They're weighed down by one or more low frequency emotions that they're unwilling or unable to release like shame, guilt, despair, fear, desire, pride, etc. that has degraded their state of consciousness to the point where they cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood.
If BTC has a value of 300$ then clearly it still holds value.
No, it's lost 99% of its present "value" ($30,000 -> $300). From its high of $68K or whatever, it will have lost 99.99% of its value. Thus, Bitcoin is not a STORE OF VALUE by definition.
Even gold and silver can become over priced. Whats the argument?
The precious metals markets are so completely MANIPULATED INTO OBLIVION in order to maintain the lie of fiat currency as to be unrecognizable. Nonetheless, they've never fundamentally lost value to the point where the energy/labor required to mine them is below cost. If it were, everyone would stop mining for them. That the present "value" barely rises above "cost" tells you what levels the manipulators can and still get away with.
In comparison to the amount of fiat that's been printed since 1971, the value of gold today should be in the $100K/ounce range in relation to the paper printed. This doesn't reflect the labor/energy required to mine gold based on fiat numbers, but rather the comparison of the value of gold pre-1971 in relation to the amount of fiat printed. The banksters have stolen the $98K/ounce of value over the past 52 years by also manipulating prices of oil, staple foods, etc.
Ultimately the "price" is meaningless in this discussion. The question is, when the system blows up, which it must, what can you get for an ounce of silver or gold? In Weimar Germany, a man bought an entire block of buildings in downtown Berlin for 3 ounces of gold. The "price" of those buildings was probably 70 kazillion utterly worthless Deutschmarks.
There was a time when an ounce of silver was worth an acre of good farm land in the US, whereas it would have cost many tens of thousands of military script "greenbacks" for the same land. We're in the same spot now. An acre of good farm land will probably run you $20-$50K federal reserve notes. And why is this? The bankster cabal has used the "rising price of real estate" to trick us into believing we're growing wealthy. When in reality, property value should remain static and structures should actually LOSE VALUE over time, just as a car or piece of equipment/machinery does.
So you've got to untangle all these ideas to see the deception. "Price" does not equal "value". "Currency" does not equal "money". But as long as people can't see the difference, the game of deception run by the cabal will continue and greedy people will always be taking advantage of the gullible people.
Coins like RVP are backed by Technology.
Never heard of it. If the "technology" can be sold/bought for the same price as all the circulating coins and all coin-holders are "Owners" of said technology, then you have something of value. If not, you've got yet another a ponzie scheme on your hands.
And it doesn't really matter either way as its now ultimately infected by Tether carwash tokens if it's being traded on crypto exchanges. There's no way around it. Guilt by association.
If RVP is a great technology then they can issue stocks and bonds like any other tech company in the world. Why would they want to be associated with the darkest of dark underbelly's of human slave trading and worse?
Comparing Doge to any other crypto is like comparing Zimbabwe to USD.
How so? Everything is a copy of Bitcoin more or less anyway. Fundamentally they are all the same. All the "proof of" claims are just ways people try to pretend they're different anyway. Surely you're aware of that?
How can a guy or group of guys come up with a new "concept coin", without doing any work other than ruthless marketing, and suddenly they're all multi-millionaires or billionaires with a few short years? What value have these guys really produced for society? Their coin can be here today, gone tomorrow and nobody but the bagholders would even notice. It's all a ponzie scheme by definition. The only way anybody makes any money in the crypto space is that there's a sucker born every minute, willing to part with his hard-earned money hoping he can one day get "something for nothing" due to the suckers that follow him. No suckers, no profit - only loss.
Go back and look at the January - June 2017 window, specifically at the sudden explosion of Tether issuance when Brock Pierce and his ilk unofficially took over the reigns. This was the moment that Bitcoin, and therefore all crypto started to explode. Tether is the "energy" that greased the wheels. It's printed out of thin air and it drives the entire crypto-landscape. It may very well be linked to human trafficking of the worst kind too. Why would anybody want to participate in this?
When the scam is finally revealed, prices will fall back to where they were prior to this era, and probably well below. When it's all said and done, $300/bitcoin will be a perfectly reasonable price. And when it hits here, we can talk about how "libertarian" it once was in the early years. Today, the darkest elements of society are deeply involved in crypto. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth. Tether is either "pure air" or it represents the proceeds of illicit and horrific human trafficking. Either way, its anathema to truth, goodness, justice and REAL MONEY!!!.
LOL. Blockchain is AIR. Literally thousands of people have generated their "coin" out of nothing. Doge is the most hilarious example fo all. That a bunch of suckers buy and sell it doesn't change the fact that it's air.
Once you see a limited supply in action youll realize why its the best thing since sliced bread.
A limited supply of air?
The future isn't us sending our children out to pan for gold in order to eat that day.
Yet another horrible attempt at a strawman. That's what I said, we should all go out panning for gold. And when we're all gold panners, who will we get all our food, transportation and housing from since we're all gold panners now and no more farmers and ranchers and auto manufacturers and mechanics and carpenters and plumbers and electricians and gold pan manufacturers and sluice manufacturers and pick axe manufacturers...lol. We're all just gold panners now because there's no other way to generate value. Great argument!
You arguments are invalid.
Great point. How did I not realize this?
If my business of MY LABOUR and my GOODS are backed by crypto, isn't that the exact same thing?
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because "crypto" is not backed by ANY THING. The "blockchain" is not a "thing" that represents "value". I can go gen-up a coin on the Ethereum network in under an hour. We'll call it "RealMoneyCoin (RMC). We'll start the supply at a million coins. If I can get my buddy to buy a coin off of me for $100, RMC how has a market cap of $100 Million bucks. All for one hours work. If we can get more suckers into our scheme, we can drive it up to $1000 a coin in no time. Now RMC has a market cap of $1 Billion! All of it still has zero VALUE
Isn't that the ultimate way to raise capital?
You raise capital based on the value of your business, labor, ideas, business plan, etc. A financier must "see value" in your endeavor. That you can convince certain financiers to "see value" based on crypto associated with your business doesn't make it so. You certainly won't find a traditional bank or financier to loan you capital. You'll need to find a "crypto-financier" who buys into the crypto game. A traditional financier will need your balance sheets, ledgers, income statements, tax returns and business plan for growth before they'll lend you a nickel - because they only invest in the VALUE of you and your idea and/or the future potential of the business itself.
Crypto is literally AIR, worse than paper. When the Tether scam finally blows you'll understand...along with Binance and all the rest. The entire crypto space is dominated by scam artists supported by the cabal. Not acknowledging this is turning a blind eye.
You're not understanding the basic point. If the value of the fiat/crypto falls over time, it's not money, it's currency.
Money represents energy, specifically, human energy/labor. The only "value" in this world. This is what the parasites are siphoning off of their serfs - energy - via "inflation" which is of course the "hidden tax" they're happy to use.
Precious metals require human energy/labor to liberate from the earth. They don't "lose value" over time. It still takes X number of human labor hours to produce an ounce of the metal. This is a relative constant over time. This value can be counted on when it comes times to trade for the human labor hours it takes to produce a cow for instance. The value is recognized and the trade occurs naturally based on this simple data point alone.
The cabal is laughing all the way to the bank, literally, as they inflate away the value of their military script they print for their serfs to use and exchange.
This discussion has nothing to do with who uses what as "money". There are multiple ways a piece of paper or digital bit can represent an ounce of gold or silver. This is so simple to understand.
Trying to equate this to people walking around with grams of gold in their sheepskin pouches making purchases indicates you clearly don't understand the basis of our exchange - which is about MONEY and what constitutes it, versus what doesn't.
Money equates to energy/labor and does not lose value. What we use in day-to-day transactions to REPRESENT this value does not much matter. But the actual value must be REPRESENTED by some "thing" of value at its foundation. Neither fiat nor cabal-endorsed crypto fulfill this basic requirement.
One of the key properties of "money" is that it's a store of value.
Neither paper fiat nor crypto-bits fulfill this requirement.
You only BELIEVE that these are "money" because it's been repeated a kajillion times in your lifetime. That doesn't make it true though.
It's no different than saying we live in a "democracy" or the doctor provides you with "medicine". Neither are true.
That 999 out of 1000 people BELIEVE these things are true does not make them true.
Fiat paper and digital bits are currency, fulfilling some properties of "money", but not the most important one of all.
It appears you're correct. Hard to understand this willful ignorance. We're gonna need a steep precipice it seems!
The is fear-mongering propaganda for the truther community.
*There's no such thing as "DNA" as described in the lamestream medical texts.
-
There's no such thing as a "ribosome" at all. All pictures of such a "thing" are either air bubbles or staining artifacts.
-
As such, there's no such thing as DNA->RNA "transcription" as the whole fable of it rests on the existence of the fabled air bubble "ribosome"
-
There's no such thing as "genetically inherited dis-eases"
-
There's no such thing as boogeyman-viruses
-
There's no such thing as "pathogenic bacteria"
-
Therefore there's no such thing as a "bioweapon" as the term is commonly understood. Sure, you can synthesize castor beans into ricin, which is a deadly poison. But this not a "bioweapon" as the term is being used everywhere today. It's a POISON derived from a plant.
"They" are trying to scare us and they will never stop. For every truth they've ever told us, they've mixed it with a hundred or more lies.
Naomi and RFK Jr. are both lifelong leftists, aka "BELIEVERS of many lies". Sure, they're both aware of SOME lies, but only a tiny few. Neither is even close to unraveling the "germ theory" lie. RFK is on record recently staying he still supports jabs. Net-Net; they're both spouting more lies than truths.
The question is, are they wittingly or unwittingly furthering the lies and deceptions of the establishment? If I had to guess, I'd say the latter.
The "federal government" can only make Policies/Rules that apply to its employees. Until people choose to learn this and assert their rights, the "federal government" will be able to keep getting away with these shenanigans.
An educated populace is the only solution to a tyrannical cabal. But the populace doesn't wish to be educated. Only at the precipice it appears...
Now what?
Not so. This is actually the answer you want! A criminal case requires an injured party and your right to question said party. Your only question to the cop is, "what injury did you sustain"? No injury, no case. Simple.
Your example of the loud music and pissed off neighbor is entirely different situation in which neither your, nor my strategy would work as there is an injured party. You must offer compensation for the affront. This is "natural law" in effect.
As to the ensuing paragraphs, I've agreed this is a superior strategy if you know what you're doing and wish to prove your point "lawfully". But that's a lot of trouble to go to for say a $150 traffic ticket. A lot of "on-the-fly" learning, a lot of paperwork, a lot of follow-up, etc. etc. It's a lot simpler to just show up in court, use my strategy, and if you can't win the joust with the judge, just pay the ticket and be done with it. I think this is where most people are at. They really don't care in the grand scheme. Now, if it's a $1500 or $15,000 fine, that's a whole different matter. I'd never suggest my strategy in these situations. The SMJ strategy is the only way to go now.
Robert Fox has the answer to that, as well:
Caveat emptor. This is a risky strategy. ALL STRATEGIES are risky once you find yourself in this situation. First and foremost, the psychopathic psychiatrist can just straight up lie a thousand different ways about his interaction with you. He could suggest your uncooperative nature is a sign of a psychiatric disorder alone. Or he could just flat our say you failed his test. Who's going to contradict him? It's not like you get to have your attorney present, if you even have one, or have the encounter recorded. They can pretty much do and say anything they want. And before you know it, you're being force-fed mind-altering psychiatric drugs. Not a good place to be.
Now, I'm not saying this is a good or bad strategy per se. I'm saying you could very well be in big trouble, especially if you've humiliated the judge. He and his cronies can pretty much do whatever they want....and often do just that.
I brought up this point about pscyhe-evals simply to highlight the need to "remain in honor" at all times, and to not humiliate the judge. Once you get one issues against you, it's usually very bad news for you. They can instruct guards to beat you, move you from facility to facility without directly notifying your family/attorney, etc. and all sorts of nasty things can happen along the way. Net-Net - remain in honor and never try to humiliate the judge.
Would Fox's strategy work? Maybe. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.
As to his second strategy I react the same. Maybe. However, it's not fool-proof. The judge/court may only be interested in their "guy's" opinion. The judge can rule this way. Or the judge can say well that was 3, 6, 9 months/years ago and is no longer relevant today. Lots of ways this can be twisted against you.
Once again, I don't think there IS a good strategy other than remaining in honor at all times to avoid such a situation in the first place.
You've reached a level where you can "legally joust" with them, in honor. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen somebody who also seemingly possessed this knowledge, but got rattled and fell out of honor, I'd at least have $100 or so...lol.
Remaining in honor is rule #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 in my estimation. Even while the judge and prosecutor are acting dishonorably. It's not a level playing field in the last. But joining them in their dishonor, or even worse, pointing their's out, can bring disastrous results!
Excellent. We're in total agreement!
and have a difficult time accepting any new information that contradicts their beliefs
Right, I'm simply substituting the word "information" with "facts" and pointing out that their belief doesn't stand on any "facts". And suggestion of this has no impact, no influence over their beliefs. I might as well have said nothing at all.
At the base of it all, I think there is a deeply-operating "survival program" that suggests going against the lamestream narrative could be detrimental to your health, livelihood, survival, career, social position, etc. Nobody ever articulates this, but I suspect this "go along to get along" program trumps all else.
After food, water and shelter/security, Maslow identified "being a member of a group/tribe" as our next most important survival need. I get it. For some reason, I wasn't wired with this program from the start. I remember being labeled "anti-establishment" in my early teens by certain teachers and adults. My parents were none too pleased but possessed enough common sense to realize I was usually onto something that was hard to deflect or deny.
Anyway, fit me to a tee! It's only in the past 5 or so years that I've really come to recognize just how much this is true.
Great story and thanks for sharing the YT video of Daryl as well as the KYR group. I've seen a bit about the latter in the past.
The traffic ticket tales sure are interesting to discuss. On the one hand, we know they're mostly money-grubbing fraud. But on the other, none of us want idiots driving through our neighborhoods at breakneck speeds either, do we?
You're quite correct that all these fines/penalties are an offer to contract. I've seen many people go this route with declining to do so, some have worked, many have failed. If done right however, it looks like a solid strategy!
Cheers!
Belief directly affects spiritual growth and development.
Yes. BELIEFS stand in the way of the perception, and therefore experience of truth. Ironically, it isn't a matter of "growth", although this is how we humans perceive matters. It's actually a process of "shedding" that quite simply returns us to our natural state of awareness. Dropping the baggage is all that's necessary. As the saying goes, "the truth shall set you free". Thus, "beliefs" are not truths. They're not falsehoods either. They're neither. Now if only more could see this simple reasoning....
Spiritual growth and development impact on one's ability to process difficulty and pain.
Yes, in reverse once again. The unwillingness to "process" difficult life situations is the cause of all dis-ease, decay and ultimately death. We have been indoctrinated into "holding onto it". Men get the stoic/macho indoctrination. Women get the "bury emotions" indoctrination. When we don't "process" the e-motion (energy in motion), the energy gets stored in the body, where it doesn't belong.
The issue is age-old, and the solutions are still in the process of emerging to popular consciousness.
Indeed, however said solutions have been around since time immemorial. Ancient yoga (asanas/stretching) and meditation (silent sitting) were designed for just this purpose; to allow the processing of, and therefore liberation from the stuck energies.
But of course, like all other truths, these things have been twisted and distorted beyond recognition. Today, yoga is seen as a method for "looking/feeling good" and meditation, especially "guided meditation" is just something "trendy to do". Almost all popular renditions of both miss the mark completely today.
The problem comes down to BELIEFS as always. Most of my family are mainstream Christians. Because there's no apparent guidance in the bible for either of these tools, they generally think it's just a bunch of Indian hocus pocus nonsense. And there ain't no winning 'em over any time soon it appears. While I count the Christians as far ahead of the leftists/materialists/atheists on most matters, they're still mightily ensnared in the popular dogma which has enough stealthily crafted deception, mixed with truths, to leave them in a continued state of ignorance on many topics. The example I give here is the worst of it -> "If it ain't in the bible, matching the popular interpretation of the words and what most people agree the words mean, then I'm going to ignore it.".... sigh...
C'est la vie. We've all got our lessons to learn. We wouldn't be here otherwise!
Last year, I participated in 3 local seminars conducted by probably the most erudite people in this field in Australia.
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were an Aussie! 14th amendment doesn't apply!! I've listened to just about everything from Romley Stewart (Justinian Deception), his friend whose name escapes me at the moment, as well as Tom Barnett, who I know learned from another guy in Australia, Mark something I believe. All of whom greatly contributed to my overall awareness of the big bamboozle!
And yes, your post was FANTASTIC, every well written, very concise and extremely valuable to this community. You put some real time and effort into it. Something I've not ever done here, rather just lazily tagging on to other posts.
It was so good, I saved it...which I rarely do for GA posts.
As such, apologies for the 14th amendment lesson you obviously know, but is not pertinent to your neck of the woods.
Well done, glad to have another mind freed from the matrix here, and keep up the great work. I look forward to future posts from you!
Ever read Ayn Rand?
A bit. All of her novels, a bit of her philosophy. I've got a good buddy that's an expert on all things Ayn. He regularly talks about her work so I'm quite familiar with it in this sense. I lean more toward esoteric spirituality for my "philosophy" however.
Agreed with all your points. However, I'm evaluating things from, dare I say, a "higher level" than this Randian position. Not a "better level", just one beyond "ordinary levels" so to speak.
I do recognize that this realm is built on BELIEFS, not facts. There's tons of analysis out there around this idea of "predictive programming". Simpsons, 9/11, TV & movies galore, as far back as the book "Futility" (1898), later titled "The Wreck of the Titan", and even further back, to say the "black plague".
I don't agree that this is "predictive". A better word for it in my mind would be "productive" programming. When enough individual minds collectively BELIEVE something, it materializes.
Another thought is, the more we BELIEVE something is true, the more we draw information to ourselves to support our belief, and repel information that contradicts it.
In the case of boogeyman-viruses, a single experience of "I caught Covid off my wife" or "I got chicken pox from my classmate" or "somebody else always gets sick when someone in the household is sick" forms such an impenetrable BELIEF in someone, that no amount of facts can tear it down. I've learned this the hard way dozens of times over. C'est la vie.
Anyway, I've just been formulating a new theory. It might be wrong, not sure. But I appreciate you chiming in with some of your ideas. Helps me reframe and reformulate a few thoughts for sure!
I am enjoying the debate and intellectual challenge.
Me as well. I think there's more than one way to skin a cat. Your way is a great one, as I've said, as long as you know what you're doing!!! But so few do....
My understanding is that any court (judge) must have jurisdiction in order to proceed and make any ruling or do anything with regard to any case.
Correct. But when you show up GA, the judge is operating under at least a dozen PRESUMPTIONS about "who" you are. How many people can come prepared to rebut these presumptions? Answer, not many (yourself excluded).
"Jurisdiction" just means the legal authority to act in a judicial capacity.
I like this idea that "Juris" refers to "oath" and "diction" of course means "spoken" - Spoken Oath. In the olden days, this is what you would do with your liege lord. Pens and papers were rare. The cabal has just leveraged this method to the hilt and frankly, this is how they continually trick you. They say words (legalese) knowing full well what you think the definition of these words are, while using them against you as per their legal definition. Happens a million times a day in every court room in the western hemisphere.
The definition gets messy when you bring in the word "legal", "judicial" and "capacity". All three needing to be defined prior to using this definition. Case in point, how many people know when they show up to court GA they are operating in a highly DIMINISHED CAPACITY, namely that of quite literally an "infant" (aka imbecile, aka idiot). And of course, in relation to understanding legalese, this designation of capacity is quite accurate for most!
Now, you are saying that the defendant can show up under Special Appearance only, and not General Appearance, and that will not grant the court personal jurisdiction.
No, I'm saying when you show up, the judge cannot proceed with any matters related to your case ---- Under his normal PRESUMPTION with a GA defendant -- and is aware by doing so, you are there to challenge jurisdiction exclusively. It sets the table appropriately. No other games can be played that day.
You can believe that when the sheriff (or court bailiff) is given and order to arrest YOU, they will not be asking if your name is in ALL CAPS.
Well, we were initially talking about a traffic ticket. If you are being sued by another man or woman, the ballgame changes of course. This is technically a "lawful" matter now, if you are accused of causing wrong or harm to another. We gotta keep these two things straight to make sense of this dialogue.
I know of people who have gotten into worse trouble than they started with doing that.
Me too. Lots! And every single time, they walk in with an attitude, with an adversarial air about them. This is a massive mistake!!
I often ask people what is the most important element of the legal system? I get a wide range of reasonable answers - truth, justice, law, facts, etc. - but never the right answer....which is HONOR....by a landslide. Treating the judge as the adversary is almost certain to create greater problems. But how many people understand this in this patriot/lawful space? Very few. Bill Thornton was the master of it. He always remained in honor, never tried to embarrass or call the judge out, and he always left a face-saving escape route for the judge. He was a brilliant strategist. In the end, everything can and must be ultimately done in writing. So any time he reached an impasse with a judge in a dialogue, he would find a way to allow the judge to maneuver out of it gracefully, only to return a day or two later holding the judge in contempt on paper. There's a lot more to it then just this, but that's the gist of his strategy. The judge would eff up, but Thornton wouldn't do anything other than object in open court, on the grounds "it is not my wish" hahahaha.
Acutally, that is venue, not SMJ. SMJ is about whether or not the judge has authority to act as a judge in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
Bingo and agreed! This word "venue" is what is really meant most of the time when the word "jurisdiction" is used I might add. Just more semantic deceit that needs to be waded through....
It is the law itself that says so, not an attempt to "play games" as they would likely see it.
It very well might be perceived this way. Very much depends on the demeanor and attitude of the individual as I've said. You certainly run this risk no matter what. But you also run a risk of getting yourself wrangled into a legal quagmire you can't escape when you let on that you can speak legalese with them. Both strategies are ultimately risky when you don't play along with their games. My essential point, reiterated again, is that it takes both kajones and a decent degree of knowledge to go your route. Not only must you know the ways in which the judge will try to direct you, but you also have to have the stones to stand your ground when he does. I just know too many people that would collapse under this pressure. The other strategy allows them to generally play the "ignorant and innocent" role, making no claims, putting the onus on the judge to blatantly lie.
The reason SMJ is the achilles heel is because the system has become so corrupt that they no longer respect the rights of the people and what is SUPPOSED to happen. Instead, they take shortcuts to make their own jobs easier.
Very true!
I watched those Robert Fox seminar videos. He explains EXACTLY WHY this happens -- but not to HIM (once he figured it out).
I've made a note to watch and listen to the video you shared. Suffice it to say, my understanding is it's the "living" talking to the "dead" in a tidy nutshell.
When you tell the judge that if it is a civil case then there must be a contract, and you never signed a contract. So what? The judge can pretend you never said it because ... IT IS HERESAY.
Again, with my simple strategy (for a traffic ticket), I don't "tell the judge"anything. I'm asking him questions. Which is it, civil or criminal? The judge is telling me what it is. I'm just asking questions the whole way through. Common Law 101 -> Never make a CLAIM unless you're sure you can back it up.
I take issue with this because the Founding Fathers did not see a citizen as a lowly position. It was the citizens who created the government. Maybe being a "subject" was bad, but a "citizen" was something to be proud of.
Once again, this is just semantics. What YOU think of as a "citizen" and what THEY think of as a "citizen" are two different things. They have "jurisdiction" over their creation, the "U.S. Citizen", to whom they've granted privileges and benefits and summarily stripped them of their natural born rights. Thus, any time the word is used, in order to rebut this very deceitful PRESUMPTION, you must correct the record stating "I am a man/woman", nothing more, but my political status is "New York State/American Citizen"... in ow way AM I a "citizen" however. Done in writing of course.
My take is that you should not be debating the judge at all.
Once again, I'm not "debating". I'm asking questions. "Isn't this a requirement for a valid contract judge"? I'm just writing casually with you here, but you should get the gist. The essence is to get the judge to explain it away, which he can't.
And how EXACTLY are you gonna do that? File an appeal? On what grounds? You have none. No judicial error was preserved on the record for appelate review.
I start with a BAR grievance. That notifies the insurance/bond holders. Then I sue the man/woman directly, ACTING IN THE CAPACITY of judge.
We never had a contract. Not a written one, anyway. This is under that heading of "social contract" that is promoted by the loonies.
This "social contract" nonsense is indeed a problem with this strategy. I meant to bring it up earlier. Those cards might be played and there's no ideal way to press this issue, I agree. You've "got me" here. All you can really fall back on is that no man or woman was harmed and you should have the right to face your accuser using your above example of a "loud music". It's not an ideal analogy of the "no contract needed" argument but I understand the essence of this angle.
Robert Fox claimed he did that in 5 states. Sat right next to the defendant in the court room.
Yep, Thornton did this a lot, as did Karl Lentz, primarily in CPS cases. But Lentz never stood up and talked to my knowledge. He simply "advised" as needed. Thornton, on the other hand, was always in the role of the plaintiff to my knowledge. No matter what, it takes some kajones. I've heard of several instances where somebody tries to do this and the judge throws them in the can for "practicing law without a license" not allowing the individual a chance to even defend themselves. This is the scary part of the entire debacle. This black-robed priest can pretty much do or say whatever he/she wants, and the drones, bailiffs, clerks, etc. just say "yes sir/ma'am" and carry out the orders. The psychiatric evaluation order being the most horrific of all!
Sleep on your rights and you lose them (at least for that moment). That is also a principle of the common law.
To wit: If you don't know your rights, you don't have any at all!
True, but our generation has something that no other generation in human history ever did: the Internet.
Indeed, levels the playing field immensely. I've made an argument that isn't popular with some of these lawful/patriotic gurus that stretches well beyond their willingness to consider. And that is, humanity has been a deeply degraded state of consciousness for millennia. So much so, that this "legal system" was and still is actually NEEDED for the herd still locked into this degraded state. But these past 30-40 years have seen a significant upgrade in overall levels of consciousness. You are one such example of somebody that has risen up and out of this muck and mire. And you're acquiring the tools and knowledge necessary to rise above it all. However, this legal system still needs to be in operation for those in degraded states. This is one beef I have --- that we cannot just wipe out the entire legal system. We each need to individually rise above it, then it will collapse on its own accord when the time is right.
Even if Q team succeeds beyond our wildest dreams, We the People will STILL have to stand up and do our part.
Wish more people round these parts understood this. I plan to write a post in the near future suggesting exactly this!
The Founders' generation were learned in the law, which is what made them "lawyers," even though most had never been to a formal law school.
Indeed. I've heard the most popular book in the personal libraries of the early settlers, other than the bible, was Blackstone's Law!
I will never know, but I do think this is the path.
Lots of good ideas. I've casually discussed this in my circles, maybe with 100 odd people. Most get the innate sense that I'm generally "right" and don't have a problem with it. But when I tell them they have to learn this for themselves, they just don't show any real interest. There's something to this tribe/herd mentality that turns them off. They don't want to rock the boat. Most of them have never had any real legal issues. They pretty much think that as long as they keep "following the rules", they'll never have any problems. I can't say I fault them for this attitude.
I'll admit, the whole Cooties-1984 scamdemic was my wake up call. I had known about this law/patriot stuff prior to, but didn't show enough interest to learn it. So I guess we all "wake up" in due time. It looks like others are going to need a more dramatic "wake up call" - dare I say - a "precipice" before they jump on board!!
Indeed, you've stated it most correctly and succinctly.
As I'm starting to theorize lately, I think there are certain deep BELIEFS that significantly contribute to an individual's essential identity. As such, a threat to these beliefs is a threat to the core of one's existence.
I haven't heard a better explanation for this willful ignorance anyway. Sure, "herd mentality" has a little bit to do with it for some. But the people who fight to defend their factless beliefs? What other rational explanation could there be?
This is my latest theorizing anyway. Perhaps there's a better explanation. I just haven't heard one yet....
What do you think?
Special appearance vs. general appearance is personal jurisdiction, NOT subject matter jurisdiction.
I don't think you have this right. The WHOLE POINT of filing notice of SA is to argue they have no jurisdiction. Point being, once you show up GA, you've already tacitly agreed to the diminished serf status and they can and often will walk right over you. In other words, they can't hear a word you're saying, regardless of how solid your argument is. They will often just ignore it and proceed as if you've said nothing at all.
I don't know of anyone who has won anything or had a case dismissed based on a special appearance vs. general. If you do know of such, give me some info.
You don't get a case dismissed with an SA notice, what you're doing is not agreeing to be standing in front of them as the trustee/STRAWMAN/citizen/resident that they're presuming you to be. The SA allows you to rebut their presumptions before any matters of the case are even discussed. Showing up GA, the presumptions are in effect whether you're aware of them or not.
The courts are NOT following the law, and we simply need to learn how to call them out on it in a way that THEY recognized something ain't right.
Of course. Now if only more people were interested in learning this...
Richard Cornforth explains it best, even though it can be a tough legal concept to grasp -- especially for attorneys who usually think that SMJ is automatic, which it is not:
Yep, I've listened to Comforth as well. You've really got to know your stuff, as he does, and have some intestinal fortitude as well. My mother couldn't pull this off. She'd almost certainly fold under just a tiny bit of pressure. Which is kind of my point about the easier tacks...
Has anyone ever cut him a check for his time?
He has gotten paid a few times. I don't have documentable evidence of it so believe it or not. But the point of this isn't so much to get paid, but to make the point that the judge can't willy-nilly order another man around without compensating him. They need to hear this a couple thousand times to get the message. That's the point of it.
ME: "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence." & ME: "Objection! Judge, are you my adversary?"
Takes some knowledge and some kajones to run this strategy. Again, a solid basis of understanding is needed to take this tack. You've got it. But most people don't.
Judges and attorneys cannot just make statements as if they are FACTS in the case.
As you rightly point out, that do this all day every day without penalty. You can flip on your TV and watch any number of "court dramas" and see how they're brainwashing the masses into BELIEVING they can get away with this. As I've come to learn these past few years, facts don't upend beliefs, as beliefs aren't based on any facts. How many out there have the kajones to call out the judge and attorneys on this? That's the real question. You and I, sure. But maybe one out of ten of us at best. The other 90% are painfully brainwashed into their subservient roles. This is the real challenge.
When you talk to a judge like this, you will be talking HIS language, not some foreign tongue about "my fee for talking you is $1 per second."
This is no "foreign tongue", this is operating in the CAPACITY of a MAN, not a lowly citizen. It's a role reversal. After all, the MAN is in reality the BOSS. The judge is a public servant. Public servants don't boss around their EMPLOYERS on their own whim. That's the idea.
Again, this means NOTHING to a judge. You claiming that it is only an application is HERESAY. It is NOT EVIDENCE.
I didn't say it was anything, nor make any claims. I said nobody told me that the DL app was a CONTRACT. Thus, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter in the least. It's FRAUD without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Puts the judge up against it to claim otherwise and can really get him in hot water if he tries to persuade you otherwise.
You might be right, but if someone loses using your strategy, there is no further remedy because the judge did not violate any procedure of law.
You can come back at the judge for furthering a fraud if he somehow tap dances around the fact that the DL app was a contract. The judge knows full well it isn't a contract. It's not even debatable. What choice does he/she have once he/she has admitted it isn't a criminal proceeding and you've pointed out there's no contract as a basis for a civil/criminal offense? Nowhere to hide if you can get paint the judge into this corner.
With SMJ as the focus, the judge WILL -- at some point -- violate Due Process, which means that even if you lose, you SHOULD eventually win (there are no guarantees in a corrupt system, but this is as good as it gets, IMO).
Sure. And I think this is the only way to go in more critical cases beyond traffic court as well. Hopefully a spot most of us never find ourselves in.
But what about more serious things? Attacking the legal procedure as defective as a matter of law (built upon the common law concepts) is where a more serious case can be won, IMO.
Of course, we're in full agreement on this point. The question is, once a person finds themselves involved in more serious litigation, not knowing the first thing about we're talking about.....what's the next step?
A crash course in SMJ?
Could you or I act as "Counselor at Law" for another without finding ourselves in hot water for "practicing law without a license", even though there's no such thing as a "law license" other than in Hawaii and I believe Wisconsin? Bill Thornton manage to do this successfully with his "It is not my wish KING" strategy. However, he was very well educated and had the right temperament for such a ploy. Not everyone can stand in front of a judge doing his best "Johnny Cochran" impression for long.
I'd say 99 out of 100 times the person in trouble runs straight to an attorney - game over. And the one person that doesn't and tries this tack? They usually find themselves caught up in matters way too deep to navigate. The judge throws the book at them of course too. The whole legal realm despises "pro se" (or "sui juris") appearances and makes sure to levy the heftiest fines and penalties possible when such an interloper enters their domain. One wrong step, one minor slip-up and its game over for the rookie/novice/newcomer. The pit of serpents usually finds a way to extract its pound of flesh.
That's my main point I guess. Very few are willing to take the time to learn this stuff in advance. And once they find themselves in hot water, fear takes over and dominates their reasoning. I see it all the time in the healthcare space where I spend most of my time now. Once a person has gotten the dreaded diagnosis, there's nothing you can do for them afterwards. They're drowning.
So my question to you would be, how do we get people interested in this subject who aren't presently in any legal trouble?
I'm in complete agreement. Now, can you teach the 100 people closest to you all of this? Tout suite!
My experience has been, virtually nobody wants to learn it. We haven't reached that fabled precipice just yet.
Re Lentz - He's a quirky guy, as many are in this space. All I've done is read the transcripts of his recent case. There's no doubt the prosecutor and animal protection lead are in cahoots. He hasn't even gotten a trial yet - guilty until proven innocent. His only option was to deal directly with the testimony of the animal protection agent. He couldn't introduce anything new. So it wasn't a trial, merely a "hearing" where he had no chance. I think it comes down to one's "definition" of a "healthy pet" or not. Needless to say, whatever the truth may be, it doesn't change what he teaches. He's the best out there IMHO, and I've listened to probably a hundred different "lawful gurus" to date, including Fox.
You're rightly arguing from the position of challenging SMJ. Thus, the first step is to make only a "special appearance (SA)" rather than a "general appearance (GA)". Most people don't understand this, nor want to even try. But once you show up in court, without serving notice of an SA, you're automatically there on GA. Traffic court, which isn't even really a "jurisdiction" to begin with. Doing this, however, indicates you are educated in "legal procedure" and this can cause many problems down the line for somebody who doesn't have a solid understanding of what they're getting into.
That being said, your strategy is sound. The easiest one I've seen work time and time again is to question whether this is a civil matter or criminal matter. The judge will first say criminal usually, after which you say you have the constitutional right to cross-examine the injured party. After the judge hems and haws while you hold your ground, they'll say it's a "statutory matter" in some way or another. Then you ask, well if that's the case, then there must be a contract involved which I'd like to see. At this point, the judge will typically ask you to sit down and wait until the end of all the other proceedings appearing that day. You could and should fight back, but most people take that "order" without putting up a fight.
This is where the Lentz strategy gets interesting. He likens "taking an order" to what you might do when you go to McDonalds and place an "order". In order to get your Happy Meal, you have to pay some money. So he carries around his fee schedule and makes it clear that time is money and if the judge wishes to "place an order" with him, it will cost the court accordingly ($1 per second in his case). He hands the schedule to the judge, confirming he's been "given an order" and says I'll happily take your order based on my fee schedule. All this under the premise that no man has any "right" to give "orders" to another man without compensating him accordingly.
But back to the normies. So the person waits out the rest of the folks in traffic court that day, after which the judge typically tells the person that the contract they signed is their driver's license APPLICATION. The person than states that nobody told me that was a "contract", I was only told it was an application. There was no Meeting of the minds, nor full disclosure as to the nature of the DL application, which is a requirement of contract law.
There's nowhere for the judge to go at this point and he/she knows it. The charges are summarily dismissed with nobody else in the courtroom to witness how it was accomplished.
Anyway, there are many strategies that can be used. Challenging SMJ is a good one but it's harder to navigate for the noob than the strategy I just shared IMHO. The person can kind of "play dumb" throughout, not showing any signs that they know anything but this simple strategy. You can get yourself into some real trouble if you start playing within the legal realm and showing you know your stuff. There are endless ways to entrap and ensnare within it. And not being well-versed, as you are, can lead to this. I've heard one too many horror stories.
For the record, Lentz firmly asserts this strategy as well. He continually reminds the judge he doesn't speak "legalese". He says "I'm just a man and....in the case of a victimless crime like a traffic ticket....you haven't presented any man or woman that I've caused loss, harm or injury to step forward, therefore, no crime has been committed". This is but one of his many strategies FWIW...
BTW, I've now heard of 3 situations in recent times with how judges are now pivoting when they hear the words "common law". Their response?
"This is the common law Mr. SoAndSo. This is the law common to our nation and is practiced in any court you choose to list. Statutory law is the common law of the land."
Technically speaking, that judge is right. As "common law" is merely the law followed by a collective agreeing to live amongst one another.
Not to mention, every attorney and judge educated since the 1950s have been taught that "common law" is just "case law". Which is of course ludicrous when you know what we know. I happen to know about a dozen attorneys and have asked them all to define "common law". They all regurgitated what they were taught and didn't take to kindly to me explaining they were deceived...as you would expect.
The trickery runs deep!
100% agreed. You can't learn this from a few posts on GA. You can't learn what you've shared with probably a year of solid study unless you are lucky enough to land on somebody that covers all the bases.
You have clearly done your homework and your example shows you are able to handle a variety of situations the judge can and will throw at you. Most people, even those who have studied this for a while can only wriggle out of "situation X" or "situation Y" with the things they've learned. But when "situation Z" comes up, they're stuck and get sucked back in.
I've always considered Karl Lentz to be the guy one needs to listen to and absorb where he's coming from. Many out there have learned a great deal through Karl. He's hard to listen to, doesn't suffer fools, but he operates at the fundamental basis of law which is necessary to be able to handle all the curve balls that can get thrown at you in court. As he states it, "it's a lifestyle". He "acts like a man" in all his daily activities, therefore this translates into court proceedings.
All that being said, looks like Karl is in some deep doo-doo right now as apparently he had quite a few animals (dogs, cats, ducks) on his farm that were in poor condition. I think he's sitting in jail as we speak. He's going to have a tough time wriggling out of this situation as unwell puppies and kitties will pull at the heartstrings of jurors, should he even get an opportunity to appear in front of a jury, which he hasn't been able to thus far.
Anyway, yeah, you clearly know your stuff. And I'd bet you probably have thousands of hours, and many years of learning and research under your belt....which can't be easily conveyed in a few posts, or even a book really. The deception is that deep!
As to your comment about "citizen", yes, it's a game of semantic deceit. If the judge verbally asks you if you're a "citizen of the United States", he takes your verbal agreement to mean you're a "U.S. Citizen" and that he has dominion over you. Thus, all verbal exchanges should be avoided at all costs. Asking the judge to put his question into writing starts a whole new sparring session though as he then questions your capacity to understand basic english and starts to write up a psychological evaluation order, which is a whole new clusterfork. Navigating such encounters is a tricky process any way you slice it.
The bottom line is, until more of us figure this stuff out, they have the upper hand and can and will walk all over your rights if that's what they've decided to do. The masses still lost in the matrix see nothing wrong with what's being done, and carry out the judge's orders without batting an eyelash.
Great post OP! MAG768720 adds some additional clarifications below. I'll slip in another just to help tighten up and clarify one part of your explanation:
God creates living men and women, who then create governments as instruments for serving certain requirements of the living men and women, and governments then create corporate entities via 'legal' means. The corrupting powers reverse this: corporations > government > living men and woman > (x) God
You need to add one more step to this, and it's not necessarily a "reversal", but rather a legal deception. The "corporate entity" that government's create is the LEGAL FICTIONS known by words such as; Citizen, U.S. Citizen, person, resident, individual, driver, taxpayer, parent, guardian, etc. While there is indeed a "corporate entity" created, namely the STRAWMAN (ALL CAPS NAME) at birth, and we are tricked into being the trustee for it, the "evidence" they REALLY use against us is our tacit agreement to being a "U.S. Citizen" primarily. That they don't offer us any other choices on driver licenses, passports and other legal documents is the sleight-of-hand ruse they employ.
Following the "Maxim of Law" - "He who creates controls". We can then observe how the deception is deployed:
God created man -> Man creates government -> Government creates "U.S. Citizens".
In a nutshell, when you agree to being a LEGAL ENTITY, a "U.S. Citizen" first and foremost, you sacrifice your LAWFUL position, and therefore your RIGHTS as a man or woman. Because government created and therefore controls "U.S. Citizens", you unwittingly agree to act in this diminished status.
This is the essence of the trick!!
I've seen many lawful/patriotic gurus go down and end up in prison because they agreed they were a "resident of state X" on a bank account application, or through a utility provider they used the "Washington District of Columbia" postal service (Not Post office) mailing address with the 2-letter state abbreviation and zip code. The judge looks into his Lexis Nexis database and knows he has you under his thumb regardless of what you claim.
Extricating oneself from all of this is next to impossible if you wish to live and interact in modern society. Those that have primarily pulled this off successfully have done a great deal of work prior to getting tangled up in any legal situations. There doesn't seem to be a "one size fits all" solution, but some have apparently succeeded in large part.
Anyway, I hope this helps clarify the section about the "reversal" a bit. You might consider adding a brief paragraph about the 14th amendment "U.S. Citizen" and how not only did it not really "free the slaves", but instead enslaved us all. A remarkable sleight of hand deception to say the least.
New article released today detailing the chronology of the "cholera epidemic" and Robert Koch's continued failures throughout. With a little research and effort, you'll find this pattern of deception to be the case for ALL "pathogenic germs" we have been bamboozled on.
The "heros" of modern medicine were anything but. All those venerated today were, quite simply, pathological liars.
The "h-pylori bacteria", which is merely a temporary form, is no different. It takes from and becomes active when a tissue restoration process in the gut is underway. The loss of tissue prior to this due to an anger conflict in which the psyche is attempting to widen the stomach to help someone better "stomach a situation" they're angry about. When the conflict is resolved, the bacteria restore the temporarily necrotized tissue. Most "stomach ulcers" are the result of a back-and-forth, in-and-out, anger conflict that gets resolved, then reactivates over and over again. It is quite true, however, that when the bacteria are activated, this is when the pain occurs. This is the "true" part of the "half-truth" surrounding the fallacious claim that "bacteria cause dis-ease".
Here's the article for your perusal: https://mikestone.substack.com/p/kochs-cholera-catastrophe
The people at the highest echelons of establishment medicine have promulgated virtually nothing but lies and deceptions to keep the masses weak, sick, beholden to "the experts" and most of all scared of the world around them.
Brave woman. RIP Sinead.