Somebody answer my question. You can't answer it, can you?

[Ed] Howard, I want to talk about private property and what Bob said in New York. If these cameras are scanning you that's taking your private property, isn't it?

[Howard] Well, actually, yes it is and it's a trespass upon your private property. Now, some states have retained the old common law action of trespass. Delaware is one of them. Pennsylvania, I think, is another one. Most of the old commonwealth and some of the old colony states have retained that. Some them have abandoned the old common law 100% and they have replaced it with statutory complaints. The statutory complaints are the same basic thing. A trespass is an injury of some type upon me or my property. So look up a complaint for an injury and it's the same thing as a complaint for a trespass in the more modern procedural rules of the courts. So, create an action for a complaint for either a trespass, if that's what it is. Now, Delaware, for one, still has that on the books. It's an old common law action and it's still on the books here and, here, I could go against a police officer who wrote a ticket against my wife's private automobile for a trespass. In Maryland they've completely done away from all of that old common law terminology and they've replaced it with a complaint for an injury-same thing. Now, you look in your state rules of procedure and you'll find out how to do it and you just make a complaint for an injury or a complaint for a trespass. The complaint for an injury is because they trespassed upon your private property so it brings in the old common law through the modern procedure and just complain that they're trespassing. Now, read Boyd v. United States. That was an action of trespass that was brought against the judge in the lower court who got fined, the code enforcer who was enforcing the law who got fined. Read the case and read it carefully. They got fined for interfering with this person's private property.

[caller] Howard, are they starting to find a way out of when you send the ticket back to them within the three days, when you're sending it back to them so you're not in possession of it, are they finding a way around that?

[Howard] They aren't just starting to do something about it. Ever since we've started doing it we've been successful in some areas and we've had failures in some areas because they just completely ignore you and proceed right on and they trespass against your private property or against you private person and you're not suing them. And until you get off your ass and starting looking in the law books in your states and try to find out how to do it and file an action against them for an injury or for a trespass and show within the injury that that's what it was, a trespass upon your private property that injured you you're not going to stop this kind of stuff from happening. And I don't care if you sue a cop. The cops are not all bad and they're not really the problem. They're just doing what lawyers have told them to do but because they're so stupid they need to be sued so go after the cop. I just got finished telling you how to do it. Look in your state code for a complaint for an injury. Look in your state for the rules of civil procedure to go after somebody for an injury. I can't look all this stuff for every one of the fifty states for everybody that has a problem. And, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't do me any good to look it up in Delaware and then tell you how to do it out in Kansas or Oregon or wherever you're located because the rules out there are written differently. You have to use the local rules.

[caller] But I wondering, it would be the police, that would be the guy who I would try to bring the suit against?

[caller] Yeah, you'd go after the police and the chief of police, his supervisor.

[caller] Well, if you'd like to have some information I have something.

[Howard] Go ahead.

[caller] That would be great.

[caller] Ok. This is a website-you'll find a lot of information that's free there, possibly a cross reference to a second website which has some supportive and corresponding information. The first website is You'll find a great many answers. You'll have to adjust the items for your particular state.

[Howard] That's actually what I'm telling him.

[caller] What state are you in?

[caller] California.

[caller] California is a very difficult state. Its laws have been stripped relating to public vehicular travel. So, you'll find throughout the other states there'll be more information for supporting the law so I would start there-it's the easiest.

[Howard] There are California Supreme Court cases that clarify the private automobile not being under those laws.

[caller] Texas is probably the best from what I gather.

[Howard] That does not mean that the lower courts will honor what the higher courts have said which means that when you file the lawsuit you should file it against the judge and the prosecuting lawyer and the police chief and the cop. Go after them all for an injury.

[caller] Howard, can you make a motion with two subjects, like motion for lack of subject matter and also with no cause of action.

[Howard] Yes, you can and I'm working with somebody, right now, with that kind of a motion. I'll bring that information out sometime soon.

[caller] It's called an omnibus motion.

[Howard] That's one terminology for it. It's a post {pre} answer motion rather than answering the complaint that they've made you file a post answer motion to dismiss. All the modern procedure has done away with all the common law motions and returning actions like-I can't think of the name of the one that was so popular here in America for a while that everybody was telling people to do and it doesn't work and it's not going to work because they changed the way they do it in the courts. The do all this stuff under a motion to dismiss but under the motion to dismiss you can bring in all the common law arguments that could have been brought under the types of common law motions. And the most important argument is the one that Dave keeps bringing up that they don't have the three major things that they need. They don't have the person, the place and the thing and they haven't verified under the Rules of Evidence, Rule 901, that it is true and correct, that they have the person, the place and the thing.

[Harold] Howard, that was a pre-answer motion.

[Howard] Yeah, pre-answer motion. It's just a motion to dismiss.

[Harold] Correct.

[Howard] To fit modern rules of procedure.

[Harold] Right. That's the one we were talking about on the call yesterday.

[Howard] Is this Harold?

[Harold] Yes.

[Howard] Oh, yeah, ok, good. That's who I meant that I was working with. I'm hoping that you'll put some of that together and get it down to Mickey.

[Harold] I already sent it to Les already. I gave him a case from the beginning to end and he should be able to work from that.

[Howard] Okay. I like the way you had put that together. Knowing what I know about the rules of procedure and the study I've done you're on the right track with the way you did it and it's going to fit right into what Dave DeReimer's been teaching that they have to have three things, the person, the place and the thing. They have to have personam jurisdiction. They have to have venue which is the place and then they have to have the thing which is the subject matter jurisdiction and they never have all three of them.

[Harold] Yeah. Well, the biggest one-they never have the res so they never have the thing is controversy.

[Howard] Right-the subject matter.

[Harold] Yeah.

[Howard] They consider the subject matter to be the statute and that's not what the subject matter is about because the statute is too broadly written. It doesn't tie down what the subject matter of the statute is all about because the statute is supposed to say who and what it applies to and they never do that when they write the statutes. So, everything is wide open to be challenged. {if people would please mute their phones we would get the exact wording!!}

[caller] You could use the motion to dismiss post-answer also for lack of subject matter.

[Howard] Yes.

[Dave] The subject matter is the insurance. The minute you admit you have insurance they've got you. You just admitted that you're in admiralty because all insurance is admiralty and that is the subject matter, the insurance contract.

[caller] They won't admit to admiralty though.

[Howard] No, they won't.

[Dave] You don't need them to admit. You need to deny that it exists as it applies to you because they will not issue insurance to live natural people. They only issue insurance to corporate fiction, person subject, all capital letter name dummies that have government property ID numbers. Live people don't have that.

[Howard] And that's where they get it. When you give them the driver's license it's got an ID number on it and that's where they get the subject matter.

[caller] But I mean this is like everything. I mean this could be a loan, this could be a ticket, subject matter is everything, right?

[Howard] Yes, it is.

[Harold] Correct. As a matter of fact, the way they have the courts set up now that basically is your only issue, jurisdiction and standing because if you argue the facts you're dead.

[Dave] They cannot enforce any contract. They cannot even write you a ticket regarding a contract unless they have already established the three preliminary elements, person, place and thing first. The cop pulls you over he has to establish the driver's license, first, the venue, the registration card, second, and the insurance contract, third, prior to having authority to write you a ticket. You deny all three. You don't have insurance. You're not the fiction person and you're not in their fiction, capital D, capital E and you're not in their fiction, 1,2,3,4, 5 and you're not in their fiction state of X. You're not in their fiction venue.

[caller] That's why it's so hard to beat one, the ticket, because if you've given all that information then you've pretty much beat yourself-right? If you don't give them any of that information.

[Dave] That's why you're supposed to not give it. It doesn't apply to live natural people. It only applies to all capital letter name dummies that have government property ID numbers. Live people don't have those numbers.

[Howard] If your sole had any feeling it would be all bruised from what your body did. You give them everything they need willingly. Your body hands them the registration to the car. Your body hands them your insurance papers. Your body hands them the driver's license. You give them the person, place and thing.

[Harold] Correct. Everything in the system we do voluntarily whether we understand it or not because a corporation has no jurisdiction over live soles unless we contract with it.

[Howard] Nobody likes the way I do it because people are so God damned nice, so polite, so very decent, and I'm not that way. I don't know who thinks I am but I'm not. I don't mind helping people. I bend over backwards to help people but I'm not nice when it comes to scum bags. If a cop pulled me over-and this has happened to me up on Maryland years ago. He pulled me over and wanted my driver's license. I said, 'what do you mean?' He said, 'your state driver's license.' I said, 'state,' I said, 'they're scum bags, I don't deal with those people I don't do business with scum.' Finally, after harassing me for fifteen minutes and calling four other police officers they all got in their car and drove away and let me alone because they could not get me to admit that I had a driver's license or a registration card and the truck did not have a license tag on it and they were really after me. They were going to tow my little van away. They were going to arrest me for driving without a license and I said, 'I don't have a license. You can't arrest me for driving without a license that I don't have. In order to be not having a license I have to have had the license. Look at your own laws.' And they got on their radio phones and they called back into headquarters and their headquarters got a hold of lawyers and their lawyers explained a couple things to them and finally they just left because I would not give them any information.

[Dave] And driving means charging money. If you're not charging money hauling passengers and goods for hire then your car's not a vehicle so you don't need a driver's license because you're not driving. If you're not charging money you're not driving and your private property automobile is not a vehicle being used in the production of income.

[Howard] We should know that; we should understand that. But you should never bring that up to the cop. Don't get into a debate or an argument with the cop.

[Jim] The fact that you didn't have a license plate on the car, is that one of the reasons you were successful?

[Howard] Probably, but only because I kept telling them that I'm not going to give them any registration information. I'm not going to give them a driver's license because I don't have any of that kind of stuff. I'm not in their commerce. And they finally went away and left me alone and this was about the sixteenth time they pulled me over driving around in that van with no license tags on it.

[Dave] Because you're not one required.

[Howard] The first couple of them gave me tickets. I went into court. I argued in court that I don't need the driver's license, I don't need the auto registration and the court said, 'oh, yes, you do,' and found me guilty and fined me but they never collected any fines. And after they finally learned enough that they weren't going to get any money out of me they finally decided to leave me alone. This whole thing is for money. We've got a problem, here in Delaware recently, that's cropped up. A number of the police chiefs of these little town police departments have become very upset with the attorney general's office here in Delaware because the attorney general's office is dropping cases. The police arrest people who have been-well, for instance, one of them I know about is the Food Lion Grocery Store was robbed by this person and the Food Lion Grocery Store happens to have cameras pointed down at the checkout booths. So the whole robbery was on film. They were able to take it off the film, give it to the police to put into the evidence file to use to get a conviction against this person that the police arrested. The attorney general's office dismissed the case and said we don't have enough evidence to proceed. That's one that I personally happened to have know about because it was very local around me. I did a little bit of checking on this person. This person has no job, they have no money, they have no land, they have no car, they have nothing. Now, you figure out why the attorney general's office dropped the case.

[caller] It was his son?

[Howard] No. There was no way to make any money off of this person so they dropped the case.

[caller] It would have cost them money to put him in jail.

[Howard] It would have cost them money to prosecute him and they wouldn't have profited anything. They couldn't fine him and expect to collect the fine because he has nothing. They can't go take property in exchange for the fine. He has none. They couldn't get money because he has no job. He's not worth them prosecuting it. The attorney general's office is there for money, not for anything else. They're not there for justice. They're there for money. If they can't money out of you then they won't prosecute you. If you got a home and they can take it, you got an income of some kind because you work and they can take money out of you then they'll prosecute you. But if you don't have anything they don't bother to prosecute you. Now, the police ought to wake up and realize what the attorney general's office is doing and that it's all for money and stop arresting these people. Why would you bother to arrest somebody that robs a store? He was caught in the act of thievery. The police should tell the local people around there to take care of this problem themselves and I'm going to turn my head-I didn't see a thing. 'You beat him to death-I didn't see a thing'-that gets rid of the robbers. In America we used to hang thieves. According to the story of Jesus Christ that all these Christians claim they believe they hung a thief on each side of Jesus. Now, I keep telling you either you really do believe that story and you're going to start hanging thieves or you're not really Christians and you don't believe the story.

[Ed] ., Howard, also another way.

[Dave] So, all the Christians could kill all the lawyers and that'll solve the problem.

[Howard] I don't recall who it was. One of these politicians accused this fellow, Brown in Massachusetts, that just won the election of going back to the stone ages. I said, 'yeah, that's where we ought to go, back to the stone ages and stone most of these people.' One of the politicians against Brown, of course, and didn't want him elected was the one that made that comment in the news that he goes back to the stone ages. 'We're modern, we want to do things our modern way and he's back to the stone ages.' I said, 'yeah, and they ought to bring the stone ages back and start stoning people like this one that's making this comment.'

[Jim] Howard, I got a question. I got a credit card problem-sort of in an unusual way. I bought one of these credit card where you activate it with money. It's not from a bank and they let me have half my money on the card but the other half they said I needed identification. So, I sent them three faxes. The first fax, oh, it's too light. The second fax, oh there's nothing on the fax. The third fax, nothing in that fax either. 'Well, could I sent it by mail?' So they gave me an address. So I sent it by mail, I sent it certified mail. I got the green card back. It's got a signature on it. 'Now, did you get it?' 'No.' 'Well, how come I have a green card in my hand with a signature on it from your organization?' 'Oh, yeah, we'll look into it-well, we can't find it, we can't find it.' So, now we're back to another round of faxes. At what point should I say, 'I'm sending a criminal complaint or something,' or what's the best way to proceed there to get their attention?

[Howard] I don't know if this is worth pursuing with a complaint. I don't think that you'd get very far with the complaint. It would be extremely hard to put one together to put the finger on somebody as saying that they were doing a criminal act of some kind. They're not really taking your property without just compensation. They're not stealing from you. {they have the money that they're not entitled to and the card purchaser is out at this point} unless we can show that they're stealing your identity and that would be extremely hard to prove. So I don't know that that would be worth pursuing and I'll tell you how you get these cards. You find some nice person that likes to be in the system that's honest and decent and you get them to go get the card in their name and use their social security number and you put the money on the card and you keep using it.

[Jim] Oh well, I found a way subsequently. I have a very good way. All I'm worried about is I'm not getting my $300-they got it.

[Howard] That's an awful lot of money to have should have opened that card up first with $10 and made sure that it was going to go through before you put any amount of money like $300 into it.

[Jim] Well, curiously enough it did go through first because I did get $300 out of the card but they balked after $300 more. In other words, I put a total of $600; they let me have half of it.

[Howard] Well, then I'd go after them and ask them why they processed the first time and won't process it the second time-what's your excuse?

[Jim] Oh, exactly.

[caller] Well, you do have a case because you have the receipts of the money you put on the card-right? You have the proof of that and you have proof of the money that you did spend with the receipts that you got with the card. That makes the balance is what they owe you and you can win specifically with that.

NOTICE: Howard Griswold, Dave DiReamer and others presented here are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related items Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related items Education
Jerry Kirk Aware
Jurisdiction Law related items
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Oath related items
Reading Material Reading Room
Stuff Tax matters
Travel related
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2021
All Rights Reserved