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
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.
^ Follow up ...
I found what I mentioned before.
Here are 3 short videos talking about how the best strategy is to force the court's own rules on the court, and NOT to even deal with the facts or the law.
The person recording these videos posted vids on his YT channel 10 or so years ago. He claimed to have had several victories and helping others, mostly with traffic ticket cases.
But he plays a recording of someone else who claimed to have victories in much more serious cases. And he said he used the rules of the court to win cases.
He also has posted other videos on YT, but they are scattered around, and most of it I haven't really checked out.
Anyway, have a listen and think about this approach.
There is no arguing the law or contracts or any of that. I don't know how accurate what he says is, but the gist of it rings true to me.
"Most people are in jail voluntarily"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xep0Z3J8lF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--lZJwI7nPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thgiy64Ji94
In that first video, he says, "The moment you address the merits of the case, YOU LOSE." He uses the RULES, and NOT the law.
Notice in my traffic ticket case, I NEVER discussed whether or not I was speeding, or driving, or had a driver's license, or whether or not there was a contract, or ANY of that.
I merely challenged the AUTHORITY OF THE COURT to hear the case ... AT ALL.
I think that is WHY it was dismissed.
The system is so corrupt today that they CANNOT uphold the law. The best they can do is give the APPEARANCE of upholding the law, while maintaining the corruption INSTEAD of upholding the actual law.
Today, it is ALL ABOUT raking in the money and having CONTROL over the people.
It is NOT about protecting the rights of the individual, which is how the government is actually structured -- and what their oaths of office REQUIRE them to do.
This means that the DE FACTO actual operation of the system is in direct conflict with the REAL system structure that is already in place.
They are trying to jam a round peg into a square hole because they make money and gain control if they can do it.
But it fundamenally CANNOT be done.
THAT is why there is an inherent flaw in the system -- a flaw that can be utilized to win.
MOST attorneys are completely oblivious to this conflict because they are taught to ignore this conflict as a condition of graduating law school.
Me as well. I think there's more than one way to skin a cat. Your way is a great one, as I've said, as long as you know what you're doing!!! But so few do....
Correct. But when you show up GA, the judge is operating under at least a dozen PRESUMPTIONS about "who" you are. How many people can come prepared to rebut these presumptions? Answer, not many (yourself excluded).
I like this idea that "Juris" refers to "oath" and "diction" of course means "spoken" - Spoken Oath. In the olden days, this is what you would do with your liege lord. Pens and papers were rare. The cabal has just leveraged this method to the hilt and frankly, this is how they continually trick you. They say words (legalese) knowing full well what you think the definition of these words are, while using them against you as per their legal definition. Happens a million times a day in every court room in the western hemisphere.
The definition gets messy when you bring in the word "legal", "judicial" and "capacity". All three needing to be defined prior to using this definition. Case in point, how many people know when they show up to court GA they are operating in a highly DIMINISHED CAPACITY, namely that of quite literally an "infant" (aka imbecile, aka idiot). And of course, in relation to understanding legalese, this designation of capacity is quite accurate for most!
No, I'm saying when you show up, the judge cannot proceed with any matters related to your case ---- Under his normal PRESUMPTION with a GA defendant -- and is aware by doing so, you are there to challenge jurisdiction exclusively. It sets the table appropriately. No other games can be played that day.
Well, we were initially talking about a traffic ticket. If you are being sued by another man or woman, the ballgame changes of course. This is technically a "lawful" matter now, if you are accused of causing wrong or harm to another. We gotta keep these two things straight to make sense of this dialogue.
Me too. Lots! And every single time, they walk in with an attitude, with an adversarial air about them. This is a massive mistake!!
I often ask people what is the most important element of the legal system? I get a wide range of reasonable answers - truth, justice, law, facts, etc. - but never the right answer....which is HONOR....by a landslide. Treating the judge as the adversary is almost certain to create greater problems. But how many people understand this in this patriot/lawful space? Very few. Bill Thornton was the master of it. He always remained in honor, never tried to embarrass or call the judge out, and he always left a face-saving escape route for the judge. He was a brilliant strategist. In the end, everything can and must be ultimately done in writing. So any time he reached an impasse with a judge in a dialogue, he would find a way to allow the judge to maneuver out of it gracefully, only to return a day or two later holding the judge in contempt on paper. There's a lot more to it then just this, but that's the gist of his strategy. The judge would eff up, but Thornton wouldn't do anything other than object in open court, on the grounds "it is not my wish" hahahaha.
Bingo and agreed! This word "venue" is what is really meant most of the time when the word "jurisdiction" is used I might add. Just more semantic deceit that needs to be waded through....
It very well might be perceived this way. Very much depends on the demeanor and attitude of the individual as I've said. You certainly run this risk no matter what. But you also run a risk of getting yourself wrangled into a legal quagmire you can't escape when you let on that you can speak legalese with them. Both strategies are ultimately risky when you don't play along with their games. My essential point, reiterated again, is that it takes both kajones and a decent degree of knowledge to go your route. Not only must you know the ways in which the judge will try to direct you, but you also have to have the stones to stand your ground when he does. I just know too many people that would collapse under this pressure. The other strategy allows them to generally play the "ignorant and innocent" role, making no claims, putting the onus on the judge to blatantly lie.
Very true!
I've made a note to watch and listen to the video you shared. Suffice it to say, my understanding is it's the "living" talking to the "dead" in a tidy nutshell.
Again, with my simple strategy (for a traffic ticket), I don't "tell the judge"anything. I'm asking him questions. Which is it, civil or criminal? The judge is telling me what it is. I'm just asking questions the whole way through. Common Law 101 -> Never make a CLAIM unless you're sure you can back it up.
Once again, this is just semantics. What YOU think of as a "citizen" and what THEY think of as a "citizen" are two different things. They have "jurisdiction" over their creation, the "U.S. Citizen", to whom they've granted privileges and benefits and summarily stripped them of their natural born rights. Thus, any time the word is used, in order to rebut this very deceitful PRESUMPTION, you must correct the record stating "I am a man/woman", nothing more, but my political status is "New York State/American Citizen"... in ow way AM I a "citizen" however. Done in writing of course.
Once again, I'm not "debating". I'm asking questions. "Isn't this a requirement for a valid contract judge"? I'm just writing casually with you here, but you should get the gist. The essence is to get the judge to explain it away, which he can't.
I start with a BAR grievance. That notifies the insurance/bond holders. Then I sue the man/woman directly, ACTING IN THE CAPACITY of judge.
This "social contract" nonsense is indeed a problem with this strategy. I meant to bring it up earlier. Those cards might be played and there's no ideal way to press this issue, I agree. You've "got me" here. All you can really fall back on is that no man or woman was harmed and you should have the right to face your accuser using your above example of a "loud music". It's not an ideal analogy of the "no contract needed" argument but I understand the essence of this angle.
Yep, Thornton did this a lot, as did Karl Lentz, primarily in CPS cases. But Lentz never stood up and talked to my knowledge. He simply "advised" as needed. Thornton, on the other hand, was always in the role of the plaintiff to my knowledge. No matter what, it takes some kajones. I've heard of several instances where somebody tries to do this and the judge throws them in the can for "practicing law without a license" not allowing the individual a chance to even defend themselves. This is the scary part of the entire debacle. This black-robed priest can pretty much do or say whatever he/she wants, and the drones, bailiffs, clerks, etc. just say "yes sir/ma'am" and carry out the orders. The psychiatric evaluation order being the most horrific of all!
To wit: If you don't know your rights, you don't have any at all!
Indeed, levels the playing field immensely. I've made an argument that isn't popular with some of these lawful/patriotic gurus that stretches well beyond their willingness to consider. And that is, humanity has been a deeply degraded state of consciousness for millennia. So much so, that this "legal system" was and still is actually NEEDED for the herd still locked into this degraded state. But these past 30-40 years have seen a significant upgrade in overall levels of consciousness. You are one such example of somebody that has risen up and out of this muck and mire. And you're acquiring the tools and knowledge necessary to rise above it all. However, this legal system still needs to be in operation for those in degraded states. This is one beef I have --- that we cannot just wipe out the entire legal system. We each need to individually rise above it, then it will collapse on its own accord when the time is right.
Wish more people round these parts understood this. I plan to write a post in the near future suggesting exactly this!
Indeed. I've heard the most popular book in the personal libraries of the early settlers, other than the bible, was Blackstone's Law!
Lots of good ideas. I've casually discussed this in my circles, maybe with 100 odd people. Most get the innate sense that I'm generally "right" and don't have a problem with it. But when I tell them they have to learn this for themselves, they just don't show any real interest. There's something to this tribe/herd mentality that turns them off. They don't want to rock the boat. Most of them have never had any real legal issues. They pretty much think that as long as they keep "following the rules", they'll never have any problems. I can't say I fault them for this attitude.
I'll admit, the whole Cooties-1984 scamdemic was my wake up call. I had known about this law/patriot stuff prior to, but didn't show enough interest to learn it. So I guess we all "wake up" in due time. It looks like others are going to need a more dramatic "wake up call" - dare I say - a "precipice" before they jump on board!!
Several years ago, when I knew very little about this stuff (a little, but not much), I got a traffic ticket.
I asked the judge, "Is this a civil case or criminal case?" He said, "Criminal."
Now what?
No contract needed in a criminal case, so your strategy is dead in the water at that point (which is exactly where my mind was at -- CRIMINAL? WTF do I do NOW?)
KEK
Based on what I know NOW, I would have never asked that question, not even on a Special Appearance.
Instead, I would file an Affidavit with the Court Clerk to be placed in the case file, and a Petition to Dismiss the case based on lack of Subject Matter Jursidiction. Of course, I would send a copy to the "prosecutor" or whatever info I had (in my recent traffic ticket, the case file had only one piece of paper, which was a printout, and really had almost no info to go on, in terms of who my opponent was).
As a final step to the filing of that paperwork, I would ask the Court Clerk to put me in touch with someone who could schedule a hearing on my petition. Traffic court might not have that ability in their system, but regular courts do. I would at least try, and make note of it if they refused.
Any paperwork filed with the Court Clerk, where a judge will have to make a decision (a Motion, or Petition, etc.) MUST also be scheduled for a hearing on that issue.
THIS is one of the big mistakes pro pers make. They think either (a) they can just verbally say what they want in court (which is what I did in my recent traffic ticket -- not the right way to do it, but sometimes works out), or (b) they file paperwork with the Court Clerk, but do not follow up to schedule a hearing (and give notice to the other side). THIS is the right way to do it -- file, schedule a hearing, and give notice to the other side. Without that hearing scheduled, the judge can just sit on it and do nothing. Then, the pro per will complain that the judge didn't do what he was required to do. Oh, yes he did because he was not required to look at anything if there is not a hearing for him to look at it (and take some sort of action).
The SMJ challenge would be based on failure to provide notice to me (the defendant) as to the Nature and Cause of the action (i.e. not telling me if it is civil or criminal, federal or state, so that I would properly defend myself). 6th Amendment requires that an accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the action against him.
Maybe, I would add your idea of showing up and specifically stating I was there on Special Appearance, not General Appearance, and I would testify (before the judge realized what I was doing) that my Affidavit was my testimony and was true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Robert Fox explains this concept.
At that point, I have written documentation that there is NO CASE against me, as a MATTER OF LAW.
If the judge decides to railroad me anyway, I have several options:
I agree that MOST people will not do this. But everyone must start somewhere.
Baby steps could one day lead to winning the gold medal at the Olympics.
BTW ...
Robert Fox has the answer to that, as well:
If you are ever put into a position of being required to do a psych eval by a judge because the judge is trying to intimidate you due to you not doing what he wants, you go to the psychiatrist and say this:
"I have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent and not be a witness against myself. I stand on my rights, and I have nothing further to say. Goodbye."
You then walk out (back to your prison cell, if necessary). They have nothing to provide regarding psyche eval. If the judge wants to put you in jail because you refused to be a witness against yourself, you not only have him by the balls when you file your Writ of Habeus Corpus with a different court house, but you have a massive lawsuit against him and the city/county for a black letter law violation of the most egregious kind.
He also said if you think a judge might do that, get your own psyche eval first, and then give it to the judge when he threatens you, and say, "Your honor, I have already taken the liberty to have a psyche eval done. Here is a copy. But I do not have a copy of a psyche eval from you or from the prosecuting attorney. Because the law requires equal protection of the law, I will need to see one from each of you, as well."
Takes balls. Yeah.
Agreed.