Howard Griswold – On David Clarence – Fire the Government Trustee!

Howard Griswold s Truth on The Executor Letter

Part 1 Howard Griswold Interview Exec letter 12-07-2010

[Howard] Ninety-nine percent of the crap that’s out there on the internet is wrong, at least the patriot stuff, is wrong unfortunately. And its only wrong because the people don’t research the law.

Ok, now that I got that part out of the way more bull crap information but it came from a guy who had come up with a fantastic idea and I got to give him credit. And I think somebody said his name is David Clarence and this idea of firing the executor/administrator is half right but he is on the right track, he’s going in the right direction. I wish somebody would have him get in touch with me. We got some research here that will help what he’s doing that will put this together and really finalize it for him.

I was on this track but not the idea of removing the trustee wasn’t going that far. I don’t think David Clarence understands that the administrator/executor/guardian/ward, all those names or terms that are used to identify somebody who is controlling your property for you, is actually, the name of a person that is a trustee.

There is a form that has to be followed in order to be recognized for removal of the trustee and it doesn’t match what he’s doing. What he’s doing is upsetting the apple cart right now. It looks like its doing good. At least there’s some reports, don’t know how true the reports are, but there’s some reports that its done very well in quite a few different situations. And it will for a while until they get their heads together on the evil side and decide that, hey, wait a minute, he didn’t follow the rules.

Being that he didn’t follow the rules and he didn’t use the procedures that we use and he didn’t use the forms that we use we don’t have to recognize what he’s doing and then it’ll stop. I’d like to show him what I have found in the forms, somewhere around here, and I can’t seem to dig it out yet. In some pile of information I’ve got the forms for the removal of the trustee. We have to remove the government at the federal level, the state level, and the political subdivisions of the states, city, county, town governments as trustees. And the retaliation by us in this so-far cold war we are not really shooting at one another yet so it’s still a cold war. And hopefully we can stop it from coming to a shootout, I don’t think we can, but I hope we can. It can be done by a retaliation by the people independently and individually.

Now, this is only going to help each individual that’s in some kind of a situation that wants to get out of it. The call that you got about the guy that’s in jail we could probably terminate the jail as well as the state and the attorneys and everybody involved in the state that put him in jail as trustees and once we did they’d have to let him out of the jail. This would destroy their ability to continue controlling your property.

Now, your property starts with your body. They have control over your body because it was registered with a birth certificate and this is where the security agreement that Dave talks about so much comes into play. You must have a secured interest in your property starting with your body, your labor, your land, your automobile and all other chattels like your puppy dogs and guns and everything else should be listed. Not too many if any guns, though. You got to be careful listing guns then you’re telling them what kinds of guns you got it’s really better to leave them off. But every other thing that they have control over by registration was created, believe or not, by what the law book says is a constructive trust.

The law of constructive trusts says, whenever you give property to another person to hold by operation of law it creates a constructive trust. The person holding the property then is a trustee.

You are the settler of the trust, the creator of it. And as the settler or creator you’re also the beneficiary of that trust. And the law of trusts puts certain rules and regulations on the conduct of a trustee. And whenever that trustee doesn’t follow those rules and regulations and does something that is adverse to the benefit of the beneficiary then he has breached the trust.

Now, what I was thinking about doing was putting together lawsuits for breach of the trust. Well, like I said earlier about the balls that the American people have, they ain’t got much if they got any. The don’t feel competent to go into these courts and file lawsuits and follow them through. And, really, I can’t blame you much. It’s very complicated. There’s a lot of study involved in the procedures and the rules and everything else. It’s extremely hard to do that and be successful. A few people could; most couldn’t.

So, that this fellow, David Clarence, has come up with is in the right direction. This is very simple. You don’t have to go to court. As a matter of fact in the last couple of days I was studying in Scott on Trusts that you can terminate the trustee for good cause. Now, the good cause has to be a breach of the trust so rather than make a lawsuit for breach of the trust there are already cases established that state that once the trust is breached that it can be terminated and the trustee can be removed.

Well, if you remove them they lose all power. And I think what David Clarence has been doing has already proven that. As a matter of fact, I think Ron is on the phone tonight and Ron used it in the court verbally and he walked out of the court free. I mean, he’s done great and this can be taken a lot further if we just know the rest of these details that I’ve been looking up on constructive trusts.

The other thing is that the government is a public trust. It has always been identified in history as a public trust. As a matter of fact, let me give you a little of information that I’ve picked up here on something that can be done in addition to terminating them as a trust and terminating or removing them as a trustee and that is that you can bring an action if you got the balls to do this against any one of these corporations.

The police department is incorporated. If they’re a bunch of hoodlums and they’re violating the public trust bring an action to revoke their corporate charter. If the lawyers and their BAR association which is a corporate entity; every one of them is incorporated with either an LLC or an LLP or a corporation. Well, they all are basically the same thing; they’re fictions. Some of them do it under trusts, but very rarely do they do it under a trust. But even a trust is a fiction.

The government is a fiction. It is in a trust position as a fictional trust organization with duties to protect us as beneficiaries. And if you read the preamble to the Constitution it lays out their duties as trustees to protect us. Very clearly they’re supposed to create armies to defend us against any invasion. They’re supposed to maintain the welfare.

By God. I’m sure people don’t know what that word means. They think it’s a window you go to once a month on Friday night and pick up your check called welfare checks. Maintaining the welfare meant to maintain the commerce in such a fashion that the welfare of the individual was highly protected. That’s what they meant by that and that is not what government is doing.

Government has gotten away from its original intent. I have never been anti-government and I’m still not anti-government I’m just anti-corruption. And there were ways. As a matter of fact, listen to this.

In fact, the American Revolution was an attempt to overthrow the type of corporate power broking that we see every day in contemporary America. Virginia was an English corporation. North Carolina was created by an English corporation. Maryland was chartered the same way, exactly the same manner on each one of them. The East India Company was the corporation that plundered much of the Western Hemisphere in its search for valuable resources and goods and it was an English corporation.

As Grossman succinctly states, the colonists did not make a revolution over a tax on tea as the history tells us. They fought for many reasons but chiefly to create a nation where citizens were the government and ruled the corporations. That’s the opposite today, isn’t it?

So even as Americans were routing the king’s armies they vowed to put corporations under democratic command. {See, Gangs of America, by Ted Nace} Well, it looks like what happened is the corporations have taken over democracy instead of democracy controlling the corporations like was originally intended.

{Thanks a lot, Thomas Scott, who bribed the Pennsylvania legislature and removed the safeguards on corporations and then ran the war for his henchman, Abraham Lincoln and then he bought up the Southern railroads after the war.} This article goes on to say that the attorney general frequently exercised his power to revoke the charters of corporations. In fact, up until 1940 in many states corporate charter revocation actions were commonplace.

Not just small corporations were subject to revocations.

  • The sugar trust, a corporation combined to control sugar prices, was dissolved in 1890.
  • The Standard Oil Corporation was subject to charter revocation suit in the State of Washington in 1934.

Throughout the 1800s and early 20th century the quo warranto power remained a powerful tool through which dissolving a corporation that had not obeyed the law or had violated the public trust was used to dispose of these corporations.

Now, it is not necessary to create a trust of your own. It’s not a bad idea but it’s not necessary because your trust and I said this and, boy, did I make a lot of people angry especially with that group up in Cleveland at that time where I brought this all up because they were selling trusts and this got in their way. But I’m telling you that creating trusts for people does not overpower the public trust and it does not overpower the constructive trust that was created by you registering your property and giving it to the state or any other government agency to hold for you such as birth certificate registrations, land deed registrations, social security registrations, puppy dog registrations and gun registrations and business license registrations for private little business activities.

None of this stuff is required by law and it can’t be required by law. It is all a breach of the public trust to make you record and register these different things with government because government has no right to take private property for public use without just compensation. So they are breaching the public trust in every one of these types of conduct that they are executing by requiring the American people to give their property over by registration to the government. That is a breach of the trust. That is sufficient evidence to remove them as the trustee and terminate the trust.

Enough people doing this will shut it down. They don’t have to go revoke the charter of these corporations if enough people do it. But if we attack it from both directions and I’ve got the forms here and the complete explanation if anybody’s interested on how to generate a suit to revoke the charter of a corporation whether it be the county government corporation, the police department corporation, the fire department corporation because they’re a bunch of thugs, too today they help the damned police. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to get rid of the fire department but you might go after them. The health department corporation, the social service corporation, any one of these things can be terminated and done away with because every one of them is violating the public policy. And the basic concept of the public policy comes back to what we’ve talked about for years private property and their interference in the use and enjoyment of your private property.

We can attack this from both of those directions and I definitely don’t know who knows David Clarence but get in touch with him and ask him if he’ll get in touch with me. I’d love to get with him and show him some of what I’ve got here from our studies and help him to make this a little bit stronger or at least a lot stronger than what he’s already doing. He’s got a couple of misconstrued ideas. He thinks that it’s an estate and only an estate and he doesn’t understand that an estate has to be in somebody hands and that thing has to be something, either fictional or real.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the capital letter spelling of the name is not just an estate, but it’s a corporation. Delaware, Title 8, corporations.

The general corporation law, for instance, listen to this very closely:

The certificate of incorporation shall set forth the name of the corporation which shall contain one of the words, association, company, corporation, club, foundation, fund, incorporated, institute, society, union, syndicate or limited or abbreviations thereof with or without punctuations because the law doesn’t care about punctuations.

So that throws all this punctuation crap the patriot communities throwing around right out the window, doesn’t it? They don’t care about punctuations or words or abbreviations thereof of like import of foreign countries or jurisdictions provided that they are written in Roman characters or letters.

Now, if you go on the internet and Google Roman alphabet you will find a fantastic little dossier on Roman alphabet and it tells you that Roman characters or letters are always capital letters. So the capital letter spelling of your name imports the concept of a corporation and there has to be something that has that property and it’s this fiction corporation in all capital letters spelled in a name that’s similar to yours because the letters are the same they’re just written the same way.

They’re written in all capital letters to emphasize the fact that it’s a corporate fiction.

That corporate fiction is not moving and doing anything because you’re not moving it so it’s dead. You’re not dead. They’re not considering that you’re dead. They don’t want you dead. They want this corporation fiction to stay around and you to keep making money and paying taxes and being able to go through the corporation to you to collect all the money.

It’s a real neat fraud put together by these same kind of people that the article that Dave just read was talking about. It’s a way to destroy the wealth of the American people and they’ve done a great job of it for years because we’ve not seen the truth. We’ve not understand what they’re doing. We’ve not understood that a lawyer is a lying scheming thief, that he’s stealing your property by forcing you to register your private property when they had no right to make you register your private property.

We didn’t see that. We’re beginning to learn it and it’s starting to come out and something can be done about it. Remove them as the trustee. You can terminate the trust at will if you’re the settler or the beneficiary. You don’t need to go to court and ask a court to do it for you. That’s not necessary. Your trust does it because you created it, you’re the one that can dissolve it. You got to claim your property back and you do that through the security agreement and then you control your property and there’s no dead fiction that they can utilize to administer the estate on. David Clarence is on the right track. I mean he’s going in the right direction. He needs a little bit more information to see how this all fits together.

If you have any questions write them to Gemini Investments, PO Box 398, Delmar, Delaware 19940.

=========================Ok, this is from the book, Scott’s Abridgment of the Law of Trusts, Chapter 13, Constructive Trusts; General Principles of a Constructive Trust. A constructive trust arises where a person who holds title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the grounds that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it.

He has to convey it to you, not to somebody else for his benefit, that’s what that’s saying.

Although a constructive trust is a remedial device sometimes available for the redress of breaches of an expressed trust it is also available in numerous and varied situations wholly unconnected with an expressed trust. A constructive trust bears the same relation to an expressed trust as a quasi-contractual obligation bears to a contract. A constructive like a quasi-contractual obligation is imposed in order to prevent unjust enrichment.

This unjust enrichment may arise out of the wrongful acquisition of the title to property as where it is acquired by fraud or duress or undue influence or where it is acquired by the wrongful disposition of another’s property or where it is acquired by a person in a fiduciary relation to another’¦

Now, that’s where the government comes in. Government, remember from Jersey City v. Hague case the Supreme Court of New Jersey said government is always in a trust position which imposes upon them a fiduciary duty. So anytime you’re dealing with government they are in a fiduciary relationship.

‘¦acquired by a person with a fiduciary relation to another in violation of his duty as fiduciary. The constructive trust may arise, however, even though the acquisition of the property was not wrongful. It arises where the retention of the property would be resulting in an unjust enrichment of the person retaining it as where it is acquired through mistake or where property is transferred by a trustee’¦

That would be the state transferring it or the county or something in an action for property tax for instance. Or other fiduciary in violation of his duty as a fiduciary to an innocent person’

That’s us. Really that should probably say stupid people because we’re innocent people because we don’t know. That encompasses stupidity we don’t know what they’re doing and that’s what makes us the innocent person who is not in the position of the purchaser for value or it also covers a person who is in a position of having been the purchaser for value. In many cases where a constructive is enforced the result is to restore the status quo. In other words, put you back where you belong, your original position.

If the defendant were permitted to retain the property he would be unjustly enriched and to the same extent the plaintiff would be unjustly deprived of the property. That really explains in better words than I used, exactly how you lose property and the State, the governments, in some way or another are unjustly enriched.

That even fits income tax, believe it or not, when they take income tax out of your private labor when you don’t have an excise or privilege granted by the government to earn the money under which makes it taxable and they take tax money anyway. They are holding that money in a constructive trust for you.

Now, I’m sure it’s beyond most people’s ability to go into court and argue something like this. You’ll never get the money back even if you did.

They don’t have any money anymore. The United States announced that it was broke in January of 2009. It does have money in certain areas in certain parts of the Treasury but the functional part of the Treasury where they can use it to pay bills is broke and has been broke.

There’s a section of the Treasury that has money allocated to it by Congress to pay the workers. There’s a section of the Treasury that’s allocated to pay reimbursements to people who the United States has taken private property from. Those areas are not broke but they can’t take that money and shift it over to the other part of the Treasury. There’s really nothing there for you to get other than what’s in the section on unjust enrichment that they have set up to repay you for the losses that they’ve caused you by taking of your property. That section is loaded with money. Anyway, it goes on to talk about unjust enrichment a little bit more. It says:

Unjust enrichment may be prevented by the imposition of an equitable lien. A court of equity may prevent the enrichment of the defendant either by compelling him to surrender to the plaintiff property held by him and thus enforcing a constructive trust or by giving the plaintiff.

Now, listen to this:
By giving the plaintiff a security interest in the property held by the defendant thus imposing an equitable lien.

Do you see what a security interest does? That’s what our security agreement that we developed does, it creates an equitable lien against the property. It just requires that you stand up in court and enforce it. It’s interesting how all this stuff is tying together with things we’ve already learned about in the past. Another section, here, is called the acquisition of property by a fiduciary.

A constructive trust arises where a person in a fiduciary relation acquires or retains property in violation of his duty as a fiduciary. We have considered elsewhere the principles which are applicable in the case of an expressed trust. And they say, go back to that section and quote the section number. Similar principles are applicable to other fiduciaries such as other fiduciaries which includes guardians, executors, administrators, agents, attorneys, partners, joint adventurers, directors and officers of corporations, etc. Each of these owes a duty of loyalty to the person to whom he is in a fiduciary relation and if in violation of his duty of loyalty to them he seeks to acquire or retain for himself some property interest he is chargeable as a constructive trustee for them.

About arnierosner

As an American I advocate a republic form of government, self-reliance, and adherence to the basic philosophy of the founding fathers and the founding documents, I ONLY respect those who respect and "HONOR" their honor. No exceptions!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s