Howard Griswold Conference Call
|
Howard Griswold
Conference Call— Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: 218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes), Thursday’s at ‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes
Conference Call
is simulcast on:
Starting in the
second hour at Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #. Howard’s home
number: 302-875-2653 (between
Mickey’s
debt collection call is All correspondence to: Gemini Investment
Research Group, POB 398, (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 Dave DiReamer can be reached at: notaxman@dmv.com Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth ******************************************************************* 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. ********************************************************************* {00:45:28.623} [caller] Question. [Howard] Go ahead with the question. [caller] I was reading Black's Law on service of process and I read in there that to accept service is not to be equated to making an appearance. [Howard] That’s right or an admission of any kind, it isn’t. [caller] I can accept service and not make appearance. [Howard] That’s right; that does not constitute an appearance. An appearance means that you address the issues. Either you said, ‘no, I didn’t do what you said,’ that’s addressing the issue or ‘I did what you said but it isn’t my fault that I did what you said because some idiot cop told me to do it.’ That’s still addressing the issue. Even if you’re really not guilty and you got a good argument it’s still addressing the issue and making an appearance and it doesn’t matter if you do it verbally or in writing it’s considered an appearance. But if you don’t discuss the issue at all, don’t even say ‘I’m here about that matter’. When they call your name you say, ‘I’m here.’ They say, ‘you will state your name for the record.’ You state, ‘I don’t accept your offer and I don’t consent to the proceeding.’ You don’t state your name. You don’t sign anything. You can add to that those other things that we’ve discussed like ‘I don’t recognize you,’ and things of that nature because there’s six different things that we’ve put together that you can use. But the only two that are important is ‘I don’t accept your offer’ because they’re offering to contract with you. You have to refuse the contract. And ‘I don’t consent to these proceedings’ because the government only has authority over people outside of government if you consent to that authority. That’s written right in the Declaration of Independence. [Dave] ‘All rights reserved’ doesn’t hurt. [Howard] No, it doesn’t hurt. You can use ‘all rights reserved’ or you can use ‘without prejudice’—either one of them mean the same thing. [caller] When a
court situation comes up they have the list of things that you sign
or agreeing that I’m a citizen of the [Howard] …had the same stupid little thing. This is something new that they’re doing now. They give you the piece of paper and want you to fill it out before you even go into the courtroom to sit down. One of our guys sat down with that piece of paper and on the line where you’re supposed to sign he wrote ‘I do not consent,’ and he gave it back to them. They didn’t argue with him; they didn’t bother him at all; they just let him go in the courtroom. And in the courtroom they tried to trick him into consenting by asking him a bunch of little dumb questions and he kept answering them ‘I don’t consent’; I told you before, ‘I don’t consent’ and I don’t intend to consent. So they set trial for some other day—some day in the future because what they’re going to do is try again to coerce him and if he goes back there and sticks to his principles, ‘I don’t consent, I don’t accept any of your offers,’ and doesn’t address any of the issues they won’t be able to get him. Even though he’s there they won’t be able to get him. Being there does not constitute an appearance. The definition says that arguing the case in any way or consenting to the case in any way constitutes an appearance. [caller] Acceptance of service is not appearance. [Dave] The definition of acceptance is according to the law ‘intent to retain’. That’s why Howard teaches return to sender because if you don’t have proof either certified mail or delivery confirmation that it was returned to sender you kept it and that means retaining and that means you committed acceptance by retaining and they got you. [Howard] Yeah. Really, it’s all right for you to accept the delivery when the sheriff hands it to you. You should just put it back in the mail to the sheriff no later than the next day with ‘I don’t accept the offer, I don’t consent to the proceedings’ written across the service but still show up in court because they’ll arrest you if you don’t show up in court. So, show up in court and continue to say, ‘I don’t accept the offer; I don’t consent to the proceeding.’ In some cases they’ll be nasty, they’ll ignore you, they might even put you in jail for contempt, but when you go to jail you tell the sheriff at the jail that you don’t consent to the proceeding and you’re not signing any of his papers and he’ll throw you out in a little while. It might take a couple of days sometimes. Some of them are rather pushy and arrogant but they’ll throw you out shortly. We’ve had that work a number of times. There’s been a few people on the call that have told us stories about what happened to them, putting them in jail on Friday and on Monday they finally threw him out. The judge had sent him to jail for sixty days. They threw him out in three days. They didn’t pay attention to the judge’s order because they couldn’t get his consent. If you stick to the non-consent all the way through eventually you’ll be back home. And these morons, oh, they’re really taught well to threaten you and scare you. ‘If you don’t sign this paper you’re going to jail.’ Well, you damned fool think about it that if you sign the paper you’re agreeing to go to jail. You’re going to go to jail if you sign the paper. They’ll…. [caller] Howard, I have a question. [Howard] They will threaten you that if you don’t sign the paper that you’re going to go to jail. The fact is they can’t put you in jail if you don’t sign the paper. Everything is the reverse. These lawyers have turned everything around backwards. Yes, dear lady, go ahead. [caller] I have a question; can you hear me ok? [Howard] Yeah, fine. [caller] My question involves, signing the six waivers on… I had a presentment and I mailed it back the first time and it came back the second time and that’s when I wrote the six disclaimers over it and had one hell of a circus ride trying to get it filed in the public record and they refused me at the county recorders. I never could find out who was the judge’s evidence file clerk so it didn’t get filed there as evidence. The only place it got filed was at the county recorder’s office and they filed it under the case number. [Howard] That would be correct; that’s where they’re supposed to file it and their duty is to file whatever’s presented to them. [caller] Ok. It was filed there and then I went ahead and mailed the original copy back and on Friday I got a notice in the mail from the credit card attorney that they were filing for a default judgment because I had not responded; I had failed to respond to the presentment. [Howard] That’s typical of an attorney. [caller] Ok, but then, this Wednesday which it hadn’t even been ten days. I think they give you at least ten days but this Wednesday I received in the mail—the judge had signed the default judgment. [Howard] Now, that means they did it without giving you your day in court. [caller] That’s right but they also did it when I sent the presentment back. So, do I file for a void judgment because it was never properly served? Where do I go from here? [Howard] That’s the only way to get the judgment reversed; go back to the judge who signed it and put in a motion for an amendment to the judgment. It’s not called a void judgment. That’s patriot language. You got to look it up in your Code. It’s probably called an amendment to the judgment—that’s what most states call it, to amend the judgment. So you got to put the motion in under that rule number that talks about the amendment judgment. [caller] Otherwise it’s a motion to vacate. [Howard] Otherwise he won’t pay any attention and he can’t vacate an existing judgment without amending the judgment. He can amend it to a vacation of the judgment if he wants to but he has to have a motion under the rule for amending a judgment in order for him to be able to look at it and know what he’s supposed to be doing. The way this is set up, these judges are not supposed to outguess or act like they know anything. Now, they’re supposed to know the law but they’re not supposed to act like they know anything about the case, at all, or what laws should be applied until the parties before the court tell them what to do. And when you don’t tell them and the other party does they do what the other party says. [Dave] It wouldn’t hurt to have a copy of the proof that the lawyer lied and present that to the judge as an exhibit attached… [Howard] The proof that something like that would be for you to write an affidavit telling the story that you just told us about how it worked, the date and times and the place that it all took place. [caller] Ok. And that’s submitted as evidence in the amendment? [Howard] Yep. And look up the rule in your state in the court rules for amendment of a judgment. [caller] Ok. I may e-mail if I can’t find it. [Howard] Ok, well… [caller] Thank you for answering that question. I was quite distraught. I thought, man, this process doesn’t work. I did everything you said and they still went ahead. [Howard] Didn’t you just hear what I said about some of these arrogant little idiots? They just do what they’ve been taught to do, especially debt collection lawyers. They’re probably the worse scum on the face of the earth. [caller] Yes, they are. [caller] Casino owners are. [Dan] Can I go, Howard, it’s Dan from Detroit. I got a quick question. [Howard] Go ahead. [Dan] This is a mortgage case. You’re kind of familiar with foreclosure cases. I originally entered a request for admissions to the plaintiff’s attorney, Citigroup’s attorney, Trot and Trot, here in Detroit. In the subpoena I asked for the binding contract showing Donald J. King who was listed on the original complaint and his assigns or successors are legal agent for the plaintiff in the case. They basically—well, they replied to that one, ‘denied, plaintiff cannot determine, understand the request as written.’ And they’ve also switched the attorney’s name, that’s the same firm. Did I word that wrong, should I have asked for power of attorney or… [Howard] You should have asked for the power of attorney of whatever attorney’s name is now in the case from the… [Dan] They changed it on me, now. Can I amend my subpoena or do I write a new one and/or my request for admissions? [Howard] When you write a new one you just call it an amended subpoena. [Dan] OK. And the same thing with the request for admissions? [Howard] Yeah. [Dan] I asked them simple questions for them to accept or deny and they said they couldn’t understand them and they went down the whole list and said, ‘we can’t understand them,’ and to me they’re very simple. I’ll try to simplify them but I didn’t know how I went about re-entering it into the case file. I just make an amended request for admissions and an amended subpoena and do it again. [Howard] Yep. [Dan] Ok, thank you. [Howard] And I told you the other night, anything in their documents that you can think of that they could possibly use against you, you ask for it. [Dan] Ok, I’m going to do that, Howard. [Howard] When the fail to present what you asked for, it comes right out of their own documents, you have then proven that they don’t have any evidence. [Dan] I did that and they requested summary judgment against me based on my request for admissions and my subpoena were ‘legal gobblygook.’ That’s what he says in here; the attorney actually put gobblygook. [Howard] It is to him because if he had to produce any of that stuff he’ll end up with gobblygook in his face. [caller] What about a motion to compel? [Howard] That would be the next thing that you would have to do in the court would be to put in a motion to compel the admissions that you asked for. And if they don’t do it when they’re ordered to do it then you put in a motion for sanctions against them and that’s all under the same rules as where you found the rules of discovery or admissions. [Dan] Ok, what do I do with this summary judgment or whatever they’re asking for. They’re…that all my paper is gobblygook and they are motioning the court for summary judgment based on a copy of the mortgage and note they got from the county recorder of deeds office. They haven’t brought a witness into court or anything and they’re motioning for summary judgment. How do I make sure that doesn’t happen? [Howard] Summary judgment—go read the rule of summary judgment. I forget the exact wording in it but it cannot be granted when there isn’t any evidence before the court. Then all you got to do is use Rule 901 requiring authentication of that document that they produced and if not authenticated there’s no affidavit by anybody who knows it to be a true and correct copy. There’s no affidavit by anybody who knows it to have been true and correct, in the beginning that there really is an original. So, they have produced no evidence… [Dan] Do I need to state those kinds of things and any kind of answer to the request for summary judgment or something like that? [Howard] Yes, you have to put in a motion to strike the motion for summary judgment because they can’t grant summary judgment under the rule because they haven’t come up with any evidence to prove their case. [caller] They failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, didn’t they? [Dan] …use for motions and objections you can do on paper before you even go into court. [Howard] Yes, and somebody just chimed in and said they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that’s the reason why they failed to state a claim because they failed to produce any evidence to support… [Dan] I put that in my admissions and they said they could not understand the question and didn’t answer it. Basically, they go down the list, ‘denied—plaintiff cannot determine, understand the request as written,’ basically down the whole thing. Some of them are second grade questions. I made sure to word them simply in single sentences and they just went down the whole list, ‘denied—plaintiff cannot determine, understand the request as written’ down the whole response, the defendant’s request for admissions. [Howard] Alright, very good. They know what they’re doing. We didn’t know what to do. They sent you a complaint called a foreclosure action—right? [Dan] Right—yes. [Howard] Did you answer it? [Dan] Yes, sir. [Howard] Well then, you screwed up. You made an appearance. [Dan] Yeah, I answered that beside I didn’t know I had a choice not to answer the complaint. I answered in writing and I thought I had to affirm or deny, point by point, each point of the complaint and I denied them all. [Howard] There’s a way to do that but without denying and without admitting. The way to do it is line number 1, ‘not enough information or knowledge given to produce a responsive answer.’ Line number 2, ‘not enough information or knowledge given to produce a responsive answer.’ Line number 3, not enough information or knowledge given to produce a responsive answer.’ And you just keep on going line after line through the whole thing and you’ve done the same damned thing that they just did to you. [Dan] Right, I see that. [Howard] And then nothing can be used. See, that’s part of not consenting. If it comes in a non-consent case to where you have to respond to something like that, that’s the way you respond. ‘I’m not consenting because they didn’t give me enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.’ And they don’t because they don’t give you any evidence to back it up. It’s just a bunch of wild allegations. [Dan] Right. Well, we’re a non-judicial foreclosure state so that was the first instance I had to speak anything on my behalf. [Howard] Alright. Well, did you look up the rules of what you’re supposed to do in that particular state on a non-judicial case because some states require that you file a complaint, some states require that they file a complaint and their complaint is for a verification of the sale that they did it correctly and your complaint is that the sale was done incorrectly if you’re supposed to file a complaint. So you got to look up the rules in your state and find out how they do it in your state. Every state doesn’t do these things the same way. That’s why it’s hard for somebody like me to teach one program and everybody be able to use that program because it just doesn’t work the same way in all states. And the trouble is if I start teaching three or four different programs I confuse everybody. [Dan] You know what, Howard, it sounds like it does work the same way in every state. They just go about it in a different way of doing it to you, that’s all. [Howard] Well, yeah, the basic approach is the same but they do it a slightly different rules of procedure and you got to look up the rules of procedure for your state. Basically, it’s the same—yes. You’re right, it’s a royal screwing. [caller] Hey, Howard. [Howard] Yeah. [caller] On these foreclosures—there’s a lot of them out here—I’m just going to throw this at you… Every foreclosure, every mortgage had to originate because of a promissory note. What gives that note value, the person’s signature—right? [Howard] That’s right, your signature. [caller] Ok, now, if you demand that note back that signature you made the value in it, that is your property. If you demand that note back and if they don’t supply it to you why can’t you press charges against them for confiscating, stealing, whatever, with your private property? [Howard] You don’t
have to press charges. First of all, the attorney general’s not
going to follow through. He’s the head scum bag. He’s the one that
tells all the rest of these lawyers how to screw people and get
away with it. He tells them that they can do all these things that
the law says to people when in fact most of the laws don’t apply
to the private people. So he’s the real problem. And I don’t care
who he is, in what state, or what a nice guy he might be, he’s the
problem. You’re not going to be able to get him to prosecute any
of his scum. So, the idea of prosecution isn’t going to work. But
did you hear the fellow come on from [caller] No. [Howard] He went
into court with a 1099A, not this 1099OID stuff you’ve been hearing
about because that’s for the government people to fill out, not
for you and [caller] Well, he’s filed a 1099A with the court or the credit card company or the bank. [Howard] Or the bank or the police department or the State or whoever writes these complaints against you for money and it abandons the debt. Now, I’m looking into this a little bit further. I want to do some more studying on the real purpose of abandonment of the debt on a 1099A. I think this fellow was on the right track. [caller] I think so too. So, if they sold your promissory note, your property, then they abandoned you. So then you could write that 1099A on that abandonment then. [Howard] That’s what I would do with that note. I’d just write an abandonment on it, on a mortgage foreclosure action. I’d do a 1099A, abandonment of the debt, and serve it on the bank and a copy to the court. [caller] Who fills out the 1099A? [Howard] The person whose name the debt is in. [caller] That could be the private person. [Howard] Yes, that’s what I just said. You’re the one that they’re claiming the debts against; you can abandon their debt. [Danny] Say, Howard. [Howard] Go ahead. [Danny] This is
Danny in [Howard] Yeah, I’m sure I didn’t repeat it exactly the way you told it but I didn’t mess it up, did I? [Danny] Well, it was pretty close. Now, there was some more information put out Tuesday night about this and when you’re filling that thing out what they’re teaching is that the lender is us. It asks for the lender—that’s us. [Howard] That’s right. In all cases, even a traffic ticket, you’re the lender because didn’t you give them your car by registration? [Danny] Right. [Howard] Ok, then you lent them the collateral to use to create a debt and they’re passing that debt back to you. So, yeah, you’re the creditor. [Danny] Right. And the number that is asked for in there, this fellow put the number that was on the traffic ticket. They ask for an account number. [Howard] An account number—right? [Danny] Or an ID number or whatever, that’s the number that he used in there was the number that was on the traffic ticket. [Howard] And you would use the mortgage note numbers if it was on a mortgage. If nothing else, the filing number at the county clerk’s office if there’s no other numbers on there but I suspect if you look at a mortgage you’re going to find some numbers on there. [Danny] Now, isn’t the 1096 supposed to go with the 1099A? [Howard] I just said, I’m looking into this; I’m trying to find all the information on it that I can to make a full understanding of it for us. I don’t know about the 1096. You got to be careful with some of these documents like the 1099OID; that is not for you and I to fill out. The 1096 may not be for us to fill out, either. [Danny] I think the 1096 may be where you’re actually snitching, reporting this to the IRS. [Howard] I don’t know; I haven’t looked at the 1096. I saw the reference to it but I haven’t taken the time, yet, to go look it up and read anything about it. [Danny] Yeah, we got to get some publications. [caller] Wouldn’t they just come back and bill you again? [Howard] Well, you do a 1099A again. But they can’t bill you on a debt you’ve already abandoned. [caller] Ok. [Howard] They might be able to create a new one. They’ll park the cop down the street to wait for you to leave and write you another ticket just to get back at you. So you do the same thing again. After you’ve done it three or four times they’ll stop bothering you. They always hope that we’ll screw up and fall into cooperation. They try to make us cooperate by threats and coercion, fear tactics. If you stand strong and don’t fall for their fear tactics and just keep doing the right thing they’ll eventually go away and leave you alone because there’s another sucker down the road that doesn’t know and they’ll be able to take advantage of him so they go do it. [caller] Do you think there’s a possibility that this 1099A acts as a voucher. [Howard] Yeah, that’s exactly what I think it is. [caller] If you can abandon a credit card and not pay it for years because you just can’t afford to pay it… But if you use the 1099A form the voucher is already written off, I guess on the government’s books. [Howard] Yep. Apparently, it has to be written off once it’s abandoned. [Dave] When they send us an annual land tax bill can we use that 1099A on that? [Howard] I wouldn’t see why not but just don’t get too excited yet until we do a little more research on this. I don’t like putting this kind of information out and getting people to do it until we find out enough about the law. [Dan] Howard, Dan from Detroit again. On the 1099OID I’ve done quite a bit of studying on it. The instructions for the 1099OID state that it is only to be filled out by the government or financial institutions but there is a note that says, ‘to see additional IRS publication 1212. If you go to the IRS publication 1212 you will find in there uses for the regular person to fill that out. I’m having trouble pulling it up. I’m not at my computer right now but… [Howard] I don’t know that it means a regular person meaning a private person. I think maybe it means a regular person who is a fiduciary because that form comes from Section 2204 of the IRS Code (Title 26) which is all about the fiduciary’s responsibility to file and pay the tax and it is only government’s duty to file and pay taxes. It is not private people’s duty unless a private person decides to contract to be part of the government. Then they become a fiduciary because all government officials are always in the fiduciary position. [Dan] I don’t know if you’re aware of this publication 1212 but there’s a footnote in the normal instructions that comes with a 1099OID for additional information see Publication 1212 and that’s about three pages long. I don’t have it in front of me but as I read it, it did sound like that it could be used in the manner that some of these people were talking about using it. I’ll look into this Title 26. One other very quick question, have you had a chance to look at Federal Rules of Evidence, 1004, Subsection 4. I think it’s very important in a secured debt situation. It’s along the lines of 901 and 902. [Howard] Yeah, and I also noticed that 104, Subsection 2, reiterates what 901 said. Whatever evidence they have still has to be certified and authenticated. [Dan] Ok. What do you think about the 1004, Subsection 4 says… [Howard] I don’t think it’s relevant to much of anything. [Dan] It says, ‘a controlling issue and collateral matters, if the issue is a controlling issue of a collateral matter the original document must be produced. And if you look up the word, original, that’s where you find the wet ink thing. I was just wondering if you thought this 1004, Subsection 4, was useful in any way maybe for secured debt is what I was thinking. [Howard] If there is one, but remember, there’s a part in there that talks about it being lost or stolen. They’ll always write an affidavit stating that it’s lost or stolen and this is what we’re going to talk about tonight, the lawyer’s affidavits. [Dan] Ok. I was
unaware of the lost or stolen part. I do have that in another mortgage
I looked at from [Howard] Lost or stolen. They’ll write an affidavit stating it’s lost or stolen. They can’t find it, they can’t get it. [Dan] Case dismissed. [Howard] It’s not lost and it’s not stolen and it is not available either. [Dan] They can’t be the holder-in-due-course without it, can they? Can they collect on it without it? [Howard] Yes, they can. [Dan] Oh boy. [Howard] They need an affidavit from a person who was there at the time at the original transaction and knows of the existence of this document stating that this copy is a true and correct copy of that original document then they can get away with that. They will never get that kind of an affidavit because the bank is not going to help them by writing any affidavits or sending a witness to the court. The bank has written the debts off. They know that there is no real debt and they’re not going to send anybody that works for the bank to testify and perjure themselves that there is a debt. So, because the lawyer that’s trying to collect the debt can’t get anybody real to write an affidavit or come in and testify then he writes affidavits. [Dave] And the bank already got paid by the insurance company for the write-off on the loan, anyway. [Howard] That might not be true; all loans are not insured but all loans don’t exist. Because they don’t exist in reality, because they never loaned you any money, because they created the money from your signature on a piece of paper like the application for a credit card or the promissory note in a mortgage transaction and gave you back the funds that you’ve created from your signature they didn’t really lend you any money. So, do you think anybody’s going to come in and testify from the bank that there was an actual loan under penalty of perjury on the stand? No, they aren’t; the bank wouldn’t allow them to do it. [caller] The bank would be exposing the fraud on their own books, wouldn’t they? [Howard] That’s right. So, you can be assured that nobody’s going to show up and testify from the bank and nobody’s going to write an affidavit but some lying lawyer. The lawyer wasn’t there. He doesn’t have first hand knowledge and this is exactly what we’re going to talk about tonight—hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is not admissible but it is if you don’t object and this is where the American people fail because they trust lawyers and the lawyers should object. And the lawyers are on their side; he’s not going to object in your behalf so you got to kick your lawyer out of the courtroom, fire the son-of-a-bitch and take over and run the case yourself. And by the way, if your lawyer happens to be a preacher, too, kick him out of the church, too. [caller] Can I ask you a question? [Howard] Yeah, go ahead. [caller] I kind of ran into a brick wall. I put in a motion to vacate a default judgment and the judge denied it. …enough ironclad information like eight times, a lot of pertinent information that should have gone along with that motion to vacate default judgment. Can I do another motion to vacate the default judgment or should I do an amendment to the motion to vacate the default judgment. How can I get back to that judge? How can I communicate back to him? [Howard] I think you have to go in under the rule that we talked about earlier about amending a judgment. [caller] Ok, I’ll go look up the rules. [Howard] You can’t go in with a second motion to vacate because that’s res adjudicata, it’s already been determined. That’s what res adjudicata means. So they would just throw it out as res adjudicata. So, you can’t do it that way; you got to go in for an amendment of the judgment. So, look up the rules in your state court rules for how to do an amendment of a judgment. Now, that’s where you’ve heard Dave DiReamer chime in every once in a while about something being irregular. That’s where we learned about that. Under the rules in the Maryland Code we found this for an amendment of a judgment, that there are only three things you can use, fraud, misrepresentation and irregularity. And it starts explaining fraud and then it tells you very clearly, right there in the rule, that they will not amend a judgment for fraud because fraud is a common thing, it happens all the time that they let it happen. Then they get into the explanation of misrepresentation and they say that’s similar to fraud and it happens all the time and we won’t amend a judgment for that reason. But the third thing is irregularity and irregularity means that they did not follow the rule or they did not follow the law—that’s when it’s irregular and that will get a judgment reversed or amended. I would suggest you don’t talk about fraud and you don’t talk about misrepresentation or deceit or anything like that. You look up what the law says and you show where they didn’t follow the law. [Dave] If it’s not in compliance with the regulations it’s irregular. [Howard] That’s right, if it’s not in compliance with the law or the rules or the regulations then it’s irregular. It means that they didn’t do what they were supposed to do according to the law or the rules and when they don’t the judges will reverse the judgment. [caller] Does that include not adhering to proper proceeding as far as the servicing of somebody? [Howard] The rules cover service, don’t they? Well, if they didn’t do the service the way the rule says it’s supposed to be done then their conduct was irregular, wasn’t it? [caller] What he did he claims he went to the sheriff…certify and the sheriff handed off to anybody in front of the house but it never got to the defendant. [Howard] Well, that’s not according to the rules. The rule says personal service by the sheriff. Personal service means he has to give it to the person. [caller] Hey, Howard, can we go back to that 1099A again just for a minute. [Howard] Yeah, sure. [caller] Alright, I got a copy of it here and I was looking at it. That 1099A…the lender. So, when you go into a bank for a mortgage, credit card or whatever you’re actually the lender of that promissory note—right? [Howard] You’re the creditor—yes. You’re giving them what they need to create the money to give you to put in circulation—you’re the creditor. [caller] Your signature created that so you’re the lender. Now, the banking institution is….sold that promissory note or they can’t provide it then you can discount that off to that 1099A and then you can report it along with that 1099C that you recorded that, turn that into the IRS and this old boy is in a lot of doodoo. [Howard] I think so. The 1099C cancels the debt. The 1099A abandons the debt. [caller] It abandons it and it shows that he more or less sold your property. [Howard] Well, no, what it does is it shows that the other party made a profit of some amount and that their the one who owed the tax on it. So you’re reporting to the IRS that the tax should be collected from the debtor. The debtor would be the banking institution or the government agency—collect from them. This is how to return their passing on of their debts to you back to them. We’ve been looking for this for years trying to understand this and I didn’t know there were so damned many 1099s but today… [caller] Oh, there’s a whole slew of them there… [Howard] Well, I found another one, a 1099INT. Anybody seen or heard that one? [caller] Nope. [Howard] Well, that’s to report interest earned on an investment such as an insurance policy or a stock investment, the dividends on a stock investment or dividends paid on an insurance policy or interest paid by a bank or interest paid in a personal agreement between you and somebody else that you loaned money to and they paid you interest. You’re supposed to do a 1099INT on the interest that was earned on that. [Dan] I haven’t found a good use for that one yet. [Howard] Well, that wouldn’t apply to most of us but that’s another 1099. I didn’t know there were so many of them. There is another 1099 which doesn’t have other letters or anything else behind it. It’s just called a 1099 and I used that many, many times in business and it was used on me many times in business. When I hired a subcontractor like a plumber or electrician or somebody like that to do a major project to do the electrical or plumbing part of a major project that I was working on like a million dollar building or something and I paid them, say, a hundred thousand dollars at the end of the year I took in a million dollars. I wasn’t about to pay taxes on a million dollars because I paid these other people. So I sent them their copy of a 1099 and I sent a copy of the 1099 on to the IRS showing that that money had been paid out of my company to them and they were the receiver of it. That’s what a regular 1099 is for. And a number of times I got 1099s because I did part of a job with other contractors and they paid my company some amount of money and they sent me a 1099 and I had to show that as money coming into the company and I had to show my expenses to be deducted from it so that I didn’t have to pay the tax on the whole amount like employee wages and material costs and things like that. That’s all deductible from that gross amount. So I had used 1099s in life a lot of times but it was a plain 1099. I never even knew they had all these other 1099As and C’s and D’s and INT’s and OID’s. [caller] Now, I get a 1099MISC, miscellaneous from a bank. [Howard] Yeah, that’s for money earned from an account or… [caller] No, the miscellaneous is for work that I do for the bank and they call it miscellaneous. [Howard] Ok, and does it say 1099MIS? [caller] MISC, miscellaneous. [Howard] There you go; there’s another one I never knew of. [caller] Now I also get just plain—just like you were talking about—1099s from other customers. But from this bank that I do work for it’s a miscellaneous, 1099 miscellaneous. [Howard] Alright.
Apparently, there’s a lot of functions of the 1099 form but the
two that we’re most interested in learning enough about, today,
is the A and the C. The A is for abandoning a debt and the C is
for canceling a debt. And I think Danny up there in [caller] Well, now, here’s a thought that when the bank deposits the money that you created with your signature wouldn’t that cancel the debt? Wouldn’t that be the 1099C? [Howard] Say the first part of that again. [caller] When you sign a mortgage or the promissory note which creates the money for the bank or the mortgage company and they deposit it and then lend it back to you doesn’t that cancel the debt they’re claiming that you owe now? [Howard] Actually, yes, you’re right; there is no debt. It’s not a loan. [caller] Right. So, the 1099C would come into play there. [Howard] Yes, it would. You canceled the claim of it. That’s because the claim of a debt is fraudulent. But you don’t have to argue the fraud or even bring it up. All you got to do is file the 1099C and cancel the debt. [caller] That’s the way I’m seeing it. [Howard] That should work on all mortgages and it should work on credit cards too. It might work on car loans but I’ll tell you, a car loan is a dangerous thing to play with because they can always find the car, tow it away and the whole argument is over because you don’t have the car to argue with anymore. [caller] Right, but what you got to do is keep them from getting the car and towing it. I’ve got two right now that I haven’t let them pick up yet. [Howard] For six months or a year you’re going to have to keep it hidden and you don’t get any use out of it and that certainly is a loss to you. Why get involved in something like that? Give them back the damned car and go buy one you can afford. I’ve taught that for years… [caller] Well, I’ve already done that but I’m just hanging on to the others. [Howard] Don’t buy something you can’t afford. I can’t afford a new car. And you know why I can’t afford a new car? Not because I couldn’t come up with enough money because in the days when I was working, jeez, I was making all kinds of money. I could have bought a new car but I didn’t want to pay that much, that’s why I can’t afford to buy a new car. I’m not paying that much. Today, do you know that they’re giving 100% financing on cars? [caller] Oh yeah, it’s upside down. They’ll…in one upside down. They’ll loan Jessie James money to buy a car. [Howard] Is that a stupid thing to do? That’s even stupider than buying it and paying cash. Even that’s stupid. If you’re going to go buy a new car and pay cash for it why don’t you just take one-third of the money and throw it in the fireplace and burn it because that’s all you’re doing because when you drive a new car off of the showroom floor the value of that car drops by one-third. You just lost that much money. That’s why I won’t buy a new car. I don’t like losing; I never did like losing in any way. I’m a winner; a winner never quits and a quitter never wins. I don’t quit and I always win and I win because I think first about things like that. I’m not going to waste that one-third of the money by buying a new car. I’ll wait a year and buy it used or I’ll wait ten years like I did that Lincoln town car that I got—thirty-three thousand dollar automobile brand new in 1999—beautiful car. I’m telling you that thing is… [caller] Did you get the MSO. [Howard] No, I don’t have the MSO; I don’t really give a damn. I don’t care, it’s a company car. It’s just beautiful. It’s really classy and I wanted one of them so bad when that thing came out in 1989. I didn’t spend all that money. I wasn’t going to spend thirty-three thousand dollars and end up losing eleven thousand dollars the minute I bought it. I ain’t that stupid. I am stupid but I’m not that stupid. So I waited ten years and ten years later I bought the car for cash for three thousand dollars. I’ve had it now for ten years. I’m sure that I’ve spent two thousand dollars in repairs on it in the ten years. So I got five thousand dollars invested in a thirty-three thousand dollar car. I sure in hell didn’t lose, did I? And it’s classy, it’s good looking, it’s garage kept, at least most of the time it is. I like that car. Three thousand dollars cash I could afford because I didn’t lose anything doing it that way. It had a hundred thousand miles on it. That’s a 302 Ford engine; it’s good for 350 to 400 thousand miles if it’s cared for. So it was only a quarter worn out when I bought it. [caller] About the only bad problems you have with those is computers. [Howard] Computers and transmission. They’re building everything junky ever since 1980. Everything in this country is become trash. [caller] The transmission has a computer in it so that costs you double when you have that problem. [Howard] Yep. Anything with a computer in it is going to give you trouble. [caller] After a while—they last for a long time, really. [Howard] Well, I learned my lesson. I won’t buy anything newer than 1986 now because everything from ’86 on had a computer in it including Lincolns. An ’85 Lincoln, it’s got a carburetor and no computer and no fuel injectors and it’s a real running car—no trouble with it at all. But that ’89, that’s a damned piece of junk—a good looking piece of junk, really classy, but it’s junk. And the newer they are the more junk they are. [caller] That’s right; they just look good, like you say. [Howard] Well, some of them do. Some of these newer ones are so ugly I swear the end of the world’s got to be close—we can reach maximum ugliness. Can’t make them any uglier so we’ve got to be near the end of the world. [caller] It has to grow on you. After ten years you start liking it. [Howard] I doubt seriously I could ever like some of these styles that are out there today. I don’t want one. [caller] Actually, if you look back in some of the real old back in the fifties they have a similarity of the way that they looked back then. [Howard] All except for the fact they got these rounded windows and rounded lights and rounded tail lights and triangle shaped tail lights and they don’t look like real cars. But, anyway, let’s get back on the subject of buying a car and not being able to pay for it and trying to argue the case is really going to end up being a waste of your time. Arguing credit cards and arguing mortgage foreclosures they have a lot harder time taking things away from you on those kinds of cases but the car is so easy to just repossess. If they repossess it you’ve lost your argument—it’s not worth pursuing it any further. So you’re wasting your time trying to get into an argument about a car. The best thing you can do is go back to where you bought it with the title, sign the title over to them and call it a voluntary repossession. According to the law when you do that you have returned the property value for value and it cancels the debt completely. Now, they won’t do that. A lot of these smart aleck lawyers will say, ‘you bought that car and it was $22,000 and you’ve only paid $4,000 so you still owe us $18,000 plus interest. Now owe us $36,000—for a damned car? You got to be kidding me. And they’ll try to collect it, too. [caller] Oh, yeah, you still have that problem. [Howard] Well, that’s where something like the 1099A would come in, abandonment of the debt. Then you get rid of that old debt on that car and go somewhere where they do in-house financing and buy something you can afford. Most of these in-house financing car lots don’t ever check your credit. They just gladly sell you the car because the agreement says that if it’s a weekly payment and you don’t pay for two weeks in a row they’ll repossess it and that’s just what they do. As a matter of fact some of them, today, have some kind of a little computer scheme that they put into the car and they can locate that car on their computer. They can find where you hid it and go take it. So keep up your fifty dollar a week payments which you can probably afford but you can’t afford these $600 a month payments on a car. [caller] I got a question about a credit card. I got a credit card and it originally had a line of credit of $12,000 on it. Recently, they’ve lowered it to $500. I’d like to cancel it but as I understand it they monetize that signature and so they’ve got that $12,000 sitting in an account somewhere. [Howard] Well, yeah. [caller] If I ask them for my original application for the credit card back that would then cancel that line of… [Howard] Well, asking for it back will not get it back. That’s the first step; you got to ask them for it back and when they don’t give it back then you got to file a suit to recover it. The suit is called a replevin action because that document has your signature on it and your signature is your property and replevin is used to recover property. So you would have to do a replevin action against them. Sometimes if you threaten them that you’ll do a replevin action they’ll give it back to you—sometimes, not always, because sometimes they call their lawyer and their lawyer will say, ‘oh, he doesn’t know how to do that, don’t worry about it. [caller] What about this 1099C? [Howard] Well, that’s one way to cancel the debt and actually that credit card will go away and don’t worry about that money that’s in that account that they’re saving for you because there’s no real money in the account, it’s just a credit entry on the books. That’s all it is. [caller] It’s digital—right. [Howard] Yeah, it’s digital, it’s a credit entry. So it’s not actually money there and you’re not really entitled to it until you use the credit card. Then when you use the credit card you’re supposed to put the money back in that account in order to keep the credit card going and if that’s what you want to do then, fine, keep paying the credit card debt off and keep the card going. But if you can’t do that, that’s when we started looking into the laws to find out what to do for people that were in trouble that couldn’t pay for it. None of these ideas that we talk about are for you to get rid of a debt so you can create new debts. If you do a mortgage default by not paying on your mortgage and cause there to be a mortgage foreclosure action and you beat it guess what happens to your credit rating. It goes to zero. You will not be able to re-finance and go out and get another mortgage somewhere. Maybe in a couple of years time with a debt repair person you might be able to repair that credit and maybe you’ll be able to go out and get credit again but probably not much very fast. It’ll take you time to build the credit rating back up. So you’re just wasting a lot of years of your life playing around when you try to do something like that. The reason for this knowledge is for people who are financially in trouble because the system has caused all this trouble. The economy is failing us and because they’re in trouble they need to fight their way out of it. That’s what it’s for, it’s not for anybody to use for a way to get rid of old debts so they can make new ones. I just thought I’d throw that in there. I’m not accusing you of doing that. I’m just putting that warning out there for all people. Actually, if we did things properly we wouldn’t have anything to do with any of this credit stuff. You wouldn’t make mortgages, you wouldn’t have bank accounts. The other night we were talking about not having a bank account. There is a way you can live without one. Some people that went to college don’t think there’s any other way to live in life because that’s what college taught them to do and they don’t know that there’s anything else but what they were taught. But there are ways and we discussed it. There are check cashing places where you can get your paycheck cashed and somebody complained that they charged too much. Some of them charge, well I would say, a horrendous amount of money, $15, $18, $20, $25 depending upon how big the check is, to cash it. I just heard an advertisement for Wal-Mart that they now have a check cashing business going and they will cash any size check for $3. So there you go, that’s how you get your check cashed. Then you go to the post office, you buy a couple of money orders that you want to put in the mail and mail them to pay your electric bill and your phone bill and other things like that. A money order is better than cash because it’s a pre-paid document. Actually, a money order is money and if you look on a check that the bank printed for you it says, paid to the order of. If you look on a money order it says, pay to. There’s a big difference there. Paid to the order of means… That checking account is nothing but crediting an account if there’s money in it. A money order says, pay to, because it’s pre-paid and it’s to be paid directly to whoever it’s written to because it’s already pre-paid. So, it’s real money. Believe it or not, there is actually real money in circulation in this country. It’s called money orders. That’s the only real money that’s in circulation in this country and the only reason it is real money is because it’s pre-paid even though it’s paid with phony money. [Dave] US Postal money orders are international because of the international postal union and they’re backed by gold. [Howard] That’s right. Postal money orders are probably the best ones to use but any money order is pre-paid even a Wal-Mart money order and you might even be able to buy them cheaper than you can at the post office so you can pay your bills with money orders and live without a checking account, a bank account of any kind. Of course, you better know how to control your money. They control your money; you can’t spend it all just because it’s in your pocket. You got to sort of plot it out, what you need week by week. Put it in envelopes, the first week of the month, second week of the month, the third week of the month, each envelope has the number of dollars you need for that week, gas and coffee in the morning and lunch in the afternoon or whatever expenses you have you got to cover them and put the money aside to do it. Then you can spend what’s left over maybe. You notice I said, ‘maybe.’ That’s if there’s anything left over. Anyway, let’s get back to the point we were on and that is these arguments when you go into court. And lawyers will come in to the court and make allegations but they never come in with any evidence. I’ve talked about this a number of different times including Wednesday night’s program this week and Wednesday night’s Truth Radio program. I talked about the same thing I talked about a couple weeks ago on this program that the best witness against you in a courtroom is you. The way these lawyers ask questions and the religious belief, no matter what religion you belong to, we’ve all been taught the same thing through every religion about being honest and being decent in life. And if somebody asks you a question you should answer them and this is all good training that we all have and it’s true and it’s correct when you’re dealing with honest people. But it doesn’t apply when you’re dealing with dishonest people. When you’re dealing with a lawyer you’re dealing with dishonest people. They’re there to cheat you. That’s their whole business, stealing and cheating. That’s about all they’re really there for. There’s no such thing as honesty and integrity in lawyers. They’ll lie anyway they can to try to make money. I’m sure if you said that to a lawyer he would object. But that’s because he lies a lot. He’ll lie and say he doesn’t lie. That’s their main job—to collect money. That’s how they make money. The only way they can do this with this phony system is to lie so they’re caught in their own trap—their lying. [Dave] They can’t become a lawyer and get that money, that number issued to them unless they take the secret oath to support the lies. [Howard] Yeah, to support business, not to support the Constitution but to support business. But anyway, in a lot of cases the lawyer will write an affidavit. For instance, in a debt collection case he’ll write an affidavit and turn it into the court as part of the evidence, at least claiming that it’s evidence, that the debt is due and owing at this particular date. He has no first hand knowledge of that debt even existing so how can he write an affidavit stating that it’s due and owing on this particular date because you haven’t paid it yet? He doesn’t even have any first hand knowledge that the debt exists. He wasn’t there during the transaction and you have to be sharp enough on your toes good enough to recognize these things. You know that lawyer wasn’t there. Most of these people are debt collection lawyers who come in at the end of things and pick up the old debt and try to collect it in court. A lot of these lawyers are just punks that work for the government. He wasn’t there when the cop wrote the ticket and he wasn’t there when you registered the car. And he goes into court and he testifies by his accusations that you owe this traffic ticket because you went through a stop sign or you went twenty miles an hour faster than the speed limit or whatever. You’re allowing him to testify when in fact he can’t testify. If he’s a lawyer he’s supposed to prosecute the case by bringing a witness on the stand and asking the witness questions so that the witness will testify and tell these stories and he has to prove that there was a contract that ties you to this condition and they never do that with an affidavit from the person, for instance, at the DMV who was familiar with the registration of the automobile. They don’t certify by affidavit any statement that there is a contract or an agreement of some kind. They don’t certify any of the documents like the registration document in any way and present it to the court to prove the contract exists. They wait for you to agree or to fail to agree by their statements and the way they word things they’re waiting for you to fail to agree. By failing to agree you acquiesce to the statement they made and you do agree. It’s turning things around backwards is what it is. It’s a trick that they’re all taught in law school. They’re very good actors and they know how to do this and they do it quite well. I’ll give them credit for that. They might be scum bags but they’re very good at being scum bags. They trick you into the admissions so that they can get the judgment against you whether it’s a traffic case or a property tax or a income tax claim or a lot of damned charges against people that aren’t valid charges that are criminal acts are treated the same way and done the same way and they get convictions on people that aren’t really guilty of anything but they were in the area—that’s good enough. They were nearby; that’s circumstantial evidence in their opinion and they use the rest of the language to get admissions that are good enough to get a conviction. Now, some people do commit crimes and there are certain crimes that the government has a duty to prosecute especially if you or I complained that somebody else did a wrong like we saw him kill somebody or they punched us, that’s assault, or they robbed us or stole something from us. The government has a duty to prosecute those kinds of people. And if you know somebody that’s been prosecuted for those kinds of things and they want help to get them out of jail there’s no way we can help them because the government had a duty to do that to them if they did it right. But in most cases they haven’t done it right because they don’t follow the rules and they put in these affidavits or they get some cop to write an affidavit who doesn’t even know what the hell he’s talking about. He just does what he’s been taught to do, has no idea what the law really says and does not prove the point that there is an agreement somewhere that ties you to the requirements of that contract because you can’t be required to follow the rules of a contract if you don’t have the contract in the first place. They never state that in their affidavit. What they’re doing is what’s known as hearsay evidence. They’re a third party coming in after the fact with no first-hand knowledge of any of the facts. And anything that they say or anything that they put in writing in an affidavit form like the debt is due and owing is hearsay and it is not admissible in the court. But guess what, if you fail to object it will be accepted and allowed to stand as evidence. This is why you get beat and I get beat. I got beat many a time because I didn’t understand these parts of the rules. I didn’t know enough to know that were protections built into these laws and rules for each of us. All we had to do is follow the laws and rules correctly. You stop a lawyer from getting away with this kind of stuff by objecting that that’s hearsay evidence that he’s putting in. [caller] When he’s trying to put it into the record. [Howard] Yep, when he’s trying to put it into the record whether it’s an affidavit or a statement by him it’s hearsay evidence and it’s not admissible. But you have to object and explain that it’s hearsay that he has no first-hand knowledge of what he’s saying or no first-hand knowledge of the documents that he’s referring to. And his statements or his written affidavit are hearsay evidence because he doesn’t have first-hand knowledge and that’s not admissible under the hearsay rules which, by the way, is Rule 802 of the Rules of Evidence and that’s important, too, because you’re really supposed to tell the judge what to do. You’re not supposed to ask the judge questions—that’s not what he’s there for, he’s not a school teacher. You don’t ask the judge any questions at all. [Dan] Howard, Dan in Detroit, again, and while we’re on the very subject I have filed by Trot and Trot here the collection….for summary disposition pursuant to MCR2.116 and a couple other MCRs. It says, ‘now comes the attorney from the collection firm’ and then it says, ‘facts: the defendant’, me, and lists three pages of facts according to the collection attorney. What would be the particular form to rebut that or to object to this being hearsay? [Howard] I just said it. This makes me mad at myself, not at you people. I know you don’t know this and understand this. I get mad at myself when I haven’t explained it clear enough for you to understand it. I…doing better. Evidently, I’m not saying it clearly enough. Let me re-word it a little bit or reiterate it a little bit. I don’t care what the lawyer said or what the lawyer put in writing, he doesn’t have first hand knowledge so you must object to anything that he put in writing or anything that he says about the case. [Dan] I understand that much. The question was one on procedure. He filed this into the case file and it says, ‘plaintiff’s brief in support of motion for summary judgment disposition.’ I know what type of document to draft to object to it. That’s what I was asking. [Howard] A motion to set aside the motion for summary judgment. [Dan] Ok. And then list hearsay as the reason? [Howard] That’s right because everything he put in there is hearsay and hearsay is not admissible under Rule 802 of the Rules of Evidence. Now, there is a Rule 803 which is exceptions to the hearsay rule. But if you go read it, it does not apply to things like this that we’re talking about. It applies to very specific situations like the boat sunk and everybody died. And the case about the boat sinking and the goods on the boat being lost comes into the court to determine who gets certain amounts of benefit or compensation for the loss and an affidavit from someone in the boating company who knows of the incident occurring will be sufficient even though it’s hearsay. That’s an exception to the hearsay rule. [Dan] Ok, let me run this by you. Two different scenarios, you’re in court… [caller] …the affidavit be hearsay if it’s attested to by whose ever signing that? [Dan] Because he wasn’t there that day. [Howard] Actually, an affidavit should never be called any of the stupid patriot names like an affidavit of truth or any silly crap like that and the first part of the wording should say that I, your name, the affiant herein, have first-hand knowledge of the facts contained herein. It should always say that. And you should be able to prove that you have first-hand knowledge when you write an affidavit. Your affidavit would be stronger against his because you have first-hand knowledge if it’s necessary for you to write an affidavit. In a case like what he’s talking about here, Dan’s little situation here, he could write an affidavit stating that none of those facts that were named by this attorney were first-hand knowledge of the attorney. But I have first-hand knowledge that none of these facts exist. [Dan] It seems to me, Howard, my question, I was a little riled up but it was more on procedure but it seems to me if you’re in the courtroom I would object, objection hearsay if it’s a piece of paperwork filed into the case file before you get to court I would motion to strike hearsay. It would be very similar to objecting in the courtroom. [Howard] I think you just caught on—yes. You got to realize they’re going to do these things in the courtroom verbally. You got to be on your toes and recognize that they’re doing something like this; they’re making a statement that they have no first-hand knowledge of because they weren’t there when the transaction went on. They came in after the fact; they’re representing somebody who supposedly was there at the time the transactions took place but they don’t have that person in court to testify and they don’t have anybody in court to testify that there was an agreement of any kind such as a police officer. He doesn’t know a thing about an agreement and the registration of your car. They got to get somebody from the DMV to come in and testify to that or write an affidavit verifying that this piece of paper called a registration document is the true and correct original document or the true and correct copy of the original document—either one is good enough. A true and correct certification on a copy is good enough. Have you ever seen one of them? I haven’t. [Dan] Me neither. Let me, maybe real quickly, I like this affidavit avenue you sent down here… I drafted an affidavit that says no one involved in this proceeding was in the room when I signed the original agreement… [Howard] No, no, no, no, no, no. You just put your foot in your mouth. You just admitted that you signed the original agreement. Now you gave them the evidence that they need. Did you hear the words I used? They were not there at the time of a transaction; they have no knowledge of a transaction existing. And you don’t want to make any admission that a transaction did exist. [Dan] Right—I would have figured that out after a minute. I was just trying to come up with the basic wording for an affidavit to get rid of all this evidence they’re putting in the file. [Howard] I don’t mean to shoot you down in normal life but these things are important, I got to shoot you down. [Dan] Please do before they do. [Howard] Don’t make the mistake of admitting to anything in an affidavit that you don’t want to admit to because there is no debt. So why would you admit to the papers even existing? See, this goes back to our honesty that we were taught. Boy, did they use it against us. [Dan] Somewhere in here I was trying to find it; I can’t find it right now but the attorney from Trott and Trott asked the judge to tell him—he wants to have a private meeting between the Trott and Trott attorney and myself at that meeting he offers to show the original document but he wants them to remain in his possession and he asked the judge how to do that without bringing them into the courtroom—something like that. I can’t find it; they flooded me with paper as I’m looking for it. He’s up to something with that. He’s asking the judge for a special private meeting where I can look at the documents but it won’t be in the courtroom. [Howard] Well, that’s permissible. But you should have asked the judge for the court’s knowledge. They should also be able to view the papers at the same time. Now, somebody told us a story very similar to that. This person kept arguing that the document was not a valid document and the lawyer kept saying, ‘well, it’s a copy of the one from down at the recorder of deed’s office. ‘Ok, let’s go down to the recorder of deeds office and look at it. We’ll make an appointment; we’ll all get together. The judge said, ‘and I’m going too.’ So the judge went down with them and they got the paper out of the safe in the back of the county recorder’s office, brought it out and showed it to them. The judge looked at it real closely, studied it over a bit, handed it to the defendant. He said, ‘what do you think?’ The defendant said, ‘that’s not my signature,’ this is another photocopy; this isn’t real.’ And the judge said, ‘this case is dismissed; we’re not even going back to my courtroom; I’m dismissing it right here. You don’t have the original.’ And apparently this person had also argued that they had not authenticated this document as a true and correct copy. Well, the document that was in the recorder’s office was a photocopy because you got to realize the original document were deposited on the bank. All they have are photocopies from then on. The photocopies are not real. They’re just copies; they’re not the real thing but somebody could certify the photocopies as true and correct. But I’m telling you, nobody’s going to do that because they’d be perjuring themselves because there is no actual debt or loan connected to any of these papers. So they won’t certify it. That’s one fear you don’t have to have. They might get somebody to show up to testify about something but they’ll ask them real pointed questions that evade the issue. They will not come out with the direct question of whether or not this is the actual papers that were involved in the transaction. The same thing would happen in a traffic case if you want to stretch a traffic case out and just play in court for a little while and tie up the court with these kinds of things. You never get the police officer to be able to testify that these are true and correct documents and that he has somebody that can testify that the documents are true and correct—even a traffic ticket. I haven’t seen any traffic tickets lately; they might have changed the form on it. But the old traffic tickets used to have a line on it where it was supposed to be signed by the judge or the commissioner or whatever they call him at the court that this…came in and testified before the judge or the commissioner that the statements on this traffic ticket were true and correct. And they never sign that; they don’t take it to a commissioner and get it signed. They’re not even executing what the law requires them to do and you can stop them, ‘this document isn’t authenticated; it hasn’t been attested to by anybody. Now where is the original document that’s been attested to?’ If you don’t have it before the court then you don’t have any evidence and they’ll try to say, ‘well, this document, here, is the evidence; the police officer wrote you a traffic ticket. He’ll testify to it.’ So what? Where’s the attesting that he did that it’s true and correct. If that’s not on there then it’s not a valid document and he can’t use it. [caller] Why not? His signature is on the traffic ticket. [Howard] See, his signature is supposed to be notarized by the judge or commissioner or whatever they call this little jerk at the courthouse. [caller] But he’s under the laws of perjury, isn’t he? He’s an officer of the court. [Howard] If it’s not certified and attested to that it’s true and correct even though he signed it down at the bottom. It’s not attested to be true and correct. So, no, he’s not under the laws of perjury. [caller] How are we supposed to challenge that? [Howard] That it hasn’t been authenticated under Rule 901. [caller] Howard, let me intervene here if you don’t care. [Howard] Go ahead. [caller] I told you about my boy getting his case thrown out. But when he went down there the witness that they were relying on wasn’t going to testify so they claimed, ‘ok, you don’t have any witnesses.’ He looked at the prosecuting attorney; he said, ‘do you have anything else?’ He says, ‘I got the cop.’ He said, ‘you don’t have anything.’ He said, ‘he never witnessed a thing.’ He said, ‘this case is dismissed; son, you can go home and have yourself a nice day.’ [Howard] That’s right, because even when a police officer is called to the scene he didn’t see what happened. He’s only repeating what other people said which means he doesn’t have first-hand knowledge and what he says is hearsay. That’s… [caller] I really admire that judge for standing up for that. [caller] But what if he’s the witness himself? [Howard] What if who’s a witness? [caller] The cop. [Howard] Oh, if he actually witnessed… [caller] He pulled you over when you were speeding. [Howard] If he witnessed you robbing a liquor store you ought to be in jail. [caller] Well, what if I ran a stop sign…? [Howard] Where is the contract, a certified copy of the contract that says that you have to abide by those laws? [caller] Where’s the contact and the injured party? [Dan] I’ve gotten some good results with simply requesting a verified copy of the original complaint and sending the traffic violation with a request for the verified copy of the original complaint to the court. At least, I’d say, around eight out of ten of them come back dismissed. …I would say out in the country jurisdiction we received a call from the judge saying, ‘this is the original complaint.’ As far as I understand the police officer is an officer of the state and he cannot for whatever reason testify against you and make the original complaint. There is somewhere that says that somebody has to make the complaint and then he has to issue the citation based on somebody else’s original complaint. He cannot originate the complaint against you. [Howard] That’s correct; the police officer cannot issue a ticket for you going through a stop sign unless I summonsed the police officer to come over and I file a complaint against you because you went through the stop sign. He needs me, the private citizen, to lodge the complaint. Those cops are not there to enforce laws when there’s no complaining party. They cannot be the complaining party and yet they’re doing it all the time and getting away with it because we don’t say that it’s hearsay. We don’t say that the documents are not authenticated under Rule 901. We don’t say that anything he says is hearsay because he doesn’t even know whether or not there’s a contract that ties me to these rules. [caller] And the judge is not a school teacher. He’s not going to tell us what we’re supposed to be doing. [Howard] That’s right, and you’re not supposed to ask him dumb little questions about things like this. You’re supposed to tell him what he’s supposed to do. You’re supposed to tell him that the documents have to be authenticated which means certified by affidavit that they’re true and correct. [caller] Does he like it when somebody actually knows and tells him? [Howard] Oh, well, now, that depends upon the demeanor of this moron with a robe on. Some of them are arrogant little money grabbing thieves and they’re not going to like what you did. They’re going to be mad at you. Other ones will be very happy that you finally figured out the scam and they’ll dismiss the case immediately. [caller] And you saw it both ways yourself? [Howard] Yeah, I’ve seen it happen both ways, yeah. [Dan] Also, if I’m not mistaken I believe that signing the back of your registration is your endorsement that allows them to—that’s the contact when you sign the back of your registration. It says right under there that a registration isn’t valid unless you sign it. And always wondered why that was and I found out that I believe that is the actual contract. The way you contract with them is by signing the back of the registration which there is a penalty for not doing that. [Howard] That’s not a contract. That’s evidence of the contract, evidence of your acceptance of the contact. And a contract does not really become a contract just because somebody made an offer. There has to be an acceptance and your signature on that line constitutes the acceptance by you of the contract but they have to take… [caller] Excuse me, it also says that I declare this is a commercial vehicle. [Howard] It probably does. [caller] Yes, it does. Everyone… [Howard] I’ve had a lot of registered automobiles in my life. Most of them were business vehicles and I never signed them and they complained and argued with me and I said, ‘can you force me to sign it?’ And they said, ‘no, we can’t force you to sign anything.’ And I said, ‘well, I’m not signing them,’ and they didn’t even get away with charging me with a ticket without signing the back of the registration. [Dave] You want it signed, you sign it. [Howard] Exactly,
you sign it. I don’t want this. I’m not accepting. And when you
don’t accept they can’t enforce. They need your acceptance. This
is why when you go into court and you start talking about the case
that they’re bringing against you, you’ve accepted the case. That’s
why you don’t want to put in a pleading unless, of course, it’s
necessary like in a situation where they do it backwards there in [caller] In other words, make an appearance? [caller] Yes, I do. [Howard] Don’t address the issue. If the issue is you were speeding don’t talk about speeding, don’t talk about driving the car, don’t admit that you’re a driver, unless, of course, you are one and if you are one pay the damned ticket. If you got a CDL license and you drive a bus or a taxi cab or a tractor trailer truck or something like that and you haul other people’s goods or you haul other passengers around you’re in commerce. You asked for that privilege. You better follow the rules to go along with that privilege. [Wayne] Howard, this is Wayne, can I ask you a question? [Howard] Yeah, go right ahead. [Wayne] Can you call the opposing attorney as a witness for the defense? [Howard] Well, you can try that but there’s a rule and this is actually, it’s not a rule of court, it’s a rule of procedure related to attorneys and it’s in the Attorney’s Rules Books. It’s not in any book that you’ll find quickly and available on the shelf. But in the rule of attorneys, attorney’s are not allowed to take two positions. They can either prosecute the case or they can testify and be a witness. But they can’t do both. So, if you ask him to testify, he’ll say ‘no, because I’m prosecuting the case.’ Well, then, why did you open your mouth and explain this case to the court? And you should have objected as soon as he started explaining and every judge will do this to an attorney. The attorney for the prosecuting side, whatever kind of a prosecution it might be, whether they’re prosecuting you criminally or prosecuting you civilly, the judge will look over to the attorney and say, ‘what’s this all about?’ See, this is what should be telling you the judge doesn’t know anything. He’s not supposed to know anything. He’s not supposed to take either side; he’s not supposed to help either side. He’s supposed to act like he doesn’t know a thing and wait for you people that are involved in the case to present the case to the court. He’ll always look at the attorney and say, ‘what’s this case about?’ And you should object as soon as that attorney starts talking. ‘He’s testifying,’ your honor. He’s acting as a witness. Now, he’s either the prosecuting attorney or he’s a witness. Now, which is he going to be?’ The attorney will say, ‘well, I’m prosecuting the case.’ ‘Well then, shut up.’ ‘You can’t testify. You can’t explain what this case is about. Have you got a witness that you can call to the stand to explain the case?’ And in debt collection cases I’d guarantee you they don’t have a witness to call to the stand. Well, if they don’t have a witness then evidently they don’t have a plaintiff. ‘So, what are we doing here, judge? This case should be dismissed or he should be sent back to this office and told to get this case in order before he brings it back into your court.’ You tell the judge… [caller] Howard, have you ever done that successfully to an attorney, yourself? Get the case dismissed in court by… [Howard] No, I have not done that myself. I have spent all these years studying and learning because I screwed up and did it wrong years ago when I first started trying to find out how this worked and got myself involved in some cases. [caller] How are we supposed to do it, even studying a few books… [Howard] Listen and pay attention to what I tell you and you’ll be able to do it. Now, yes, we’ve had people do this recently and they have been very successful. And they are people with one whole hell of a lot less in knowledge of the law than I have. They’ve never been in the books before. They’ve never been to court before but they’re getting in touch with us and asking us what to do about things like a credit card collection case which, to me, is a miniscule little ding-a-ling case because, you know what, they get a judgment on a credit card case and they never even bother to collect them because it costs too much money to collect most credit card cases. They don’t even bother with them. It doesn’t hurt you if you let them go get the judgment. Most people don’t even show up for credit card case. They get the judgment by default because the defendant didn’t show up in ninety-nine percent of the cases and it doesn’t matter because they never proceed with the collection because it’s too costly. If the credit card is less than $20,000 it’s probably going to cost $20,000 in lawyer fees to get it collected so they don’t proceed to collect it. So, who really cares if they get a judgment in a credit card case? It’s not important, but because of the principle of the thing some people are deciding that they do want to go into court and they do want to argue the case and we’ve taught them that you don’t argue the case. You don’t even discuss the credit card itself as a credit card. You use these rules of evidence. You use these arguments that they don’t have a plaintiff before the court and you ask the attorney for his power of attorney from his client to represent that client and he can’t produce it. He can’t prove that he really has a right to be here. He can’t show that he has a plaintiff and he can’t show any authenticated documents under Rule 901. And when you throw all that in front of the judge and tell the judge that the case should be dismissed because he has not properly formulated his case we have been getting judges to throw the cases out with a big smile on their face. They were happy that we finally realized how to protect ourselves. So, no, I haven’t done this myself. I haven’t been in court in twenty years. I stopped getting myself into any of these problems and having to go to court. I’m too damned busy helping other people. I don’t have time to do my own cases so I don’t get involved in anything anymore to get me into court. [Dan] Would you give me the quick overview of that… again, real quick? [Howard] Ok. First of all, the judge will start asking the lawyer to explain what this case is all about. When he’s doing that he is testifying. He is putting information before the court, that’s testifying. You’ve got to object immediately. As soon as he starts to talk and explain the case you got to object. ‘He can’t do that, he’s either the prosecuting attorney or he’s a witness but he can’t be both so what’s he going to be? He’s going to be a witness, if he is, telling him to take the stand and tell the story under oath.’ Well, he won’t do that. He’ll say, ‘no, I’m the attorney.’ ‘Well, if you’re the attorney then shut up because you can’t testify. Where is your plaintiff; you need a witness.’ You get the witness on the stand and you ask the witness questions and let the witness tell the court what the story is. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, not supposed to be explained by the attorney what the story is. [Dan] Do I have to subpoena the plaintiff or should he be bringing him to court and when I go to court and say, ‘where is the plaintiff, is he going to go where you didn’t subpoena the plaintiff to be here?’ [Howard] You didn’t have a requirement to subpoena the plaintiff in a plaintiff action. No, the plaintiff has to show up and if they don’t… We’ve beaten traffic cases because the cop didn’t show up. And the way we beat them was very simple, we looked around the courtroom and said, ‘the police officer is not here, is he, judge?’ The judge said, ‘no, officer Jones are you here? Officer Jones, are you in the courtroom?’ Four or five times he’ll call him, ‘officer Jones.’ He’s giving you time to think is what he’s doing. After he finally gets tired of asking for Officer Jones to show up he looks at you to see what you’re going to do next and what you do next is you use the rules of court. There is a rule in every court rules book that says that if the other party fails to prosecute the case, if you make a motion verbally or in writing to the judge to dismiss the case for failure to timely prosecute—remember those words—to timely prosecute. Don’t reschedule it for next month. {02:26:43.755} |
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
