INTRODUCTION
California Governor G Newsom wants to fine a school board for NOT using corrupted text materials that praise pedo predator Harvey Mil.
Question: How can a governor or other government body issue a fine against someone or something for simply breaking their rules?
For violating 'law'. "Legal violation". Once you understand that much of statute law aka 'civil' law, aka maritime law (contract law) is actually in violation of common law aka the law of the land, you begin to see the true evil mechanisms of the system of systems.
ONE
Common Law vs Contract Law
Common law is innate, God given. However, contract law requires agreement, consent.
Under common law, a crime can only exist when someone has suffered loss or damage. If no one suffers loss or damage, there is no crime.
Under contract law, however, a 'crime' or violation simply exists when one or more parties contravene the requirements or rules of the contract.
The 'legal' system has been infiltrated over decades and centuries, so that governments can 'legally' lay down rules that they then attempt to force citizens aka people to comply with. They can only do so via contract law, aka statute law.
How can they do this? It starts with requiring everyone to 'register' their children at birth. When you are registered, that registration creates a 'legal' entity in your name. Your birth certificate becomes the registration of the living you in the corporate - legal - civil system. It is on that basis that they exert control over you. By registering, and accepting that registration as 'you', you are seen as having given consent to be treated as a legal entity.
Why? Because a corporation itself is a purely 'legal' entity. It is essentially dead. It is not living. It only exists on paper, legally, and a non-living entity like a corporation cannot contract with a living entity.
But you are not your legal identity. You are a living man or woman. Burn your birth certificate, and you are still alive. You exist, and your rights as a living man or woman exist with you. But in order to exert control (corruptly, unlawfully), the governments establish 'statute law', aka rules that they then require you to comply with, and then they use force against your legal entity to make you do it if you do not comply. Taxation. Rules and regulations. Etc.
TWO
Contract Law Must be Subservient to Common Law
Statute law is meant to be subject to Common Law. Why? Because common law, the law of the land, is based on and reflects God's law, aka innate natural law.
Common law was developed and manifested via courts - places where living men and women could challenge each other for damages or loss, and where the results are judged by juries of their peers - other living men and women.
However, courts today mostly operate in the hidden and secret world of the 'legal system', where language is specialized, where lawyers and jurists (judges, etc) are an elite class, and where statute law rules the day.
Statute law - the law that legislatures draft and pass - is law enacted by governments (not courts) to lay down laws for corporate entities and interactions between legal entities. No statute law should violate common law. In other words, no statute law should violate the innate rights of living men and women.
The Founding Fathers understood this, and created the Constitution on the basis of common law existing up to that date, in order to curb and control government. The constitution is all about what the government CANNOT do, and what it can do within a prescribed limit. The Founders of the United States recognized that government had to be limited, because innate law, and innate rights, and living men and women, are correctly superior to government. Government should ONLY exist by the consent of the governed.
But corruption always seeks to infiltrate. It infiltrates through the cracks. It infiltrates in the dark, in secret, gradually increasing its own power and control. So, over time, the system of birth registrations arose, the system of the 'legal' world, and the systems of governments that allow them to dictate to living men and women what they must and must not do, via treating them as purely legal entities, not as living beings.
It's via this method that they reverse the correct order of justice and the order of creation, wherein the creator can never come below the created.
THREE
The Natural Order
The natural order is this: God > living man, living woman > government > corporation (non-living entities).
God creates living men and women, who then create governments as instruments for serving certain requirements of the living men and women, and governments then create corporate entities via 'legal' means.
The corrupting powers reverse this: corporations > government > living men and woman > (x) God
They put corporations on top (NGOs like WEF are corporations), which then exert control over governments, which then exert control over living men and women, in an effort to exert control over God and push God out of the equation altogether.
Today, much of the core influence of the Cabal is now exerted via 'money'. They use fiat 'money' aka 'corporate' money, instead of real money (gold, silver, etc, natural substances). This is another reason why "Gold Destroys FED".
In the modern era, governments are supposed to be created by living men and women to set rules for the interactions (aka 'contracts') between non-living entities like corporations, businesses, etc. Originally, the United States government was created with that vision.
But our living rights come from God, not from a government. They are innate, and since the 1200's in England, laws were developed on the premise that they MUST reflect God's law, aka innate natural law. This is common law, law that manifests via courts as venues for interactions between living men and women.
FOUR
Control Via Legal Means
Much of statute law is now created by governments not based on common law aka innate law, but based on maritime law aka contractual law.
So if you 'speed' in your car, they can fine you even is no one is even hurt. If you smoke this substance, they can fine or imprison you. Violate their rules, and they hunt you down.
All victimless crimes are only crimes because governments (the state) say they are crimes, and living people don't know that the difference.
Part of this entire system runs and functions because at birth, governments 'require' people to 'register' their children whereupon the child is replicated as a legal entity, and it’s this 'legal entity' that is targeted and controlled via statute law our entire lives.
But whether a living man or woman is registered with a government or not, they still exist, they are still alive, and as such they still have inviolable innate rights.
This is the REAL crux of the Great Awakening. The legal system of government is the core mechanism of enslavement. Where government is meant to serve, it is corrupted and used to control and enslage. The ideal vision of this evil is government (the State) controlling living people, enslaved using 'legal' means. The ultimate utopia of this evil system is the NWO, the ultra-government, controlled by the wealthy who exert their control via dead corporations.
The Covid19 "Pandemic" was where they showed themselves to be exactly who the "conspiracy theorists" have been saying they are for years.
FIVE
Legal Does Not Equal Lawful
There is a massive difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'.
Lawful originally means reflecting innate natural law (common law, law that comes from God). Legal means statute law, civil law, law created by governments and non-living entities, which essentially require consent between the parties to that.
Slavery was once legal, but it was never, and never can be, lawful. Slavery violates the innate truth, that all people are created by God with equal value, each one as God's son or daughter.
It's also important to understand that the United States constitution is essentially a codification of all the common law that had been established up until that date. That's where the Bill of Rights comes from. Common Law. Moreover, it was common law that was the basis for the entire premise of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
SIX
Understanding Lawful vs Legal is KEY to What Follows The Great Awakening
The War being waged today is both a spiritual war and a material law, and a war between Lawful vs Legal
Which will stand in the superior position, the 'legal' or the 'lawful?
We need the legal. It is necessary to coordinate and serve the people by defining interactions between non-living entities. We need the lawful, because law is the basis of a peaceful, harmonious, just society.
But what is lawful must ALWAYS stand in the upper position over what is legal. Just as living men and women must stand in their rightful position OVER government.
It is the REVERSAL of these positions and the correct order and dynamic that is evil. Why? Because the correct order is the one ordained by the Creator and infused into the fabric of the universe.
Today, evil is attempting to institute a dead, governing control system where all living people are slaves via legal means. This is done by corporate entities (and their money) controlling governments to create statute laws that essentially enslave the people and make them subservient to government.
This is the Swamp that DJT has sworn to obliterate.
The Great Awakening is about the masses of living men and women waking up to the mechanisms by which this evil has been deceiving, manipulating and controlling them over decades, over centuries. But that is the starting point.
SEVEN
What Comes After
The transition is one of moving from being governed by Evil to being self-governing under God (aka innate natural law).
For this, awakening is required. The foundation for the transition was planted with the victory of Christ 2000 years ago, and it has been fermenting, growing ever since. It has evolved centrally in the sphere of Christian civilization through the emergence of common law. In the last few centuries, it has spread to exert a positive influence on all cultures and civilizations worldwide. It's no coincidence that Evil has worked to corrupt that influence.
It's all about the innate rights of living men and women VS. 'privileges' endowed by dead corporate governments on legal entities via legal means. The people of the world are now being called (by God, imo) to wake up to how Evil has controlled the world since time immemorial, via what mechanisms, via what corruptions evil has assailed us with.
The people of the world are being called to wake up to our correct and rightful position as free living men and women under God, with governments under us, not the other way around, and the United States has been the chosen spearhead of this call.
When DJT stated he was transferring the power from Washington DC back the American People, he was in essence stating that he was acting to restore the correct and natural order between dead corporate government and living men and women.
But this is also why the Awakening MUST happen. Living Men and Women can ONLY exert their true authority over the dead corporate entities and contractually run governments WHEN those living men and women understand their true rights and obligations to be responsible and self-governing.
In the absence of living men and women who aware of their rights and the correct role and position of the legally structured non-living world, evil will always fill the vacuum and the servant will attempt to usurp the master's correct position.
So it was in Eden, so it was 2000 years ago, and so it is now.
FURTHER STUDY, INVESTIGATION
Legal vs Lawful
The Magna Carta
Adamic Law vs Angelic Law
Frederic Bastiat - "The Law" (essay)
Christian Foundations of Common Law
'Reversal of natural order' as the foundation and beginning of evil
Although I suspect that your overall thesis is part of the deception method used, we should be careful of getting too "in the weeds" on some of these specifics.
For example, the American founders themselves referred to themselves as "citizen."
You had to be a "natural born citizen" to become President is an obvious example.
It is the INCORRECT and DECEPTIVE use of these terms that are one of the main METHODS by which they entrap people into occult (hidden) contracts without the person understanding what they are saying or doing.
Even the word "understand" has more than one meaning. As in: I stand under your authority if I "understand."
It is all wordsmith.
HOWEVER ...
My contention is that we can get back to the common law principles by INSISTING on them.
I cite my speeding ticket as an example. One basic common law principle is that every defendent MUST be provided due process, or else the case MUST be dismissed, as a matter of law. (Even if the judge doesn't abide his lawful obligation in such a situation, if an objection is made, the case can be overturned on appeal or made void via collateral lawsuit, effectively overturning the judge's unlawful act of due process violation).
And the COURTS will recognize this. Even corrupt judges will begrudgingly do what they are obligated by law to do (unless Trump is involved). These basic principles of due process and common law are so obvious, that they cannot be denied. They are "self-evident," as Jefferson wrote.
One of the common law principles of due process is that a court MUST have both subject matter jurisdication AND personal jurisdiction.
When I challenged subject matter jurisdiction, the "judge" really didn't know what to do, and ultimately dismissed when it became clear that I was NOT going to back down.
Funny anecdote to that: The original ticket was for speeding, and I could pay $150 without going to court, but if I challenged in court, it could be as much as $300 (which I think is probably unconstituation, as well, but I did not deal with that issue).
In the preliminary hearing without the judge (pre-arraignment, with someone who was NOT an attorney and NOT a judge, but had some sort of authority in the judicial branch) offered me a deal if I would not go to trial. I think it was $225 if I did one thing or $150 if I did something else. I forget the actual numbers, but something like that.
I refused.
I went to arraignment, and the prosecutor talked to me directly before I saw the judge. The prosecutor offered to take it all the way down to $20 !!!
TWENTY BUCKS! Some major crime, huh?
I said NO.
She couldn't believe it, and asked why not. I said because I will be challenging subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
Well, she did not understand that, but guess what?
The FIRST thing the judge said to me was, "I understand you want to challenge subject matter jurisdiction."
Guess what?
THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT THERE !!!
I won the case at that moment.
Why?
Because the ONLY way the judge would KNOW that would be if the prosector TOLD the judge -- OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE.
That is known as an "ex-parte" meeting between one party and the judge, outside of the other party's presence or knowlege.
That is ILLEGAL, because it is a violation of the defendant's due process rights. Back to common law!
The system today is so corrupt that they do this sort of thing as a matter of routine, because it is "just easier."
They have ZERO respect for basic fundamental rights, which come from "the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God," as Thomas Jefferson so elequently wrote.
But WE can assert these rights -- if we know them -- and beat them within the system. However, I think the best STRATEGY is to do so in a manner that THEY understand at least somewhat.
You go into a court and start talking about admiralty law in a traffic ticket case, and they will think you are an idiot with an Internet law degree. They will IGNORE what you say and do.
BUT ...
If you learn a few things that THEY RECOGNIZE as legitimate law and legal principles, it changes the game on them.
It changes the game on them because they don't actually know the REAL law. They are like doctors. A medical school graduate knows NOTHING about health. He has NO IDEA how to make a sick person healthy. He ONLY knows how to (a) diagnose symptoms of illness, and (b) sell drugs or surgical procedures.
And MOST doctors (95%+) have ZERO intellectual curiosity to learn anything outside of what they were spoonfed. Even worse, they look down on anyone with alternative explanations of good health. That is because they BELIEVE that anything regarding health that is true and important was taught to them by the "experts" in medical school, and anything not taught must not be true or important.
They become educated lemmings, pushing drugs and surgery instead of good health.
Likewise, the law school student graduates BELIEVING that he learned all the basics of law, and anything outside the scope of that (such as common law) must either be irrelevant or wrong.
And THAT is why they are confused when REAL legal issues are raised in a way that (a) makes logical sense to THEM, but (b) conflicts with their BELIEF system.
It is classic cognative dissonance in both cases. And this is why they don't know what to do.
But in law, they subconciously know that maybe they could be overturned or penalized by the judicial review board if they violate an important principle of law.
Like I said, it changes the game on them.
That's my take.
100% agreed. You can't learn this from a few posts on GA. You can't learn what you've shared with probably a year of solid study unless you are lucky enough to land on somebody that covers all the bases.
You have clearly done your homework and your example shows you are able to handle a variety of situations the judge can and will throw at you. Most people, even those who have studied this for a while can only wriggle out of "situation X" or "situation Y" with the things they've learned. But when "situation Z" comes up, they're stuck and get sucked back in.
I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from. Many out there have learned a great deal through Karl. He's hard to listen to, doesn't suffer fools, but he operates at the fundamental basis of law which is necessary to be able to handle all the curve balls that can get thrown at you in court. As he states it, "it's a lifestyle". He "acts like a man" in all his daily activities, therefore this translates into court proceedings.
All that being said, looks like Karl is in some deep doo-doo right now as apparently he had quite a few animals (dogs, cats, ducks) on his farm that were in poor condition. I think he's sitting in jail as we speak. He's going to have a tough time wriggling out of this situation as unwell puppies and kitties will pull at the heartstrings of jurors, should he even get an opportunity to appear in front of a jury, which he hasn't been able to thus far.
Anyway, yeah, you clearly know your stuff. And I'd bet you probably have thousands of hours, and many years of learning and research under your belt....which can't be easily conveyed in a few posts, or even a book really. The deception is that deep!
As to your comment about "citizen", yes, it's a game of semantic deceit. If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you. Thus, all verbal exchanges should be avoided at all costs. Asking the judge to put his question into writing starts a whole new sparring session though as he then questions your capacity to understand basic english and starts to write up a psychological evaluation order, which is a whole new clusterfork. Navigating such encounters is a tricky process any way you slice it.
The bottom line is, until more of us figure this stuff out, they have the upper hand and can and will walk all over your rights if that's what they've decided to do. The masses still lost in the matrix see nothing wrong with what's being done, and carry out the judge's orders without batting an eyelash.
True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.
The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.
Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.
That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.
I have never heard of him, but ...
THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.
I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.
Here's why:
A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.
A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.
Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.
A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.
One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.
A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.
The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).
It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).
Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.
I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.
After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."
That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.
Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.
Go directly to the Robert Fox seminar. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.
But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.
He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.
He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.
He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.
He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.
Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --
https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/
Re Lentz - He's a quirky guy, as many are in this space. All I've done is read the transcripts of his recent case. There's no doubt the prosecutor and animal protection lead are in cahoots. He hasn't even gotten a trial yet - guilty until proven innocent. His only option was to deal directly with the testimony of the animal protection agent. He couldn't introduce anything new. So it wasn't a trial, merely a "hearing" where he had no chance. I think it comes down to one's "definition" of a "healthy pet" or not. Needless to say, whatever the truth may be, it doesn't change what he teaches. He's the best out there IMHO, and I've listened to probably a hundred different "lawful gurus" to date, including Fox.
You're rightly arguing from the position of challenging SMJ. Thus, the first step is to make only a "special appearance (SA)" rather than a "general appearance (GA)". Most people don't understand this, nor want to even try. But once you show up in court, without serving notice of an SA, you're automatically there on GA. Traffic court, which isn't even really a "jurisdiction" to begin with. Doing this, however, indicates you are educated in "legal procedure" and this can cause many problems down the line for somebody who doesn't have a solid understanding of what they're getting into.
That being said, your strategy is sound. The easiest one I've seen work time and time again is to question whether this is a civil matter or criminal matter. The judge will first say criminal usually, after which you say you have the constitutional right to cross-examine the injured party. After the judge hems and haws while you hold your ground, they'll say it's a "statutory matter" in some way or another. Then you ask, well if that's the case, then there must be a contract involved which I'd like to see. At this point, the judge will typically ask you to sit down and wait until the end of all the other proceedings appearing that day. You could and should fight back, but most people take that "order" without putting up a fight.
This is where the Lentz strategy gets interesting. He likens "taking an order" to what you might do when you go to McDonalds and place an "order". In order to get your Happy Meal, you have to pay some money. So he carries around his fee schedule and makes it clear that time is money and if the judge wishes to "place an order" with him, it will cost the court accordingly ($1 per second in his case). He hands the schedule to the judge, confirming he's been "given an order" and says I'll happily take your order based on my fee schedule. All this under the premise that no man has any "right" to give "orders" to another man without compensating him accordingly.
But back to the normies. So the person waits out the rest of the folks in traffic court that day, after which the judge typically tells the person that the contract they signed is their driver's license APPLICATION. The person than states that nobody told me that was a "contract", I was only told it was an application. There was no Meeting of the minds, nor full disclosure as to the nature of the DL application, which is a requirement of contract law.
There's nowhere for the judge to go at this point and he/she knows it. The charges are summarily dismissed with nobody else in the courtroom to witness how it was accomplished.
Anyway, there are many strategies that can be used. Challenging SMJ is a good one but it's harder to navigate for the noob than the strategy I just shared IMHO. The person can kind of "play dumb" throughout, not showing any signs that they know anything but this simple strategy. You can get yourself into some real trouble if you start playing within the legal realm and showing you know your stuff. There are endless ways to entrap and ensnare within it. And not being well-versed, as you are, can lead to this. I've heard one too many horror stories.
For the record, Lentz firmly asserts this strategy as well. He continually reminds the judge he doesn't speak "legalese". He says "I'm just a man and....in the case of a victimless crime like a traffic ticket....you haven't presented any man or woman that I've caused loss, harm or injury to step forward, therefore, no crime has been committed". This is but one of his many strategies FWIW...
Special appearance vs. general appearance is personal jurisdiction, NOT subject matter jurisdiction.
I don't know of anyone who has won anything or had a case dismissed based on a special appearance vs. general. If you do know of such, give me some info.
SMJ has to do with the pleadings that the plaintiff/prosecutor filed, which will ALWAYS be defective in something like a traffic ticket (i.e. they won't exist at all, as was the case for me). And THIS is why it is an actual effective strategy.
The courts are NOT following the law, and we simply need to learn how to call them out on it in a way that THEY recognized something ain't right.
Richard Cornforth explains it best, even though it can be a tough legal concept to grasp -- especially for attorneys who usually think that SMJ is automatic, which it is not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MAQEJZbuY&list=PLufQg4BcdaBBJRYcz4TUTw4MqGRuOmasS&index=2
And never assume that a prosecuting attorney knows jack shit about how to file good pleadings. Sidney Powell supposedly is a "great" federal prosecutor who won over 500 cases.
Did you read her pleadings? Gibberish!
But the legal industry has fraud on its side to help them win. Gerry Spence, famous attorney said, "In 60 years in court rooms all across America, I have NEVER ... hear me ... I have NEVER had a single case in which the government did not lie or cheat. NOT ONE!"
Yes, I've heard of that, too. I think Marc Stevens (strong Never Trumper) has used that to get cases dismissed.
Traffic tickets aren't really civil and they aren't really criminal -- or at least, none of the Rules of Procedure are followed, which is why they are kangaroo courts.
In reality, traffic courts are just administrative hearings disguised as courts. Which is why they do not follow the law regarding Due Process.
I would not use that strategy. I think it will only piss off the people in the corrupt system, and they will just ignore it.
Has anyone ever cut him a check for his time?
Doubtful.
Right here, my response would be:
ME: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence."
Judge: <says whatever>
ME: "Objection! Judge, are you my adversary?"
Judge: No.
ME: Then, you cannot enter evidence into the record. Where is my adversary in this case?
Judges and attorneys cannot just make statements as if they are FACTS in the case.
ALL facts MUST be entered into as EVIDENCE in some way.
And THAT can ONLY by done via WITNESSES.
This is ALL basic principles of common law. Generally speaking, it is part of due process.
When you talk to a judge like this, you will be talking HIS language, not some foreign tongue about "my fee for talking you is $1 per second."
That means NOTHING to a judge.
But if you challenge him on HIS VIOLATION of Due Process, he KNOWS that if you are right, or if you are crazy enough to appeal or file a complaint with the judicial review board ... then HE might get into some hot water.
THAT will get his attention -- even though he will not like you for it.
So what?
Again, this means NOTHING to a judge.
You claiming that it is only an application is HERESAY. It is NOT EVIDENCE.
The exact same as the judge or attorney saying it IS a contract.
That, too is HERESAY.
ONLY A WITNESS CAN ENTER EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
And since the always cut corners "to save time," they almost always violate Due Process.
Guess what happens when the judge violates Due Process?
HE LOSES SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AS A MATTER OF LAW!
And without SMJ, his ONLY move is to DISMISS the case!
You might be right, but if someone loses using your strategy, there is no further remedy because the judge did not violate any procedure of law.
With SMJ as the focus, the judge WILL -- at some point -- violate Due Process, which means that even if you lose, you SHOULD eventually win (there are no guarantees in a corrupt system, but this is as good as it gets, IMO).
Maybe Lentz' strategy could work in traffic court.
But what about more serious things?
Attacking the legal procedure as defective as a matter of law (built upon the common law concepts) is where a more serious case can be won, IMO.
BTW, I've now heard of 3 situations in recent times with how judges are now pivoting when they hear the words "common law". Their response?
"This is the common law Mr. SoAndSo. This is the law common to our nation and is practiced in any court you choose to list. Statutory law is the common law of the land."
Technically speaking, that judge is right. As "common law" is merely the law followed by a collective agreeing to live amongst one another.
Not to mention, every attorney and judge educated since the 1950s have been taught that "common law" is just "case law". Which is of course ludicrous when you know what we know. I happen to know about a dozen attorneys and have asked them all to define "common law". They all regurgitated what they were taught and didn't take to kindly to me explaining they were deceived...as you would expect.
The trickery runs deep!
Question: Which statute was used to create the US Constitution?
Obvious Answer: There was no such statute. It was and still is a common law document.
Question: What does the 9th Amendment guarantee?
Answer: The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Question: Which amendment will the courts not go anywhere near with a 10-foot poll?
Answer: The 9th Amendment.
Question: What does Article III of the Constitution do?
Answer: It creates the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the several inferior federal courts.
Question: What is that jurisdiction?
Answer: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity ..."
Question: What is a "Case, in law," as opposed to a "Case, in equity?"
Answer: It is a case of law, as opposed to a case where a judge finds an "equitable" remedy. In a case of law, the principles of the common law must apply.
Question: Where did James Madison come up with the ideas described in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments?
Answer: They are the principles of the common law.
So ...
While state or federal statute might MODIFY some aspect of the common law, it does not OVERRIDE the common law.
As I said in a previous post, we have a system of common law, but in which employees and agents of government are always trying to squeeze civil law concepts (the law of the king) into the common law -- BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM MORE POWER.
Question: Under the 5th Amenment, the government is prohibited from violating your FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of liberty, even if you are arrested as a suspect in a crime, and put in jail (thereby, depriving you of your fundamental right of liberty).
So then ... HOW exactly might a government go about (a) holding you in jail but also (b) avoiding their OWN violation of your fundamental right of liberty?
Answer: By passing a STATUTE that tells the JUDGE and PRISON WARDEN (not you) that THEY must bring you before a judge within 72 hours of arrest, for a probable cause hearing, so that THEY can PROVE that THEY have a RIGHT to VIOLATE your right to liberty, because they have SOLID REASON to believe that YOU have violated someone ELSE'S rights.
For THAT reason (and THAT reason alone), statutes can be passed to "codify" common law principles into a statutory scheme ... for the EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT to abide by, since it is a PRIVILEGE for them to hold such a position of authority, and it is NOT their RIGHT to do so.
In a nutshell, that is how it is supposed to work.
We all have FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that existed BEFORE the government existed.
We CREATED the government.
But ...
There ARE some bad apples in the bunch (both inside and outside of government) ... and so we ALSO have to have a way to deal with those bad apples, while retaining the maximum fundamental rights for all, generally.
Quite right. If you want to see for yourself how deep and pervasive the hatred is for free people having unalienable Rights as recognized by the founding fathers and encoded in the Bill of Rights, look no further than the topic of 'Law Positive' versus Common Law.
Investigating this topic, you'll quickly learn why America is experiencing the Marxist takeover of government. 'Law Positive'; ius positum is a legal ideology based on human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. On the surface, it sounds good, but it's not. Instead, it is pervasive and evil. I'll go into this further, but it will require some background, so please be patient and your eyes will clearly see.
The concept of 'Law Positive' (or Positive Law) is distinct from 'Natural Law'. Natural Law comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, Nature or reason. Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. In other words, it is based on legal ruling as precedent. This is the reason for the Marxists calling the United States Constitution a 'living' document. That is, a document that is continually edited and updated. The Bill of Rights is not editable nor update-able. It is immutable. So, why have I presented this. Here's why.
It's very unfortunate that most people don't understand what is going on regarding our Constitutional Rights. They can see what is happening, but they don't recognize the prevailing legal theory that has become precedent in the courts across the land.
All the law schools and all the courts in the United States have adopted "Law Positivism" as the guiding law of the land.
In legal theory, Legal Positivism (or Positive Law) is contrary to Natural Law. Our Bill of Rights is based on Natural Law and is being increasingly ignored from the bench. All the graduating lawyers are being brain-washed and indoctrinated to follow Law Positivism. Seldom is Constitutional Law practiced in the courts today. In some cases, and it is becoming more frequent, a judge will brazenly forbid Constitutional arguments altogether.
If you wonder why your Rights are being taken away, it is because of this very reason. It is a well-known historical polemic that the courts provide an "appearance" of justice. Indeed, this concept has long been known and accepted as a principle; ipso facto in the legal profession. Justice has admittedly been revealed to be illusionary for purposes of appeasing the masses.
If the masses ever found out that the courts are all a contrived act there would be rebellion. I know this sounds harsh. However, the courts can only provide the appearance of justice in that justice must be weighed with the known facts.
What does the appearance of justice have to do with your unalienable rights?
Under Natural Law from whence the Bill of Rights was derived, the appearance of justice is based on morality, fact, and truth. It is the closest real justice that can be served. Positive Law is based on rules, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. These are suppose to be imperative components to morality. However, Positive Law is based on the meandering continuum of legal opinions that are rooted in ordinances, statutes, regulations, and rules. These are often government dictates that often have little to no public input. In other words, Truth and Fact need not apply for a conviction.
No one would deny you or I have certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (which derive directly from Natural Law). Yet today, the legal system has adopted the theory of Legal Positivism, which does not recognize you have these unalienable rights. Again, Fact and Truth do not often apply in the dark-robed chambers of today's courts.
In today's world seldom does the appearance of justice actually equate to real justice. Under Legal Positivism, the appearance becomes obvious.
"Law Positive," as you describe it, sounds like just another term for civil law, which is what most countries in the world have.
I'm in complete agreement. Now, can you teach the 100 people closest to you all of this? Tout suite!
My experience has been, virtually nobody wants to learn it. We haven't reached that fabled precipice just yet.
Same story as the virus, huh?
Wilfull ignorance, all around us.
One of the reasons why I drafted this post and shot it up on the forum has to do with my exposure to this area in recent years. The Covid19 atrocities conducted in Australia nation-wide and specifically in the State of Victoria triggered a process of mass awakening the likes of which Q in itself never did (here). (I've written elsewhere about how draconian and over the top the 'mandates' etc were here. Proudly, we were basically No. 1 worldwide for Orwellian dystopian fashion....
When the masses of people woke up, the Ausanons were ready and so the content from the Q movement quickly infused into the general awakening population.
Part of that awakening was a surge forward in people looking into and understanding about common law and civil law, etc, because the civil system was thrown at us hook, line and sinker.
Last year, I participated in 3 local seminars conducted by probably the most erudite people in this field in Australia. It helped me to grasp some of the basic concepts immensely, despite the many gaps and lack of knoweldge that I have.
We all hear about those champions and pioneers who have spearheaded progress in this area. You and u/MAG768720 have mentioned a few. We have had a few over here in Australia too. But what I think 2020 and 2021 did was trigger a more communal response here. Why? Because people who were awake and not happy for the BS have been targeted and attacked like never before, and actually pushing back because it no longer is just about me; it's about our community, about our society and our country.
I think there are two significant factors that are really important here:
One is simply basic awareness. Which is why I made this post, which, despite its shortcomings, certainly seems to have been of benefit to some pedes. Basic awareness is the starting point. Not the solutions, not the actual instances in courts (which are certainly relevant, and which are when the real engagement starts to happen), but basic awareness by an increasing number of men and women about the nature and roots of the problem.
Secondly, communal power. As u/MAG768720 has pointed out, the historical context adds some important dimensions. He seems to be saying, also, that common law is/was THE common law, developed by men and women between each other. It stands to reason, ontologically and socially, that communal engagement is going to be hundreds of times more effective that individuals spearing into the system. Oh, we need that. They become the seeds and the root, but I suspect that it's collectives like neighbors, communities and larger networks begin sharing awareness, educating each other, and operating and supporting each other in engagement with the legal system and it's purveyors, that change can begin to happen, and pushback becomes real.
Well, folks down this way have had great incentive to care, because of what we were subject to in 20/21. Maybe that is what is required. But however its generated, I would say awareness of the issues and the problems are the starting point.
Final word: When I began going down rabbit holes in 2015, I became envious of the United States and the United States Constitution. Gee. How I wish we had that, I would think.
It is only in the last two years that I have found out that in fact, the Australian constitution was drafted by people who wanted to take the best of the US, Swiss and one or two other constitutions, and create a constitution for Australia that drew on all their strengths.
I've come to believe that the Australian constitution is an extremely powerful document, and I no longer have envy of the US const. However, far more than the US, Australia is at a severe disadvantage, because despite having such a powerful foundation, Australians never had to fight and shed blood to establish that (well, not much) and we have been mostly ignorant of its existence, even. At least Americans have some historical pride in how they were founded and what a constitution means.
I'll make other comments elsewhere, but for the record, I think the engagement between you two here (Morpheus 11, MAG768720) has made this post one of the most valuable seen here at GAW for a long time. I suspect that too few understand the significance of the topic. (I requested a sticky, don't know that it ever got that, but the response has been good).
Kudos to both of you.