Howard Griswold Conference Call

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 26, 2023


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:

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.



Speaking of integrity, there’s a lot of really bad information particularly promoted on the internet, incompetent people who don’t track the law down, who don’t check on anything, who don’t prove anything before they start professing it and it gets a lot of people in trouble. And I don’t mind guilty people getting in trouble but I hate seeing innocent people get in trouble and the problem is with this kind of stuff a lot of innocent people fall for the trap and get in a lot of trouble. I got a complaint here by the United States government by and through the United States attorneys against an individual and his company and it’s called a complaint for a permanent injunction. I’m going to read part of it to you. This fits exactly what I’ve been telling you to stay away from.

This suit is brought under 7402, 7407, and 7408 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 United States Code to enjoin a particular individual—and I’m not going to give his name because he’s probably going to be in a lot of trouble, you’ll probably hear his name quite often but I’m not going to spread it around, anyway—to enjoin a particular individual, individually, and doing business as—and they state his business name—from the following activities. Now listen close—a) preparing or filing, or assisting in or directing the preparation or filing of any federal tax return, amended return or other related documents or forms for any other person or entity. b) directly or indirectly organizing, promoting, marketing or selling any plan or arrangement that advises or assists taxpayers to attempt to violate internal revenue laws or unlawfully evade the assessment or collection of their federal tax liability including, promoting, selling or advocating the use of zero income tax returns and false forms 1099OID based on the false claims that the taxpayer can name the Secretary of Treasury as their fiduciary—that’s done with that Form 56 which does not apply to doing something like that but it’s being misused by people and abused—and/or that they can draw on the United States Treasury to pay their tax debts or other debt using forms 1099OID or bonded promissory notes—I don’t know how many times I told you not to put your name on a bond; I also told you not to fall for this 1099OID stuff—or sight drafts or other documents. Now, ‘other documents’ is a broad category—it could include some and not include others, couldn’t it? Anyway, also the taxpayers issue false for 1099OID to a creditor and report the amount on the false form 1099OID as income taxes withheld on their behalf.

I don’t know who dreams this kind of stuff up and promotes this and does these kinds of things but they sure are lunatics.

Anyway, next thing, also, the taxpayers can use Uniform Commercial Code to accept for value a document dealing with a debt and can stamp the document with accept for value or similar wording to satisfy that debt including a tax debt and also the taxpayers have a secret account with the United States Treasury which they can use to pay their debts or which they can draw on for refunds through a process called redemption or commercial redemption and taxpayers and that taxpayers may become private citizens which entitles them to tax refunds in excess of what those taxpayers may actually be entitle to under the law.

I don’t know who’s putting this kind of stuff together but whoever is it would behoove you to stay away from them. Anything at all to do with a 1099OID, stay away from them. I said it weeks ago, I said it months ago, I’m saying it again, but this complaint for an injunction if you ask me what the chances of the United States attorneys getting the injunction are and you gave me 1 to 10 chance, I’d say it’s 25—they’ll get it. They’ll get the injunction against him. This is a nineteen page complaint for the injunction and in it they go into discussing the customers of this guy who have allowed him to file these things improperly and that they will impose a $5000 fine—I don’t know where they get $5000 authorization from but it may be increased to that, today, by law—a $5000 penalty for a frivolous filing. If their taxes are not brought up to date and filed properly they will do civil actions to collect the taxes and they may bring criminal charges against some of these people, they go on to say. I would say following anything like this line of thinking is very dangerous for any of you. I’m sure some people out there just think it was a wonderful idea and you’d want to argue with me about it. Well, you can argue to the mirror—don’t argue with me. But when the US attorneys come around and come after you, you can argue with them, too. They will get their injunction against this guy to start with and then there’s another request for an injunction in another part of the country against somebody else under the same basic layout of a request for an injunctive order and a permanent injunction. Part of the injunction says they’re asking the court to order these people to turn over their list of customers. And if they don’t, then they can be jailed for contempt. That’s a real coercive tool. It usually works. They will get the names of the customers so if you were a customer you better write some kind of letter to these kinds of people who have done this stuff for you and tell them you’re terminating any relationship with them and you want your money back. If you did tax forms and you did them the wrong way you better re-do your tax forms and do them correctly. Now, you’ve heard me talk about this before. There are people who are liable to pay the tax. They are the privileged people that work for the government in any way, shape or form, have a license from the government of the types of things the government has the right to license or have a privilege granted to operate a corporation and be an officer of a corporation. Those people come under the privileged category of excises. The Constitution gave Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes on imposts, duties and excises. Imposts and duties have to do with imports and exports so that doesn’t apply to very many people—as a matter of fact, a very few, and mostly businesses. But the excises that covers privileges of any kind that the government gives such as a license or a corporate privilege or the privilege or working for government in any capacity at any level of government. The state income tax is a rider on the federal income tax. Rider means it rides along on the same set of laws and rules. If there’s a federal tax due then there’s a state tax due. If you have a privilege in either one, state or federal, that privilege puts you in a taxable category and you better be filing your tax forms correctly and paying the taxes or you’re going to be in some kind of trouble depending upon how big the problem is and how much money’s involved it will establish the quantity of trouble that you’re in. If you’re a private person you got a good argument that they exceeded the boundaries of their law, that they are taking private property, your labor, without just compensation. You can’t do that when you’re operating under one of their privileges and you can’t file stupid forms like 1099OIDs and think you can get money out of the Treasury through a 1099OID. There are ways to send this back to the Treasury to pay it. But that is not the proper approach. The sight drafts and these bonded promissory notes or just plain promissory notes, bills of exchange, none of these things are the proper method to use for doing anything like this. They’re only getting more and more people into more and more trouble all the time. And this accepted for value, I thought that had finally died but apparently it hadn’t. There must still be a bunch of screwballs doing it and there’s probably a couple of them out there still promoting it. I don’t know; I don’t listen to all these speakers all the across the country. I don’t have time for that. But I wouldn’t be surprised that there weren’t still a few of them trying to promote it thinking it’s wonderful stuff. The only trouble with it is I can find both of those words, accepted, and, value, defined not only in the law dictionary but also in the Uniform Commercial Code they’re defined. But they are not combined together and defined in any way. So they’re not a combinable function. And I’ve told people that way, way back when they started promoting all this accepted for value foolishness. Besides that, when you accept you assume the liability and it doesn’t matter how you accept. It can be a restricted acceptance; it’s still an acceptance and you establish the liability for yourself. Read the damned law books. Read the definition of acceptance. You’ll see; there is a way to not accept but if you accept in any way it’s considered to be a dishonor if you don’t pay once you accepted and according to the law they can go immediately to collection in any way they have to collect. You’re just putting yourself in a bad situation by listening to some of this foolishness and doing these things that people promote and it’s all over the internet and it’s still out there and some of the people that were promoting it have already been to jail for it but whatever they put on the internet is still there. There’s a couple of different websites noted in this complaint for an injunction of people to stay away from. I don’t know just where it is in the nineteen pages. If I thumb through here and find it I’ll quote it for you.

Anyway, this is actually supposed to be an open forum night for questions and discussions and I didn’t want to turn this into a complete teaching lesson, tonight. I wanted to leave it open for questions but along the line I just mentioned if anybody’s got any questions about why it doesn’t work. I’d be glad to entertain your question for you. I’ve told you before why it doesn’t work but I’ll tell you again if you need it. Here it is, the websites that they mentioned. I’ve never even heard of these people. Of course, you know I don’t fool with the damned computer anyway. This is one of the reasons why. and are two that they cite in this injunction. Several of the documents that this particular person that they’re after for this injunction have submitted to the IRS are identical to documents available on websites promoting tax deferred positions including and . I don’t know who those people are. And you know what, they might have something good somewhere on that website.

Anyway, anybody got any comments on the 1099OID foolishness? I’ve seen a whole lot of patriot stuff on this. No comments on this 1099OID?

[Danny] This is Danny. You said there is no where to use the 1099OID except the government officials?

[Howard] That’s right. That’s what I told you months ago. I tracked it down as to what it was for and it goes along with the 607 and 609 form.

[Dave] OID stands for Original Issue Discount.

[Danny] Ok, I think that’s right, original issue discount.

[Howard] Yeah. When we looked it up it applies to a fiduciary. It does not apply to general use, only to a fiduciary and it comes out of Section 2204 of Title 26, the IRS Code which is about the fiduciary filing and paying the taxes on the money earned by the fiduciary. You give them the form and tell them to fill it out… {break on communications} …for a specific use for fiduciaries and actually it didn’t spell that out in the general accounting number under the OMB, Office of Management and Budget. It didn’t spell that out there; it wasn’t clear. We had to track it all the way down into the IRS Code to find out where it came from and what it was for.  But it darned sure isn’t to use for paying credit card debts and mortgage debts and things of that nature and then to take that off of your income tax as money withheld from you, that is really a backwards approach.

[Danny] Yeah, and the stuff I’ve been getting information on wasn’t saying anything about doing that. I’ve been leery of that—I know that.

[Howard] There are all kinds of ideas out there and the ideas are for you to fill it out and get money and that’s wrong. It’s not going to work; it’s going to get you in trouble. It is for the fiduciary such as a judge who imposes a fine upon you and you pay the fine and he’s made a profit. He’s supposed to file the 1099OID and the 607 and 609 forms to show where he got the money, what beneficiary he got it from and what tax is owed on it and to pay the tax. It’s up to them to pay the tax, not you. They would like to convince you that you’re a fiduciary and that all of you have to pay a tax but there are certain things that have to be done to end up in a fiduciary position and they don’t do the things to put you in that position. They don’t create the records to show that you’re in that position—they just make a claim that you are.

[Danny] Yeah, another presumption.

[Howard] Um huh.

[caller] Who are guys to stay away from?

[Howard] Anybody who talks about this.

[caller] I thought you had a list of specific people.

[Howard] I don’t know any names. I don’t keep track of that; I don’t look for people to call down. I just look for things that aren’t done right to point them out to people. I don’t look for somebody to call down and name them and say they’re doing it wrong. If they’re promoting the 1099OID for any purpose other than giving it to the judge to fill out then stay away from them, whoever the hell they are.

[caller] How about a private promissory note?

[Howard] Well, that’s fine between two private people but it has nothing to do with paying any kind of a debt because a debt cannot be discharged with a second promissory note. And what you think the debt comes from? The debt comes from the original promissory notes. You’ve signed something agreeing to something somewhere—that’s a promissory note. You can’t pay it off with a second promissory note. The law doesn’t allow it. Look it up in business law. There are all kinds of books on business law and commercial law and you’ll find these kinds of things in those books.

[caller] I was talking about an income tax…

[Howard] Income tax is a different question altogether. You could use the 1099A which abandons the debt back to the original debtor. The government’s the original debtor; they created all kinds of debts and then they’re passing it on to you through these phony tax claims and fines and fees that they accumulate by government regulations and government regulations, statutes, rules, and codes all apply to government. They don’t apply to private people.

[Danny] We should only use those to bind them to their own codes and statutes.

[Howard] That’s right and they’ve exceeded their statutes and rules and their limited authority by going beyond that limited authority and approaching you in your private capacity.

[caller] What you say to a promissory note that you will pay as soon as they restore the lawful monetary system?

[Howard] I’d throw that piece of paper in the trash. If they restore the proper monetary system there will be no debts like this. So why would you promise to pay if they restore it?

[Danny] Well, how about the money orders that are also being promoted to attach a money order to the forms?

[Howard] If they’re not pre-paid money orders where you bought them someplace and paid for them don’t fool with them.

[Danny] These are printed up, pay to the order of, and all that.

[Howard] Yeah, but are they being sold by a place that handles money orders?

[Danny] No.

[Howard] Well then, don’t touch them.

[Danny] Right. But there’s a lot of that going around also?

[Howard] That wouldn’t surprise me and I’m sure as bad as the economic situation is in this country and as much as people are hurting they’ll fall for this kind of foolishness. The next thing you know we’re going to have to take something like the state of Texas to put a barbed wire fence around it and move everybody out of there that lives there that’s normal and put all the criminals in there because we’re going to need a place that big to house all these criminals.

[Danny] Yeah, probably would but this money order is supposed to have a tracking number which is the supposedly treasury account number and all of that sort of thing.

[Howard] Well, that’s fine but what was the purpose of using the Treasury account? If you don’t use the purpose correctly and establish it correctly then you’re defrauding the banks and there happens to be a Title 18 criminal code law that they can impose against anybody who defrauds the United States banking system and that covers all banks, the United States Banking System. They can put you in jail for some period of time—I don’t recall what the statute says but it wasn’t a small period; it wasn’t like one year. It was like five years or ten years in jail for defrauding the bank.

[Danny] It’s alright for them to do it to us but we best not do it to them.

[Howard] As a matter of fact probably ninety percent of these people involved in these banks that have folded recently, gone out of business or have been bought out by some other bank, the ones who were running the bank that was bought out and the ones that folded, probably every one of those people were guilty of defrauding the bank in some way and there’s been no prosecutions. That’s a little bit…  And I assure you that knowledge is out here; it’s been discussed in the news media. It’s been written in the newspapers, it’s been covered by television and radio news commentators and it is really gotten the American people in an uproar—they’re angry. I started to say a few minutes ago just for discussion purposes, I heard, today, from a reliable source that there’s something on the internet, you can probably look this up, just Google ‘Tea Party’. Apparently, somebody, somewhere, is organizing tea parties all across this country like the Boston Tea Party. I haven’t read it; I haven’t really looked into it. And the person that was telling me did not know what they’re going to throw overboard whether it be tax forms or what the hell they’re going to do, but they’re having these meetings and they’re calling them tea parties and they’re setting dates all over the country for these meetings, groups of people to get together for a tea party. I don’t know what their purpose is; I haven’t found out yet.

[Danny] Yeah, I got something here a while back on an e-mail pertaining to that but I just deleted it; didn’t pay much attention to it.

[Howard] Well, I agree, we probably shouldn’t participate in it; we shouldn’t pay any attention to it, but we ought to read it and find out what they’re saying and doing because you got to know what’s going on around you in this world.

[Danny] Yeah, good and bad.

[Howard] Yeah, both, good and bad. This might be good—I don’t know. I’m not going to speak against it. I’m not going to speak for it. I’m just telling you that there’s a lot of contention in this country and anger and frustration over what’s been going on with the economics in this country. People are not happy and things are beginning to happen, things are stirring up. Remember the Boston Tea Party was one of the first steps leading towards the Revolutionary War. And I don’t know on this program whether I’ve read it last week or not but there was an article written by a Supreme Court Justice in the Massachusetts Supreme Court published in the papers up there, reprinted in a few places around the country including America’s Bulletin. That Supreme Court Justice talked about what these money people, the bankers, have been doing and her comment was that this leads to revolutions. This leads to civil war. And what these people have done makes the story of Benedict Arnold look like child’s play that they are traitors to the country. And this was a Supreme Court justice in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that wrote this article. It was not some patriot moron’s opinion; she was very serious, the lady judge. She was very serious in that article and she happens to be very right, too, because what they’re doing is going to lead to big problems. They came right out and blatantly admitted that in order to stabilize the money system we have to enhance inflation; we have to bring inflation back up. That is exactly backwards. Bring the price down and I’ll spend more money. Raise the price up higher and I’ll spend less money. If I don’t spend the system falls apart. Well, if they inflate the prices I’m not going to spend and I can guarantee you I’m not the only person in this country with enough intelligence to realize that. If the price is too high I’m not going to buy it. That is a normal feeling of people.

[Danny] Yeah, I’m sure feeling a lot of that, right now, people coming in my place, they want to cut you to the bone on buying something. You don’t have any room to make anything. Even if they’re going to buy they’re going to really buy cheap or they’re not going to buy.

[Howard] Well, see, there’s a lot of intelligence in this country. I’m not the only one with that little bit of intelligence. There’s a lot of them around. Am I right? What is this going to do the system by inflating the prices even higher?

[Danny] It’s going to bust it by even more.

[Howard] Yep, it’s backwards to what they should be doing.

[Danny] Well, it’s like I think you mentioned last Thursday night that the dollar fell against the Euro, that made the gold go up and when the gold goes up the crude oil price goes up and we see ten to twelve cents a gallon more in gas in the last two weeks, the price of gas in the last two weeks.

[Howard] Yep.

[Danny] Who suffers that? The poor damned old consumer.

[Howard] Well, according to the dollar index that they put out on the stock market channel, today, the dollar is something like 3.43 cents in value. {01:07:47.623}





[caller] Howard, I have a question, on the assignment in the court challenge the court doesn’t recognize that pay a property tax bill, doesn’t recognize the assignment, who do I call as a witness to corroborate it in court?

[Howard] You do an affidavit stating that you did the assignment and what the reason was for the just compensation and that assignment is your paper and you have personal knowledge of it and you had complete control of it until you mailed it to them for the just compensation to be paid and you submit that affidavit with a copy of it as evidence in the court. Now I know how to put evidence in the court. It took us years how to find out. The lawyers never put evidence in the court the proper way because they really don’t put any evidence in the courts and this is why we’re watching what goes on in the courts. We’re learning from watching court cases. And we didn’t learn these tricks because the lawyers never do it the right way. But finally thanks to Mickey uncovering the meaning of Rule 901 and authentication of evidence and looking up what they meant by authentication. It means certified and certified means done by affidavit, swearing that it’s true and correct.

[caller] But if I’m swearing on my own affidavit something’s true and correct I may have personal knowledge of it but if I can’t demonstrate the truth of what I’m talking about then I could be charged with breaking the laws of perjury and in the assignment I’ve gone through the glossary and things. I mean there’s a lot of stuff in there I really don’t understand and even then when I’m being my own witness.

[Howard] Well, that’s what they want you to do is be your own witness but they want you to come in there and admit to everything as the witness and you authenticate it for them. Yes, I got a tax bill, yes I got a deed to that property, yes, the deed is recorded, that’s what they want you to do. You’re then authenticating it for them. They’re the kind of things you want to say no, no, no, to. But you want to put in your affidavit stating that the assignment is for the just compensation that is due you under the Fifth Amendment. That’s within the law. You can’t get in any trouble for perjury for doing that. They’re stuck with that law; it’s their bylaws. The Constitution is nothing but a set of bylaws for the corporation known as government.

[caller] But I can’t bring the Constitution in, can I, unless I have an expert witness on constitutions?

[Howard] Why?

[caller] well, I just thought that someone who knew what he was talking about said if the Constitution is going to be brought up in court then the Constitutional matter has to be settled before the case even comes up and you have to have an expert witness to do it. It’s way over my head.

[Howard] It’s not over your head. Stop a minute and let me explain before you get any further into this and we lose track of it, let me explain what you can do to bring the Constitution into court. You go to the local law library. You get the book out that has the Constitution in it. I think it’s the first or second book of the United States Code. You take it over to the girl that’s at the desk and see if she’s got a notary seal. If not, there’s somebody there at the library or somebody there at the courthouse that has a notary seal and you have them come down there and photocopy it right out of the book and then certify it to be a true and correct copy. Now, you can bring the Constitution into the court as a true and correct copy of the wording of the Constitution and submit it as evidence. So, yes you can bring the Constitution into the courts but you can’t just bring it up orally. You have to bring it in authenticated, certified true and correct. It’s a true and correct copy of the Constitution. It says in the Fifth Amendment government shall not take private property for public use without just compensation. Now, hopefully, after listening to me talk for all these years that I’ve been doing this did you understand that the government is the public. The people are not the public; they are the private sector. You’re private unless you are part of government. If you’re part of government then you’re part of the public and if a judge asks you ‘what do you mean by this, you’re part of the public,’ he’ll say. And don’t put anything past these little buggers because they will try to trick you that way and you better be ready to explain to the judge that, no, I’m the private sector; the public means government. Tell him to go look it up in the law dictionary. It means municipal governments, that’s the public. Now, there’s a lot of other explanations in there for public, too, because public can be a very broad term to be used in a lot of different ways but it always relates back to municipal corporations, the public government. The government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation. Now, if they’re using it to tax you and make money off of it then that’s public use and they have to give you compensation for it. You understand?

[caller] I understand but I still—like you mentioned some cases where some municipalities have recognized a partial assignment on property tax and in those cases I’d like to get some of the witnesses and subpoena them. They’d be witnesses.

[Howard] Well, they’d have to come quite a few miles to get to where you are. I don’t know if they’d be willing to do that.

[caller] Well, so what? I mean, if they’re a witness and it’s a government in Ohio or Delaware, whatever, then they got some way of knowing that this government accepted this partial assignment. They got funds electronically transferred…

[Howard] I don’t think that in a particular court case somewhere that they pay much attention to that because what I noticed these judges have an attitude of ‘what goes on in my courtroom is what goes on in my courtroom and I don’t care what goes on in another courtroom.’ None of that means anything to them. That’s the attitude these judge have. So I really don’t think that somebody else coming from some other jurisdiction and showing that this jurisdiction accepted it and trying to convince this judge that he should accept it in his jurisdiction, I don’t think that that’s going to help.

[caller] Well, that might be true but let me ask you a question, if the judge has an attitude and then we appeal it and get out of district court, can I set a precedent in appeals court?

[Howard] Oh yes, definitely. But not necessarily by showing that some other jurisdiction accepted it. The law applies to all jurisdictions. What you have to do is make the jurisdiction that you’re in abide by the law.

[caller] Well, let me just cut to the chase here and say that others that have looked at the partial assignment say, ‘who’s your witness? You don’t have a witness.’ They talk about this Larkin Rose thing where he didn’t have a witness in his case and he put himself on the witness stand for three days.

[Howard] And he blew the case.

[caller] Well, if he’s on the witness stand himself because the government didn’t bring any witness in he has nothing to corroborate his case and that’s sort of where I’m getting with the hypothetical here.

[Howard] That’s why, and you got to listen to what we’ve been teaching about the rules of evidence and the fact that they are the ones who have to produce the evidence and until they do they haven’t given you enough information or knowledge to form a responsive answer to whatever their complaint is and anything…

[caller] This line of questions presumes facts not in evidence.

[Howard] Right. And anything that they say is a presumption of facts that are not in evidence so we can’t answer and as long as you don’t answer—see, the trick that they’re using is they’re getting us to answer the way they want us to with a yes authenticating everything for them and the judge…

[Dave] The law says mandatory counterclaim. Did you do the mandatory counterclaim? Did you do the mandatory counterclaim? If not, you lose.

[Howard] You don’t have to go that far. I don’t even think we want to go that far because we’re joining in when we do that and the thing that I’m learning here is non-consent. We’ve talked about this for months, not consenting. The way you not consent is to say things like ‘you’re assuming facts that are not in evidence. When they’re not in evidence you haven’t given me enough information or knowledge to form a responsive answer. I can’t answer until you come up with the evidence.’ The duty of producing the evidence is upon the complaining party; where is the evidence? Where’s the evidence of a contract where I’ve agreed to pay this debt, whatever it is. I don’t care if it’s a credit card debt or a property tax debt, where is the contract? Is it authenticated? Has someone certified it as true and correct? Do you have a person here to testify of the chain of custody and where and who has been keeping track of this document and whether or not it was opened and left sitting open that somebody else could have altered that document? If you use that kind of stuff you stop them cold. You don’t need to bring in other witnesses. As a matter of fact the more you say and the more you bring in witnesses to get up there and say, the more there is for them to twist around and use back against you. So the less you say the better off you are. Remember the other part of the Fifth Amendment. You have a right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you. You also have a right to an attorney. If you can’t afford one, one will be appointed for you. They want to make sure you get an attorney to speak for you and they’ll use that against you so you don’t get a damned attorney because he’ll speak for you and they’ll use that against you. The less you say the better off you are.

[Sue] Howard this is Sue again; can you hear me?

[Howard] Yes, go ahead.

[Sue] I was reading something that after you and I talked last time that brings all of that in right under the rules. And if you look at Civil Rules of Procedure, Rule 301, it tells you right in there that it’s on the plaintiff to produce the burden of proof and once you rebut their allegations that it falls right back on them. They are the ones that have to go ahead and prove it. So you can put that rule in and make that rule stick as well as the 901 rule. And, also there’s another civil procedure and it’s criminal procedure also. It’s Rule 17A1 and that says that all of the actions must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest {ratification of commencement}. That’s very important, I think.

[Howard] What was the number of the first one in the civil rules…?

[Sue] The first one was Rule 301 under evidence, rules of evidence, it’s 301.

[Howard] I know which one you’re talking about and it’s Rule 17 in the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[Sue] Well, either in Criminal or Civil, it’s in both of them. It’s Rule 17A1; it says that all actions must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

[Howard] And basically, in Rule 901, subsection A, it says the same thing. But naturally it’s written in legal confusing language so that the average people won’t understand it. But listen close to what it says.

It says the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it purports to claim.

Now, that’s all legal mishmash, isn’t it? It’s confusing but what it really said was ‘precedence to admissibility means before it’s admissible, that the evidence has to prove the matter that they’re claiming so even Rule 901 says the same thing. We found this in a court case way back in the early 1800s and I’ve not found another court case addressing this same issue anywhere since. So that early 1800s court case is precedent setting that the burden of evidence is upon the complaining party. And it still is, the rules show it, the two you just mentioned both in civil and criminal and the Rules of Evidence, Rule 901, all imply the exactly the same thing that it has to be done by the complaining party. They are tricking us by getting us up on the stand, getting us nervous, asking us stupid little questions that we think we’re honestly answering and we’re authenticating everything…

[Danny] Now, another key word in that is ‘purport’ as a verb.

[Howard] Yeah, purport, which means…

[Danny] Convey, imply, profess outwardly to have the appearance of being.

[Sue] Howard, in that same section, Rule 17A1 if you go down to, I think it’s G, it talks about the government can bring—all other claims can be brought for another person under the name of the United States. And I don’t understand exactly what that means.

[Howard] Well, a person means a corporation. So any one of the government corporations could be covered by them doing it under the name, United States. {01:37:05}



Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity. (a) Real Party in Interest. Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. An executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract  has been made for the benefit of another, or a party authorized by statute may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought; and when a statute of the Untied States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States. No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest.


(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.  The capacity of an individual, other than one acting in a representative capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. The capacity of a corporation to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law under which it was organized.  In all other cases capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the  law of the state in which the district court is held, except (1) that a partnership or other unincorporated association, which has no such capacity by the law of such state, may sue or be sued in its common name for the purpose of enforcing for or against it a substantive right existing under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the capacity of a receiver appointed by a court of the Untied States to sue or be sued in a court of the United States is governed by Title 28, U.S.C., Sections 754 and 959(a).


(c) Infants or Incompetent Persons.  Whenever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person.  An infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly a appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.  The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person.


[Sue] Oh, that’s what they’re talking about?


[Howard] Um huh. This little lady’s got problems.

[Bob] Howard, can you go over, again, on how do you do an assignment to pay for a debt that the government has incurred upon us? Can you over that again?

[Howard] Well, first of all it’s got to be done in a proper form following the rule for an assignment. The assignment can’t be done until you’ve established that you have the priority interest in the property of your body and every other type of property that your body has acquired in life to a secured interest. So if you don’t have those two things the assignment can’t be done. Once the assignment is done based on those files properly filed and properly written secured claims on your property then it’s a matter of just compensation. You’re just claiming the just compensation that they have to pay you for the use of your property, that you have the highest priority interest in. They don’t and they can’t prove that they have a priority interest. Even their registrations that causes them to have an appearance of a secured interest in the property is not properly recorded in the Secretary of State or Recorder of Deeds Office the way the Code requires it to be done in order to prove priority interest. They never record it that way. Because they don’t and yours is then you have proof of your priority interest in that property. That makes it private property. It allows you to make the claim of private property and the claim for just compensation for taking your private property and using it for public use and owing you a compensation. Is that clear?

[Bob] Yes, that’s perfectly clear. That’s what I could comprehend from listening to your previous programs. But the gentlemen that before was talking about also the possibility of paying for other things…maybe the use of your name when they give you a traffic ticket or any of those things.

[Howard] Any government imposed debt upon private property constitutes a taking of private property and they must pay just compensation.

[Bob] So that when they give you a ticket your name is private?

[Howard] Well, only that your name is not private unless you got a secured interest filed. If you got a secured interest filed and you listed your automobile it’s private and the ticket is against the automobile. They always list the name of the car and the license tag number. Actually, the ticket is against the ship and you’re the captain of the ship so they name you as the captain to come in and represent the ship which is the car. This is done in the form of maritime. It is not maritime; it is not admiralty; it is in the form of maritime and admiralty which means it’s phony. It’s not real in any way, shape or form; it’s all fictitious.

[caller] What if you own the ship?

[Howard] If you own the ship then it’s private property.

[caller] If you don’t own it.

[Howard] Oh, if you don’t own it then be careful. Don’t get traffic tickets in somebody else’s car that doesn’t have a secured interest or if you’re using somebody else’s car convince them that they ought to have a secured interest too.

[caller] Well, that person does have a secured interest.

[Howard] Well then, it doesn’t matter if they have a secured interest either them or you can represent the secured interest.

[Bob] Thank you for clarifying that, Howard, because it kind of got my ears starting to perk up and I remembered that I missed something and I remember that’s why I wrote today to get your package again to look at the information and fill out the forms so I can procure the cost.

[Howard] When Brenda and the rest of our research team put all this stuff together on the secured interest and found all that stuff in the law books we realized how seriously important this is for everybody in America. If you want freedom you have got to take your property back; you’ve got to recover the interest in it. The government has acquired the interest in your property through registration of everything you’ve ever registered with them starting with your body through the birth certificate and right on down the line through every other stupid thing like religious registrations with some church business, automobile registrations, deed registrations, puppy dog registrations, gun registrations, anything you’ve ever registered with the government, they have acquired the interest in your property by the transfer that occurs in the registration. It’s a presumptive interest; it’s not a real interest that they have because even though they do get an interest by the transfer they don’t record it and they can’t because they had no right to make you record it and transfer your property to them in the first place if it’s private property. Now, before we get any deeper into this let me go over again what private property is. If you bought it and paid for it, you put out your effort to create it, to acquire it, it is private property. If the government gave it to you it’s public property, it’s not yours. If the government gives you an appliance every six months to put into your apartment that the government pays for you better follow the rules and regulations and use that appliance correctly and maintain that apartment properly because it’s the government’s property and they have an absolute right to regulate it because it’s their private property. But if you bought it and you paid for it and they didn’t pay for it or give it to you then it’s your private property and they have no right to regulate it in any way. So the difference here comes in whether or not it was your effort or their effort that gave you whatever it is you have. I used the example of giving you an apartment or giving you appliances for your apartment because people on welfare and there are many, today, that are who probably wouldn’t be if the economy was any good, but they are and they’re stuck there, but you can’t use these arguments that that refrigerator that they gave you is your private property because it isn’t. If they give you a car—if a corporate company gives you a car you can’t make the claim that it’s your private property because it isn’t. You didn’t buy it and pay for it. But if you bought it and paid for it then it’s your private property. Whatever you bought and paid for should be listed in the collateral section of a security agreement and it should be itemized and described in a manner that it could be located. It cannot be described the way I’ve seen so many of these security agreements do it, all my cars, all my children. I’ve looked at those things and I’ve said, ‘what the hell are they doing, writing a soap opera, all my children?’ What do these people think they’re literary artists or something? That’s not what the law says to do. The rules of putting together a secured interest require that the property be identified specifically enough so that it can be located. I cannot locate all your children, I don’t know their names. I cannot locate all your houses or all your cars; I don’t know where they’re located. It has to be specifically spelled out. You cannot be lazy in the way you do these things. You can’t be slipshod; it’s got to be done precisely. If it is done precisely and recorded correctly in the Secretary of State and the County Recorder of Deeds respectively where they belong there’s nothing they can do to get around it except bluff you into thinking that it doesn’t mean anything and if you accept that then you still lose. But if you understand what it means that you have the priority interest and they have proven no interest and they have not presented any proof that they have any right to regulate this property which might be my body or might be my car or might be my house or whatever they’re trying to come around here and tell me that I got to do something they haven’t proven that they have an interest. But I can prove that I have an interest and I can do an affidavit stating that that is my secured interest, that I have personal knowledge of it, that I recorded it properly and it is my claim to the property making it my private property restricting government in any way from interfering with the use and enjoyment of it—end of affidavit.

[caller] Have you ever done it in court?

[Howard] But that certifies and authenticates that your security agreement is yours and it is true and correct and it becomes evidence, then, in front of the court. They can’t produce any such evidence to compete with your evidence so guess who loses, they do, if you do it correctly.

[caller] Howard, now what would be the—in the situation that, say, you bought a house and you have financed it, you paid X number of dollars on it but you still owe on it so therefore they can force you to have it registered at the Recorder of Deeds Office because the bank has got a note against it or somebody has, how would you still claim that it’s yours?

[Howard] By forcing them under affidavit to declare that that paper that’s recorded there is true and correct and not misleading. They can’t and they won’t so they can’t present it as evidence to the court because they haven’t authenticated it. So, now, how are they going to prove that they have any claim on your property? I’m not sure how Wayne did it, but Wayne, up in Michigan, are you on tonight? They had a case in court, yesterday or the day before, on a mortgage foreclosure and they won it. They won it doing the things that they’re learning from Mickey and me about the rules of evidence and what not to say and I don’t care what kind of a loan it appears to be on a piece of property there is no loan, the claim of foreclosing on a loan is a falsification before the court and it can be shown that it’s a falsification just by the rules of evidence. The courts are throwing these mortgage foreclosure claims out of court right and left across this country and they’re starting to throw these credit card debt collectors out of court, right and left, too, simply because we are demanding that they authenticate the documents proving that there’s a contract and there’s a debt and they can’t do it. So we’re stopping foreclosures, we’re stopping credit card collections. We should be stopping traffic debt collections, too. I’m not sure we are because I haven’t heard anything from the fellow out in Nebraska who was on about two or three weeks ago and I was telling him things out of the rules of evidence and he had a traffic case coming up and I think he was driving on a suspended license which they can put you in jail for in any and every one of the states and we haven’t heard from him. So, I suspect he didn’t do it well; somewhere along the way he made a mistake. He answered them the way they wanted to be answered. He thought he was being honest. I’m sure he’s made a mistake and I imagine he’s in jail because we’re not hearing—he’d be on the call if he was home. He’s on every night.

[caller] I should write about that very situation, may I?

[Howard] Go ahead.

[caller] Some people have said that what they do for the driver’s license, because they don’t really want the driver’s license but they’ll make the application and sign ‘agent for’ or put ‘without prejudice’ or not give their social security number and not get the license but keep the receipt and then if it comes up to court say, ‘here’s my receipt; they took my money; it’s a contract; it’s not my problem they didn’t give me a license.’

[Howard] Yeah, we talked about doing this, years ago.

[caller] Does it work?

[Howard] For some people it does. It depends upon the individual. You’ve got to learn to be a little bit forceful about these things, not arrogant, not stupid. Don’t scream and shout and holler and get all upset and all but be forceful. Stand strong on what you’re saying and doing. It’s not my fault that they wouldn’t give me a driver’s license. As a matter of fact, I think there’s a question on that form that says, ‘are you a resident of the State of Blank.’ Every one of them has that same statement on it in every state and the state’s name was, of course, at the end where I just put a blank. And, no, I’m not a resident of the state. The state is a public corporation; I don’t work for the public corporation so I’m not a resident of the state. I live in Delaware; I don’t live in the State of Delaware. The State of Delaware is located in Dover; it’s a corporation. I’m not associated with that corporation. So, no, I’m not resident in the State of Delaware. Well, one of our guys in Maryland marked down on that form, no, he was not a resident of the State of Maryland. And they said, ‘well, I’m sorry but we only give licenses to residents,’ and I could kick myself for being so stupid for so many years. It took me a long time to find what I found in those court cases that express the fact that all state rules, regulations, statutes and codes apply only to the government and not to the private sector. And that’s exactly what that guy at the Department of Motor Vehicles was telling us. The motor vehicle laws only apply to residents; that’s people that are in the state government. They are resident in the government, in the states, not most of us. Most of us don’t work for the states—we’re private. We shouldn’t be getting a license. Of course, you try to teach this to the police officers who have been programmed like little morons to go out here and write these tickets and force you to get a license because the attorney general or one of his little idiots under him has taught the police that and told them, ‘that’s the law.’ That’s why it would be so hard for you to convince the police.

[caller] Howard, I had a crazy idea. We started off talking about complaints for the permanent injunction.  The brain was thinking all the time for going about the story of the guy flaunting the false means…

[Howard] Yeah, the false 1099OIDs—yeah.

[caller] Couldn’t we file—I probably know the answer to this one—but couldn’t we file a complaint for permanent injunction for protection against taking of property from state or government agencies?

[Howard] Indeed we could and we could follow this form because this is put together by US attorneys who know what they’re doing. They know how to follow the rules in the form and you’d be amazed at how much repetition there is in this. There’s nineteen pages here and any one of us probably could have written the whole thing in six pages because we wouldn’t have repeated ourselves so many times but part of the form appears to be to say what you’re going to say, say what you’re saying and then say what you told them. At least say it three times.

[caller] Yep, because that confuses them.

[Howard] Well, that’s the way they do it. That’s the way they’re taught to do it.

[caller] They’re taught to do it and it confuses the private person.

[Howard] Oh, yes, oh, definitely; it’s meant to do that.

[caller] Well, that’s an opening statement to a jury, also, to tell them what you’re going to do.

[Howard] Oh, yeah.

[caller] But, of course, the secret to this would be to keep it very general, the theft of private property, etc, etc, and not go on to say…

[Howard] No, I don’t think that would do. You wouldn’t get the injunction. It would have to be specific to the specific property that you bought and paid for and you could prove by an affidavit that you bought and paid for it.

[caller] Well, how do you do that with a birth certificate?

[caller] for the hospital bill?

[Howard] If you could get the hospital bill. Well, the hospital burned down, I think, that I was born in. It old and fell down because I’m so damned old. I don’t know if you could prove it that way but I’ll tell you what you can do, you can get an affidavit from your mother that she never intended to turn your body over to the state...

[caller] And that would be like pulling hen’s teeth.

[Howard] …for their control. Well, if you showed her the definitions of delivery in the law dictionary—and remember it’s the room where children are birthed at the hospital is called the delivery room. Show her what the word, delivery, means in the law books and actually what it says in legal terms, delivery means to deliver the property to another for the other’s control. Now, mom, did you intend to deliver my body to the state for their control? Well, I can guarantee you that 99% of the mothers would say, ‘absolutely not; I never had any such intention.’ Well, here, mom, sign this affidavit stating that you didn’t have that intention.

[caller] She’d say you’re nuts.

[Howard] No, I don’t think your mother is that stupid.

[caller] Well, pacify me, mom.

[Howard] You heard me complain about this before. The biggest culprit that I know of that is getting us involved in all this kind of stuff is religions. These religions require before you can be bar mitzvahed in one of the religions and baptized in several other of the different religions and whatever other ceremonies they do in some of the other religions, before you can go through that ceremony you must have a birth certificate. Religions have led the people into these contracts with government. That is one of my biggest objections to organized religions and these new religions, today, that are popping up all over the place, the non-denominational religions. I don’t know what in the hell they are; they’re just plain stupid Christians that are doing the same thing that the organized religions were doing and claiming that they’re not part of the organized religions. So that’s the same thing, they just don’t know it and they’re doing the same kinds of things. You can’t get married unless you get a license from the state permitting you to get married within the church. That’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says, ‘when you lay down beside a woman you take her unto yourself as a wife and you’re responsible for her for the rest of her days.’ Better think seriously about getting married because that’s a responsibility you took on when you do that act—that’s marriage.

[caller] Howard, back to this secured interest again. What if a person has a federal tax lien on his strawman but he owns nothing? How would you handle that?

[Howard] Well, unless you got a job there’s probably no way they’ll ever collect on it. You don’t always own nothing because somehow or another you’re feeding yourself so there must be some money coming from somewhere, either you’re working earning a living, or you’re living on social security or welfare or retirement benefits or something to that effect and they can always attach that income, that source of money coming to you and get it from that source if they can’t get it by taking property and selling it. But a lot of times they don’t do anything but file that notice of lien and they never follow through with trying to collect. Some of them do, some of them don’t. I think in a lot of cases it’s a matter of how much money it is because these internal revenue agents get paid sort of like a commission on the amount that they collect. If you only owe $6000 and they get a minimal little commission like 2% and 2% of $6,000 is not enough money to make it worth my while to get off my desk and do anything about it. But if you owe $600,000, ah, you’re worth chasing—really worth chasing. As a matter of fact, probably if you owe $100,000 you’re worth chasing. {with their ACS, automated collection system, they’ll chase you for anything—it’s just some computer strokes} 

[caller] What about if the property, the land, is in a trust and you want to get it off the property tax rolls—how would you do that?

[Howard] Well, that presents a problem. A trust is a privilege granted by the government if it is filed with the government as a trust. If it is not filed with this government as a trust it is not recognizable as a trust. There’s no such thing as a private trust that the government will recognize. Now, you could have a private trust between you and the kids and it could actually be your will. If it’s recorded as a will they’ll recognize it. But somehow it’s got to be recorded because anything that’s not recorded is not recognizable by the government…

[caller] …still isn’t there a right to contract privately according to the Constitution?

[Howard] Sure, sure it is. And you can create a private trust but they’re not going to recognize it especially if you got the deed recorded. So if the deed’s recorded whatever name the deed’s recorded in you have to use that name to terminate the recordation. Now, if you’ve got a trust and there’s a trustee, the trustee would have to do this for the trust to terminate the recordation. If it’s in your name then you can do it. And I’ll tell you, it’s looking more and more critical that our property is in grave danger. According to several newspaper articles and news articles on the television when What’s Her Face, Hillary, Clinton took a trip to China a couple weeks ago and after she got back there was a number of articles published stating that she had given China the deeds to all the land that they hold in deed offices in America as collateral to secure the debt that the United States owes to China. That’s all the more reason why we should start filing secured interests claiming our property back and terminating these registrations of deeds, automobiles, birth certificates—anything and everything that we’ve ever recorded should be terminated. Now, I can guarantee you that the government doesn’t like me talking like this but they can’t get in the way of it. They can’t stop it because they had no right to record private property in the first place because that constitutes a taking of private property for public use and they’re not compensating you for it. And they can’t, they don’t have any money to compensate you for it with.

[Dave] Anybody who wants a copy of that article, e-mail the and either give us your fax telephone number or your e-mail address. We’ll e-mail it or fax it, whichever.

[caller] What’s the name of the article?

[Dave] Feds Grant Eminent Domain as Collateral to China for US Debts. It’s a two-page article.

[Howard] That’s part of the articles that I was talking about that the Supreme Court justice in Massachusetts wrote an article in the newspaper up there and it was published that this is the kind of stuff that leads to civil wars, that they have no right to take the property belonging to the people within the sovereign states and give it away as collateral to another country. This kind of stuff leads to civil wars and that kind of conduct makes Benedict Arnold and the story of Benedict Arnold look like child’s play. In case you don’t remember the story of Benedict Arnold he was a traitor back in the days of the Revolutionary War, a traitor to the American side. {Benedict Arnold was actually militarily our best general. He got involved with a woman in Philadelphia (Tory) and she convinced him to switch sides. He ended up burning Richmond, Virginia.}

[caller] But he can’t hold a candle to these bastards, today.

[Howard] Nope, what he did was child’s play in comparison to what these scum bags are doing to us today.

[Dave] In the House of Representatives they’ve already passed HR1105. It’s setting up Brownshirts, just like Germany had—slave servitude. So don’t worry about your land property; worry about your body. They’re coming to get you. Six-page article; we can only fax it; we don’t have it in e-mail form, yet. Or you can go and read it for yourself at dated March 24th, 2023--so it’s current, the six-page article that exposes what the House of Representative has already passed and now the Senate’s getting ready to sell the rest of your rights down the drain.

[caller] Mr. Griswold, is there a way you can discharge a suspension of license?

[Howard] No, you terminate the license from the beginning.

[caller] They won’t pay any attention to it.

[Howard] It doesn’t matter if they don’t pay any attention with what we know today. I think we can hurt them real bad if they don’t pay any attention to it.

[caller] Would you stick to the ‘I do not consent’…with being in front of a judge with a suspended license?

[Howard] Yeah, I don’t consent and remember what we’ve been talking about, about Rule 901, evidence? They haven’t produced any evidence and every time they say something they’re presuming facts that are not in evidence. Until they put it in evidence I can’t answer.

[caller] What do think, the judge is going to sit there and look stupid?

[Howard] I’ve never seen a judge that didn’t stand up there and look stupid.   Well, there you are.

[caller] Howard?

[Howard] Well, there you are.

[caller] When the judge tries to enter a plea, how do we handle that?

[Howard] You don’t let them.

[caller] Say, ‘I don’t consent to that’?

[Howard] That’s right.

[caller] What do we do when they ask us to sign off for a trial date—the last time I wrote ‘void’ on that paper…

[Howard] Somebody else told me that they just wrote…

[caller] Should I say, ‘for the record I’m writing ‘void’?’

[Howard] No, just write ‘void’. I started to say somebody else told me that they just wrote ‘without prejudice’ there on the signature line. They didn’t put their name or anything—just wrote ‘without prejudice’.

[caller] …to it.

[Howard] Well, they couldn’t consider it to be a signature so they didn’t have your agreement.

[caller] Well, ‘void’ is the same thing; you void the signature.

[Howard] Yep, it is. Of course, if you go in there in the future on the date they tell you to come in and you cooperate with them, guess what, you just voided your void.

[caller] You mean you go back for trial?

[Howard] No, I didn’t say don’t go back but when you go back if you go back and cooperate with them then you’ve voided your void.

[caller] Right, well, don’t join in.

[Howard] Don’t join in. Continue to stand strong on ‘you’re assuming facts that are not in evidence; until you produce the evidence I can’t form a responsive answer. You haven’t given me enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.’ Where’s the beef. I forget who that was—some hamburger company was doing that—for a long time, that was their ad, where’s the beef? Well, where’s the contract because that’s the beef behind everything. That’s the meat of the entire structure of law. Everything is contractual. If there is no contract, there is no dispute. So, where’s the contract? And it has to be authenticated under Rule 901 as true and correct. It can’t just be presented as something like a driver’s license or a picture of a driver’s license, a photocopy or something. That’s not good enough.

[caller] Mr. Griswold, if I wanted, I found under Rule 902, I have a court file docket and I wanted to authenticate the court file docket because the attorney didn’t file what was in the court file docket, where would I go to authenticate the file docket?

[Howard] The court clerk where you got it from. The person who has personal knowledge is the one who has to authenticate something. You can authenticate your security agreement because you have personal knowledge of it but you can’t authenticate the court’s record because that’s the court’s job to have personal knowledge of it, not yours, and there could be anything in that record or anything left out of that record that they have personal knowledge of that you wouldn’t have any knowledge of. So how could you authenticate it and why would you? It’s not your job.

[caller] I just wanted to know if that made sense…

[Howard] No, and just like I told somebody a few minutes ago about bringing the Constitution into the court, you go to the library, you open the book up to the right page that’s the part you want to use out of the Constitution, you get somebody there that’s a notary to photocopy it and notarize it as a true and correct copy. They have personal knowledge that it’s true and correct right out of the law book. And then it becomes certified or authenticated and then it can be presented to the court as evidence. So you can bring the Constitution into the courtroom. You just got to do it the right way.

[caller] I guess all this does sound kind of silly because the attorneys do not authenticate and we don’t think we should do the same.

[Howard] But what I’m realizing here and what is taking me so long, now, to put some of these court cases together is that I have to put them together with allegations that match the facts that we can authenticate and create the evidence to put right into the case along with the allegations. And, boy, has it taken me time to do this.

[caller] Because you don’t know the full story. The person that knows the story can put it together because I did it with an affidavit.

[Howard] Yeah, the person that knows the story could do a better job of putting it together than I can if they knew all the legal procedures. What I’m looking up here is the legal procedures, putting it in the order it’s supposed to be in and doing it according to the rules of pleading. {02:17:22.691}


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, 2023
All Rights Reserved