Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, April 12, 2012 Conf call (talkshoe) 724-444-7444 95099# 1#

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, April 12, 2012
Howard Griswold Conference calls: 
Conf call (talkshoe) 724-444-7444  95099# 1#
(non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number)
Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.
Talkshoe mutes the phone lines
Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 PM, Eastern Monday’s, 218-844-3388  966771#
Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.)
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.)
Donations are accepted.

Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: 
Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard.
Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs.
Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.
For reference:
Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd )
Project for all:
Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust.
Hit the libraries! 
He would appreciate any research help.
Let’s get onto a little bit of a happier note. Strangely and extremely unusual, I told you a week or so ago, two weeks ago that I was really stressed and working hard putting together for one of our people a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. This was a pain in the Kazoo. The rules are ridiculous. The computer crap that they want you to do is all high tech foolishness that’s now in the rules that you have to do in order to meet their requirements to do it correctly. The girls that I have working for me are rather familiar with the computer and still couldn’t find and utilize some of the things that had to be done. Put it together pretty well. Had to send it to a company in Washington, D.C. To finish up and put in the few things that we couldn’t put in and pay them, of course, and they submitted it on time to the United States Supreme Court.  This morning Mr. Donovan who this was for and done by mostly got a letter from the United States Supreme Court, court clerk’s office stating that his case had been docketed. I can only presume if that court works the same way as others that if they put on the docket it means it’s going to come before the court. It’s going to be heard. Absolutely amazing, isn’t it? A couple of little people, no lawyer involved, about five of us, worked together and helped Mr. Donovan to put this together and a couple of my girls helped do the typing. And we pulled it together in time by the skin of our teeth and got it filed before the ninety days was up, on the ninetieth day, by the way and with the help of the company in Washington, D.C. who does these things for people or any part necessary to be done that you can’t do so this is the government’s way of creating more jobs. They created all these rules so it would be so complicated that only a few people would be able to do it and there’s only two companies in this country that do it, one in Utah and one in Washington D.C. And they have whatever programs it is necessary on the computer to put it together the way it’s required to be put together. And they finished it up and they got it all put together and filed by the third of April. And, today, as I said, Mr. Donovan got a letter informing him that it was docketed which I presume means if they put in the docket then they put it in there for the judges to look this over and review it. Now, if this was Mr. Donovan’s case that’s been going on since 1993 the government filed a complain in the US District Court in Wilmington, Delaware against him for supposedly violating the Clean Water Act which is a United States Congress Act for the United States government to protect the waters of the United States. Well, this has been a money-making racket for the government. They have been pestering people. As a matter of fact you read some of these cases about this that have been taken to the courts. They bother people about puddles in their front yard—claim that’s waters of the United States. There’s a bunch of who struck John in some of these cases about water that runs out of that puddle and into the ditch and down the ditch and into a river and eventually runs out into the ocean or out into bays or something. That drop of water carries with it whatever toxins or contamination that might have been on somebody’s lawn and that’s violating the Clean Water Act—hogwash, hogwash, and more hogwash. Anyway, Dave fought them in the US District Court from 1993 all the way up to 2006 when the court threw its hands up and said, ‘we’re not going to  play with this anymore. We’re just going to find against the defendant, Mr. Donovan, and let him appeal it meaning that they didn’t know what to do with it all those years. They weren’t sure of what they were doing. Mr. Donovan, from the very beginning, challenged whether the United States government had jurisdiction to come into the state and bother his private property or not and the court didn’t want to answer that question because if it answered correctly it would stop the government from making money by fining people because the puddle in their front yard overflowed into the ditch which overflowed into the river which overflowed into the bay and contaminated the water. Hogwash. Well, here’s what we did. We set up a couple of questions for the Supreme Court to look at—that’s part of the rules, you got to show what your questions are going to be. And here’s what the questions were. Now, the rules say they have to be one or two sentences in each question. So it can’t be long winded like a let of lawyers want to write which is why a lot of petitions for certiorari are rejected by the Supreme Court because they aren’t done correctly. Well, we made them short.
1. Does the Clean Water Act being among the laws of Congress extend into the territorial limits of the state or have force only in places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government? (A question of due process). That was number 1.
2. Does federally protected wetlands mean only land owned by the national government and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government or does it extend into the territorial limits of the states and privately owned land? (A question of due process). 
3. Does the word, adjacent, in the Clean Water Act actually extend the jurisdiction of the United States 14.2 miles into the territorial limits of the states’ rivers 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 president’s Article 2, Section 2 treaty powers or the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 and can it extend beyond the national government’s exclusive jurisdiction? ( A question of due process).
They were the questions that were presented. They must have been good enough questions because it has been docketed which means they’re going to hear the case. Now, in that petition of certiorari we quoted two court cases and two only so as not to drive the court out of its mind looking at a thousand different cases. We only needed two to establish the point that we were making. I mentioned this last week, I think, on our call, Caha v. US 158 US Reports, p. 211. At p. 215 the US Supreme Court has made this comment in the past.
Statutes, this particular one in question in this case was a universal application within the territorial limits of the United States and it not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking within any state of this Union the preservation of peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in respect to those matter do not extend into the territorial limits of the states but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
To get into the exclusive jurisdiction, where it is and what it is, you got to go read that section of the Constitution which says, Article 1, Section 8, Congress shall have the power and then there’s 18 different to’s—to this, to—that. Number 18 is:
To make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the aforegoing powers  and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or any department or officer thereof. And above that is, of course, number 17, again Article 1, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power, number 17, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district, not exceeding ten square mile as made by session of a particular state and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government of the United States—well, we know that, today, to be Washington, D.C. –and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of a state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.
A very limited national authority, isn’t it? It does not have authority anywhere else over anything except what it acquires. Well, it acquired things like Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands by capture which it can have authority over. And it has forts and arsenals and dockyard and things of that nature scattered around in the different states that have been ceded by the states over to the federal government. Beyond that it has no authority. This is something that the people have to understand. The authority of the United States government does not extend to you in your private life, not even all of this hogwash that was again talked about in some of these e-mails that Dave was reading by some of these writers that have discussed the anti-terrorism laws and this ridiculous thing called the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. They have authority in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Island, the American Samoas and over state governments but not over the people that live in the territorial limits of the states. They don’t even have authority to make people like that citizens. One of the court cases that…verifies this is Downs v. Bidwell , 183 US Reports, p. 244. The district, known as Columbia, had been a part of the states of Virginia and Maryland. It had been subject to the Constitution and was a part of the United States. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are three steps which can never be taken backwards, the tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved without at least the consent of the federal and state governments to a formal separation.
In other words, the state governments could dissolve this thing called the United States if they wanted to. The mere session of the District of Columbia to the federal government relinquished the authority of the states in that portion of land but did not take it out of the United States or from or under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither part had ever consented to that constitution of the succession. If before the district was set off Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants it would have been void.  So they didn’t do it unconstitutionally. They followed the Constitution. Well, they might have followed it back in the beginning but the problem is they’re not following it now. They’re trying to extend their jurisdiction all over the place. They haven’t got even any rights to buy up forest land and call it a national park because that land cannot be ceded to the United States government because it does not fit under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 to be used as forts, arsenals, dockyards or needful buildings. It’s not necessary much less proper. Well, if it’s not necessary and proper for them to have the land they don’t have any jurisdiction or authority over any land that they don’t actually have within their exclusive jurisdiction. Then they cannot come into the states’ territories and call that waters of the United States. So, the Supreme Court is going to look at this. We’ll see what happens. I’ll let you know as time goes on what kind of results we’re getting out of this. But it’s very interesting that I talked about this with somebody else and they presently have a case going on with the United States accusing them of committing a crime within a state and they used the anti-terrorism bull crap laws to do this. And he looked up a couple other cases that are right in line with this—one of them is Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Firardo and that’s 336 US Reports, p. 281—because Congress can make law locally or nationally it must be presumed that law enacted by Congress is territorial in its scope rather than national unless a contrary intent is shown in the legislation, exactly what fits into one of the e-mails Dave was reading that somebody wrote about an enabling clause. If there is no enabling clause that fits within their authority to do something they cannot create a statute that extends beyond the territorial limits of D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and a few forts, arsenals and dockyards. They are restricted to that in every respect whether it be criminal charges or civil actions of any kind. Now, what he wrote about Caha was, ‘it is well established as a fact that the federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears. The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government—Caha v. United States, 152 US Reports 211. Then he cited without proof of the requisite ownership or possession by the United States a crime has not been made out because it can’t exist. So, no matter what criminal code the United States has they can’t make out a criminal case against somebody that is not within the requisite ownership or possession of the United States.
[Dave] The problem is they’re presuming that the fiction state of California, Inc. is one of their territories.
[Howard] Well, the fiction State of California is one of their territories but not California.
[Dave] And the people do not understand the distinction between the two.
[Howard] No, they don’t and this is what I’m trying to get through and teach that the government has limited—we’ve been talking about the states’ limited jurisdiction in cases we found in the recent past and now we found the same kind of cases related to the United States, a very limited jurisdiction. They cannot come out on the roads and bother you. They cannot come out to your home and bother you. Their laws apply to them and to them only. That’s why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 said to enact laws Congress has the power to enact laws for the government of the United States, not for the people in America, for the government of the United States. The states have the same authority to make laws regulating the state which is the government, the state of the forum. They don’t apply to the people other than the authority to keep the peace that they have an absolute authority and duty to keep the peace. And in keeping the peace they have a right to prosecute you or I for any crimes that we commit against one another. That would be robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery. Those crimes they can prosecute. Other than that all the rest of this foolishness is by contract. And by contract you have consented to be a party to them and accept it being ruled and regulated by them. This is why we’ve been teaching for years we have to terminate these contracts if you want to be free people. You can’t be free and in any way be associated with one of these corporate governments.
The next section that I want to talk about is corporate government. Most people do not understand that government’s a corporation and even if they’ve heard it they have no idea why it’s important to know about. But the government is in fact a corporation. Let’s start with the United States government, the parent corporation of all the other ones. This is verified in Title 28, United States Code. That’s the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Code in part 6, Particular Proceedings, Chapter 176, Federal Debt Collection Procedures. Now you know what the government’s there for. It’s a corporation looking to make money and it’s operated under federal debt collection procedures. 
Subchapter A, Definitions and General Provisions, Section 3002, under Title 28, US Code, Definitions: United States means a) a federal corporation. There is all kind of evidence that can be found to prove that the state is a corporation, the city, the town, the county governments are corporations. Corporations are self-regulating. They have no authority outside of the boundaries of their corporations whether they’re the town government or the city government. They can regulate themselves, make all kinds of ordinances, rules, regulations, statutes, codes, anything they want to write to regulate themselves but they have no authority to come upon the private individual and his private property and pester it with their rules and laws. Now, any lawyer will tell you that I don’t know what I’m talking about. The lawyers are the problem that are behind all this. They’re making money off of applying these laws to the wrong people. They don’t apply it to government. They let government get away with all kinds of violations of their own laws but they apply it to the little people, us, the working folks, the common everyday good decent people of America who are just trying to make a living and get by. And they apply these rules to us so that they can fine us, tax us and make money off of us, taking away and destroying our wealth and our right of property. And if you want to know you ended up being a citizen—there’s an interesting little thing about how you became a party to their corporate government. In a court case called The United States v. Cruikshank 92 US Reports, p. 542, 1875 case the United States Supreme Court ruled that there is a clear and distinct difference between national citizenship and state citizenship. US v. Ballentine said, ‘the only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to reside within the territorial boundaries of the United States.’  I just talked where the territorial boundaries of the United States are, D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, some forts, arsenals and basically being employed as an officer in any part of that government how you become resident within the territorial boundaries of the United States. That is US v. Balentine 288 F. Supp Reporter at page 957. Interestingly enough if you ask the question of how did you become a US citizen the fact is that you volunteered. You consented to go along with one of their business activities. You register the birth certificate. You ask for a work permit called Social Security. You applied for it. You asked for the privileges that they grant you to use your body that you gave them by registering the birth certificate. You asked the state to license you to drive under a privilege granted to the states by the United States to control commerce within the territorial limits of the state because the United States didn’t have the right to do that. And in Title 49, United States Code, Section 31102 the United States gave the states the authority to do business with the United States and ask for a permit and create a compact between the states and the United States to regulate commerce that the United States had the authority to regulate under their Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 to regulate commerce and then they extended that right to the state governments to regulate commerce relating to motor vehicles which means commercial vehicles. That’s where the driver’s license foolishness came in. It’s all an extension beyond their authority, even beyond the state’s authority. The state cannot make a private person register his private automobile. Any lawyer you talk to will tell you, ‘oh, yes, they can.’ Sure they can, they’ve been getting away with it for years. The courts have ruled in their favor because no lawyer’s ever brought the proper argument the way we just did here about the limited exclusive jurisdiction of the national government or limited jurisdiction of a state government. No lawyer’s ever brought that into the courts. No person’s ever brought that into the courts. This might be the first time that it’s actually been questioned. The courts have ruled on it several times but the courts came up with those statements because the Supreme Court knows the limited authority and said, ‘no, you can’t do what you’re doing to this person’ or ‘yes, you can, because he did business with the government and put himself in that position and that’s what Caha was all about, the little jerk. Some kind of an affidavit to a federal agency notarized by a federal officer and he lied on it. He was doing business with them and perjured himself in front of them, violating their law against perjury. He was guilty and the court had a right to convict him and sentence him to jail. But that was the case that they went out of their way to bother to say that the limited jurisdiction of the United States is only within what the limited United States has authority over. That wasn’t the question that was presented. I don’t think this question the way we just presented it has ever been put to the Supreme Court. But I’ll tell you one thing, it’s there along with the question about the Healthcare Bill and forcing every American to buy insurance and have health insurance which is far beyond the limited jurisdiction {slavery—see Thirteenth Amendment} of the United States government. So because ours is in there and that’ll be in the minds of the judges and they just ruled last year on a case called Bond v. United States that the Terrorism Act laws of the United States could not be applied to a lady who lived in Pennsylvania and not within the jurisdictional limits of the United States. So, with this going on I got a feeling you’re going to see some really strange things come out of the Supreme Court.
[Dave] She was not in PA and she was not in 12345 and she was not in the corporate fiction state of…
[Howard] They ignored that. They don’t look at that. That’s what the lawyers use to trap us. The court does not look at that issue at all. The question was, ‘did the United States government have authority to go into Pennsylvania and make charges against her for violating some ridiculous damned terrorism laws because of a stupid little act that she did that the state should have prosecuted her for and the state dropped it and didn’t think it was worth bothering to prosecute and the fed picked it up and did it just to emphasize their extreme authority because of terrorism which you know, I think you know, is a bunch of bull crap. The biggest terrorist is government and government and its lawyers applying things like what Dave just expressed is part of the terrorism because through deceptive means like that they still cannot extend their jurisdiction into your home and your life or even your business if it’s just a small business. They do it and get away with it simply because the lawyers never bring the law forward and defending lawyers never ask the right questions to bring the law forward out of the courts. It will be interesting to see what happens this year with this Healthcare Bill being questioned in front of the Supreme Court and the Clean Water Act being questioned in front of the Supreme Court and following the question of Mrs. Bond in Pennsylvania being accused of violating the federal government’s terrorism act that they’ve already ruled on and said that they can’t charge her that way. It wasn’t within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. So, interesting things are going on in all kinds of ways. The first part of tonight’s conversation and the bunch of the stuff that Dave had brought up in the e-mails tells you about a lot of interesting things that are going on in this world that we should be aware of. We should look to more than just the normal news media or pay more attention to the little short blurps that the news media does bring up about some of these things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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