Howard Griswold Conference CallThursday, April 11, 2013 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe)

724-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursdays at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines ******************************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=661654&cmd=apop ********************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi ************************** Howard's link for Thursday: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi Hosted by: Gemini Research Group Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 95099 Howard is the Guest Featured Speaker on Saturday at 6 p.m., Eastern Time at: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tc Hosted by: :Mighty-Mo; Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 99043 Rod Class AIB call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine oclock PM, Tues & Fri (Eastern Time). Thats Americas Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe. ************************** Howard is listed on Angela's at : http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Talkshoes.html **************************** Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club. ***************************** http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/forms

*************************** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IanYOTLI8 ******************************

Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Mondays, 218-844-3388 966771# Howards home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.) Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org 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 hes on good terms with his wife he isnt likely to in the foreseeable future.) Donations are accepted. "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 www.peoples-rights.com "Mail Order" DONATIONS and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line) Dave DiReamer can be reached at: notaxman@dmv.com Peoples-rights has a new book available from The Informer: Just Who Really Owns the United States, the International Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve, World Bank, Your House, Your Car, Everythingthe Myth and the Reality. Hell take $45 for the book to help with ads, but $40 would be ok which includes shipping ($35 barebones minimum) www.peoples-rights.com c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** I am not a public servant {officer or employee} and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records and my alleged public servant {officer} title and sworn under penalty of perjury with full commercial liability for the person who swears to it. Im not an officer or agent or employee of the government. I am not resident within the government and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records. Prove that Im being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you cant then your law doesnt apply to me. Government has all the right in the world to make laws and rules regulating itself.

When they impose any of these rules and regulations beyond government upon any of us {private} theyre breaching their fiduciary duty {as public officers and trustees of government}. All employees of government are in a trustee position. The courts have said this emphatically Public means governmentprivate means non-government. Your acceptance of anything that government offers you at any level in any way, shape or form is a consent to cooperate with them and to put yourself under their authority and control. Governments have all the authority, rights and duties to make all the laws necessary to regulate themselves. Their law, rules, regulations, codes and so-called statutes do not apply to the people outside of government. **************** The scam that has been used is this lawyer reference to resident. You are a resident of the State of Blank. They will always say that. They will go so far as to put it in writing in the complaints or motions to the courts that the defendants, the plaintiff or any other party is a resident of the State of Blank. In order to get the individual under the jurisdiction of the courtthey use this languagethis is a presumption that is created which must be rebutted with rebuttable evidence to prevent them from proceeding against you. Now, this is going to really upset lawyers and judges because if you learn how to do this, and its not hard, but if you learn how to do this and you take an affidavit into court with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, thats Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint is made against a person who is not a resident of the State. Accompany that with an affidavit signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury and witnessed by a notary public that states the same thing, I am not a resident of the State of Blank because I do not work for the State of Blank. I am not employed in any way, shape or form. I am not an officer of the State of Blank. The presumption that I am is erroneous and must be corrected on the record. Simple enough, isnt it? Motion to dismiss this claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against a person who is not a resident of the State of Blank. End of motion. Between the two, the motion and the affidavit, the court must rule and it must rule that you are not the person that the complaint can be lodged against. The case must be dismissed. When they dont then you want to start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. Theyre not following the law. ******************** If they create the presumption and you rebut it and then they come back at you with, well you do have a drivers license, you say, well, if I do its also erroneous. Dont let them trick you back into admitting that youre within the state because if you have a drivers license its within the states jurisdiction. *********************** There is no government left. The government has ceased to function in its normal position that it was in under the Constitution. Everything has been farmed out to

privately owned corporations to do the government work. So Social Security is actually a private insurance company. Its not government. Its doing it for government but its there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but theyll try to tell you it is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where its listed as a business on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company. Its in business to make money. This is not government. ********************************* If you look at most statutes thats what they say and all persons only applies to all persons in the agency that they give it to unless it specifically says, all persons who have a license to sell alcohol or all persons who operate a motor vehicle or all persons who have a license to sell tobacco products. It has to be specific. It cant just say all persons and when it does it hasnt been properly assigned to the agency for implementation. So what the agencies do is they sue in their own name. For instance, the IRS makes a complaint against you under United States v. You or The United States of America v. You, IRS, Department of the Treasury complaining that you didnt pay taxes. Well, what they are doing is acting as an assignee of an authority to collect taxes but where in the statutes were they assigned this authority to take you to court, to bring claims against you? Its not there. ********************************** This is all important to understand that in most cases the actual action is being made against you by an assigned person. Either the agency has been assigned or has not been assigned. The police department is acting like they are the assignee but by law have not been assigned to do the functions that theyre doing. There is no statutory law that they can bring themselves within a provision of in order to execute the assignment of action that theyre doing, an action on a negotiable instrument of any kind is an action on a note or on a chosen action. ******************************* Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The rule requires you to objectan 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. See the trickery of this kind of stuff that lawyers put together? As long as you dont object we can do this with assignment and get away with it and theyre doing it and theyre getting away with it because we dont know enough to object. ********************************** It is a dishonest act of enforcing a law upon a private individual that government has no right, no power, no authority whatsoever to enforce upon the private individual. That is breach of their fiduciary duty with no stupid questions asked. When you file a breach of fiduciary duty case you are actually filing in equity. Leave out all statutory references even though that example that we send around came out of Colorado forms and it refers to a Colorado statutory representation that does put it in equity but it isnt necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts

(unless youre a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the government with full disclosure, etc whereby youre not private anymore and youre resident within the government.) You got to be party to government to enjoy governments benefits, privileges and opportunities. ********************* The executive branch of government is only enforcing the legislation for the benefit of protecting the government and not necessarily doing what theyre supposed to do to protect us. The one that is the most guilty of not following the law is the judges. It comes from the canon of ethics for judicial conduct. Canon #2, very important, the canon says: a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judges activities. Subsection A, Promoting Public Confidence. You know anybody whos competent in the courts? I dont. Nobody believes the courts are honest, correct and truthful and fairnot even most of the lawyers. ******************** This defendant states that he is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of the statement of the claim of the plaintiffs and he neither admits nor denies the allegations concerning the claims of the plaintiffs but demands the plaintiffs strictly prove their claim. ************************************ Failing to answer is devastatingits a total loss. Failing to answer and back the answer up with an affidavit denying what they claim amounts to a total loss. A vague or ambiguous complaint is remedied by a request for a more definite statement. That will put things off for a little while until you get a decent statement. You must object to whatever they finally state by affidavit. ************************************ Now, another rule that I found to be interesting Rule 11. Rule 11, its called signing of pleadings but its got a very interesting statement in it that I think clarifies something I bought up a week or two ago and that is I have been finding that lawyers are not making a notice of appearance and putting it in the docket record of the case and I thought sure they were supposed to because I read parts of the dictionary definition to you about the appearance of an attorney and the duty of the court recorder to put it in the docket. The docket is the list of actions that are done within a court action. The complaint itself, the answer to the complaint, the motion to dismiss, all those different functions that go on within a complaint, notices that are written into it, theyre all docketed in this sheet called the docking sheet or a docket sheet depending upon what court and what name they have for it. ************************************* We need to object every time an attorney goes into court and the docket sheet shows that they have not entered their appearance on the docket sheet with an official entry that everything that theyre doing is a sham pleading and that they should be sanctioned for this or at least ordered by the court to put the notice into the record that they are the attorney for the attorney for the party before they proceed any further. That will stop the proceeding for that day. ********************************************

The reason why lawyers dont write affidavits is because the lawyer cant. They dont have first-hand knowledge. They cannot testify because they werent there. ******************************* Sometimes theyll get an affidavit signed by somebody they call a robo signer, somebody who signs hundreds and hundreds of these affidavits for the benefits of the lawyers that theyre not the real party in interest. Theyre not real either and that can be proven. All you have to do is object to that affidavit because you have no proof from this party that they actually work for such-and-such a bank or suchand-such a government agency or whatever. You have no proof given within the affidavit and you have no proof that this individual was there at the time of the incident or the transaction and really does have first-hand knowledge because they didnt express that in the affidavitand they dont. And thats how you object to their affidavits and that proves that theyre just a robo-signer, theyre not the real party. *************************************** Theyll always say that we need the information from you. The burden of proof is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. That, again, is a violation of due process. **************************************** You didnt give me enough knowledge or information about what youre talking about to give you a responsive answer. *************************************** How can there possibly be a credit card when the law forbids the banks to lend credit? ************************************** Dont give them the facts that they want. Dont give them the answers to creates facts or even the appearance of facts that they want. The burden of evidence according to the law is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. The defendant doesnt have to produce or admit to anything. *************************** Their own paperwork is your evidence to prove their dishonest act, have a copy of the statute, for instance, that shows what they were supposed to do which they didnt do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they didnt donot that complicated for any of us to do. **************************************** The state of some name is the government. We have been so misled into thinking that we live in the state of something but when in fact the only time youre in the state of something is when youre employed as an officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions. *************************************** Look it up in the states laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how theyre supposed to do things, even the rules of filing a complaint. They can be found and those rules require things that are commonly left out of complaints.

*************************************** The whole basis of appeal is based on whether or not due process was met and whether the judge erred in the due process. **************************** Resident means located at, an agent of or associated with the state government when you admit to being a resident of the state. When they make a claim that youre a resident of the state you can rebut that claim by an affidavit stating that you are not a resident of the state. You are not employed by the government and if they want to claim that you are all they have to do is come up with payroll records to prove it. Caution: The Department of Education is an agency of the State. ***************************** What land is in the State of Blank? Certainly not your private land that you bought the land that the state bought to build state office buildings or state agencies would be in the State of Blank, not your private land. That law does not apply to private land and it cannot. The law is not allowed by the constitutional mandates to extend any of its law and its activities of taxation and regulation to private property. So it cannot extend to your private land and cannot require your private land to be recorded. But some lawyer told you it had to be because he lies and you didnt question it, you let it happen and its recorded. If you want to get out of the private property tax or the property tax on private propertyI should have said that more correctlyyou have to get that deed back out of their records, out of their recording to that land. The same thing applies to birth certificates. The only thing that the law related to births can apply to its corporations. It cannot apply to a natural child birth of people because the government is a corporation and the only thing a corporation can do is deal with other corporations and it can even extend the authority of operating as a corporation to individuals who request such an authority from the state. And on the date that that requested corporation is authorized that corporation is born and that birth has to be recorded in the states records as a corporation. A natural child from natural people does not fall under that statute. The wording does not cover people and any lawyer that will tell you that it does is lying to you. ******************************** Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesdays number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the weeks call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard.

Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs. ********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ******************************************************************* **************************************** For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ********** Project for all: Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust. Hit the libraries! He would appreciate any research help. ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 01:32:50.513 } [Howard Yes indeed we will miss Jack Bower. He did a lot for a lot of people. He brought a lot of information out, helped a lot of people to learn, to wake up and this shouldnt have happened yet but God has reasons for everything that happens. Maybe some of us are just not supposed to be here when something comes crashing apart and the crashing apart is not too far in front of us. Anyway, God rest Jack. The last three things that Dave covered. We read into more that I was going to get into talking about tonight. The most important is in the discussion of the US attorneys limited ability to prosecuted anything is all lawyers have a limited ability to prosecute anything. They got to do it within the law and they dont. The law is very specific as to who and what it applies to if traced far enough into it, if not then youll never find out and because its put away far enough in the books that you have to trace quite far back to find it. Most people are ignorant and our ignorance is what is taken advantage of. Education purposely made us stupid. Youve heard me say this time and time again. Im sure some people dont like that. I could care less what you like. The truth often hurts and the truth is education every damned school in this country ought to be burned to the ground because it hasnt done anything but destroy the minds of the American people. We have discussed this before. Im getting tired of discussing it but Im sure I wont stop for a long while yet until this thing does finally come crashing down around our ignorant idiotic little souls. This new Secretary of State for the United Stateswhats his name, Kerry? The same clown that ran for president a couple of terms back somehow got himself appointed

Secretary of State. He was over in Israel a week or so ago and he made a statement that the American people have no other right except the right to be ignorant. By God, is he right. The truth does come out once in a while of some of these thieving lying peoples mouths. Figuring it out and understanding it has taken lots of people who have worked with Jack, worked with me and people like Jack and I who have pursued trying to find out what the scam is and how it works for years but the dumbest things have happened. For instance, over the years sometime way back I acquired a set of books very inexpensively called Moores Federal Practice Rules Pamphlet. Its quite old because I acquired this back around 1987. It was a 1983 edition. Its still pretty close to accurate. There havent been many changes made in the rules since those years. There were some changes made in the 1970s and this book covers them. But theres a rule in here that I just blew right pastdidnt seem important at all. If I did read the whole thing at that time it didnt make any sense to me yet because I didnt understand a lot of thingshadnt done enough studying to understand it. This is the rule requiring that all pleadings that go into their courts be signed and that just seems simple enough. So you got to sign the pleading. If youre a lawyer the lawyers got to sign it. If youre not a lawyer you got to sign it. More or less thats what it said. So we got to sign it but it says a lot more than that. It just wasnt evident the meaning of it. Let me read the whole ruleits not very long. Signing of Pleadings, Rule 11. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is duplicated in the rules of civil procedure in every one of the states, usually Rule 11. Some states had their own numbering system. You just got to find it, find what its all about under whatever number theyre using in the state that doesnt use 1,2,3,4 and so on. Most of them do use the 1,2,3,4 and so on. Anyway, signing of pleadings: Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name whose address shall also be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading and state his address except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. Now think about that. They dont have to be verified by a brief in support backing up whatevers in the case that youre filing. Lawyers hate it when you do that because that keeps them from being able to file a bunch of motions. Youve short circuited them. They dont want you to do it but theres nothing here that says you cant do it. It just says it doesnt have to be done for the benefit of lawyers so that they can drag cases out. It doesnt have to be done. So, it goes on to say: The rule in equity that the averments of an answer under oath must be overcome by testimony of two witnesses or of one witness sustained by corroborating circumstances is also abolished. Now, gibberish, gibberish, gibberish, who cares other than the fact that I just told you that all this patriot gibberish that an affidavit has to be defeated by another affidavit was abolishedthats what they just told you. So all that idea sort of goes up the creek, doesnt it? Anyway, then it goes on to say: The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good grounds to support it. Good grounds means evidence. It means there has to be something secure here not just a bunch of off the wall rhetoric, allegations that you done something that some rule says

youre not supposed to do. No evidence to show that it applies to you has been presented and yet they go ahead and sign it, certifying it that it is based on good grounds supporting it. Thats where the trick comes in. This is the wrap-up. When you do the other three things that are in www.EscapeHarrassment.com, follow those programs that weve put together and if it still doesnt work this is where you smack them right square in the face. Lawyers are your problem. Weve been talking about this for a couple of years, lawyers are the problem. He has to verify that this thing is done correctly, that there are good grounds to support it and that it is not interposed for delay. If a pleading is not signed or is signed with the intent to defeat the purpose of this rule it may be stricken as a sham or a false pleading and the action may proceed as though the pleading had not been served which means stricken or dismissed. For a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. Notice, this basically applies to attorneys. It does not apply to the individual other then he has to sign it. But he cant be held liable for any of this stuff because hes not an attorney. Interestingly enough this book, this Moores Federal Practice Rules pamphlet, is what they call annotated. It goes on page after page after page repeating line after line and explaining what all this means. So its a very informative book. It starts out at 11.1, 11.2, history of the rule, 11.3, comments. 11.4, Disciplinary action for willful violations by a counsel, meaning by an attorney. Dismissal is proper under Rule 11 where counsel has not discussed the case directly with his client. Now, lets just apply the thinking of this, the stupid things that were familiar with going on in this country. First of all, in a traffic ticket who signs it? Its signed by a cop, isnt it? Theres no complaint lodged in a court by an attorney, the prosecuting attorney. Yet theres usually a prosecuting attorney there thats going to prosecute the case and he hasnt even signed it. Thats reasons for under Rule11 a failure to sign the complaint and present a proper complaint in a traffic court. It should be thrown out. State v. John Dinklehammar must be dismissed or struck completely from the records simply because they never discuss it with their client because their client is the state and theres nobody in the state to discuss it with. Thats the first thing. Second: and has made no investigation to ascertain the merits of the case and to determine whether the damages sought appear to bear a reasonable relation to the injury actually sustained. What injury? Going back to Allan v. Wright, US Supreme Court decisionweve discussed this many times. The United States Supreme Court has said that in order to have standing to go into court on a suit you have to have three things. The first thing is there has to be a real injury. The 2nd thing is that that real injury has to be attributable to the defendant. And the 3rd thing is that the remedy sought has to correct or compensate for the injury. What injury? I will ask you again. Ninety-nine percent of the bull crap that the government drags people into courts on there is no injured party. These cases are fraudulent cases, frivolous cases, and most important they are sham pleadings. A sham pleading can be struck under Rule 11 and this is your follow-up to when they still dont pay any attention to any of the things that you did under those programs that we have set forth in www.avoidharrassment.com or www.stopharrassment.com . It can be done by a simple little pleading put into the court called a motion to strike. Now, thats under Rule

F of Rules of Civil Procedure in whatever states use Rule 1, 2, 3, thatll be Rule 12 F. In the federal its Rule 12F, a motion to strike. Its a motion to strike a pleading as a false or sham pleading and the court may consider facts beyond the pleading if it wishes. The courts may consider affidavits and it may take judicial notice of records from prior similar actions. But if it cant find any and you can point out that there arent any and there is no relationship of whatever this claim is to you and no actual injury then the court is stuck with having to strike the pleading. And according to the write-up herenow, Im just going to jump around from paragraph to paragraph that I found to be important. Comments by the advisory committee here: Since the original promulgation of Rule 11 has provided for the striking of pleadings and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions to check abuses in the signing of pleadings its provisions have always applied to motions and other papers by virtue of incorporation by reference of Rule 7 (b)(2) and the amendment and the addition of Ruleapparently there is an amendment to Rule 7(b) too and then the addition of Rule 7 (b)(3) which expressly confirms this applicability. Now, this means that people have to do a little bit of reading. They got to go look some of this stuff up particularly in your own court state rules because a state idiot court will tell you that they dont use the federal rules even though the state rules are written the same way. So you cant use the federal rule when youre in a state court. You cant use a state rule when youre in a federal court. So you need to look this stuff up yourself in your own books. Anyway, they go on to say: The amended rule attempts to deal with the problem of building upon an expanded and equitable doctrine permitting the court to award expenses including attorneys fees to a litigant whose opponent acts in bad faith. Typical of a lawyer, isnt it, to act in bad faith in instituting or conducting litigation greater attention by the district courtsnow, this is the federal rules so theyre talking about federal courts hereto pleadings, abuses and the imposition of sanctions when appropriate should discourage dilatory and abusive tactics and help to streamline the litigation process by lessening frivolous claims and defenses. Yeah, I sure would like to but the people got to learn that they will proceed on a sham pleading and somewhere in here it sort of explains that in one of these comments that they just will go right on unless you, the defending party, bring up the fact before the court and show your evidence to prove that they have no evidence to prove their claim and that that makes it a sham pleading. So see, this system is so damned corrupt. Originally, the concept of this government was, we are the beneficiaries. They, the government, are the trustees. It is their duty to protect our liberty and our property rights. And what the hell else is there in life? Everything else is your. You do what you want. But whats important is property rights and liberty and governments got a duty to protect that. Instead of protecting it they make it your duty to stop them from interfering with your liberty and your property rights. Turned it around backwards on us. Sounds like a lawyer, doesnt it. Now, you know why Im so down on lawyers. Anyway, it goes on to say in the next little couple of short paragraphs here. It says: The expanded nature of the lawyers certification of the fifth sentence of the amended Rule 11 recognizes that litigation process may be abused for purposes other than delay. Not just delay in other words. Now, the words, good grounds to support the pleading in the original rule were interpreted to have both factual and legal elements.

And they give you a particular court case to look up. 15 Fed Rptr 2d ed, p. 1517. They have been replaced by a standard of conduct that is much more focused, those original rules. The new language stresses the need for some pre-filing inquiry into both the facts and the law to satisfy the affirmative duty imposed by the rule. The standard is one of reasonable under the circumstances. Who figures out what reasonableness is? Some damned judge who is a lawyer, by the way. Beware of them. But anyway: This standard is more astringent than the original good faith formula and thus it is expected that the greater range of circumstances will trigger its violation. The rule is not intended to chill an attorneys enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing factual and legal theoriesfactual and legal. They can come up with a whole list of facts that cant be backed up by legal and take you into courtthats a sham pleading. This is what they do most of the time. Most of the stuff has no legal basis. It is as one of the commentaries that Dave was just reading, it is their internal rules and regulations called statutes and codes. They apply only to government personnel and government property. They do not apply to the individual out here in society except for one individual who has asked the government for a particular privilege to do something. And it cannot apply to a privilege that government created but you didnt ask for it. If you didnt specifically apply for a privilege from government it cannot be extended to you just arbitrarily but they do this and they presume this and they assume that these are the good grounds to support it when in fact thats what creates a sham pleading, the fact that they have no evidence to back it up as weve talked about the status of residency within the state of blank. Every damned state in the country the lawyers will do this to you so you fill in the blank for whatever state youre having trouble with or dealing with they claim youre a resident. This is a fraud to start with. But theres a couple of interesting cases that weve read in the past, Fax v. State of Maryland. In that case the Maryland high court called the Court of Appeals there. Its not called the Supreme Court in Maryland. Its called the Court of Appeals. Now, they have a court of special appeals which is a lower court so the Court of Appeals is their highest one. And they concluded in this case of Fax v. the State, that they were discussing income tax in this case. And they said that income tax is imposed upon an individual, not against the money that he has earned. The money that he has earned is the basis for figuring the amount of the tax, they said. But is not what imposes the tax. What imposes the tax is the privilege of residency within the state to receive and, of course, the presumption is that youve accepted the benefits, privileges and opportunities of residency within the state. Well, the benefits, privileges and opportunities of residency within the state are only available to people who are employed as officers or employees of the state. Theyre not available to you and I that arent officers or employees. The presumption creating the appearance that we are in that position is what allows them to extend their internal rules and regulations over us which is a sham pleading and can be struck down under Rule 11 by a motion of Rule 12F to strike for violations of the signing requirement that when its signed the lawyer is certifying that there is good grounds to support this case and hes lying. So, from there on and well go back to reading this thingthe court is expected to avoid using the wisdom of hindsight and should test the signers conduct by inquiring what was reasonable to believe at the time of the pleading, motion or other paper that was submitted thus what constitutes a reasonable inquiry may depend on such factors as how

much time for investigation was available to the signer, whether he had so rely on a client for information as to the facts underlying the pleading, motion or other paper, whether the pleading or motion or other paper was based on a plausible view of the law. Now, theres your important statement right there. A plausible view of the law, does it apply to an individual. Let me give you one real hard kicker here and this we can thank Jack Bower for somebody that he brought on his program that had done some research and read a little bit more into the motor vehicle code than most people have ever bothered to do including me. And in the very beginning of the motor vehicle code, something that I always tell people you got to go do no matter what the statute theyre charging you with you got to go look at the beginning of that chapter and read what its all about. And Ive said that many times but I havent fooled around with much motor vehicle type cases. I just tell people, dont consent, and back out of the cases. Dont cooperate with them and most of the time theyll go away but some of the times they wont so we got to learn other things. And this is part of what we need to learn because that motor vehicle code says in the beginning of every states motor vehicle code that it is about commerce. Well, by golly, we ought to know that. The Constitution allows government to regulate and tax commerce. It does not allow government to regulate and tax private property. That is forbidden to governments. In the state constitutions it says a similar statement to what it says in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution that government shall not take private property for their public, meaning public government corporation use, without paying just compensation to you first for taking the property. In other words, they cant stealoh, yeah, they do it all the time and we let them do it. A lot of this is our fault. Anyway, back to this Rule 11to show you how all this stuff were talking about fits. We are not involved in commerce because were not out there for hire on the roads. Were not going somewhere for hirethats bull crap. No matter where were going, it doesnt matter if were going to work, going to some stupid church, going to some ridiculous store and buy a bunch of bunch, no matter what our purpose is to go out there on the street it is not to transport passengers for hire. Ive always told people if I dared to charge my wife to go to the grocery story she would beat me about the head and shoulders with a baseball bat. Its my job to take her to the store and buy the food and feed my family. It is not my place to charge her to ride in my car. Thats not what we do, either, is it? The person who charges you to ride a car is in a business of charging to transport passengers. That business operation is usually licensed by government and that puts them into the motor vehicle code. Other than that the motor vehicle code does not apply to anyone who is not for hire. These cops need to be sued. These lawyers need to be sanctioned and sued and the case has to be withdrawn, struck, dismissed or just surrendered by the court simply because there is no plausible view of the law that applies to you unless, of course, youre a person with the privilege that you asked for. Oh, heres an interesting one. The amended Rule 11 continues to apply to anyone who signs a pleading, motion or other paper although the standard is the same for unrepresented parties who are obliged themselves to sign the pleading. The court has sufficient discretion to take into account of the special circumstances that often arise in pro-se litigation. See Hanes v. Kerner. This is right out of their book. This is a case that has been thrown around the patriot community that they cant hold the pro-se litigant, as they call the private individual appearing in his private capacity, they cant hold him to the same standards as they hold a lawyer. Well, there you go. Although the lawyer has to sign it and the lawyer can be

sanctioned for not doing the right thing, they cant hold the private individual, like you, to these same standards and charge you or sanction you in any way because you made a mistake of not backing up your pleading with anything proper. Most of the time that doesnt happened anyway. Theres a few screwballs that have filed a couple of ridiculous silly complaints. Actually, I guess they were just trying to make a name for themselves or have one day of personal romance with the system, whatever their purpose was. But very seldom does anything like that happen because most people are so damned scared that they wont bother to go to court, they wont file anything in a courttheyre damned sissy-ass chickens and thats why this system is getting away with what its getting away with because people wont read, wont study, wont put it together, wont do anything about it. But its their fault, all of their faults. But anyway, lets go on with that it says. Dont ignore with what I said because Im damned angry with the American people. You know what I think, I think this damned country ought to be done away with and God ought to clean this mess up. Anyway, the former reference to the inclusion of sanctions or indecent matter which is itself strong indication that an improper purpose underlies the pleading also has been deleted as unnecessary. Such matter may be stricken under Rule 12F as well as dealt with under the more general language of the amended Rule 11. So Rule 11 is applicable through Rule 12F is what its trying to tell you. See how legal language can screw you up but it wont if you pay a little bit of attention, read far enough. Anyway, the text of the amended rule seeks to dispel apprehension that efforts to obtain enforcement will be fruitless by ensuring that the rule will be applied when properly invoked there you go, theres the statement right therethe text of the amended rule seeks to dispel apprehension that efforts to obtain enforcement of this rule will be fruitless by ensuring that the rule will be applied when properly invoked. What the court just said there, what the rule says is, you are at the mercy of these lying, cheating, lousy, thieving no good lawyers until you invoke the rule and properly do it under Rule 12F, a motion to strike, and show that they have no plausible view of the law attached to whatever their complaint is, whatever their motions are. The word, sanctions, in the caption, for example, stresses the deterrent orientation in dealing with improper pleadings, motions and other papers. This corresponds to the approach in imposing sanctions for discovery abuses as welland they quote another couple court cases here and the words shall impose in the last sentence focus on the courts attention on the need to impose sanctions for pleadings and motion abuses. The court, however, retains the necessary flexibility to deal appropriately with violations of the rule. It has discretion to tailor sanctions to the particular facts of the case with which it should be well acquainted. Yeah, considering that most of these judges have been lawyers for some period of time. Theyre probably well acquainted with how to do sham pleadings. They did plenty of them in their life as lawyers. But let me give you a perfect example of something that happened in my personal life that I didnt realize that this is exactly what was applied by the judge. My ex-son-in-law had been married before he married my daughter and had two little girls by the first wife and why my daughter picked up onthis was the third bum she came onto in lifebeen through three little bumsthis was the third one. And he hung around here for a couple of years. She wanted to keep him so I justits amazing what we do to keep our children happy. I put up with it. And he had this child support claim against him. I wondered why he didnt work much. He claimed to be a computer repair and analysis geekvery good at itand he worked on contracts. So hes

get a contract with some company to go over all their computers and clean them up and make them all function properly. When the contract was finished he was out of work until he found another contract. He never pushed hard to find very many contracts. He enjoyed living off of Pamela, my daughter, and Pamelas dad because Pamelas dads got all this property and all these cars and trucks and he used to own businesses and hes rich. Just because you got stuff like that doesnt really mean youre rich but it sure looks that way. That was his opinionIm richthey can live off of me so he didnt do much in life. He didnt earn very much money. So, eventually the attorney-generals office sent some idiot from the attorney-generals office out to question him and then make an action in the court to collect the child support that he was in arrears on. Now, when it got real serious and he was going to have to go to court then he comes to me. He wouldnt listen to me otherwise. This was a cocky little brat of a kid. He didnt like authority of any kind, especially Pamelas parents even though he lived here right in the house with us. He didnt particularly get along with us well. But he came to me and he asked me what to do about this, could I help him? I said, actually Ive never looked into this kind of a thing in the law books. Lets get the book on domestic relations out and see what it says. We went through the book and we found out what it says is, child support will be collected from the income of the individualmother or the father depending upon which one the child support is imposed against. Do you understand that? From the income, not on a week to week to week basis unless theres an income on a week to week to week basis. So we took a copy of what the law said, we put together a motion to dismiss their claim because at every individual time. Any specific time, at which he did have an income he would make the proper arrangements for X number of dollarsI dont remember what it wasto be deducted weekly from his monies coming in under his contracts and sent for child support. The rest of the times in between he did not have an income. So he takes this over and he tries to file it in the court and the court clerk looks at it and said, this is extremely interesting, youve actually copied the law, nobody does that. He said, well, I did. The court clerk says, wait right here I want you to talk to the judge. So she gets a hold of the judge and has him come down to the court clerks office and she tells the judge what hes done in this motion. The judge comes over and says to him, young man, you make sure youre in court the day that youre supposedwhat day is it supposed to be? Well, the 18th of something or another. He says, when you get there Im going to ask you a couple of questions and I want you to answer yes or no. Do not say anything else. Do not try to say anything else. You do what I tell you, do you understand me? Yes sir, he says. He says, I will ask you if in between these times that you have made these payments, were you working and earning money? Yes sir, he says. Ill answer that, the answer is no. He says, you do that. Well, the day comes to go into court; the judge says to the attorney, whats this all about? Thats how they always start these things. So the attorney says that this no good punk hasnt paid his child support. Hes behind by X number of hundred of dollarsa thousand or two I believe it was over a period of two or three years and we want him sanctioned and we want him put in jail for not paying his child support. The judge says, why do you want that. He said, well, child support is set by an edict of one of the courts at $25 per kid per week, something like that. This is an old case, this goes back 20 years agonot quite 20maybe it was 14, 15, 16 years ago quite a while, $25 a week per child and he hasnt been paying it, the lawyer says. And the judge says, do you know why he hasnt been paying it? He says, well, it doesnt

matter; he just hasnt been paying it; its imposed upon him He said, Mr. Larrimore, did you pay your child support whenever you were working? He said, yes sir, its right there in the record, hes got it. It shows that every time I had a contract, yes sir, I paid my child support He says, when you werent working was any child support paid? No, sir, and the judge turned back to the attorney. He says, now, tell me this again, what do you got to say about this? Well he hasnt paid his child support. He said, well thats exactly what I thought you were going to do. Bailiff, 30 days in jail for contempttake him away and the lawyer got dragged off to jail and the judge dismissed the claim against Mike Larrimore and told Mike he could leave. I didnt know what we had done. You look up the law, you plan something out, you try something like this, you throw as much crap on the wall as you can to see whats going to stick. You dont always know why. It takes time to learn all these procedural rules, to learn all these specific parts of law, how unique the law is written and how it applies to certain things, it doesnt apply to others. It takes years to digest allI guarantee these lawyers do not know all this stuff that were learning. They even taught a program, just follow the program, they are programmed little functional idiotsthats about all they arethey follow the program. When the rule is applicable to a situation it will be invoked if you properly bring it into the court. Well, Im not sure exactly how we did it but we did make a motion to dismiss the claim against him because the rule said, the law itself said within Delaware code that the child support had to be collected and could only be collected from the income. And somehow in the way we wrote this thing up we showed that during the times he had income it has been deducted and the child support was paid. During the times when he wasnt working there wasnt any income from which it could be paid or collected so there isnt any claim and the child support was paid and the judge saw it and realized that this lawyers pleading was a sham pleading and he struck it and he put the lawyer in jail for contempt because he said, youve done this several times and Ive warned you before about this. We know nothing about that. We had nothing to do with several times before that this lawyer was involved in something like this but that was a comment that Mike told me that the judge made that he had warned him several times in the past about this kind of stuff and he put this lawyer in jail for contempt for thirty daysthats a pretty stiff sanction. But if he had warned him several times maybe it got to a point where it has to be that stiff to make him straighten up and fly right. Now, this does go back, like Ive said, 14, 15, 16 years ago, quite some time ago. The courts have changed. The rules havent changed. The application of things has changed a little bit because the lawyers have become more adept at misapplying the laws and the rules to the people. And the people have not become adept at how to properly invoke this rule and have a pleading struck as a sham or frivolous pleading because we dont know. An interesting little statement that it goes on to say is: The courts currently appear to believe that they may impose sanctions on their own motions and they quote another court case. Authority to do so has been made explicit in order to overcome the traditional reluctance of courts to intervene unless requested by one of the parties. You dont have to request it properly but it more or less implied that if you dont, it isnt going to get done, the court on its own motion. And thats what it did in Mikes case. It was on its own motion, its own action. It took over and took the action to put the lawyer behind bars for thirty days on its own to punish that lawyer even though the other party

did not invoke the rule properly. We didnt know about this. All we did is we just made a motion to dismiss because and we showed the law didnt apply the way it was applying it. We didnt do anything under Rule 11 and the fact that he had signed the pleadings or didnt sign the pleadings or that the pleadings were a sham. We didnt say that. We just asked for it to be dismissed because the rule of law in the book on domestic relations related to the collection of child support did not say that it could be collected on a week to week basis on weeks when there was no income and thats about all we did. We didnt specifically plead it I guarantee you. I know what little we did and it didnt match what this says that should be done but the detection and punishment of a violation of the signing requirement encouraged by the amended rule is part of the courts responsibility in securing the systems effective operation, the book said. This is their books, Moores Federal Practice Rules Pamphlet is saying these things. A lot of these things are things that people out here in society have said that theyre supposed to do but we didnt know how to back it up. We didnt know where to find anything. Stupidly, some of this stuff has been right here in front of us and we didnt know where to find it. Anyway, it goes on to say. Now, this is something that weve talked about and that is procedural due process and it brings it up. The party seek sanctions should give notice to the court and the offending party promptly upon discovering a basis for doing so. The time when sanctions are to be imposed rests in the discretion of the trial judge, however, it is anticipated that the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation and in the case of a motion at the time when the motion is decided or shortly thereafter the procedure obviously must comport with due process requirements. The particular format to be followed should depend on the circumstances of the situation and the severity of the sanction under consideration. In many situations the judges participation in the proceeding provides him with a full enough knowledge of the relevant facts and further inquiry is necessary by the judge to make a decision on this. It just has to be brought to their attention by you and I, their so-called defendants, the ones that the claims are made against in a complaint such as a traffic ticket, such as a you didnt paint your rain spouts, you didnt cut your grass, you got an illegal car parked on your property because it doesnt have license tags. Well, license tags are only required if you put it on the road. They cant require you to have a license plate on if youre not driving it on the road but theyll try to pull that crap. These are sham pleadings, every damned on of them. They can be shot down quickly with an immediate motion under Rule 12F, a motion to strike, for a violation of Rule 11. If its signed and its not supported by evidence its a violation of the rule. If its not supported by actual law making it applicable to you specifically then its a violation of Rule 11. If there arent any facts or the facts are twisted and lied about then its a violation of Rule 11. In any case it is the courts discretion in how far they can go with the sanctions but apparently by reading this it is not this courts discretion that it can just arbitrarily determine that theyre not going to pay any attention to you and proceed on because they cant when theres violation of Rule11. The courts have to follow the rules. These rules are not for you and me. The rules are for the court. The only reason we use the rule is to show the court what its supposed to be doing and what has to happen under the rule for the benefit of the case. Thats what the rules are there for to guide the court, they apply to the court. Any idiot out here in society including lawyers that tell you that, no, you dont want to

use the rules, is a programmed idiot and you dont want to listen to them and theres plenty of them around so be careful who you listen to. As you can see, this rule could be used by you and I and everybody else who has any problems in the courts with lawyers bringing sham pleadings to get rid of the sham pleading. So, by golly, this rule is beneficial for you to apply it to the court because thats who it applies to, the court. And they will do, they are supposed to, they must do what theyre supposed to under the rules and if they dont the appeals courts will really get all over them and reverse anything theyve done. . . This is one of the remedies to use when nothing else is working when they dont pay any attention to your Im not going to consent, I dont accept your offers, Im not here to contract with you, or any of the other approaches that weve used in the past. The reason Im not here to contract with you is because this is a sham pleading and you just make a motion to strike it and bring sanctions against the attorney that brought it because its a sham pleading, because it does not apply. But you better be able to look up things like, I just told you about the motor vehicle code. You got to look up the part that says that it only applies to vehicles in use for hire. Your vehicles not in use for hire so this is not a plausible view of the law applied to the casein violation of Rule 11bingo, bingo, bingo, you just won. They have been getting harder and harder to deal with in these courts because the governments need money so bad. Well, I think we ought to let them go broke but if theyre going to harass us while theyre going broke I think we need to harass them back and put a stop to them getting any money that they might be getting out of us unnecessarily. Put a stop to it as quickly as possible and this is one of the procedural ways that they have provided for us to do that. We should have found this years ago. IT certainly would have simplified a bunch of other cases. Even though weve done part of it we never did it thoroughly correctlynever followed what the rule said and never exposed what the rule says has to be exposed in its entirety. Now, we understand it betternow we can do it. Anybody needs copies of this dont hesitate to write to Gemini Investments at P.O. Box 398, Delmar, Delaware 19940 and please dont play silly games with the zip code. 02:26:52.924 just send a request for information from Moores Practice on Rule 11 and well send you what I just read and all the pages to go with it, not just those few paragraphs that I read and Ill even send you the pages out of a text book that discuss it from a law textbook called Wright and Miller on Civil Procedure. They discuss this. Truthfulness they call it in pleading and they discuss this. I cant help but to laugh, truthfulness Theres nothing truthful about anything a damned lawyer does. Theyre lying cheating conniving scheming thieves, all of them. I have no use for any one of them and if you think what we were talking about tonight is silly youre absolutely in for a rude awakening one of these days because if you get into any kind of trouble and you hire a lawyer, you let them appoint a lawyer for you, you will find out that if youd kept your stupid mouth shut and not accepted a lawyer that they couldnt have done much to you. But as soon as you accept a lawyer he will speak for you and they will use that against you even if youre trying to remain silent or he will force you and take you before the court and accuse you of contempt of court and possibly put you in jail if you wont tell them what they want to know because once you got a lawyer, like that man was

explaining, youre a ward of the state. Now you have no rights. You dont even have the right to remain silent. They can force you to speak. [Dave] So when you send your request to Howard please send a couple of bucks for his postage and photocopy costs. [Howard] Yeah, thats all I ask for too and thats just those who can afford it. If youre really in need weve been sending stuff out for years and thank heavens some people will send $20 and that covers a few people that didnt have the money and couldnt afford to ask for it and pay a couple of dollars even.