Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, July 21, 2011

 

 

Howard G call July , 28 2011

http://www.freeconferencecalling.com/recordings/Recording.aspx?fileid=MN3488_07282011183649735_1072752&bridge=464340&email=&accountid=464340

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, July 21, 2011

Partial

Howard Griswold Conference calls:

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

Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.

‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes

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

All correspondence to:

Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940

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

“All” Howard’s and GEMINI RESEARCH’s information through the years, has
been gathered, combined and collated into 3 “Home-Study Courses”

********************

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth

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.

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

****************************************

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!

*****************************************************

Start

*****************************************************

{01:26:57.152 }

[Howard]        It’s amazing what’s coming out. It was probably twenty years ago that we first started talking about what Title 4, the United States Code says about the American flag with the gold fringe on it. It is the military flag representing the authority of the military through the president of the United States as commander-in-chief of the military which means in all courts, and by the way, you wonderful religious people who go to all these religious institutions that are flying the same flag, you realize that that religious organization you belong to is an agency of the military. But anyway, so much for your religious stupidity. The stupidity of what’s going on in the courts has continued for years. That flag flying the gold fringe in the courts as well as your churches represents the military jurisdiction over government institutions.

Did you hear what I said? Over government institutions. It constitutionally cannot extend its authority which means the same thing as the word, jurisdiction, over private individuals and interfere with their private liberty in violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution which is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment nor over their private property which is the 5th Amendment and it too is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. So it covers the entire country in proper authority to maintain and preserve liberty and private property in this country. They are ignoring that in its entirety. They are bringing this as a military tribunal against you for an artificial court martial examination and administration of the statutes against private individuals in violation of their own laws. They’ve been doing this for a long, long time. We’ve talked about it many, many times in the past that it’s a military tribunal. It has nothing to do with you and I. It doesn’t have jurisdiction over us. Well, again, most of our words have fallen on deaf ears and nobody has really understood how to go in there and bring it up and argue it.

So that article that Dave was reading about the military courts and bring these charges under the court martial type of investigations against private individuals. Now, even if you are in fact a member between fifteen and forty-five years of age of the state militia that is the unregulated, unorganized militia. Unregulated means it’s not regulatable by government or by military. It’s unorganized and unregulated depending upon the wording that they used in a particular state statute establishing the militia for the state that is not state controlled. If it’s not state controlled then it cannot extend the military authority to you whether you’re male or female as was mentioned in that article. In the event that this is attempted to be done this court lacks jurisdiction over you due to the lack of subject matter as well as the lack of personam which are things that Dave has talked about and recited different statements about that time and time again on our calls coming from the research that’s been done by myself and several other people around America that have been working on these things. And then I don’t think that the words that we’ve used have gotten through to the people yet. Well, somebody has very kindly put together a list of cases and cites and statements from these cites on jurisdiction. I don’t know who put this out.

A couple of these cases I’m familiar with. So those cases that I’m familiar with I know that he’s on the right track. I will presume that most of the rest of the cases that he brought up are related to that right track. I haven’t checked them all. I haven’t had time, there’s too much other stuff going on right now. But if you’ll get your pencil and paper out, get the hell away from your computer keyboard where you think you can put all this information and remember how to write, you might want to write some of this down. These are court cites that you can look up that you can use in the courts especially if you bring up the fact that it’s a military tribunal. This is a court martial investigation by you over a private citizen that is not a member of your military and not under the military jurisdiction. And there is no discretion to ignore the lack of jurisdiction by a court, no discretion to ignore the lack of jurisdiction by a court—Joyce v. US at 474 F2nd, page 215. When challenged the burden shifts to the court to prove that it has jurisdiction, Rosemond v. Lambert and that is 469 F2nd, page 416. The court must prove on the record all jurisdictional facts related to the jurisdiction asserted—in other words, if they’re asserting that you belong under a military tribunal for a court martial investigation and administrative action they must prove that you come under the military. But as Ronald Reagan so aptly said, taxpayers in America are government workers that have never taken a civil service examination. In other words, you’re not there, you’ve never been indoctrinated into the system because you’re not part in reality of any function of government unless you took that test and applied for a job yet they apply these rules and laws to the private citizen as a taxpayer all the time and they get away with it because we don’t know how to bring up the jurisdictional facts and make them prove them that they have asserted these facts and that they are factual facts. That case is Lantana v. Hooper and that’s 110 F2nd, page 188 and another case that said the same thing, Chicago v. New York and that is in 37 F. Supp., at page 150. The next statement is a universal principle as old as the law is that a preceding in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. No jurisdiction, no legitimate judgment. Norwood v. Renfield and that is 34c 329. And I’m not sure what c is. You could probably find it googling it on the computer, 34c, 329. That’s probably very old and it might even be an old English case. Another case that cited the cited the same thing is ex parte Giambonini. That’s at 49 Pacific Rptr, page 732. That probably has the reference in it to 34c, 329. It might even explain that it was an old English case. Anyway, the next statement backed up by another court case is Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear it’s void ab initio meaning from the beginning. In re Application of Wyatt at 300 P. (Pacific Reporter), page 132. And re Cavitt at 118 P. 2nd (P2d) at page 846. Reiterated that same statement. That means it was done long ago. It was renewed more recently. Next statement. Thus where a judicial tribunal had no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumed to act its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term, Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P. Rptr, page 27. The next statement, a court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to continue on against you. You understand? Now, interestingly enough, listen to this cite that states that, Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles. And that is 331 US Rpts., page 549. A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law however closed apparent or apprehensive to mere form in method of procedure which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right is an excess of jurisdiction. Just note that as excess of jurisdiction. Too long to write that all out. And that case is Wuest v. Wuest at 127 P. Rptr 2nd ed., P2d, page 934, specifically at page 937. Whoever quoted that one did it right. Next comment by another court, where a court fails to observe safeguards, meaning observe the law, and the safeguards provided within the law to prevent unlawful executions of debt collection and things like that within the courts, where the court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to a denial of due process of law and the court is thus deprived of jurisdiction. Now, that relates to what I’ve said before about the guarantees of liberty under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and the guarantees of private property under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution which is not only applicable to the federal government but also applicable to the state governments through the 14th Amendment guaranteeing the right of life, liberty and property in the 14th Amendment so due process of law really counts. Any failure of the court to observe the safeguards that you bring up denies the court of jurisdiction due to the denial of due process. And that is Merritt v. Hunter 170 F. 2nd (F2d) at page 739. All of this stuff relates very specifically to what Dave was reading to you about the fact that these are military tribunals and they’re bringing these claims as an investigation of the private citizenry under military rules and controls and they don’t have jurisdiction to do that unless you are actually in the real military or within any function of government that is controlled by military. Now, that gets into a completely different subject much of which we have talked about in the past. Under the Revised Statutes of Congress in 1871 the military was given the authority over the entire executive branch of government, the entire judicial system, the entire banking system and all other agencies of government created under Congress—not over Congress—nothing in there giving them authority over Congress. Of course, Congress made all these laws so they didn’t want anybody to have authority over them. But even the president of the United States is under the authority of the military according to the revised statutes of 1871. In those statutes there are references to the protections of private property and the protections of liberty of the people. They’re to be left out, to be respected and left out of any claims or charges by the military against the people whether it be quasi-military, so-called police or quasi-military sheriffs—and that’s all they are today because they’re all agencies of the judicial system which is under the control of the military. This is a real mess, isn’t it? It’s absolutely hard and almost impossible to believe how damned corrupt they have made this and gotten away with it because of not teaching the truth to the American people and exposing what they’re supposed to be doing properly and pulling the wool over our eyes for years. Anyway, there’s one more interesting jurisdictional fact here that’s worth getting into and that is the fact that a petitioner, which means you, was released from prison, I guess, on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment. That fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in the first instance there was a probable cause for arrest. Now, in order to determine that there really is a probable cause for arrest the authority of the government truly rests within the common law criminal charges of robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery. Any other charges are contractual in nature and even if they contracted with you because you and I are stupid and we did contract with them in many ways, we’re still the private sector and they cannot use that commercial contract law to violate the basic rights of an individual under the Declaration of Liberty in the 4th Amendment and the Declaration of Private Property in the 5th Amendment. And that seems to have been brought out fairly well in this case, Monroe v. Tapa and that is 121 F. Supp. at F.Supp at page 685.  Now, every bit of what Dave was reading to you about the fact that these are military tribunals, that they are imposing military law and rules and regulations established for the good of the government that military has control over in these courts is for those who were employed in the government and for government property to be protected by government for the benefit of government. These laws apply to government. They do not apply and cannot apply to the private sector of people although they’ve been doing this for a long, long time. The only answer to how to do something about this rests within the most recent research that we’ve been doing into breach of the public trust and, of course, the public trust establishes a fiduciary duty and breach of fiduciary duty complaints against them for dishonestly bringing these claims against the private individual in violation of the private individual’s guaranteed and protected rights under the Constitution. Never call it Constitutional rights. It’s always guaranteed and protected rights of the individual in accordance with the Constitution. We don’t have Constitutional rights. That is a misnomer created by lawyers to throw everybody off and make you think that the Constitution applied to you. The Constitution applies to the government. Barron v. the City of Baltimore , an 1883 case. Barron owned a waterfront property and ships came in and they were loaded and unloaded at his dock and the City of Baltimore did some excavating work on some ground nearby. The rains came along and washed some of the loose ground down into the harbor and built up the bed in the river so high that ships could no longer get into his harbor and load and unload and effectively put him out of business. So that in his mind constituted the taking of his property without just compensation by government in violation of the 5th Amendment. Well, remember now, this case was 1883. ~~That’s before the Civil War??? and the enactment of the 14th Amendment. The court at that time said that he failed to properly sue Baltimore City government because he sued them under a violation of the 5th Amendment which did not apply to Baltimore City government. It only applied to the government which the Constitution and that Bill of Rights created and to no one else. Did you understand what the court said? That many years ago they were honest enough to state that the Constitution applied only to the government that it created and so did the Bill of Rights, only to the government that it created and to no one else. It doesn’t apply to you and I. It was extended to apply to the states in the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the only good part of the 14th Amendment. The rest of it was a sham perpetrated on the American people to trick you into believing that you were resident within the state government when you weren’t even an employee of the state government, another scam operated by lawyers in violation of the meaning of the wording and the intent of the entire Constitution and its amendments. These are dishonest acts by lawyers, judges and government agents who were told by lawyers and judges that they can do these things to the people. Any people that do any of these kinds of things to you deserve to be sued for breach of their fiduciary duty. You can show that the courts in the case they brought against you did not have jurisdiction by understanding what Dave read to you earlier tonight. You ought to get a copy of that, military tribunals and court martials and that’s the only place you have a right to be represented. Get that article from Dave and hopefully you’ve wrote down this stuff that I just said about the jurisdiction of courts. If you didn’t and you need a copy of it, you can write to Gemini Investments or, Dave, didn’t this come from you? Yes, it says, to H on the back page so I think it came from you. You have a copy of this, Dave, so probably you could get it by writing to or e-mailing Dave at www.peoples-rights.com asking for the article on jurisdiction and actually Dave wrote jurisdiction cases on the top of it because whoever put this together put no heading whatsoever on it. He just started out immediately naming cases. We can send it to you either from Gemini or Dave can send it to you if you want this information on jurisdiction. And when the court acts improperly, dishonestly, and continues on with a lack of jurisdiction when you’ve shown them their lack of jurisdiction because of some of the things that we are teaching and you’re becoming aware of then that judge is liable for a suit for breach of his fiduciary duty. And if this doesn’t get started happening around this country soon I can tell you that people are going to continue to suffer until this whole thing finally collapses in a very short time—probably about a year and a half. As a matter of fact I’m not even sure these cases would ever get completely executed in the courts. But it sure will change things and open up the minds of some other people that understand why the judge got sued, the ones that worked for the judge or work around the courts in any way or even some of the corrupt lawyers that don’t even know that they’re corrupt that are doing things that they were taught to do because they don’t know any better. It will wake some of them up. This needs to be done. We don’t have much time left before this system unfolds completely. It’s been coming apart for a long time. They’ve been propping it up artificially for a long time. They’re going to run out of props before long. Even if they extend the debt ceiling—I  don’t care if they extend it another 50 trillion dollars. That sounds like a hell of a lot of money, doesn’t it? That should cover them for the next ten years or better, shouldn’t it? Fifty trillion extra dollars of debt to go into. The only problem is they’re not making enough money to pay off the debt so it matters not how high they raise the debt ceiling on how much they’re allowed to borrow. What matters is whether or not they’re taking in enough money to be able to pay the debt and keep up with the interest on it. And after they renege on paying the debt for a certain period of time the bank will foreclose on them and shut them down including the International Monetary Fund. It will only extend credit for just so far based on what the country has to put up as security. If the country cannot show that it has an income which is its security from its people because the whole system is failing and the people aren’t even working and they aren’t producing and money’s not coming in from the normal revenue sources then it doesn’t have enough money to continue to pay its debts. It will go into default. This will happen within one to one and a half years from now based on the present mathematics that they have admitted to us. Somewhere in that range of one to one and a half years they will run out of the ability to pay. It will not matter how high the debt ceiling is raised. They won’t be able to borrow any more once they can’t pay. That will lead to a collapse of their money systems and it will domino effect all across the paper money government systems of the world in a quick and fast, I should say, reaction to the collapse of the first one. And it won’t matter if Greece goes first or the United States goes first or China goes first—it won’t matter. One will start the ball rolling and it will have a  domino effect. And I think you might have seen the indications of that in what has just recently happened in the last two and a half years in the monetary systems all across the world. When one went down the other ones went down. Well, they propped them back up artificially and they didn’t go all the way down. They can only get away with this for a short period of time because they can’t pay the debt. The debt’s getting way too high. The interest on the debt is way too high and the income is way too low. It’s almost the same situation as most of the households of live natural people in every one of these countries are suffering from today. This is not just an American problem. This is an international problem and all the paper money government systems the people are living from hand to mouth. They don’t know what’s going to happen next. They are not spending much money. What little they have they’re sitting on. And some stupid people are investing like crazy thinking that they’re going to make more dollars so that when the whole thing collapses they’re going to have all these dollars having no idea that all those dollars are going to become completely worthless. Stupid can’t be fixed, can it? Anyway, we can do something to help this along. But I don’t think what we do is going to help it very much. The only thing that’s really going to help is to extend the knowledge of things like what we’ve talked about tonight that the courts don’t have this jurisdiction that they claim to have over us, that we are not military personnel, that we are private individuals. We are not part of the government. We’re not residents within the state government as they try to claim us to be and that these judges and lawyers that bring these kinds of claims into the court are dishonest and that is a breach of their fiduciary and public trust duties. And if we start filing the suits—alright, so it’s going to cost you a couple hundred dollars today to file the suit. File it—they’ll put in a motion to dismiss—very simple answer to that, you have presented an adjudicable case before this court and the court cannot dismiss an adjudicable case. So  there goes their motion to dismiss. Now, within twenty to thirty days, depending upon the local rules of court wherever you’re filing this they have to answer. When they fail to answer you can move for a summary judgment by default on their part and go after them for whatever amount of money you sued them for. Now, whether you’ll collect or not I couldn’t tell you. That’s up to you and how well you know how to use the collection process at the court, how well you study the rules of court and whether or not this little scum bag you’re dealing with actually has anything worthwhile. He’s probably got a house that’s under water. He owes more on it than it’s worth. He’s probably got a car that he owes more on than what it’s worth because it lost thousands of dollars in value the day he drove it off the showroom floor and he still owes all those thousands of dollars. Most of these people don’t really have much. They’re in debt. You may not be able to collect but you never know. Some of these little scum bags have accumulated some artificial wealth in this money system, either money in the bank or property that’s paid for and you can take it. Now, I don’t know if you’ll ever be able to sell it. Somebody in the country just called the other day and told me that it came out on the local news in the area that they live in that realtors were crying and complaining because they had people signed up and applying for mortgages to buy houses and suddenly all of these people had backed out and refused to proceed with the sale. They’re not buying these houses at these prices and the realtors explained that the people’s excuse was they think the value of the house is going to go even further down, much further down, and if they buy it at this price now they too will end up under water soon so they’re not going to buy. You know what, there’s a possibility that stupid can be fixed. It sounds like the people are starting to think for themselves and not act so stupid. They’re actually using their brains. What an amazing phenomena. Apparently, they’ve even given up the fear that using their brain might strain the brain stem. There is an awakening going on and as the people awaken and withdraw from dealing with the system the system will not make enough money to pay its debts and that problem will get worse and worse and it will default and there will be an international default of one country after another when all this takes place. And it’s taking place in every land in every country, whatever you want to call it that for every government that operates under paper money and they all do. There will be a total collapse. Mathematically they cannot continue to do what they’re doing and stay afloat. It won’t mathematically work out. I’m sure some moron with a college education that studied economics could tell you that I’m wrong that the way to do this is to spend your way out of debt. That’s the Keynesian economic theory. Spend your way out of debt. Borrow more money, spend the money, borrow more money, spend the money, spend your way out of debt. How in the hell do you ever pay off the debt under that system of Keynesian economics? You don’t. Eventually, it is going to collapse. They are giving you the answer when they explained the Keynesian economics of borrowing money and spending your way out of debt. They’re giving you the answer that it will fail. But some people would grasp it and think enough to understand that something like that can’t work. And other people say, ‘oh, well, the lawyer said it, the politician said, they can do it.’ Yeah, ok, they’re the ones that stupid can’t be fixed. But in reality we can wake a lot more people up if we would just bring some of these law suits exposing some of this corruption. I’ve already got a few of them started. I’m pushing to get somebody else, several other people, to start helping people that need help in understanding a little bit more in how to write it up, to assist them in correcting what they write up. But every one of these situations I am trying to get people to write it themselves. You’re the one that experienced what was done. I didn’t. How can I explain what happened to you. I wasn’t there. You’re the best one to explain what happened. You have to write it up. Now, I’ll grant you there are some legal terms that should be used that you might mess up on. There is some wording that might be unrecognizable in legal language that you might use that is street language. We’ll help you to correct that but we can’t write it for you because we didn’t experience it. You’re the one who has to think about what we’ve taught you, what the actual law says, what your property rights are, what your liberties are that are being violated, who done it, why they did it, and put that all down in the complaint. Now, I’d strongly suggest that you don’t put these complaints into the court asking them to do it for free. I know a lot of people like to do that because their money is tight. I would suggest that you scrimp and scratch and save until you get up enough money to file it because what we found out over the years is they don’t pay much attention to cases that they do allow you to file for free because they’re not making any money off of it. This whole system, this whole world, is all based on money and profit, greed. You get more results when you give them a little bit of profit. So give them a couple of dollars for the filing fee and go after somebody for what they’ve done. As a matter of fact that article that Dave was reading about the Transportation Securities Authority, TSA, there’s a whole lot of people that would have a breach of public trust and beach of fiduciary duty case against agents of the TSA for the things that they’re doing to people in the airports. I don’t know how many people on here that are listening that know somebody that might have had that trouble but write to us, ask for that form on how to do a breach of fiduciary duty case. Other nights we will talk about constructive trusts and how to recover property that they’ve taken from you but tonight I’m discussing not constructive trusts. That has a different purpose but breach of public trust and breach of fiduciary duty and how some of the things that you’re learning about, not just from us but other information that is coming out from around the country and different people that have done research. The information is coming so darned fast we can’t keep up with it. But there’s specific parts that we know enough to point out to you like the article that Dave read to you about the representation is only available in a court martial case. Ask Dave for that article. Read it carefully. Ask us for the stuff on jurisdiction that I was just reading in those court cites. And if anybody knows how to do it there’s a function on the computer under the law libraries called Shepardizing. The gentleman that wrote these books must have done a tremendous amount of work and I think his name was Shepherd and it’s called Shepherizing because the books are called Shepherd’s manuals and what they do is they list the particular case like the one that I cited tonight and then they list any other case throughout history that has been ruled on, on the same subject matter. Now, the cases I gave you tonight are rather old and I’m sure that we can find much newer cases if we Sherherdize these old cases and that can be done. You may have to go to a law library and use their computer to do it or you may have to get in touch with someone that you know that has Lexis Nexus or West Law and they can get into Shepherds and Shepardize these things and bring them up to date. The Shepherd’s catalog will list that particular court cite that you’re looking for and maybe several of them before it and a whole line of them after it and it might come all the way up to 1995, 2000 and something cases where that same subject matter has been discussed in the same identical manner meaning that these old cases are not irrelevant, they’re not meaningless that the law has been the law all the way through. The corruption has set the law aside and been dishonest and that’s why we have the availability of these breach of fiduciary and breach of public trust cases against these people because they’re not following the law. They’re being dishonest. And that’s all public trust is about, basically. To summarize that whole pile of stuff that we’ve been reading in the past on the duties of a trustee, the major duty of a trustee which is what all government officials are is to maintain honesty and loyalty to the trust instrument, honesty and loyalty to the trust instrument. The Constitution is the trust instrument that created the government that they work for. They must be loyal to it and when they aren’t then they’re dishonest and disloyal and they are liable personally to you for any injury that they personally caused you by their dishonest and disloyal conduct. Do you understand me? Am I making my point clear? This is not seriously complicated. The most complicated part of this is probably for an individual to write the story out of what has happened to him and what’s been done and what’s been done by some government official that did it dishonestly and definitely disloyal to the mandates of the Constitution to protect your individual rights, your liberty and your private property. That’s your individual rights and you’ve been deprived of them and many of the courts will ignore anything that you bring up about that and proceed on as though they really have jurisdiction when in fact that one case that I read said something to the effect that, where the court failed to observe safeguards that amounts to a denial of due process of law and the court is thus deprived of jurisdiction. Merritt v. Hunter 170 F2d, p. 739. Any dishonest act of these government people such as whoever that was on the phone that asked me about the traffic case problem. Requiring you to have a driver’s license for you private automobile is a breach of the public trust, a breach of their fiduciary duty to be honest. They have no authority to regulate your private property, make you get a license to use it or make you get a license tag and registration with the government for your private…   You got them for breach of fiduciary duty. Write to us, get the form, we don’t charge a lot of money for any of this kind of stuff, particularly this form is so important I don’t want this put out for any amount of money by anybody at all. I want it to be out there and be available to everybody at the least possible cost. The only thing I ask you to do if you write to Dave or write to me for it is to send a dollar to two to cover mailing and printing costs. That’s all we ask for. Keep us going. Don’t run us in the ground with expenses and not support us enough to at least pay our expenses. We’re not here to make a profit off of any of this. I want the people informed. I want the people to have knowledge and understanding of how they’re been duped and taken advantage of. The American taxpayer is the sucker that they pass all the government debt onto. They have no right to do that to us. It is the government’s duty to protect the American people, not to dupe us out of property and our wealth but they’ve certainly done that to us. You have the power to do something about this by bringing these cases even if you don’t understand how to proceed with them but I just told you how simple it’ll be. They’re going to make a motion to dismiss. I told you how to answer that. When there’s an adjudicatable cause before the court, the court cannot dismiss the action. So their motions to dismiss should be struck for that reason. That’s all you have to write as an answer to their motion to dismiss. They are due, then, within some number of days, twenty to thirty depending upon the rules of the local court to answer after the motion to dismiss has been struck and denied. Then they have to answer within that number of days. They have to answer line by line what you said in your complaint. They can’t do it. What are they going to do? Deny the fact that they dishonestly brought claims against you that they had no right to bring. They can’t answer. They won’t. After that number of days are up, in another five days or so that give mailing time for the answer then you can go in with a motion for a summary judgment under, I think, it’s Rule 59 of most state rules or federal rules for summary judgment based on the fact that they have defaulted and not answered. Not a big complicated case, is it? Not that hard for a non-lawyer to do. And don’t think you’ll ever get a lawyer to do this for you. As Dave read to you in that other article that you ought to get a copy of about the lawyers and we’ve taught many years ago, the lawyers are on the side of the government and the banks. They’re not on your side. You’re the fourth in line for them to make any consideration of, in any of the arguments that they’ve put into the court. The first argument they put into the court have to be in accordance with what the court wants, with what the government, that that court is a party to wants and what the businesses that the BAR association is associated with want such as the banking industry. I don’t like being fourth in importance so I wouldn’t hire a lawyer. As a matter of fact on time back twenty some years ago when I was playing around in the courts creating fights every once in a while a judge said to me, ‘you need to get a lawyer. You should have a lawyer.’ And I said, ‘judge, I am perfectly capable of screwing something up entirely by myself. I don’t need an idiot to help me screw it up.’ Well, that judge shut right up. He didn’t say another word to me about getting a lawyer.

http://www.archive.org/details/HowardGriswoldConferenceCallthursdayJuly282011

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s