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.

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 walking 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.

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 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 walking 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 with REAL legal issues are raised in a way that (a) makes logical sense, 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.

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. If 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 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 walking 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 with REAL legal issues are raised in a way that (a) makes logical sense, 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.

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. If 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.

That's my take.

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. If 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.

That's my take.

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. If 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 mattere 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.

That's my take.

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. If 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 BUCK! Some major crime, huh?

I said NO.

She couldn't believe it, and asked why not. I said because I will be challenging subject mattere 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.

That's my take.

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 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. If 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 BUCK! Some major crime, huh?

I said NO.

She couldn't believe it, and asked why not. I said because I will be challenging subject mattere 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.

That's my take.

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).

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 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. If 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 BUCK! Some major crime, huh?

I said NO.

She couldn't believe it, and asked why not. I said because I will be challenging subject mattere 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.

That's my take.