So, I saw this woman. She looked good, so I said hi. ;-)
She’s from DC. (That’s bad)
She’s an attorney. (That’s worse)
She works at the DOJ. (Oh, hell no)
I figured she was a lost cause, but I decided to see if I could get some inside scoop from her. She laughed that everybody in the city of DC is an attorney. (I don’t find that funny)
I asked her what she thought about the Sussmann indictment. (Who?)
She has no idea who Michael Sussmann is, much less that he was indicted. She has no idea who John Durham is.
She works on the civil side of things, not criminal. But still. She is a fucking attorney in fucking DC, and she works at the D.O. fucking J. Hello! Anybody home?
She told me that when a federal government employee gets fired, they have due process rights. I thought, yeah no shit, everybody has due process rights. I told her everybody has due process rights, and she really could not comprehend the concept that everybody has rights. She seemed to think that federal government employees “are in a privileged position” (her words) and that’s why they have due process rights. For a seemingly intelligent woman, this chick is clueless.
I left the conversation thinking that this is exactly what we see with so many doctors. Both doctors and attorneys are taught a very narrow slice of the truth of their professions, and then they have blinders on to anything that is not within the scope of what their professors, bosses, and co-workers spoon-feed to them. They have no knowledge beyond their tunnel vision. Much of what they think they know is not true. And there is a lot of truth that they are completely unaware of.
And these attorneys in DC have an obvious arrogance about them. They think they are on the top of the food chain. They think they have somehow “made it.” The reality is the federal government is at the bottom of the food chain. They are servants. Nothing more.
I also listened to an interview on the radio where a lawyer was talking about how so many judges have been “fooled” (that was the word used) by claims of the 1905 Supreme Court case related to mandating vaccines. He said it was a very narrow ruling (only applied to a specific situation, not related to what we are seeing now), and even that was overturned later by the Supreme Court. It seems that lawyers are bamboozeling judges into believing that the court case is relevant when it is not. But apparently, judges are too lazy or too stupid to read.
Clown World.
The BAR (legal society) is a private club, with private rules, that have nothing to do with the public - living men and women. They turned men and women into "legal persons (corporations), human beings, residents, taxpayers, drivers, litigants, affiants, plaintiffs, defendants, etc. (legalese).
Members of said club created several private corporations; The United States of America (Inc.), the United States, UNITED STATES, and several others using similar semantic deceit.
**To "Attorn": ** late 13c., Anglo-French, "to turn over to another," from Old French atorner "to turn, turn to, assign, attribute, dispose," from a- "to" (see ad-) + tourner "to turn," from Latin tornare "to turn on a lathe," from tornus "lathe," from Greek tornos "lathe, tool for drawing circles," from PIE root *tere- (1) "to rub, turn." In feudal law, "to transfer homage or allegiance to another lord."
Parasites?
I hope peeps here at GA start catching on soon.
And the best part of the sick joke: Judges and lawyers are ultimately members of the same club, discussing how to fleece you.
Consider the 12 presumptions of law the moment you step into a court room. Meaning, they are coloring the law a priori.
I belief there is a law in 18 USC 242 about coloring of law, and in 241 it is about conspiracy to deprive rights.
That leads into racketeering: Title 18 USC 1961 and 1512 on blocking of the law.
Perjured they are, the lot of them.
Yessir. Key understanding. They aren't using/writing any "LAWs". Statutes, Codes, Acts, Ordinances, Mandates, Decrees, Executive Orders, "Public Policy", "Civil Rights", "Administrative Rules"...and on and on.... are all "Corporate By-Laws".
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) isn't a set of "LAWs" either. It's for "commercial vehicles" - aka "Persons" (Legal Persons) - aka "Trusts" - aka ALL CAPS NAME. Do you see?
They all have names other than "LAW" quite deliberately.
They trick us with words. Once you understand the game, you can proceed lawfully. Until then, you're a victim of your own chosen ignorance.
Maxim of Law: Ignorance of the LAW is no defense
And yes, judges and lawyers/attorneys are all part of the club - a huge number unwittingly I might add, judges less so. All "law schools" flipped their educational system over to the "Legal system" in the late 1930s during the bankruptcy and final hijacking of our nation. Same thing happened with "medical schools" during this time period.
Thus, most don't know anything different. They know what they were taught to know.
What do attorneys do:
See what's habbening here?
A sovereign living man/woman files a CLAIM which is vastly superior to a "complaint", needing no "Re-Presentation" from an "attorner", moving their own court, in a public courthouse, with a "justice of the peace" acting simply as the referee, deciding neither law (really "rules of civil procedure") nor the FACTS. The sovereign gets a "Trial by Jury" of their peers, not a "Jury trial" for all controversies that exceed $20, in which said jury of peers decides both the LAW and the FACTS, as guaranteed by the 7th amendment of the Constitution.
Deception via the pen, upheld by the sword, furthered by the willful ignorance of we-the-people. It's all a game. When will we-the-people catch on?
Question: Do YOU (not someone else) have any EXPERIENCE (not theory) in a COURTROOM (regarding a specific case or claim) with this, and if so, how did it go?
Yes, defensively under "Special Appearance" only challenging jursidiction. These cases get **expunged ** when properly handled by a man/woman, without prejudice (MOST IMPORTANTLY), so they never appear on the court record where a practicing attorney could learn what had really happened.
No, offensively. I've seen it done, quite tactfully and honorably, by Bill Thornton however. It went swimmingly for him, where the initial judge, ignorant of the true LAW, was removed from the case, and a justice of the peace who understood what was happening stepped in to act as referee.
Karl Lentz mastered this process in dozens upon dozens of defensive situations for others, most commonly in child custody cases (TRESPASS upon PROPERTY) which he finds most egregious.
Thus, it can be done by a man/woman acting honorably and lawfully in front of an honest and honorable magistrate.
To be clear, a practicing attorney holding a BAR card cannot do any of this. Only a man or woman BEING the man/woman involved in their own personal matter. A "Counselor-At-Law" can assist said man/woman.
And none of this is "theory", for the record. It is the real and true Law of the Land.
Big round of applause! YES!
And indeed, you need no re-presentation as if you were a fool or a child. This presumption needs to be put to rest.
And also a nice one: challenge them on their position, by making them proof their authorization. Fun fact: they get green in the face, start screaming and yelling. I guess the foreign vessel in dry dock, when correctly challenged, caused them sea sickness.
There are 11 more presumption and challenges to smoke them out.
Excellent. Can you list them?
This exactly thank you!