You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminar. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not past Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminar. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminar. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his weekend seminar, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was cited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register. And that case was sited in the annotated federal statutes -- something not 1 in 10,000 attorneys have ever accomplished.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized in drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of legal issues and concepts, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

It could be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST be via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth. A judge can lie and deceive, but ultimately must proceed according to law -- IF you know how to ENFORCE it. Most people don't know how, and most attorneys don't care to because they would rather take the easy and profitable way.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state's or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnare people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have in order to proceed against you. THIS is where common law principles are KEY.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state's or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff. Maybe a few hundred.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnarle people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state's or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Most of it is either (a) not tested in the real court in front of a real judge, or (b) it was, but it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnarle people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state's or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/

You can't learn this from a few posts on GA.

True. Though, I would say I've spent a hundred or so hours studying this stuff.

The BIG issue is that MOST things you will find out there on the internet or in books are NOT VALID in that the courts themselves will IGNORE or even punish if you use them.

Whatever a person does, it MUST ACTUALLY WORK in a REAL COURT situation.

That's why I dismiss a lot of this stuff. Either (a) not tested in the real world court in front of a real judge, or (b) it failed when it was.

I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from.

I have never heard of him, but ...

I think he's sitting in jail as we speak.

THAT is a big red flag. Not to say his ideas are not worth considering, but it IS a red flag.

If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you.

I believe this is one of those many things that is FALSE. 100%.

Here's why:

• A court MUST have jurisdiction in order to proceed with a case against you or me or anyone.

• A court does NOT get its jurisdiction based on whether or not you are a "citizen" or "Citizen" or "US Citizen" or "US citizen" or "State citzen" or "state citizen" or whether or not your name is in ALL CAPS or any of that.

Yes, it is likely that such things are part of a method used to ensnarle people, but none of that is the BASIS of jurisdiction, which a court MUST have.

• A court (really the judge) gets its jurisdiction in a very SPECIFIC way, which MUST via recognized law in some way. It cannot possibly get jurisdiction by stealth.

• One principle of law is that for every harm, there MUST be a remedy. That includes when a judge or attorney commits the harm.

• A Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction by direct grant from the People, through their representatives, via the state's or federal constitution. They have "original jurisdiction" in cases they take up, as well as final authority on appeal of lower ("inferior") court cases.

• The lower ("inferior") courts get their jurisdiction ONLY ONE WAY: By the lawful PLEADINGS of the parties to the case. It DOES NOT MATTER if I sue you and forget to put your name or my name in ALL CAPS or I do. That is NOT RELEVANT. The substance of the pleadings is what grants ANY judge jurisdiction (with the sole exception of a Supreme Court, which does not need to be granted jurisdiction, as they have it automatically via the Constitution).

I would be that ALL traffic tickets LACK the substance needed for subject matter jurisdiction. That is because it is ALWAYS a kangaroo court because NONE of it is based on ACTUAL violations of law (there is no injured party if someone travels at a speed higher than the posted speed limit, and no one is harmed or threatened).

Therefore, ALL such traffic tickets are a violation of due process, and 0% of them should result in convictions. It's just that most people do not know this, and the attorneys and judges and cops and city councils and all the rest make money off the corruption of the system at the expense of the fundamental rights (and money out of pocket) of the People they are supposed to serve.

I once met an attorney at a bar who specialized drunk driving cases. I challenged him on a number of things, and he just laughed and realized he could not refute anything I said -- AS A MATTER OF LAW. His only "defense" was that "well, but it works differently in the real world" -- i.e. corrupt legal industry.

After a few beers, I think he forgot that I was not a fellow attorney, and told me about a case he had. His client (he was a defense attorney) was charged with his 6th DUI. The prosecutor talked with him (the attorney) about a plea bargain that the attorney thought was very good. The defense attorney said this to the prosecuting attorney: "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But drag it out for a couple of months. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."

That is the type of cockroaches that work in that system.

Now, if you want to LEARN some ideas on how I think is the RIGHT way to do it, do not pass Go and do not collect $200.

Go directly to the Robert Fox seminars. Tragically, he has passed away, and I am not aware of anything available about the things he taught.

But he, more than anyone else I have seen out there, KNEW HIS STUFF.

He even had one of his cases recorded in the law books. He won a case on appeal which was published in the Federal Register.

He also claimed that he got people out of trouble with various government agencies, including IRS, DEA, and criminal charges, often multiple felonies that were bogus but people looking at many years in prison if convicted.

He won by understanding the REAL common law principles and putting them to work in REAL court cases ... and winning.

He was beaten by corrupt cops and harrassed many times. But he always came out on top in the end. Though, I don't know how he died, and would not be surprised if foul play was involved.

Anyway, his lecture is a bit hard to follow because he gets sidetracked easily and goes off on tangets. Nevertheless, there are GOLDEN NUGGETS in his lecture series, "Robert Fox Teaches the Law" --

https://www.bitchute.com/video/q6PMqMMSasLW/