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
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 do think Lentz is right about a driver's license application (and signature of the DL itself) NOT being a valid contract for the reasons you cited (no meeting of the minds, no full disclosure, etc.).
But what I am saying is that IN A COURT ROOM, just simply saying it to the judge has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, so the judge can just ignore it if he wants.
He might decide it is not worth it for a traffic ticket, and dismiss "for other reasons" (hehe) ... so it can work.
I do think it can be an effective strategy.
But mostly because the judge will think you are an uniformed peon who thinks he got smart from internet videos.
When you talk about Due Process, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, insisting that the court follows the Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Evidence ... well THAT ... will get the judge's attention in an entirely different (and good) way.
Also ...
How fun would this be?
You get a traffic ticket.
The traffic court violates Due Process in some way (they always do).
You then remove the case to federal court, and simulataneously file a lawsuit in federal court against the judge and prosecutor for violation of constituional rights under federal law 28 USC 2072(b):
Wouldn't that make their heads spin?
KEK
(I wish I knew about this statute during the Covid scam.)
I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you. In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.
You don't get a case dismissed with an SA notice, what you're doing is not agreeing to be standing in front of them as the trustee/STRAWMAN/citizen/resident that they're presuming you to be. The SA allows you to rebut their presumptions before any matters of the case are even discussed. Showing up GA, the presumptions are in effect whether you're aware of them or not.
Of course. Now if only more people were interested in learning this...
Yep, I've listened to Comforth as well. You've really got to know your stuff, as he does, and have some intestinal fortitude as well. My mother couldn't pull this off. She'd almost certainly fold under just a tiny bit of pressure. Which is kind of my point about the easier tacks...
He has gotten paid a few times. I don't have documentable evidence of it so believe it or not. But the point of this isn't so much to get paid, but to make the point that the judge can't willy-nilly order another man around without compensating him. They need to hear this a couple thousand times to get the message. That's the point of it.
Takes some knowledge and some kajones to run this strategy. Again, a solid basis of understanding is needed to take this tack. You've got it. But most people don't.
As you rightly point out, that do this all day every day without penalty. You can flip on your TV and watch any number of "court dramas" and see how they're brainwashing the masses into BELIEVING they can get away with this. As I've come to learn these past few years, facts don't upend beliefs, as beliefs aren't based on any facts. How many out there have the kajones to call out the judge and attorneys on this? That's the real question. You and I, sure. But maybe one out of ten of us at best. The other 90% are painfully brainwashed into their subservient roles. This is the real challenge.
This is no "foreign tongue", this is operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen. It's a role reversal. After all, the MAN is in reality the BOSS. The judge is a public servant. Public servants don't boss around their EMPLOYERS on their own whim. That's the idea.
I didn't say it was anything, nor make any claims. I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT. Thus, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter in the least. It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.
You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract. The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense? Nowhere to hide if you can get paint the judge into this corner.
Sure. And I think this is the only way to go in more critical cases beyond traffic court as well. Hopefully a spot most of us never find ourselves in.
Of course, we're in full agreement on this point. The question is, once a person finds themselves involved in more serious litigation, not knowing the first thing about we're talking about.....what's the next step?
A crash course in SMJ?
Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license", even though there's no such thing as a "law license" other than in Hawaii and I believe Wisconsin? Bill Thornton manage to do this successfully with his "It is not my wish KING" strategy. However, he was very well educated and had the right temperament for such a ploy. Not everyone can stand in front of a judge doing his best "Johnny Cochran" impression for long.
I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over. And the one person that doesn't and tries this tack? They usually find themselves caught up in matters way too deep to navigate. The judge throws the book at them of course too. The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.
That's my main point I guess. Very few are willing to take the time to learn this stuff in advance. And once they find themselves in hot water, fear takes over and dominates their reasoning. I see it all the time in the healthcare space where I spend most of my time now. Once a person has gotten the dreaded diagnosis, there's nothing you can do for them afterwards. They're drowning.
So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?
I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.
In that spirit, I think we are mostly in agreement, with some minor differences around the edges.
I do want to drive home the point of Subject Matter Jurisdication, as I think that it is the achilles heel in the entire corrupt legal industry.
I do not think this is correct.
My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.
"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity. Just because Joe Blow was hired on as a judge and collects a paycheck at the courthouse and wears a black dress and sits on a high chair does NOT mean he has legal authority to act in a judicial capacity in a particular case.
He must have two types of jurisdiction:
But the defendant is not easy. He does not want to get sued or criminally prosecuted. He does not really want to cooperate. In order for Joe Blow to have judicial authority over Mr. Defendant, the physical person, the court must have personal jurisdiction. This is obtained when the defendant is served a summons AND shows up in court.
It is at that moment that the judge obtains personal jurisdiction. Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.
Maybe, but I think a judge can go one of two ways here. You say you are not the person in "ALL CAPS" or are not a "US Citizen," or whatever. The judge will either say that is irrelevant and you have appeared in court (in which case, what are you gonna do, since there is nothing on the record that says otherwise), or the judge can agree that the person being sued/prosecuted did not show up. In which case, the judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest. You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.
As a practical matter, I don't think it is a good method because it does not get at the heart of the issue. It is an attempt to "play games" as the court/any judge would see it. I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.
So, I think it misses the mark, legally.
Besides personal jurisdiction over the parties, a judge also needs:
Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
And THAT is determined by the pleadings of the parties in the potential case. Why? Because the legislature that created that court (per the Constitution) said so, along with the Supreme Court in their Rules of Court Procedure.
It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.
The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.
Although it makes their job easier, and they can go to lunch sooner, it causes them to VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.
Violation of Due Process means loss of SMJ, which means the END of the case.
It is a MATTER OF LAW, not a way of trying to play keep-away-from-the-judge.
VERY TRUE!
And that bothered me for a long time.
Until ...
I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).
And it is why I previously said here that it doesn't matter what you say to the judge ... IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONY.
ONLY testimony can be EVIDENCE. Everything else is heresay. And only EVIDENCE (and law and adhering to court rules) can win a case.
When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.
OTOH, if you created an affidavit to this set of facts AND you turned it into testimony IN THE COURT ROOM, then that would be a different situation. Then you would have the ONLY evidence in the case, and the judge would have to rule in your favor ... AS A MATTER OF LAW (that he knows the appelate court judges will uphold if he rules against you -- and he could be sanctioned by the judicial review board).
I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.
"Natural born citizen," after all ...
My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all. Our system is an adversarial system. It is you against me. Or the prosecutor against you. The judge is supposed to be a neutral third party, and should not be engaging in this sort of debate in the first place.
Yes, I know that happens all the time, but pointing out that the judge is acting outside of his authority by asking if he is my adversary should get his attention, and should make him think twice about what he is doing.
It should make him think that maybe you know more than he would assume you do, and that you could cause him some trouble if he does not follow his oath of office a little more closely.
And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.
Are you going to sue the judge in a collateral action? If you knew you could do that, you would just get him to violate Due Process because that would be more of a slam dunk.
He has a very easy out. He just says that the motor vehicle statute says you must not drive above the posted speed limit, and the cop says you did.
No contract needed for a civil lawsuit.
If you are my neighbor and I am playing loud music all night, you can sue me for breach of quiet enjoyment. You are likely to point to a city ordinance against noise.
We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.
I did have a duty not to interefer with your rights to peace and quiet, especially at night.
BUT ... there was no contract. You could still file a civil lawsuit against me.
Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.
How? Because the 6th Amendment provides that a defendant has a right to "assistance of counsel" ... NOT to an "attorney at law."
Also, the US Supreme Court had a decision many years ago that practicing law is a common law right and no license can be required.
They do it, but only in violation of law. Who challenges it? Nobody.
A violation of a right that goes unchallenged will stand.
Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.
Absolutely. Frederick Graves, inventor of Jurisdictionary and an attorney for many years, said: "If you want to throw your money away, go buy an attorney."
True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.
We can communicate these ideas and share strategies and experiences.
That has potential to change the game, and clean up the corruption.
Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.
Blackstone, who wrote the legal encyclopedia that the Founding Fathers relied on said, "The courts are the theater of the power of the People."
He said nothing about voting.
The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.
The more we talk about it, the more might be open to learning more.
Ideally, we set up a simplified structure for people to learn.
Jurisdictionary is a very good tool for routine civil law cases (you vs. me, but not vs. the government).
When the goverenment becomes the predator, I think that learning where their weakness is in not following the law (i.e. procedure) is probably the key.
I heard someone talking a few years ago (don't remember the name), but he said, "Find the first flaw in their case. Attack that flaw, and do not let go."
By that, he meant that if there is a flaw in their legal paperwork (such as not fulfilling the requirements for the court to obtain SMJ), then do not even discuss the facts (i.e. whether or not I ever signed a contract with the DMV). Focus on that flaw, and that is where you win.
In my traffic ticket case, I never got to trial. I think it is because they were not sure what to do. Maybe they were just "too busy" to spend resources on my case.
But what if 1,000 other people with tickets did the same?
When I refused to settle for $20, I suspect that raised a few eyebrows.
I will never know, but I do think this is the path.