Howard Griswold Conference CallThursday, April 19, 2012 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 Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. 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 f oreseeable 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 s hipping ($35 barebones minimum) www.peoples-rights.com c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** 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/talkCas t.jsp?masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the weeks call at the follow ing 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 Gemi ni 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. ******************************************************************* **************************************** A recording of each Howard Griswold Thursday conference call is available from D ezert Owl upon request for any sized donation. Go to the following link: www.The RealPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html . For donations to desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, 121 Seaparc Ci rcle, Suite B, Kingsland, Georgia 31548. Phone number: 912-882-2142. Cell: 304-6 29-7169. 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 ***************************************************** { 01:09:22.501} [Howard] If you got a social security number you have taken advantage of the bene fits of civil rights. [Dave] And admit it by admitting your number has anything to do with you. Youre admitting youre the beneficiary. [Howard] No, youre admitting youre the sucker. Anyway, I was waiting for you to br ing that one up. Somebody told me that theyd sent that to you. I wanted to bring that up in relationship to the case that we put in a couple weeks ago with Mr. D onovan. Now, youre right but youre wrong because it doesnt just apply to the people that live in the fiction zone. It also applies to the people that live in the f iction world of the 14th Amendment and its civil rights benefits and thats where the problem really comes in. Any fictional person the police have authority over completely because theyre the civil authority looking out for the civil benefits recipients and making sure that every one of them follows all of the civil rule s that they have associated themselves to because they accepted the civil benefi ts and Im sure nobody understands that. As a matter of fact I probably just confu sed people by the way I said that but let me get into what I was going to explai n to you, the case that we worked so hard on with Mr. Donovan put together to go to the Supreme Court last Thursday morning and we submitted it on the 3rd to th e court. And on the 12th Mr. Donovan got a letter in the mail that the Supreme C ourt had docketed his petition for certiorari and ordered the government, the op posing party, to write their brief opposing his Writ of Certiorari for them to l ook at. Now, I said last week when I told you about that, that I wasnt sure exact ly how the Supreme Court did things. In most courts when you file something into the court and they put it on the docket then its scheduled for a hearing but I w asnt too sure that the Supreme Court did that because I know that the Supreme Cou rt is touchy. As a matter of fact they admit that in their own rules book. The f irst thing they tell you in the rules book is that they only accept about one pe rcent of the cases that are submitted to the court in a year or less than 1 perc ent. Thats a very small amount. I think somebody said something about theres over 7000 submissions on average to the Supreme Court by 7000 moron lawyers who one o f the Supreme Court justices once said that bad decisions come out of the Suprem e Court many times because of the incompetency to plead the case properly by the

lawyers that submit it. One of the other things that I found out was from the c ourt clerk of the United States Supreme Court quite a few years ago that most th ings dont even get past the court clerk. The court clerk reviews these petitions for certiorari and throws most of them out. They dont even go in front of the jud ges but then I found out too that the judges do look at some of them and throws most of them out. There are nine judges. They give all nine judges a copy. The j udges get together and talk about it and then decide whether theyll actually acce pt it and have a hearing on it and make a ruling of some kind. So its really touc hy to get something heard in the Supreme Court. But during the course of this we ek Donna got on the computer and she looked up US Supreme Court procedures. Now, this is different than US Supreme Court rules. This is the procedure that the c ourt applies to things and what they said was: If the justices decide to accept a casethat means to grant the petition for a writ of certiorarithe case is placed on the docket. Then according to the Supreme Court rules the petitioner has alre ady submitted a brief in their petition for certiorari and the opposing party ha s a limited amount of time to present a brief opposing it, not to exceed 50 page s. Who ever heard of 50 pages being brief? Anyway, after the petitioners brief ha s been files and the other party known as the respondent has given a certain amo unt of time to file a respondents brief, this brief is also so, you can respond to their brief and its also limited to 50 pages. So, each time, I found out by read ing on, that the court accepts and dockets one of these things they set a time f or the responding party to do something and then when the responding party does something they set a time and send you a letter and say that you have to have yo ur response in by a certain date. So theres no specific rules setting the time, j ust a specific rule stating the number of pages not to exceed 50. But what this really means to us is that the Supreme Court is going to hear Mr. Donovans case. They have docketed it for sure. It is on the docket and going to be looked at an d ruled upon. Now, interestingly enough twice tonight in different e-mails that Dave was reading somebody mentioned Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Unite d States Constitution. Now, Ive never heard this mentioned anywhere by anybody be fore. This is an awakening that seems to be going on here in the country that th e limited authority of the United States government is within Washington, D.C. a nd the ports, forts, arsenals and dockyards and needful buildings that they purc hase from the states by grant of the state legislature. Thats the limited authori ty of the government. They do not have authority to tell the police that they ca n strip search anybody at all except people in D.C. and ports, forts, arsenals a nd territories that they acquire and the state governments as Dave so perfectly stated a few minutes ago. Other than the extension of government beyond that goe s to the people who have accepted a contract to participate in government in any way, shape or form. So, like I said, I you have a social security number you ha ve contracted with the government to participate in their civil rights benefits program and they now have authority over you. A general presumption of the Supre me Court today could be that everybody comes under that category because for so many years so many people have participated in social security and their childre n picked up behind them and their children have picked up behind them and their children are picking up behind them so we pretty well got the entire society cov ered today because its been going on for so many years that everybodys covered. So the limited authority of government is no longer very limited due to the fact t hat ignorant people have stepped into a contractual agreement with the governmen t and brought the governments authority down upon them, but only people. Now, lis ten to me, only people. God is great, the beer is good and people are stupid. So me country western singer just put that into a song. I thought it was rather cut e. When I heard it I said, Ill drink to thatthe beer is good. Yeah, but people are c razy. Its out ignorance, our craziness, especially to go get what we want so bad that well do anything. Well give up our own rights. Well give up our own freedoms t o get something that we want like a job so that we can get money so that we can buy a car, so that we can get married, so that we can buy a house, so that we ca n do this, do that, do this, do that because we want to do, do, do. Its a damned shame that were so full of do do. We have ruined this country ourselves. Now, Ill grant you somebody made the offer and they might have been evil-minded people bu

t it was us who accepted the offer and we didnt have to. Our great, great grand p arents didnt have to. Our great grandparents didnt have to, our parents didnt have to, we didnt have to, our children dont have to, our grandchildren dont have to but were still doing it. Generation after generation, decade after decade we are doi ng it. Now, were putting ourselves in this position. It can be stopped and theres several ways to go about stopping it. But the people have to have enough gumptio n to stand up and stop it and I find that sorely lacking in the people because t hat singer is right, people are crazy. They dont want to work hard, they dont want to have to take care of things themselves. They dont want to be responsible for themselves in life. They want to be taken care of and the government promised th rough social security to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. All we ha ve to do is pay, pay, pay, pay while were capable of paying but if we become inca pacitated then theyll take care of us. If we become too old then theyll take care of us. And for some reason we think thats great. Most people today are living on social security that are retired. They have nothing else, nothing else, no inves tments, no means of supporting themselves, caring for themselves without that so cial security check. Im going to tell you something, ladies and gentlemen, theres going to be a lot of suicides when this system does what one of those writers in the e-mail said about the eminent collapse of it. The money system will go down . Theres no doubt about it. This kind of a money system has been around before an d every time it ever has it lasted for some period of time but it finally collap sed. This paper money system, non-value money, cannot continue on. It inflates i tself into oblivion and collapses. Presently, its inflating itself terribly. I th ink most people are aware of that. The money system is a much greater danger to you than the stupid little electronic meters {smart meterssmart gridirradiated cus tomers} that theyre putting on your electric box and were real concerned about the electronic meters on the electric boxes as though that meant anything but were n ot concerned about the money system. Well, I am. These are the things that come under the governments laws that the Supreme Court will rule in accordance with if somebody put the case in the right way. If it was well enough done that it was an issue that the Supreme Court would be willing to look at. Beats me how or why the Supreme Court looked because the Writ of Certiorari and the things that wer e petitioned to the court are never posted. So you cant find out what the lawyer said and just exactly how he phrased it to get the {Supreme} court to look at th is situation of strip searching people. But most likely it was in some way relat ed to civil rights benefits. These people are civil rights receivers and we have a right to keep a watch on them, to check them in any way. And we have this pro blem of drugs and people hide drugs in different cavities of their body. Good re ason to strip search then, isnt it? If you bring a question like that in the righ t way you will get an answer from the court and the answer would be just exactly what you got out of the court because of the way it was worded. People fall und er these laws. People fall under civil rights. Land doesnt fall under civil right s. Money doesnt fall under civil rights. Taxes dont fall under civil rights. They all fall under the Constitution. They can be questioned. What they do to people cant be questioned simply because people are government property. When you turn y our sole over to the State in the form of a birth certificate registration your body went with it. You have no sole left. You have no rights or interest in your own body. The government has control, complete control over it. Now, it depends upon, as I said, how these things are worded. No argument was put in, no statem ents of any kind related to the protection of people from unlawful searches and seizures because this was considered to be a lawful search of the individual sim ply because the individual is property of the government. Now, you might not lik e hearing that but I cant help what you dont likeIm telling you what the facts are. Your body became the property of the government when you turned it over to them through birth certificate and social security applications that you have signed and given to them. Thats not a happy thing but its a thing that has happened and i t can be changed but let me talk a minute about what we did and perhaps why the Supreme Court did take the petition that Mr. Donovan put in. Mr. Donovan did a l ot of work on this and I helped him a little bit. I got some of the girls to hel p me to work to do some of the typing because this was high-tech computer bull c

rap requirements. Everything has to be done on a computer and certain fonts and certain this and certain that. The size of the paper has to be a certain size an d size of the print from side to side has to be a certain distance. Ill tell you, all kinds of little stupid rules. So, the girls looked at the rules, sat down a nd typed it up and must have done it pretty good because it didnt get rejected by the court clerk for being improperly put together. So we got that far. Then I d id find out that judges do look at it and have a conversation and decide among t hemselves based on the basic questions that were asked as to whether or not they would hear the case. I think theyre interested in these kinds of cases that we p ut in, in many different ways. And eventually probably the 14th Amendment could be questioned as to its properness in accordance with the basic concept of the o riginal Constitution in the same manner as what weve done this. But this was a si mple little case. Theres nothing big about this at all but it could grow into big things because its going to fit exactly what people have started to bring up abo ut how Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States Constitution. And le t me read to you what our questions were that we presented for review related to the Clean Water Act and applying it to a private persons land inside the territo rial limits of the state. The private person has really nothing to do with this. They were applying it to the land. And they fussed at Mr. Donovan all the way b ack in 1987 because he put some fill dirt on the soil on about three-quarters of an acre of four acres of ground that he had and he had a permit from the state to put a building there, to build a produce stand, a large one, sort of like a s mall market. And, of course, he needed some level ground there to make parking o n. Thats why he put the fill dirt on, to level it up. It was wavy, uneven. Well, along comes the army corps of engineers, the United States government and tells him that he cant do that because this land is considered to be federally protecte d wetlands. Federally protected wetlands according to what I can understand from the way the Constitution set the government up means any wetlands that the fede ral government purchased if they had any right to purchase anything like that. B ut the Constitution didnt even give right to do something like that. They have no right to purchase pieces of land and set them up as parks. Theres nothing in the Constitution that gives them that authority, only forts, arsenals, magazines, d ockyards and needful buildings for government use and the District of Columbia a nd any territories that they acquire by appropriation such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the American Samoas. They appropriated them by force but th ey got them and theyve become territories of the United States. So the United Sta tes can make laws through Congress regulating that. Well get into that in a minut e. Right now, what were going to talk about is the fact that the government does not have authority to come into the states and enforce any of their laws within the states even though they could against state property because the state gover nment is an agency of the United States government and they could do something a bout state property. They cant do anything outside of state government on propert y. So, the question we wrote was: 1. Does the Clean Water Act being among the laws of Congress extend into the ter ritorial limits of the states or have force only in places that are within the e xclusive jurisdiction of the national government? A question of due process. Now, that might have been the key, right there, a question of due process. Gover nment due process is a big thing in the Supreme Court. They will always look int o due process. So that could have been one of the triggers that triggered this t o be looked at. But anyway, that was question number one. 2. Does federally protected wetlands mean only lands owned by the national gove rnment and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government or does it extend into the territorial limits of the state and privately owned land ? A question of due process. 3. Does the word, adjacent in the Clean Water Act actually extend the jurisdict ion of the United States 14.2 miles into the territorial limits of the states riv

ers and tributaries which are not waters of the United States used for commerce of cargo and passenger ships? A question of due process and jurisdiction. 4. Does the validity of the Clean Water Act turn in part on whether the law can be deemed necessary and proper for carrying into execution the Presidents Articl e 2, Section 2, Treaty power. See US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 and can it extend beyond national governments exclusive jurisdiction? A questi on of due process. Now, see what we brought up there? The main thing that ties that all together is whether anything of the above, questions 1, 2, and 3 or 4, fall under the const itutional authority of Congress to make laws in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18? Now, for those of you who dont know what that clause says Ill read it to you. C lause 18 says, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers which would be 1 through 17, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. Now, most people would read right through that and never even stop to think that Cong ress has the power to make laws in the government of the United States. Leave al l that gibberish in between out. They only have power to make laws that are nece ssary and proper in the government of the United States or any department or off icer thereofperiodend of the statement. They dont have authority to make laws for a nything but the government. Just as weve talked in the past about several cases, Twining v. State, Chicago Railroad Company v. Number One School District of Yuma County, Pierce v. New York. Theres three cases weve talked about that the courts have said that the state has the right to make all the laws it needs to regulate itself. The government has a self-regulating authority. It has no authority to regulate outside of itself. That authority cannot be granted to some corporation that is set up to do a government job because the corporation that contracts to do the job for the government is bound to stay within the limited authority of government. That was, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Morrel. So, the limi ted jurisdiction of both the state governments with their little town and city a nd county governments and the limited jurisdiction of the United States governme nt actually limits authority of government to within government, not outside of government. The way they got outside of government was to dupe the ignorant peop leall of them had an educationthats why they were ignorantinto a contract of some ty pe with the governmentall of which falls into a slightly different category. In o rder to bring up the question of whether the Clean Water Act, the Federal Income Tax Program, the Federal Reserve Bank making all the banks ins the land here, F DIC banks, meaning that theyre participating with the Federal Deposit Insurance C orporation, another private organization operated for the benefit of government which has to stay within the authority of government which means that they canno t come outside of government and set these banks up and prepare the ignorant peo ple to deal with those banks so that they will fall into the category of dealing with the government and being under the governments jurisdiction. Thats fraud. An ything like that, the whole 14th Amendment scheme of applying all this to people is not what was intended by the 14 Amendment. Its how lawyers have twisted it, h ow it has been bent out of shape and utilized for profiteering and against the A merican people. Nobodys argued these cases and brought arguments into the courts in the proper manner including me because it took us all this time for us to lea rn enough to figure out how in the hell it was really supposed to work. Ive been at this for years. I think most people know that and along the way Ive worked on a lot of cases with a lot of people and weve never been right. Weve been close. Wev e hit the nail so close to the edge of the head that it actually worried the jud ges and they were very reluctant to follow through on a case and impose any kind of a large fine or a big jail sentence in some peoples cases that have worked wi th me simply because we were too close and they knew we were close but they didnt know if we knew the rest. Well, they didnt know how stupid we were. No, we didnt know the rest yet. Were getting there, finally, after all these years were getting there. If it is not within the authority of government to do then they are bein g dishonest and they are breaching their fiduciary duty. A way to get these kind

s of cases on breach of fiduciary duty to the Supreme Court is through original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. You dont have to go anywhere else. You can go straight to the Supreme Court with a petition for a writ under the original writ act. So, we dont have to do what poor Dave has done and put up with these people from 1987 all the way until now to finally get in front of the Supreme Court. N ow, we started out in Daves case in 1987 when they first approached him. He told them that that was his private property and they didnt have any authority over it . Now, he didnt say they didnt have any authority within the territorial limits of the state because that was not something that we were aware of the language at the time. But he told them that they didnt have any authority. The word, authorit y, and the word, jurisdiction, are synonymous terms. The government jurisdiction means government authority. Its well understood if you look in the law books and do a little studying about it that thats synonymous in nature, one word to the other, meaning authority. So when he told them that they didnt have any authority he was basically saying that they didnt have any jurisdiction. When they filed a court case against him in 1993 trying to force him to remove the fill dirt beca use it was contaminating a ditch thats next to his property that runs into a cree k thats back behind his property several hundred yards that runs into a river tha ts a couple miles down the road that runs several miles from there on out to the Delaware Bay, 14.2 miles away from the Delaware Baybest we can calculate the mile age. It is not within their jurisdiction and that was the first argument that we put up. And believe it or not, the United States District Courts started out wi th their explanation of the case stating that Mr. Donovan told them that they do not have jurisdiction over him and his property. Well, thats one of the things t hat cemented the right to carry this thing all the way to the Supreme Court beca use you cant argue something in the appeals courts that you didnt bring up in the lower court. Now, if you dont challenge their jurisdiction in the lower court, yo uve got nothing related to the jurisdictional authority of government to do somet hing to you when you get into the appeals court if you can go that far. You have to challenge the jurisdiction in some form. There is a rule, Rule 12, in the fe deral rules duplicated in every state, almost the same verbiage, and sometimes d uplicated by Rule 12. In another couple of states they had to change the numbers and number them their way so you got to go look it up in those states to find o ut what number it is. Michigan, I think, is one of them that had to be funny and choose a different system of numbering the rules. But the rule is there in thei r rules, a rule to make a motion to dismiss by challenging whether the governmen t authority or jurisdiction extends to you or your property. We did this many a time in a lot of cases and gave all kinds of reasons to the court why they didnt have jurisdiction and the judge said, are you finished? Well, yeah, we threw everyt hing we got at you, were finished. He said, ok, I guarantee you I have jurisdiction . And he proceeded on and I kept wondering how. Where does he get the idea that h e has jurisdiction? Well, it took all these years of study to realize that we ar e considered to be residents of the state government. Read the 14th Amendment. A ll persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Well, the way they tied us in is they call us residents. Theres a presumption that we all r eside within government. Now, how could they create this presumption? They could nt create it over people that have no connection to governmentno contracts with th em. And well get into that in a few minutes. Theres a case and Im going to have to ask Dave if he remembers the name of the case but I recall reading this case. [Dave] Lucas v. South Carolina Environmental. He had a beach house and the stor m came and washed his beach house away so he rebuilt his beach house and the sta te Department of Environmental bird watchers came and said, you didnt get a buildi ng permit so you cant build here. So he took it to court. They said because he di dnt get a building permit they did not have jurisdiction to dictate to him. If he had gone and gotten a permit then they could have denied him but he didnt ask, h e just rebuilt his beach house without asking. They were unable to regulate him because he did not ask for a benefit or privilege or license to do something.

[Howard] Exactly. Precisely what point Im trying to make. We have asked for a ben efit or a privilege under social security application, birth certificate, regist ration applications, a benefit or a privilege from government to hold us for our good benefit. And in return we get all these wonderful benefits. Government wil l give us education, medical services. Yeah, they drug you to death in medical s ervices and they dumb us down in education but we think its wonderful. So weve acc epted all this. We contracted with them. We asked for a benefit. Mr. Lucas did n ot ask for a benefit, just as Mr. Donovan did not ask for a permit to put fill d irt. And the whole argument about this Clean Water thing was he refused to go ge t a permit and ask permission and be granted a privilege of putting some fill di rt on what they considered to be wetlands. And theyve dragged this thing out for all these years in the courts aggravating the life out of the poor man refusing to allow him to go ahead and build his building and use his property because he didnt get a permit. We even put that argument in some time back in the nineties a round ninety-seven. I think it was ninety-six or ninety-seven. The government ma de some kind of a motion and we made a counter-motion against them and brought u p the Lucas case and they just ignored it. At the lower levels of the courts you dont get much respect for anything at all so they didnt respect it. They ignored it but itll be brought back up here in the Supreme Court as a response to the gov ernment because when the government makes their response to his petition for cer tiorari that theyve given them the authority to do we have the right to make a re sponse to their response. And Im already prepared to use Lucas. I couldnt remember the name of the case. If I had thumbed through my files Im sure I would have fou nd it but Im glad you remember it, Dave. You got a better memory for names than I dosaves me from thumbing through the files. Now, I can just go look in the right place in the file. But anyway, we will bring that up in our response to their r esponse that he never asked for their permission. He did not give them jurisdict ion to come on the property. Now, property is different than people. People are property too but people get civil rights benefits. Property doesnt get civil righ ts benefits. Civil Rights benefits are only for people. So when you accepted the civil rights benefits you put yourself in a category of being strip searchable because youre controllable as government property receiving civil rights benefits . So you see why the Supreme Court ruled the way they ruled on that case today o r this week? Its the peoples own fault. Another people thats the peoples own fault i s too damned many of them use the drugs that are brought into this country and d istributed by the government, either on the streets that the government calls il legal and they make lots of money off both sides of that. The government brings the drugs in and sells them and then they prosecute people for buying and using them or the little guy who buys a bunch of them somewhere and goes out and sells them on his own, the prosecute them and either way they make money off the pros ecutions. {01:49:14.431} So theyre making money off of both sides of that racket and then they license doctors, give them a permit to peddle drugs under Alcohol , Tobacco and Firearms authoritytobacco not being a drugnever been declared to be a drugis the category under which all drugs fall. So they license doctors to be d rug pushers and thats legalizing the drugs and then tax the hell out of the docto rs for the privilege they gave them of being licensed to pedal drugsanother way t hat they make money from both sides on the drugs. If the people said no. The dru gs have side effects. Drugs are harmful. The bodys not made out of drugs. You dont patch a brick wall with wood. You dont patch a body thats made out of rocks and by the way, it is. Our body is mineral dust and air. You patch it with air and goo d clean oxygen or air and mineral dust. That rebuilds the body. It overcomes inf ections, it overcomes injury. It mends the body. Why would you use drugs? Only b ecause were educated to be stupid and weve accepted the damned drugs. And because theres so many people using the drugs that think its fun or nice or goodoh, its good . If I didnt have my drugs my high blood pressure would be out of control. And no it wouldnt, not if you knew what to do. Other things control high blood pressure besides their damned drugs. Their drugs, by the way, another one just got struc k down by the FDA {Federal Death Administration?} Food and Drug Administration a s being harmful and they removed it from the market. It was one of the ones that was being used for high blood pressure and now theres a big lawsuit about it and

if anybodys been adversely affected by this particular drug and its caused them a heart attack or if anybody in your family has died because of using Prolax or s omething like that, theres a benefit to calling these lawyers, reporting youve had trouble using this drug and theres compensation for you now. Interesting mess th ey created. But weve fallen for all this stuff, allowed it to happen. So no wonde r they have to do these strip searches because so many people are transporting d rugs in body cavities. I can see why the Supreme Court had to go along with that and agree that they had a right to strip search. Now, that will be taken, of co urse, that every cop has a right because everybody is receiving civil rights ben efits because everybody has applied for them. But well get into that in a minute. They have, theres not doubt about it, they have. And a lot of it was as I just s aid downright ignorance on the part of the people but not all of it. Some of it is whats known in law as undue influence or fraud in the factum. The government h ad no right, the government peopleits not government thats doing wrong, its the gove rnment people that are doing wrong. And those people had no right to tell you th at you had to have a birth certificate recorded for your child going all the way back to when they first started doing that to the mothers that were having chil dren. They had no right to do it. They had no right to tell people that didnt wor k for the government that they had to have a social security number. But they di d tell them and thats undue influence. And undue influence is fraud in the factum . Fraud in the beginning is what fraud in the factum means. And although it is s aid that fraud vitiates everything it doesnt until you bring it up and you have t o prove it. And thats not easy to do. But it gets easier as you study. You cant ju st say Ive been defrauded, that I was led into this by fraud and think you accomp lished anything because you havent explained how or what the fraud is. They had n o authority in the first place. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. State governmen t had no authority outside of government cases like Twining v. State. Because th ey had no authority outside of government and they unduly influenced you then th ey intentionally created a perversion of the truth. Now, youre starting to learn how to explain the fraud. Heres the definition out of Blacks Law Dictionary. Im no t sure which one but I think its either the 5th or the 6th or maybe its the same i n both. Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducin g another into reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to hi m or to surrender a legal right. It is a false representation of a matter of fac t whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations. Well, I wa s falsely led to believe that I had to do it. Now, youve started to explain the f raud, havent you? This is not real complicated. Actually a second grader could do it. But by the time you finish college youre not capable of even thinking for yo urself so best you quit school in the second grade. Anyway, it is a concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives and is intended to decei ve another so that he shall act upon it to his own legal injury. I didnt know. I believed this government official. I mean, government runs the schools. Governme nt and churches work together and run each other. They all lead us but they dont teach us what we should know. They just lead us so we didnt know. We didnt have an y basic knowledge of what the facts really were so they have given us false repr esentations of a matter of fact that I had to do something that I didnt really ha ve to do but I did it by mistake because they led me into it. And they did not h ave authority to do this under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 if its the federal . They did not have authority outside of the state government if its a state case based on the case that Ive already mentioned before. Now, youre beginning to expo se what kind of a fraud they perpetrated. The signing of any type of government documents including tax forms is all based on the signing of the application for a social security number which we were told that you had to have in order to ge t a job. Well, thats a lie. If anybody would have bothered to look it up in years gone by maybe somebody would have figured it out. Maybe they would have been ca pable of reading the language and understanding what it said. But maybe not, bec ause like Ive said so many times, education taught us to pronounce words. They di dnt teach us what they mean. They didnt teach us to learn anything about meaning. So when we read we can pronounce the words and we think we can read. But when wer e done reading we dont have any idea what the hell we just read because we dont kn

ow what things mean. We are the ignorant masses or as Neil Bortz says, the dumb masses. Now, dont say that too fast or youll know what he really called the Americ an people and I got to agree with him and Im part of it. We are dumb. We grow too soon old and too late smart because we learn so slow. What we finally learned i s that because government didnt have the authority to force us into or to spread their jurisdiction and statutory laws over us that we were defrauded. We were in tentionally told a lie for the purpose of inducing us into parting with valuable things by filing our land deeds in the recorder of deeds office or legal rights by surrendering our body property through birth registration, our labor propert y through social security registration. They are legal rights. You had a right t o work. You had a right to live. As a matter of fact the 14th Amendment sets tha t very straight. There is a good part to the 14th Amendment that they havent figu red out how to get rid of and that is, I think, the third paragraph of the 14 Am endment says no state shall interfere with the life, liberty or property of the citizens thereoflife, liberty or property. My life is my body, isnt it, and my sou l? And they were given away by the state coercing my mother into giving them a b irth certificate. I can guarantee you that the State of Maryland is really upset that they ever coerced my mother into giving me to them because they havent gott en any benefit out of me. All theyve got is a fit. [Dave] Without paying her the just compensation. [Howard] Well, thats important too. They did not pay her just compensation for th e property of my body that she turned over to them and theyve never paid me. Thats a good point, Dave. They do this kind of stuff and they get away with it all th e time. [Dave] So, the registration is actually a taking of your private property witho ut your understanding or awareness much less without the just compensation requi red. [Howard] Thats right. But the government gives us a lot more credit for intellige nce than we deserve. This is from Book Number 16, American Jurisprudence, which is an encyclopedia of law. It used to be able to be found in law libraries. Its d isappearing off the shelves. But at Section 177 and 178 of Book 16 of American J urisprudence it says that all persons are presumed to know the law. See, they gi ve us a lot more credit for intelligence than we really deserve. Were presumed to know the law. If any person acts under any unconstitutional statute he does it at his own peril. In other words if you dont know any better but you did it anyho w youre stuck unless you know how to bring up the argument of intentional pervers ion of the truth because they didnt have the authority to do it in the first plac e, they lied which is dishonesty which is breach of their fiduciary duty and the y are liable for what they did to you. Now, this all fits perfectly together. Im sure that it is still the comprehensible ability of most of the people out here especially some of the leaders that teach you how to do things. Theres a whole bu nch of people out here thats still pushing the idea of filing civil rights cases. Admit that youre a civil rights benefactor and holler that they did something to you that you dont think is rightit aint going to work. The only time civil rights cases have ever worked is when there was a lot of popular news medial coverage o f something that really wasnt right. I dont recall the guy out in California that they beat so badlyten different cops beat on him. [Dave] Rodney King. [Howard] Yeah, Rodney King. There was so much notoriety about that. We dont know the whole story but we do know that Rodney King was a drug user and probably was not of a clear mind when that incident took place and probably was very violent back toward the police and probably deserved some of the knocking around that h e got, maybe not quite as much as he got. That was a little bit abusiveI agree th at once he was down that was good enough. They should have stopped and they didnt

, they kept beating him. Thats where they got themselves in trouble because it wa s filmed by somebodymade it to the news and had a lot of notoriety. That case wen t to court and Rodney King won. I guess that would make a whole lot of ignorant people think that, oh boy, I can sue them because they did something stupid like write me a traffic ticket. No, you cant. You registered your car. You didnt have to but they told you that you had to. They had no authority to do it. The author ity of government rests within government. A government personnel driving a gove rnment car has to have a license and the car has to be registered. It doesnt appl y to private automobiles but it did begin to apply when we were ignorant enough to follow their undue influence and coercive tactics and go ahead and register t he damned car. Its our fault. You cant claim that they did something wrong in writ ing you a ticket when you did something wrong by putting the car in their contro l to start with so that they could write the ticket. So back to what An Jur said , all persons are presumed to know the law and if any person acts under an uncons titutional statute he does so at his own peril. Your traffic ticket is your peri l. Pay the damned traffic ticketdont fight about it. Now, back to the cases we wer e talking about like Lucas v. South Carolina. Mr Lucas did not get a permit, ask them for permission to put up the house. They couldnt do anything about it and t he Supreme Court ruled that he can go ahead and build the house because they cant tell him he cant because he never asked for permission. He never made a contract with them. He was outside of their jurisdiction. Mr. Donovan didnt ask for permi ssion to put fill dirt on his little piece of land. They had no jurisdictional a uthority, cant tell him that he can or cannot do that. But they can tell you what to do with your automobile. They can tell you what to do with your body. There has been numerous cases and some of this has been out in the news about putting people in jail because they didnt do what the doctor told them to do because they have control over your body. And the Laetrile case up in US District Court in B altimore Maryland laid out the reason why. A persons body is the property of the state and only the state has the right to regulate what goes into body. You dont have a right to determine what you can put into your bodyonly the government does . Why? How? The only way government, being a corporation, can do business is by some type of contract. Government is a fiction, a corporation. It does not have a hand to shake and a government official only represents the government and his hand is not there to be shaken in an agreement of some kind. It has to be a con tract. In order to do business with a corporation there has to be a contract. So , a contract as Dave has explained so many times in the past and Ive talked about it many times too is derived from two different actions. Somebody makes an offe r and somebody accepts the offer. Thats the essence of a contract. The government offer to hold your body in trust in their records and to secure your name for y ou by registering the name and description of your bodyseven pounds, five ounces, blue eyes, brown hair, malegood enough description for what it was. That secures the governments interest in your property because my mother signed an applicatio n for them to hold my body. So they offered to do it and my mother accepted. She had no idea of what she was doing. I can tell you my little 90 pound mother wou ld have torn that hospital down leaving there with me if shed have known what the y were doing to her. She wouldnt have put up with anything like this but she didnt know. We didnt know, none of us knew. We had no concept because education doesnt teach what Im teaching you about simple little things like how a contract is crea ted, an offer and an acceptance. And we dont realize that the government offered to hold our properties for us and we accepted by making an application for them to register it whether it be a deed registration of our land or a body registrat ion on the birth certificate or a labor registration on social security or a pup py dog registration to get a license for my dog who doesnt even drive much less t hat he need a license. It also doesnt pedal drugs to it doesnt need a license. No reason for my dog to have a license except money, a benefit for government. No r eason for them to hold my body in trust except moneya benefit for government. The y are able to use the value of my body as collateral for them to invest in the b usiness world. Theyre able to use my land deed. Theyre even able to use my puppy d og. They just got to get a lot of puppy dogs together to make enough value to eq ual a good sized loan that they make but thats alright theres a lot of puppy dogs

that are registered. Even though they dont have a whole lot of value if you put e nough of them together and it becomes a lot of value. We have put ourselves in t his position and only we can get out of this position. We have to spend a little bit of time studying the things that are being pointed out to you. Weve said bef ore that papers are available on how to file a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and some of the court cases that say that government is always in a trust position and as such all government officials are trustees with a fiduciary duty to act honestly, with integrity and the highest level of good faith. And when t hey do things like what we just explained tonight that was not good faith. It wa s an intentional perversion of the truth to dupe us into these registrations. Yo u got what you need to go after them. One person going after them is not going t o make much of a change and its very possible that you dont get very far in the lo wer court when you start. Youre going to have to apply yourself to reading the ru les, talking with us who understand some of the language of the rules and findin g out what to do to meet the rules to proceed on through the appeals courts or r ead the rules on how to do an original writ, an original jurisdiction action to the Supreme Court and go directly there with a complaint about these kinds of th ings, about the misuse of the 14th Amendment in this application of classifying younow, you cant say us. We cant do a class action suit for all the classes because theres some ignorant people out here that and lazy people that really love this system. They dont want to be out of it so let them stay in it. You cant sue for th e benefit of all. You got to sue for your benefit. You got to get yourself out. We got to get a lot of people together to do this. They will really fight you to oth and nail. Way back in the mid-ninetiesI havent heard from this fellow since ba ck then. He wasnt well, we might have lost him but he got real interested in what I was teaching about the birth certificate registration and he did petition the court for an order for them to return his birth certificate. He, by himself, di d this with the little bit of knowledge that we had at that time. We knew nothin g about breach of fiduciary duty. We didnt know how to put a case together proper ly. We didnt do it under civil rights but we didnt put it together properly under any other form of law really. We did what we understood at that time and they pu t five state lawyers in the court against himfive of them to work together to thi nk it out and help one another in the court to get around what he was saying and they messed it up so bad and he was actually bulldozing over them with what he was saying and the judge noticed it and the judge told the five lawyers to sit d own, shut up. He turned around to this fellow and he said, I dont care what you ha ve to say about this, Im telling you youre not getting your birth certificate back . This case is dismissed. Now, that judge was liable for what he did but we didnt know how to make him liable. We didnt know how to hold his nose to the grind ston e because we didnt know about breach of fiduciary duty. That was quite long off i n our research and our studies before we understand how to use that. Its might im portant to them to these people in government to keep you under their thumb, to maintain these registrations so that they can control not only your body, your w hole life but everything in your life including everything youve acquired in life like your land and your car and business or whatever you got they want control over it. Its not their right to have control so this whole thing was fraudulent. It was an intentional perversion of the truth to dupe you into giving them an in terest in your propertyvery simple how to show the fraud, isnt it? If you didnt lis ten to them and you knew better you would be in a position like Mr. Donovan is i n that they dont have any authority because he didnt ask for a permit or like Mr. Lucas was in that they didnt have any authority in South Carolina government to d o anything to him because he didnt ask for a permit. Weve asked for permission to do everything, to use our own body for labor. Thats what social security is. As a matter of fact if you look at the application it even tells you its a work permi t. It tells you on the 2nd page that they ask for all this information. Under th e Privacy Act they have a right to ask for all this information and the reason i s to keep track of those who are taking advantage of civil rights benefits. It s ays it right on the 2nd page of the social security application. I wonder how ma ny people bothered to read the stupid thing. Even if they read it I wonder if th ey understood what civil rights benefits means. Probably notif people did, my gra

ndfather, my father, if they did this would have been stopped a long time ago. T he question would have been brought up and made public. They didnt, I didnt until I took the time in life to do all this studying and research. All the years of s tudying and research that Ive done has narrowed down to these explanations that Im giving you today, these parts of the law that you need to look into. You dont ha ve to do everything that I did all these years. You dont have to go down these ra bbit trails that the law leads you down, that lawyers created just to create eno ugh of a deception that nobody would really understand what they were saying and doing. I went down those rabbit trails and found my way back, found pieces, put the pieces together. You only have to look at these few pieces. You dont have to do what I and so many others have done. So many others have gone down those rab bit trails, tried all kinds of things, put their life, their property, their inc ome in grave danger by standing up against these things, not having any idea how to do it. I think we should take our hats off to those people and ask God to bl ess them because they made mistakes certainly. They didnt know what they were doi ng because we dont have any knowledge of how this worked. And this thing is a bun ch of rabbit trails like I said and they were bound to get trapped in some of th e rabbit trails. But they did something, they stood up. Now, weve unwound how to do something about it and what to do. It all falls into these cases that Ive ment ioned earlier tonight. The law such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 limiting governments authority in the federal government. Im sure if we look in the state c onstitutions you will find a similar statement that the state legislature has th e right to make all needful laws for the state of blank. There will be some kind of language something like that somewhere in your state constitution. Its got to be because the courts have ruled that the state has all the power to make laws to regulate themselves that their laws apply to them. As a matter of fact I noti ced that. In the Maryland Annotated Code which I looked at way back in the early eighties on the first page of the code book it gives a little introduction to w hat this is and it says, this the annotated code for the State of Maryland and it contains all the laws for the State of Maryland. Well, the state of Maryland is the government. The state is not where you live. The state is not a place, its a thing. You live in a territory within the territorial limits that the state has control over or jurisdiction over but not in the state unless you work for the s tate. The state is the state of the forum, the government. They dont have authori ty beyond themselves. Their laws are for them. They have all the power that is n ecessary to make laws to regulate themselves. We, as individuals, and I think th is was rather well stated by Madison in Paper No. 39 of the Federalist Papers th at as the national citizenry we have all the power to regulate ourselves. We are supposed to be self-regulating. Were not competent to be self-regulating thanks to education and religious training but we are supposed to be self-regulating. N o wonder they need to strip search us because so many morons are transporting dr ugs and hiding drugs and using drugs. Yeah, we arent self-regulating, are we? We cant control ourselves properly. Too many of us are completely out of control and I dont say of you all because, by golly, Im just as stupid. I made as many mistak es and I never use drugs. That was one thing I never got into. I saw people use them and said, not me. I was regulate that much of myself. But many, many other m istakes I made. I signed contracts with the government. I signed my name on pape rs that made me liable for thingsdidnt realize what I was doing, had no idea what a bad situation I was putting myself in. Im not any smarter than anybody else, a little more sensible maybe when it comes to something like drug use but not smar ter. Had trouble regulating myself, keeping things straight in life. I noticed that everybody around me did and most people had more trouble than I did. One of the reasons why I spent the time looking to find out what the truths were to tr y to help people, to guide them so that they didnt have so much trouble regulatin g themselves. Well, Im not sure that what Ive done is really going to result in an ything except bringing this government to a collapse and causing a lot of suicid es because I think a lot of people when the goodies that theyre accustomed to are nt available will give up and commit suicide. I really think were in for an awful lot of that in the very near future. It was too late, but maybe, just maybe, tho se people were not Gods people anyway. Dont care what religion they havedoesnt matte

r. Religion has nothing to do with if whether they were Gods creation or his enem ies, the creation of Lucifer. Thats what separates people, not what religious bel iefs you fall for. Next week well pick up on some very specific details about using fraud more speci fically in the way you put the argument together. This is very important that yo u understand this and dont just make broad statements that it was fraud. That doe s not work. Its not explained. Because its not explained it cant be applied. It cant be accepted by the courts. And you notice we didnt say a thing in those question s to the court about fraud but we certainly showed the fraud that they try to ex tend their authority beyond their exclusive jurisdiction. Thats fraud. Didnt say i t, didnt need to say it, we showed it and the court is going to look at it. The c ourt is going to hear it. People are telling me I should be right proud of that. Hell, I didnt do this, Mr. Donovan did it. I helped a little bit. Yeah, Im proud, I proud of Mr. Donovan for getting this far, for standing up so hard.