First: What I see in some of the information from different call synopses of Karl Lentz

was how that this will take competence on the part of people.

Second, I mentioned the great lengths the system goes to so that we never view priests
and judges as ‘men’ but as offices. We are image trained with priests in many churches
wearing robes and in an ‘elevated’ status from where they speak to the congregation; we
have the same image conditioning in elaborate buildings that masquerade as courts where
‘justice’ is dispensed by men and women wearing black robes. I would suggest that
anyone who ever attempted to get justice in a court with a pedophile priest and got no
satisfaction did so when he/she was assigned a legal person identity from the case number
and the priest was there in his official capacity. It was the corporations sparring at their
best. What if the priest HAD been confronted as a man who had injured a boy?
Corporations don’t sodomize; men do. Corporations don’t hurt and cry; a boy does.

**********
0521-Karl-call-dean-clifford
Angela: we have one more…
Karl: I have a simple question for you. My name is Karl Lentz. I have an easy one for
you. It seems like you say a lot in court to these judges and stuff. I listened where you
were doing a show in Canada, True something? Anyway it seems like you talk a lot to
these folks in court. Why do you even bother addressing the court until they either
have a proper claim handed to you or you have your own claim before the court?

Dean: I’ll let the cat out of the bag on that one. The reason I speak to them and the
reason I really get into with them is because the only time I am ever in court is when I am
there in chains and I really have no choice in the matter.
Karl: what I am saying and how I explain to folks what I would say is I would say to
the man in the black robe that I am either going to require a leave of court so I can
properly place my claim before the court. I am going to require a leave of court so that
I may answer their claim in a proper manner. Is there a claim before this court?

Dean: oh yes, but again for the most part they ignore you and they don’t care once they
have you in custody like that. My whole tactic is that I want them to cause injury to me
as much as possible. The more they don’t answer, the more they are trying to conceal.
Karl: what I am saying is before you say to them, I require of this court leave to properly
answer a claim. You know the word require means to demand as of right and/or by
authority. So, if you say I require it I am just saying that I demand it by right and
by authority. They cannot bypass it if you say I require leave of court. They have to
give you leave of court.

Dean: you would be surprised at what they ignore.

Karl: what I am saying is that is fine, but I am sure…..
Dean: it establishes an injury when they don’t.
Karl: right, because you demanded it by right or leave of authority.
Dean: believe me, I let them know exactly what I have the right to demand when I am in
there.
Karl: I am just saying if you use a simple word that I got out of Webster’s 1828:
require expressly says to demand, to ask, as of right and/or by authority. If you just
say the simple words that you require leave of court the judge has no other right, choice,
duty or obligation other than to give you leave of court. So you can either properly
submit your answer through the proper claim that is before the court at this time, or give a
chance to file your own claim before the court.
Dean: Yes, the counter claim.
Karl: I am just trying to keep people from talking so much. When people talk they are
going to get into trouble.
Dean: there is no better way to prove what you don’t know than babbling.
Karl: right.
Dean: I couldn’t agree more.
Angela: we are over time; we’ll get together and get you your own call, Karl.

*******************
Karl on a call with Carlita, a grandmother trying to get custody of her grandkids:
Karl: what happened is that you got in touch me and the grandchildren were moved with
you for 3.5 weeks because the foster mom had a family death. So you called me and said
you were going to do whatever you could to keep the kids from going back to foster care.
Last week I said don’t put up a big stand, and say you’re going down with the ship and
getting all nuts. I said to let them take the children and play nice and sweet. Make your
claim. There is a hearing coming up.
Carlita, the hearing is the 27th or 28th. That gives you ten days. It is a hearing for
deciding if they will terminate services for the father and the mother. What that means
that there were conditions from the social worker regarding classes they had to take and
follow up with a team. If the conditions weren’t met and complete the classes by the
hearing CPS would look to have services terminated as the county is paying for the mom
and dad to take the classes. If this moves forward and CPS terminates services they
would have to pay for the classes on their own.
Karl: so this is your 20-year-old daughter and her boyfriend?
Carlita: that’s correct.
Karl: are they talking about placement options at this hearing?
Carlita: that would be after the May hearing and would be the last hearing for the year.
Karl: is that second hearing soon?
Carlita: probably 2 weeks after the May hearing.

Karl: I’m going through this for the benefit of others who might be listening. So this
hearing would be for cutting services to the mom and dad and then they will go for the
permanent placement hearings. How does your daughter feel about the children being
adopted?
Carlita: I don’t know other than she wants them with the foster mother who will adopt
them. So she won’t argue with the court that they children can be adopted by the foster
mother.
Karl: that will make it so she doesn’t pay child support. She walks away and won’t be
liable for being put in jail if she doesn’t make her $300 child support payment to the
state.
Carlita: my concern is that even though she has the parental right now, will the court
listen to her when regarding her placement of the kids?
Karl: of course they will. It’s what they want to hear, that she has no objections and
won’t come back and sue and appeal. That will give the state the green light. She’s off
the hook for child support. And they will put you in jail if you are 2 hours late with the
child support. They don’t care. She’s out of the whole thing. So what you will do, have
you noticed that social services put notices in the paper? They do it when they are trying
to father and they use the legal section of the paper for anyone who wants to make claim
for the children this is the notice. Google this for CPS notices before children are
adopted out. So you go out tomorrow and do a legal notice like social services does.
What you will be doing is to say that you are the maternal grandmother of named
children and you are making claim for full custody of the children. If anybody wants to
make a counter claim then we say if anyone has a higher claim (not superior claim, but
higher claim) than mine then appear at 9AM on May 28 in Family District court in room
202. Don’t remove about the removal by CPS of your grandchildren. That is between
the mom and dad and social services and has nothing to do with you. If you want to
attend you can do that to show concern. Let your presence be known and don’t say
anything to anybody. Let’s say the termination of services is the 27th and the hearing for
placement for adoption is the 28th.

Karl: so what will happen is you put the notice in that the maternal grandmother of
Bobby and Susie. There will be a hearing for permanent placement on May 28, 9AM
room 202, in San Diego county Family services (and address). Let the announcement in
the paper run 2 weeks (some people may say run it one month). As soon as your
announcement comes out that will be evidence you take into the court. On the 28th you
will present a simple claim:
I claim Bobbie and Susie. I a woman call the ____Claim that Bobbie and Susie
[grandchildren] are my property
Note: you don’t say grandchildren without brackets, you say property. When you put the
words in brackets then those words don’t appear. If you write in grandchildren instead of
property then they will say they have grandparent’s rights’ activity groups, grandparent
rights laws. They don’t have statutes in the county and state on property for the county
and state to claim property. They pull lots of legalese nonsense with children, offspring.
Property makes it nice and simple. Then just say, see Exhibit A which will be “Susie,”
and you could annex a picture. You can do Exhibit B with Bobbie. Jessie in Canada who
got her children back did the same thing.

Carlita: I want to interject and mentioned to the social worker when she was leaving if I
would be interested in adoption? I told her she had already gotten the answers to that
question since February. I told her I was claiming whatever it would take to get my
property. She gave me a look with big eyes.
Karl: I know the look; I’ve seen it on judges and they look like they have swallowed a
lemon. A Canadian judge had that look and said, well you know Lincoln freed the
slaves…
Carlita—she turned around and asked me again what I said and I repeated, my property;
they are my property and I am here to claim them. She said she would give me a call in
a few days.

Karl: no man can touch another man’s property. I don’t care if you are the president or
Jesus, no man can touch another man’s property. It can’t be done. So she knows that
you are trying to hold her personally liable for touching your property and she can be
sued. This is what Jessie did in Canada. CPS had 10 to 20 witnesses against Jessie and
Jonathan and they all bailed the day after the property claim went in from Jessie and
Jonathan regarding the children. They all pulled their testimony off the records and they
all pulled their affidavits out of the court and refused to testify. Jessie and Jonathan got
their kids back because she did the ‘property’ routine. No man can touch another man’s
property. If you say that is your property and somebody would have to come forward and
make a higher claim for that property. Only two people could make a higher claim than
CPS for the property and that was the mom and the dad. So you are going to stay quiet
AND DON’T SAY ANYTHING TO THE SOCIAL WORKER. I keep telling you
don’t spill the beans. I’m trying to set a trap for them. It’s like your playing poker. Now
you told her what you are going to do. If she goes back and knows what you have just
said you are going to have a hard time. The hardest time I have with people ahead of the
court hearing is keeping their mouths shut. Just let me do my thing. You don’t show
them what you are going to do because you are scaring them, warning them and they will
try to do a trick and hold a hearing on the 26th when you are not there.

Karl: You guys have play stupid and bluff them like you would in poker. This is what I
am good at and that is what I did to the state of Alabama. I probably just looked like a
big, dumb biker that doesn’t have a brain cell in my head and I just smoke dope, drink
beer and beat up women all day. That’s why I look like this; they never see me coming.
Stop –you have to spring a trap on them and get them at the last second. This is what will
happen and hopefully she just blew you off and forgot about property and claims. What
you are going to do is hand the claim in on the date of the hearing. You are not going to
do it 10 days in advance. If it starts at 9AM you are going to the clerk at 8:45 and have it
time stamped and serve it to the court in open court. They will ask what it is and you’ll
just reply for them to just read it. It’s 2 or 3 sentences demanding that your property is
returned and the exhibits will attached. They will probably call a recess so the judge can
figure out what the hell to do. Even though it is just an administrative court and he is
just an administrative officer he knows the rules. If common law makes its ugly
appearance in his administrative court he has to recognize it. If he doesn’t, that is
great; it goes up on appeal. You will appeal it to his boss and say that he ignored the
fact that we were moving into common law at that time. That’s the trick; you have to
spring it on them. These people are dirty tricksters and they will hold that hearing a
different time.
Karl: they did it to me. Me and the mother of my child, my mother and family, who
came from NY, Virginia, Alabama where we were, had a hearing regarding termination
of parental rights with our kid. This was supposed to be Dec 8, 2003. My lawyer called
and said don’t bother coming as court was cancelled for that day. They will re-hear it in
January after the 1st of the year. So I told my mom who called the court clerk and she
said the judge had rescheduled for January 6. Everyone called each other regarding Jan 6
change of date. But, my mom, having worked for IRS sent a certified letter to the judge
on Dec 7, regarding that the hearing had been rescheduled for Jan 6 and that is a shame as
we were all ready to see Karl’s child come home for Christmas, etc. Let us know when
you are going to reschedule this. My mom has a phone and she would call everyone to
reschedule the trip. My mom’s letter arrived on Dec. 10th. The only problem was that on
Dec. 8th they held a trial and my wife and I lost the rights to our kid and they put our kid
up for adoption because nobody showed up from the family side. Nobody showed up.
But, my mom’s letter showed up on Dec 10th. She had sent it to the 2 supervisors at
social services and the head of social services in Montgomery. She had proof and
because of her IRS experience she knows how to do letter writing. When my attorney
called me on the 10th he wanted to know what the hell my mother was doing and I was to
tell her to get the hell out and not get her involved.

Karl: so I read my mom the riot act because of the lawyer. He’s a good guy and he said
stop doing this nonsense, it’s going to mess everything up. So, I gave my mom the riot
act. God bless my mom, here is what she did: because after Christmas she got some
paperwork showing they held the court trial on Dec 8th and since none of us showed up
Karl’s kid is being put up for adoption. You called the court clerk, the judge’s chambers
and Miss Sherry said not to show up; the supervisors said not to show up. They held the
trial anyway. I got hold of the attorney who works in a big office. The attorney was in
the break room hiding under the water cooler, he wasn’t in his office. He knew what he
did. I told him to get out of there. Later he became a head judge. I told him I’d already
figured out what the judge, social services and he did to me. So I asked for his version of
the story and why he let that happen. He said they were going to dis-bar him if he didn’t
cooperate with them and help set you up. You cannot tell these people what your game
plan is. This is not just you. I hope one hundred million will listen to this call because
your lawyer will set you up and tell you not to show up on a termination of rights trial if
the attorney believes you are going to fight for your kids. If my mom had not sent a
certified letter to the judge and the head of CPS it’s all fraud. They were trying to show
the world that the parents didn’t care about their Down’s child. We weren’t allowed to
see him for the first 2 years of his life. They kept telling us he was deaf, dumb, blind and
crippled. We didn’t care if he was. So the trial was coming up in Dec. 2003 and we had
not seen him since he was born. We said that we didn’t care and we would take a deaf,
dumb, blind and crippled child.

Karl: If these people know that you have a claim that you can make headway with they
will reschedule that hearing on you and they will do it the day before or that day, but they
will tell you they are rescheduling for 3PM and then hold it at 9PM and then they act
dumb when you ask them what happened to the 3PM hearing. They will say it was
always supposed to be at 9AM. They will do that nonsense to you. You cannot trust
these people, so hold your actions close to your vest like you are playing poker. You
cannot let them see what you are going to do. Don’t try to sound smart with these people
because you are really going to hurt yourself. The dumber they think you are the better
off you are going to be. Then you spring it on them at the end. You’ll say, I hear my
daughter is giving up on the kids. You want to adopt them out now? Yes? Then you
spring it on them. Once she says in open court that she doesn’t want her kids anymore
then you spring the claim on them because she has abandoned her property. Once she
abandons her property, that is it and you make a claim for it. You have to get your
daughter to say in open court that she no longer wants her kids.

Karl: now she has abandoned them in court. She is abandoning the kids to the state. So
everyone heard that and she’s done. Now, here judge I have something to present you. If
the judge asks what this is, just read it; it’s just 2 or 3 sentences long, just read it. So you
are making a claim for the abandoned (or surrendered) property. I am going to go
over the definitions of abandoned and surrendered and see which the better one is.
Abandoned means that you did that willingly and freely. I’ll probably go with
abandoned. All these men and women, if you are dealing with Child Services, CPS,
whatever they call it where you live, and these people are evil. If they think you want
your kids back they will do everything in their power to trick you and make sure that you
get a phony court date, wrong time, or wrong building, wrong address, wrong room.
They will do whatever it takes.

Carlita: at what point do I place the public notice?

Karl: immediately. No one ever reads those legal notices. Place it and cut it out and that
is one of the exhibits that you gave the world notice to make the claim. See what I am
saying. Make it short: give your names and the kids names and the building, time, and
more. Look back at what I said earlier.
Carlita: I know they are corrupt.
Karl: do you have a better game plan?
Carlita: I do with hesitancy and I see what they do in court; these cases are moved like
they are production assembly line. I want to make sure that my document gets seen and
heard and I am not pushed over.
Karl: you said there would be a hearing for placement right?
Carlita: yes.
Karl: that is when everyone has an opportunity to put in their 2 cents. I could go and
make a claim for those kids. My claim is higher than the State of California’s claim for
the kids. I can make a claim; only man can make a claim and the state cannot make a
claim. I might be ten thousand million times removed from you, but I still have a better
link to you as a human being than the State of California. The state is not a human being.
They are an alien. I have more ties to you and my DNA is closer to yours than the State
of California. The State of California doesn’t have a DNA. See what I am saying.
Another man can make a claim for another human being. The state cannot make a claim
for another human being; that is perverted. That is insane. Human beings created the
state. The states can’t claim us; we can claim the state. What have lawyers told you to
do?
Carlita: I’ve only consulted one lawyer 2 or 3 months and she was going to file a motion
to have the kids placed with me immediately.
Karl: there’s nothing wrong with that.
Carlita: her reasoning was that the longer they were in foster care…she wasn’t so
concerned about the 9 month old as she was the 2 year old. The longer the older one is
there, the more acclimated she becomes to the foster mother.
Karl: that is all good legal, mumbo-jumbo, psychological baloney. I’m telling you if I
hadn’t seen my kid for 15 years I would still make a claim for my kid. I don’t care
where he located. I don’t care if they say he is ‘acclimated’ and ‘grew accustomed’. My
answer is that is my property and I’m taking that property where I want. I that your
property? You think you can claim that property? I’ll see you in court. I’m the ‘rightful
owner’ of that property and no one has a higher claim to that property other than the mom
or dad. It’s simple. If they raised the kid for 15 years they might hand me a bill for
expenses for taking care of my property.

Karl: Just like a big old dog wandered on my property a couple of months ago and made
this house his home. So I adopted the dog. I was walking with a neighbor the other day
and telling him about the dog. It would be funny to see the owners who owned him
previously try to take him off my property. You know what I would do? The old man
said, you’d hand them a bill, right? I said you’re right. He said everyone knows that. It
is basic and simple. So here’s the bill. Don’t think you are going to abandon the
property and they are going to get it for free. Even with the children. Even though
someone might come back and claim a child. You have to surrender the child to mom or
dad and then worry about the compensation on the bill. This is where all this came from
is the Catholic Church. A hundred, or hundreds of years ago if a woman was without a
husband, they took a playing card and cut it in half. You kept one piece and that was
your receipt. You put the other half in a basket with the baby and left the baby on the
church step. The nuns would take the baby and raise it. If you came back later you gave
them card and they gave you back your child. If you came back in 15 years and gave
them the other half of the card the church didn’t take payments, they didn’t hand a bill.
They did it out of charity. So you can do this two ways. You can give somebody a bill.

Karl: so if someone abandoned his dog and it ended up under my care then he’d get a bill
if he came to claim him. Would I give a child a bill for their dog? No. it’s totally up to
me if I want to hand him a bill or hand over his property, the dog, for free. There is a law
on my side under common law. So if you have an attorney who says let’s put a motion to
get the children returned to you, there’s nothing wrong with that. The judge will say or
not. Haven’t you put one in by now? How long has this been going on?

Carlita: several weeks ago.

Karl: is there a reason why you never had the motion made to place the kids with
you?
Carlita: I just came in the picture in late November, when CPS contacted me because
based on my daughter’s word, she had said there was no family. I don’t remember how
they made contact but they wanted to set up a meeting back in November and I couldn’t
attend. There were already 2 meetings that were held that I hadn’t been aware of.
Karl: did the magistrate, judge…he’s really a civil hearing officer and not a judge,
did he recognize you as having standing in court?
Carlita: on the last hearing he did.
Karl: I don’t care when they did it as long as you have standing. That’s fine and then
you can make your claim. But, it’s odd. Did you hire the attorney? Is it court-appointed?
Carlita: this was a private attorney I was referred to and had been consulting with until
recently.
Karl: do you like her? Did you trust her? Boy, I trusted mine, but then you heard what
happened. How do you feel about her?
Carlita: she’s good but my question to her is what her experience is? If I did that I would
hire and attorney who would be willing to fight CPS and not just say this may or may not
work. Either you are confident or you are not. If you are not confident then how do you
expect me to be confident?
Karl: as a grandma how much is the attorney charging you?
Carlita: $4K.
Karl: okay, my mom’s was $3500 so I guess prices went up in the last 10 years. That’s
good. I’m trying to do this call and hopefully there are a lot of grandmas and moms
listening. So, it was $3500 for my mom to have an attorney even listen to her. So I
guess at $4K that went up a little.
Carlita: I consulted with one other attorney. Mostly I was looking for a juvenile
dependency attorney, one who has the experience and will go up against CPS. I talked to
one up in LA and his fee was $7K.
Karl: me and my wife and my sister found a guy in Alabama, big burly man, who was a
fathers’ rights advocacy president. When we went to meet him he said it was the first
time he’d ever had a mother and father show up to talk to him in his law office. It has
always been the dad who shows up. My wife and I don’t know why the state took our kid
and we need somebody to do our case because everyone we ask refuses to do our case.
He said he’d get to the bottom of it so we retained him for $1500. We talked to him for 4
or 5 hours and he said this was the most ridiculous case he had ever heard of. We could
not get any lawyers 5 to 6 months prior to that. The next day I went in and he said here is
the $1500 back and please don’t ever talk to me again. If I put my nose into this I will be
disbarred. They are making your family look like the Charles Mansons, like the black
sheep of the Charles Mansons. They are making your family look bad. I said, my sister
is a school teacher, my mom works for IRS and my dad sailed around the world when I
was 16 and he’s a great guy. Did you get a copy of the case file? Did you find out if
there is a contract? Did you find out why they got the kid? He asked me to leave him
alone that he would be disbarred. Any attorney who looks into this case will be
disbarred. I don’t know what is going on and I’ve never heard of anything like this. He
was a big guy and he just wanted us to leave him alone.

Karl: just because the attorney is a big burly guy, if they step up they have a problem.
The family court judge will tell him if he goes near the case he will be disbarred. He was
with the father’s rights advocacy group. His name was Harlan Mitchell in Muscle
Shoals, Alabama, and he stopped the father’s rights group, he doesn’t do family law and
now he does real estate law. If someone asks him if he’s the 6 ft 3, 300 lb, ex-
motorcycle cop, that’s his name. Just because you get a lawyer doesn’t mean they are
actually going to help you. This lawyer said there are 3 lawyers stupid enough to take
this case and one of them was Brian Huff. Google him and you will find that after 2003
he was the Alabama Court Family Judge. In 2004 my mom sent the letter and the judge
was fired. They held a trial while we weren’t there. That judge was fired and they put
my attorney Brian Huff in as judge of the biggest county in Alabama. He had never
done family law in his life. He sealed my case file and nobody is allowed to see it. That
was a ridiculous reason to put him in as judge and when elections came around in
November, he lost. He’s no longer a sitting judge. Everybody can check my story to see
if it’s true. Brian Huff was appoint judge after Sandra Storm (Sanderstorm?) the other
judge, was kicked out. Now you know why. (Judge Huff took the bench in 2005. He is
the Presiding Judge in Jefferson County Family Court. He is a graduate of the University
of Alabama and the Birmingham School of Law. Prior to taking the bench, his practice
concentrated in the areas of Family Law, Juvenile Law and Domestic Relations Law.
http://10jc.alacourt.gov/bh.html)

Karl: just because you get lawyers and judges doesn’t mean that they are decent people.
If your lawyer wants to do it and you have the $4K, put the motion in. Don’t be afraid if
the motion is denied. Oh, it’s denied? Here you go judge, now I have a claim. Let
him try to deny a claim. He can deny a motion, but let him try to deny a claim. A
judge cannot deny a man a claim; only another man can deny a man a claim. Only
a man can make a claim.

Carlita: ok, if the judge does deny the claim, then what?
Karl: lovely. He is now liable. He knows that there was no other man present in
his venue the court proceeding that had a higher claim than you. He is totally
ignoring common law, not legalese. That is judge saying he’ll just do what the legal
entity called Social Services tells him to do, not what the man or woman tells me to do.
The man or woman will order the judge. It’s going to be an order; we don’t put
motions in. Jessie knows this. We put in a claim after we first made the notice, and
then we gave them a cease and desist and then we gave them a claim. We demanded
compensation and then we gave them an order. There you go. NO motions and no
petitions. None of this stuff your lawyers say to do with motions. I don’t motion
anything. Why would I put in a motion? I put in a claim. Then I put in a demand
for compensation. After that I put in an order. It is that simple and there is no legalese
nonsense with petitions, complaints or any of that gibberish. I just speak common clan
normal language and not gibberish. That is what the common law is. What book do I
read this in? What book? It’s common law, it’s common sense. It’s whatever the
people in your community believe is relevant in that particular moment in time and what
is fair and just. And the community decides. It could be the Arapahoe people or the
Navajo people as a community even though they live just on the other side of the
mountain. It’s whatever comes to their community; that is common law. There are
millions of districts in North America and everyone has different beliefs.

Karl: You could have an OJ Simpson trial in LA and he might walk; you can have that
trial in Beverly Hills with a bunch of pasty white people and he is going to fly. There
you go; it’s the common belief of the people in Beverly Hills that he was guilty. It was
the common belief of the people in LA that he was not guilty. See how that works? That
is common law. If you hear people say English common law that is nonsense. If they
say common law for (garbled). No its not. English common law was written by lawyers
and it’s very rigid stuff. And you must follow the steps like a precision machine head and
you do this and go back and forth for years. Common law is simple; it goes on for about
10 minutes and we are done. It won’t go on for years and months. Jessie will tell you
she tried to get her claim in on a Thursday and by Tuesday they were saying okay, fine,
you want the kids back? Come and get them. As soon as they saw the claim coming they
were done. Somebody knew how to file a claim and they told here they didn’t know how
she learned to do that so quickly from all the crazy stuff she had been doing. She
tightened it up quickly and was done.

Carlita: a claim consists of how many documents?

Karl: one and it’s 2 or 3 sentences. That is it. If you want to attach a lot of exhibits,
that is fine. Let’s say you claim you found gold. Eureka, I struck gold in my back yard.
You are going to make a brief claim that you found gold, where you found it and if
anyone has a higher, previous claim of discovering gold on this property let me know
or forever hold your piece because I am going to start digging and everything I pull out
of this hole I am going to claim is for my sole use and enjoyment. You could have a
GPS exhibit, photos of the gold that you found, have a priest stand next to you and say
you found gold, whatever. Exhibits can be a mile long. But the claim is a couple of
sentences and you are done. Just like the notices in the newspapers. They are just a
couple of sentences. I am Grandma, Bob and Sue are my grandkids. I am making a
claim for them as my property. The mother and father abandoned them and I am the
maternal grandmother. I am making the claim to this property. There you go. Then you
attach the exhibits. Does it make sense?
Carlita: it does, I just don’t want to go through all of this and then be disappointed. I’ve
had people come and tell me they would help and it fell through.
Karl: has anybody done it this way, the way I am saying?
Carlita: no, this is the first time.
Karl: there you go. God bless Jessie in Canada. Everyone was doing it the way you were
doing it. So it was, Jessie, are you going to lose these kids? She said, “Absolutely.” Is
there any chance the Crown is ever going to replace you and your husband? She said,
“Never.” I asked if she had criminal charges on her and she said yes. Are the ex-
husbands and wives in the picture and have they already provided them with housing for
the kids? And I asked her if they were definitely going to the ex-husband and wife and
she said absolutely. So I said you have nothing to lose right? And she agreed. So I said,
beautiful, I can work with you. She had nothing to lose and there was no fear or
trepidation. I told her to do exactly what I told her to do and if she did anything other
than what I told her to do I wouldn’t deal with her any more. If she tried to ‘wing’ this or
figure it out on her own or put her own words in, then I was done. It’s basically like the
lawyers told OJ, “just sit there and look out the window for a year and a half and don’t
say a word and keep your mouth shut and you will walk home.” If you open your
mouth, OJ, then its’ all on you. Don’t blame me if they put you in the electric chair so
that is what he did. He kept his mouth shut. So that’s it, if you think there is a lawyer
who can help you, then god bless you. Spend the $4K. If you think it will work, it won’t
hurt. Ask for an immediate emergency motion. That way if she has the emergency
motion she can have it heard in 72 hours. That way you get your $4K worth. It’s called
an immediate emergency motion.

Carlita: if you do that what I am hearing from the last call is that she will be operating in
the administrative court and not in common law.
Karl: that’s right; she is playing by their rules. So if you want to play by their rules for
the next 72 hours you can. You can put the immediate emergency motion in and within
72 hours they would have to have a hearing for you to get the kids. The judge will say
denied. You will be denied because you haven’t completed a home study and you don’t
have a team assigned to you and you have agreed to the parenting and drug assessment
classes.
Carlita: what do I need to do all that for?
Karl: if anyone else is listening they will know exactly what I am talking about. My
mom had to do the same thing and go to psych evaluation, my step-dad had to go to
psych evaluations, everyone in that house had to do psych evaluations and everyone had
to have drug assessments. Maybe your lawyer lady forgot to tell you. Why don’t you
ask her? Are social services going to demand a home study of me? Will they do a
background check and psych evaluations? Ask your lawyer that.

Carlita: all they requested and she brought it up was that I do a Live Scan. That’s the
only thing.
Karl: that’s right. You don’t have to…..yet. Once they see you are going to start
pumping money into the game the lawyer will say this lady has bucks so let’s milk this
lady for awhile. Let’s see how many more motions I can do; let’s see how much more
we can bang this lady for. These lawyers are crazy evil like that. They’re going to say
she’s got $4k and they just got their indoor swimming pool. But they need the Jacuzzi to
go with that. She’ll tell you it’s only going to be 2 or 3 more motions and then you’ll be
done. Believe me we’ll get there. Oh drat, they threw the psych evaluation out and you
have to do another one. Then we will petition again and we will see if they will move
with the placement then. We will do it for 3 months and they’ll say it’s looking good.
Just keep the payments flowing. I know people are laughing … Karl’s right, that’s the
way it will go. Once they see the first check clear then they’ll make sure there’ll be a
second check that clears and so on. They’re good until the checks bounce and once that
happens they say that’s enough. Then they’ll say give her the kids, we’ve milked her for
all she has. Or they will say run over her and do whatever you want with the kids. I’m
telling you it’s a hell of a racket. There are the options for you and God Bless You.

**************
Karl on Kurt Kallenbach call:

Karl: I think it’s funny that you keep referring to Acts, such as the Acts of 1933. You
keep saying Act. So what is an Act?
Kurt: the act is part of the play.
Karl: so what do I care about the ‘Act” of 1933, what do I care, it’s an act.
Kurt: because it affects you. It isn’t law. They can’t even hide behind law.
Karl: there you go; if it’s not law why do I care what the act is about?
Kurt: they have all the guns and the people participating and whenever they tell someone
to do something, they can get them to do it. We are participating in our demise. I don’t
even like to go to Illinois. If you don’t produce a state-issued ID you are going to jail. It
has nothing to do with truth and this is about their system that they own.

Karl: what happens if they claimed someone has guns, pot in the house and they take the
kids away? How hard is it to get the kids back if they say they are ‘a man’ and they
claim you are holding my property and I demand it back? How hard would it be to make
the claims and say I want my property back? What would they do?
Kurt: I don’t think you can make such a claim.
Karl: really.

Kurt: you don’t have any rights over your family. You don’t realize that you are not ever
a husband. No offense, the husband is ‘of this farm.’ This is a farm, a state farm. You
think the insurance company (State Farm) is joking? This is a state farm. The husband to
all the women, to all the mothers with children in America, the president of this farm, is
the husband to everybody. He is a husband to me because this is a farm and it’s run on
husbandry. There is no rule of law. It’s all private property run and owned by a handful
of people.
Karl: so you can’t claim your children as your property?
Kurt: no, because they are not; they are part of the book, part of the tome. They are part
of that script.
Karl: what if I just made a simple claim that I am a man and I claim that wrong doers
hold my property and they trespassed upon my property and I demand immediate return.
Kurt: I wish it were that simple. I know people that have tried that.
Karl: Angela, why don’t you tell them what I did?
Angela: well, why don’t you tell them, Karl?
Karl: I have a Canadian couple do exactly that in court and three days later they got their
kids back and the Crown is terrified of them.
Kurt: they let a lot of people go they can pass out disinformation saying that this or that
works. I don’t know anybody that has actually done anything where it could be
duplicated.
Karl: the problem is that the Crown tried to convince these people to take their children
off the paperwork and I have the signature from the Clerk of the Court that they will not
accept the word children. You have to put children and you cannot use the word
property. So, I told them to tell the lady that you have to use the word property because
the state cannot make a claim for property; only a man can make a claim for property in
the common law country.
Kurt: you still believe that once everything has been done at the very beginning of your
existence that you have common law access?
Karl: yes, absolutely as I am a man and I have power and law in a 3-dimensional world
and not a 2-dimensional statutory world.
Kurt: I don’t disagree with you at all. I would like to see this in action. I have never seen
or known anybody that could duplicate what someone else did.
Karl: all you have to do is say you are a man. You know Trinsey vs. Pagliaro clearly
states the fact that on the common law nation no attorney can testify an oath of
affirmation and only a man can make a claim in court. An attorney cannot do that.

Trinsey v. Pagliaro www.educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm - View by

Ixquick Proxy - Highlight "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the
court. He is either an attorney or a witness". (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.
Supp. 647) ...(see end of notes for more)*

Kurt: absolutely.
Karl: then there is no one standing next to you if you come in as a man. There is no state
government standing next to you as you invoke the common law. Once you invoke the
common law you are the only man standing in court.
Kurt: you are assuming that jurisdiction has not been granted.
Karl: no. I am presuming. It is my intent and I said I am a man and I will settle any
claim, verifiable claim that comes before this court. If there is no verifiable claim before
this court I am going to go home. I will be more than glad to come back; we have
prejudice to answer any claim of any debt that any man brings to this court who can
verify in court under an oath of affirmation.
Kurt: they let you go.
Karl: of course.
Kurt: my question is what percentage of the population, realistically should have to
know what you know?
Karl: it’s simple; it’s one sentence. That is exactly what the whole claim that scared the
bejeesus out of the Crown was: I June Doe claim that wrongdoers trespassed upon my
property. That was the whole claim. That was the whole lawsuit. It was upon ‘my
property’ and it said, see exhibits A, B, C, D, as Susie, Bob, Bill and Joe. They got the
children back several days later.
Kurt: so you are using their definitions against them?
Karl: what definitions.
Kurt: property.
Karl: they cannot make a claim for property. You down what John Locke says about
property? What is your definition of property?
Kurt: I don’t know.
Karl: all that a man claims proper to his person exclusive to all others within a society
and in which he has exclusive rights to enjoy. John Locke 1790, 2nd Treatise. That
means your blood pressure, your eyesight, your children, everything that you claim
exclusively to your enjoyment which means you exclusive to all others. Anybody else
can make a claim to the property but let’s come forth for a man or woman to make known
their claim for the property. I am going home with my property; does anyone want to
stop me? The lawsuit said: Trespass: Robbery Brief. Robbery means that someone
physically took the property (her children) from her and if she could point to that person
in the court room and say that is the person who robbed me. If her children went to
school and she couldn’t point out in the court room that she didn’t know who did it, but
someone did the theft. I just know my children are not here and I want them back. She
doesn’t have a trespass; where is the claim, what was the nature of the suit on the trespass
and the character that committed the robbery. It’s one sentence and it’s done. It was a
simple order that they would order them to pay $1000 a day for each piece of property
held in naked possession. The second part of the order was I will forgive those that
trespass upon me and my property as I would wish others to forgive me of my trespasses.
I want my children returned to me immediately. Monday they went to court; they held a
recess and Tuesday when they came back, the Crown met them in the lobby and asked if
June Doe wanted to become a lawyer, pass the bar, and work for us.
Kurt: where did this happen?
Karl: New Brunswick, Canada. I do a talkshoe, and my name is Carl Lentz (?).
Angela: the gal who did this told her story and it was really good. She got her children
back.
Karl: these people had a one year old baby and the Crown refused to give the baby to the
grandmother, aunts, none of the family and they sent the children right to foster care.
June Doe said she had family wrapped around the block trying to get the children back
into the family. They said no way and put all 4 children right into foster care. They were
going to hold a determination of parental rights trial. They were involved with these
people for 5 months. June Doe called me up two weeks before the termination trial. I
had to fly through this stuff with these people and I said to just make a claim for their
property. They will be returned. Do not change one word I put on this paper; don’t add
and don’t take anything away.

Kurt: you are speaking directly of the Crown, the Queen’s Bench. There is a step that
removes the Crown here in America and the DOJ acts on behalf of the Crown and the act
as though it is the US. I know who the DOJ is, who they work for and who their boss is.
The problem is that it will never be admitted in the US. How do I make such a statement
here? I know who everybody is and I can’t get anyone to acknowledge anything.
Karl: are you saying if the feds make a criminal complaint against you?
Kurt: you don’t have the extra wall of ‘smoke.’ The DOJ is working directly for the
Crown but you will never hear that. A buddy of mine down in Illinois discovered a paper
that showed who the AGs actually worked for and it is directly for the Crown or the
property in reference to the Crown, nobody here wants to believe that. I’m not sure how
far the attorneys will want to lay claim to that. The point is that in Canada you have a
direct link and you know who is doing what. There is one step removed in the US, in
America, and there is no claim like that. Nobody is really laying claim to any of the
Crown activities. But KRK is Crown property whereas Kurtis Richard Kallenbach is not
Crown property.
Karl: let’s make it simple with the name. Say that my name is Carl Lentz. Who is going
to move me to court and claim that I am their property? Some man has to come forward;
the government has no way to come forward. You know this is a common law nation and
there is no higher court in this land than a jury.
Kurt: there are no juries any more in America.
Karl: ok. So you are trying to say there is no 7th amendment?
Kurt: no the constitution is irrelevant at this point as they are only dealing with statutory
persons.
Karl: so are you saying that I cannot invoke the court of record?
Kurt: I don’t believe anyone can in America.
Karl: sure, I do it all the time. But a court of record only moves on the common law.
Kurt: you can get someone to acknowledge a court of record?
Karl: absolutely and I do it all the time. It’s a very simple thing to do and you just get rid
of all that stuff that you talking about like the names and such and you say, I am a man
and I claim the right to evoke a court of record. That is all you do. How is the clerk of
the court going to refuse that? It’s so simple. Why would she say that you cannot? It’s
like I said it would be interfering with access to the court. Then you have to make sure
that the head judge is aware that the court clerk is interfering with you access to court.
All these court clerks and judges are insured. And all the ____ behind it do appoint and
they also insure. So they know that they can be held liable if they interfere with man’s
civil rights, statutory rights, common law rights or constitutional rights. I have the
insurance form for a federal district court that says that if you don’t ….. Cover these
people with enough indemnity if you interfere with these rights then we recommend that
you get additional coverage and don’t’ discuss the coverage here during business hours.
They know they are insured and they know that they can’t interfere with your rights.
They are not dumb people. My website is broadmind.org.

Dallas: thanks to Rufus. I don’t know if anyone caught what you were saying when you
mentioned the information of the mother being the informant. Something clicked when I
heard that.
Angela: that is what IRS wants to you to fill out on information.
Dallas: when they charge you, they charge on information and belief. What do they
mean by the information? Now I see that the information is your legal fiction because it
is the BC that the mother is the informant on.
Kurt: they are in possession of that information.
Dallas: it’s based on information and belief and possession of information on the BC that
the mother of the informant supplied the information. Also a comment to Karl on
property. The key word in property of ‘pro per.’ Thanks for the key information that you
gave tonight.
Kurt: Carl was talking about the fact that we would hope we wouldn’t have to do all this.
Maybe I am hoping for a total collapse of this system. I don’t know what would come in
its place and it would probably we worse. They have everything in place in The Hague
now and everything is going to change. They have been closing loopholes all over the
place and I think that it is unfortunate that the American people have been used to this
extent. They don’t realize that the bailout for the banks that are too big to fail is the
American people bailing them out as they are the banks. All they are doing is forcing
future generations to be enslaved through peonage indefinitely. Those running the US
really don’t give a rat’s axx. It’s always about ‘what is in it for me.” I’ll pretend I am
doing this, but ultimately I want a private jet and that will on the backs of the American
people. I want what I want. Whatever I have to do to get is what I will do. That is where
we are at right now. We have a bunch of people that don’t know or care what is going
on.
Angela: every one wants, as Jordan Maxwell puts it, their 6-pack of beer, come home and
put their feet on the coffee table and throw on the basketball game or whatever sports and
leave me alone so I can veg out. People don’t want to wake up and see that it could be
better.

NOTES:
*educationcenter2000.com With Regards to Trinsey v. Pagliaro It is a VIOLATION of
the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL POWER of
the State

Article XI. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS
of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.

Attorneys are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS

REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People Supreme Court of the United
States 1795

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a

creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial
persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from
creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is
that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself
with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between
them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3
Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 And,

"An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an
attorney or a witness". (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647) Subject:
Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647: when you read it you will find that it is THE case
cited for FRCP 12(b) (6).

Now, while what it says at 12(b) (6) is good, notice how I have highlighted some
items from the actual decision, it goes MUCH further than 12(b) (6) does and we
should also. Keep in mind the two Maxims in Law that are opposite sides of the
same coin: Truth is Expressed in the Form of an Affidavit, & An Unrebutted
Affidavit stands as Truth in the Matter.

Now, while keeping these in mind, think about when someone like an attorney for the
IRS comes forward and "testifies" about how you did such-and-such. Are they a First-
Hand-Witness, or simply a "Statement of Counsel in Brief or Argument?" Shut them
down! Hit them with Trinsey and get the "Judge" to take official Judicial Notice of it. If
the "Judge" does not sustain your object, you need to immediately file an oral "Affidavit
of Prejudice" against the "Judge" as he has shown his prejudice and then file the same
Affidavit in writing into the record with witnesses to the same. Once your Affidavits are
filed, get a record of what has been filed and show that you are the only one who has
actually introduced FACTS into the case and move for Summary Judgment upon the
Facts... while reminding the "Judge" that the ONLY thing he is to consider is the FACTS
of the case ON THE RECORD, that the opposing "counsel" has only been "enlightening"
to the Court, but not sufficient to rise to the level of FACT.

This applies both with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence....
there must be a competent first hand witness (a body). There has to be a real person
making the complaint and bringing evidence before the court. Corporations are
paper and can't testify.

"Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of

[a] case." United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d
752,

"Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to
constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements
of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the
law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the
ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not
the judgment was warranted." Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693,
32 S. Ct. 463.

"No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to
regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel", Holt v. United
States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,

"The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the
record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full
thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only
protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial." Donnelly v.
Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.

"Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose
character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the
law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means
and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near
and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of
conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of
counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-
assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of
any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record." Telephone Cases.
Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v.
American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular
Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell
Telephone Company, People's Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,.
(PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

"Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment," Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

"Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a

part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court" – Oklahoma
Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or
in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment." Pro per and pro se litigants should
therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a
case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the
facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

"Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on
for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880
Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney
making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And,
how many of those Ass-Holes have "first hand knowledge"? NONE!!!]

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an
affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved,
inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in
a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 Statutes forbidding
administering of oath by attorney's in cases in which they may be engaged applies to
affidavits as well

************

Karl, Jonathan Greg 5-9-13 notes

Jonathan (father of children returned by CPS in Canada): that is basically what you are doing
when you go to the court and the judge is ‘assigned’ as the trustee.

Greg: Jonathan and Jessie living together as husband and wife and don’t want a marriage license
with the state. He had children, she had a child and they had one between them. She sends
lunches with the children to school and they don’t like the idea of immunizations. They are
nonconformists. CPA sent people to the house with the police to investigate what is going on
with the children to see if they are healthy. The parents didn’t handle the encounter well and
recognize that in hindsight. They were trying to stand their ground and defend their rights. When
they went into the house they found a firearm and some pot and decided to charge them with that
and take the children. They used Divine Province and man on the land and all kinds of things.
They finally got hold of Karl and the whole thing had been going on for 5 or 6 months. After
they talked with Karl he set them right and told them how to right the proper claim to put it into
the case. They went into the custody hearing. The CPA had put together a thick dossier to
condemn the parents. They stood their ground and said they wanted their property (children)
back. They said they didn’t care what the state said they had no right to take the property. The
witnesses all recused themselves. The following Friday they had the children and two weeks later
all the charges were dismissed. Everyone is home and happy. There is the short version.

Greg (associate of Karl Lentz): one of the language things that is important to remember is
knowing the difference between harm and injury. Harm can only happen to a man and injury
happens to property. That is interesting because all these lawyers run around as ‘personal injury’
lawyers and if you a car issue, asbestos, etc, they are all called personal injury issues. They are
never called personal harm lawyers.
The person received an injury. When I write my paper (from the man) I say caused harm
by a man and injury to my person. You differentiate that in your paper. Then they know
there is a man writing the paper and he has been harmed and there has been injury done to a thing
he calls person which is apparently property to him. That is another of splitting joinder between
you and the “scuba suit” is in the language.

Question: what is it called when CPS is taking children?

Jonathan: Well, that is exactly the same thing and everything works under presumption. You are
presumed to be the scuba suit in law when you register your children in the hospital. You have
registered them for a scuba suit and the government sees that scuba suit as having benefits and
privileges. Until you take the scuba suit off your child and claim (child0 it as property, which is
your property coming from your flesh and blood then it becomes a lawful claim. Otherwise it is
under legal statutes and codes. They have every legal right to take these children wearing these
scuba suits until you remove that presumption.

Greg: right and they have a right to the children’s scuba suits; they don’t have a right to the
children.
Jonathan: most people don’t realize that and even children is a legal word. Offspring are your
issue. With property there is no other definition; it is proper to your person and no one has more
exclusive right to your property than the one is making the lawful claim to that property. I really
enjoy the word property; a lot of people think the word has a stigma attached, slavery etc. We
don’t mean it that way; we mean it as proper to your person.

Greg: I know how it’s worded in Canada. In the states, the crazy people back in the 13 colonies
got drunk and wrote that thing called the constitution and they put in the Bill of Rights that a man
would be secure in his person, property and papers. I asked everyone to slow that down and say
it very slowly. The man is contained within the person, the property and the papers. Those are
containers. That shows you the person in the scuba suit. It isn’t the man, person, property and
papers, but the man secure in his person, property and papers. It’s those 2 or 3 letters words
on, for, etc that are the positional words you need to know that juxtapose one thing to another.
They establish the relationship of in, on, by and so forth. I came up with that observation when
working with Karl on his paperwork.
Jonathan: the court clerk tried to change our paperwork. They didn’t like that (at?). They don’t
want people coming at their court but being in our court.
Question: if they take your children is it harm or injury? It is both. It is harm to the woman and
injury to the person.
Greg: the children are not filing a claim, you are. It’s an injury to your property. If you think of
the ‘children’, you property, aka children, are suffering any loss or damage by he fact that they
are not connected to you and they expect to be. So you claim that injury is coming to your
property. You are being harmed and the children as property are being injured. You dehumanize
the children; they are just cows as property. If you go to get your cows back you’ll have fewer
problems than getting the children back.
Jonathan: you are familiar what we have already done, ‘divine promise, and more’ and nothing
seemed to work until we started filing claims as a man aggrieved. This is when the floodgates
started opening up and they wanted nothing to do with our children, nothing to do with the
criminal case, none of us in their courthouses.

Greg: all the BC, registration, change of citizenship show up as evidence you were doing things
to take care of yourself. In a common law suit you can bring it all forward as evidence carefully
and never citing it as the reason for your suit, but as evidence for the claim of harm to the man. If
you use their statutory language you will move your common law claim back into statutory
jurisdiction where they will once again deny you. It’s cool, but it’s tricky.

Jonathan: the CPS people were saying that we belonged to a cult, must be crazy, and didn’t
believe in school lunches and vaccines. They were going to give the kids to my ex-wife and they
set her up with an apartment and the whole works. When we filed the claims it was a week. It
didn’t make it to the court room and they wanted to settle and get the kids back as soon as
possible. Inside sources said CPS is scared ‘shitless’ of you. You have to know how to stand in
court and practice. This is easy-peasy. They will test you. If I had done the 4.5 months earlier I
wouldn’t have had the 4.5 month-nightmare.

Greg: how long after you started working with Karl did you see results.
Jonathan: we were doing the living beneficiary thing in court and we had been arrested and all.
We were ‘used to the court’ and had thicker skin. Once we started working with Karl, he said
why are you going in as the living beneficiary and diminishing your status? You are man. That
is all you need to be. He simplified it. You don’t want to talk yourself into trouble with big long
claims and spiels. That is more ammunition and argument for the court to use against you.

Greg: you have had first hand experience so can you tell people on the call if they just had a copy
of Karl’s paper everything would be good and go away?
Jonathan: it doesn’t work that easily; you need some background, even like the little etiquettes in
the court. We had talked about peace and honor and these are courts of war that want you to war
and argue. This is why they had an 8inch document against me that I never accepted from them
that was their disclosures. I would not accept them. That way they couldn’t bring that into court.
We found that we would bring papers in and the judge would ask the prosecutor if they would
accept our documents. So there are a lot of little tricks. So you don’t accept their full disclosure
and you say that is a lie, and then you have a contract with them. Then you are playing their
game. Once you file the claim as a man in common law and understand you are a man and have
that power it is like walking in the courts and saying ‘abra cadabra’ and now you are the most
powerful man. The sheriffs does a 180 and they are all polite and concerned and trying to explain
the rules and very helpful. They knew we knew what we were talking about as there had been a
lot to set up the claim. Now we had the evidence of them refusing and ignoring our proper claims
to settle the matter.
Greg: I equate behavior in court to old movies with the women in the Old South movies and they
are polite and proper in speech while they are ripping someone apart.
Jonathan: the only time they grimaced with me is when I said I was there as a man presenting
myself for the case for this court. That is when the judges sat back and was dumbfounded. They
will try to get you to put the scuba suit back on. They have to violate you first, so you have to
establish that you are a man and put that on the record. They will try to get you to come back
into argument with them.

**************
0509-2013 Some interesting ideas on breathalyzer (an issue in Darwin’s case)

Greg: so you are going to argue as the legal person? This is not your court. In their court what
are your options? Your options are to blow up their evidence. You blow up their evidence and
they cannot prove it, there you go. You could also demand a jury. One of the things Karl looked
up was if someone was consuming a large amount of starch such as bread, just before blowing
into a breathalyzer, it will knock the needle as the starch is fermenting in your stomach and
showing up as blood alcohol. It’ll show up even if you didn’t drink anything. So do a
demonstration in the courtroom with the breathalyzer and some bread. If the needle moves from
eating bread you could argue that you were not over the limit. I ate sandwiches and that put me
over the limit. Do they want a jury to see that? Do what you can to destroy the evidence.

Greg: you use the subpoena deuces tecum which means that you are subpoena-ing them and all
the apparatus and records and all that goes along with it. They may argue about it. There are
certain things you can do to force them to do it and get the judge and clerk on your side. If they
don’t bring it in, they will be in contempt. They will come in with a different machine, ‘just like
yours’ and say that the other machine was de-commissioned. So you move for immediate
dismissal. Where is the evidence? This is not the EXACT machine you used. Don’t accept
something similar.

Caller2: you have to make your stand as a man. If you don’t make a stand they will ‘play.’ This
is what Jonathan did. That breath machine can’t say that you hurt it. Take it claim. You
need the prosecutor’s name and put it in the claim

Greg: the court cannot proceed without your consent. One way or another they will try to get
your consent. You don’t have to say I don’t consent, you say as I have informed the court I am
not prepared and have not been able to find competent counsel and my case is still in
development for my defense and by right I am entitled to have the opportunity to bring my best
case forward.

Karl: Just say,” I require a stay.” Require is the right of the man.
Greg: there is that important word again: ‘require.’ Print this up and don’t put it in the court.
Present it to the prosecutor first and bring a witness that you can say you tried to talk to the
prosecutor and he refused. Bring the witness to the judge and state that.
Karl: when you say, Í require, it’s a whole different ball game.
You just tell the secretary, “are you going to go to jail for him (the prosecutor)?”
That is to the secretary of the prosecutor who won’t let you talk to him. Ma’am are you going to
go to jail for the prosecutor? I require to speak to him. If she says you have to make an
appointment then you respond, Fine, let me talk to his assistant. Or you could call them up and
say you need to talk to the _____ department or call the secretary and ask for the office hours of
the prosecutor. You need to know when he is going to be in court. Just tell him, I am Malik, you
are MR. DA, we have a hearing scheduled for such and such date and I am not ready. If he
asks why or what you have going on, then you say well if you are prosecuting the case, it
would be contraindicated for me to tell you. I require a stay.

Karl: listen to Greg as much as you can. Call me before you sending anything in. Don’t go talk
to anyone. They will throw you out of the building so fast it’ll be scary. You just be nicer than
pie. Don’t talk to the prosecutor secretary about going to jail. Just stick with yes ma’am, no
ma’am.
Malik: to get the license back…
Greg: say that you have complied with the evaluations and I don’t see the need or requirement.
Caller2: why do you want the license anyway?
Greg: so he doesn’t get stopped and thrown in jail. The whole point is that you can’t handle
yourselves on the side of the road.
Caller2: I’ve been stopped and pulled out my right to travel and that stopped them. You have to
be able to do this on a constant basis, every cop and every time.

Greg: I’m driving as a man or you can say I’m driving as an operator of a motor vehicle. It
doesn’t have to be travel, you can say that you are traveling as an operator of a motor vehicle or
you are traveling as a man. You don’t have to get technical. It’s semantics. I am doing this as a
man or a motorized vehicle operator. I am doing this as a man. You can say you’re doing it as a
chicken. Leave me alone when I’m traveling as a man unless I am causing some harm.
Malik: they tricked me when they said my motion was denied and I never presented a motion.

Larry: seems like you have it going. I think they are on top of this. Until you get out there and
get with these guys, once you go through the experience then you know how to deal with it. If
you are not intimidated, you are not scared to go to jail, and at some point in time you will go to
jail. But when they see that you are scared to go jail they will intimidate you and do whatever
they want.

0525-2013*****************************
Karl: ……I filed the lawsuit. The federal court is going to have to figure out if it’s a complaint
or a claim. Remember I said that is you look at the pacer website, the magistrate assigned to the
case said, “The court has concerns with propriety. The Court wasn’t sure who owned it because it
is more stylized as a complaint that a claim. Because it was 3 pages long. That is ridiculous. You
don’t ever file anything 3 pages long. Today I had 4 sentences with the claim, 2 sentences with
the compensation due and that was it; it was all on one page. It had the heading, the caption, the
law, the claim, the compensation due and the verification. It looks silly putting it in a big priority
envelope and the civil cover sheet for filing purposes only. That makes it go through quickly.
You want to say for a court of record; I found a rule 279 where it’s all courts of record and free
for the people and the king. The only problem with that? I don’t want to be considered one of
the people because then I am subject to the authority of someone else.

Karl: So I paid the $350 fee which is fine because I am a man and I want to make the other people
realize while they are a man and that is a woman and they should be compensated for me moving
my claim through their court and I should pay the jury, the judge and the clerks who are working
there. I don’t expect them to do it for free so I don’t mind spending the $350 filing fee. Could
you rely on it? I showed this to a guy in Michigan and it worked fine. He considered himself one
of the people and I don’t want to be one of the people; I just want to be left alone and be a man. I
know I exist; I don’t know if any of you people exist. (I’m just talking to dead air right now).
Karl: I got the process server and that was $55 and there was a 2 page summons. I sent a copy –
National Assoc of Process Services. I found a website called NAPS. I got an email and got some
local process servers. So fill out the standard form for the court. She didn’t need a case number
before serving. The court clerk will give you a hard time and will stall you with serving the docs.
When you call them they answer, “Federal Court…how may I help you.” Section 389 to
390…federal court of record only moves under common law. A federal court cashed the money
order. They’ll dodge and say the clerk court did it. They’ll say they don’t like what you are
doing and they won’t put the case in. So I needed a third party server. The Federal Court was on
the money order. Just mail one thing at a time. And they will say here we go. The claim went
with a green card and a money order with the claim. Once they cash it, I wrote it to the Federal
Court. If you look a Corpus Juris Seconded it’s a simple one for Federal court and it says: all
federal courts are courts of record. That is Section 389 in Corpus Juris Seconded. A court of
record only moves on the common law. That makes it simple. When the US District Court
cashes it, it’s made out to the Federal Court. When you call them, they answer Federal Court. I
have a bunch of court rules, but I didn’t mail it yet. Get the one page claim in and get a case
number, filed and time stamped and THEN you can add the barrage of exhibits.

Debbie: court clerk, Greetings: (this makes her liable) I have had communication with
employees within the office of the court clerk at the venue known as Federal Court in Middle
Alabama, or the U S District Court for Middle Alabama. It has been told to me from certain
employees that if I am not a pauper I must tender to said court $350 as the requirement to file my
claim. I believe this is a public venue where a man can file a claim. If this is private venue then
direct me to the nearest Federal Court. I believe that within the public regardless of status of
wealth have the right to free use and enjoyment to a public court venue so long as they operate in
orderly manner and create harm to other man nor injure property within said venue. I believe
the character of Federal Court is a court of record. I believe the rules of court say that a man
has free access by way of right. If you concur with my belief, then as Court Clerk please remit
said payment to the mailing address I have provided to certain employees in your office of the
court clerk. (So there you go, if she says that a man should have free access by way of right then
send back the $350 check. If not I won’t argue with them)
I require of you as the court clerk:
1. not to move my case of a court of record; and
2. to file my case into the court; and
3. to time stamp and return to me a copy of my case in a pre-stamped envelope
I have provided; and
4. to assign a magistrate to my case immediately; and
5. to file my case as a claim, not a complaint, nor a title 42, etc.; and
6. not to interfere with my rights and diminish my status of a man to that of a pro
se;and
7. to bear witness that if the wrongdoers fail to answer my claim within 21 days; and
8. to bear witness that after the allowed 21 days that my nihil dices judgment or
Default judgment be true; and
9. if the wrongdoers fail to answer within said 21 days my order is to be signed by
you as the court clerk; and
10. if the wrongdoers refuse to answer and serve upon said court and my person and
wish to move into open court that a trial and jury commence within 10 days.
The last thing I wrote I found on a Federal website and it’s their insurance forms.
So I did this straight off their forms in italics:
I am aware as I am sure you are aware that employees within this United States District
Court have:
 a. legal liability for damages due to injuries to other persons, damages to their property
or other damage or loss to such persons including the expense of litigation and settlement
resulting from or arising from out of any tortuous act, error or omission of the individual,
whether common law, statutory or constitution rights while in the performance of such qualified
individual’s duties as an employee.
(so this is their supplemental insurance form that if they get sued because of their status
and position in that court system that they are legally liable for damages to other persons
including expenses for tortuous acts, errors or omissions…maybe they forgot to do something,
whether it is a common law, statutory or constitutional right while in performance of their duty as
an employee). So they are not bonded.

Karl: Then I said: See miscellaneous number 3-1005 of the court clerk Middle District of
Alabama, Sept 19, 2001, approved and signed by Harold Albertrain, Chief Judge, and Myron
Thompson, District Judge and Barry Wilmett, District Judge.
This is what I am going to send them and I will cut it down. This is what I was working
on this morning. Now I have to establish rules of the court between me and the court clerk. I
won’t let her say they will rely on rules of Federal procedure. I won’t play that nonsense where
she says you have to stylize this and that. I won’t do this nonsense with these people. I will
establish rules on the court of record and that is exactly what I am going to hold her liable for.
Federal Courts are courts of record. She doesn’t know what a court of record is and so I will
explain it in Black’s 8th: a court of record ONLY operates under common law. This is not
ancient, crazy crap from 1492 or Yankee Doodle nonsense and this is in their legal law book; it’s
not patriot crap. All I require (means I demand by right). They will get this and they’ll wonder
where the rest of it. I do this under private cause of action (implied) that is a legitimate cause of
action. You will find this in the statutory code books and it’s a legitimate cause of action. There
is forgery. It’s pretty simple. The claim I’m filing is regarding a forgery. That shows the
trespass because they used a forged instrument.

The lawyers will say, relax we have a one-page suit and on day 20 they will hold it off for another
21 days because they will say that Karl forgot to attach the exhibits or a bill of particulars.
There’s only one exhibit and it’s the forged documents. So on day 18 I will send the exhibits
overnight that will include the forged document. They will be ready to stall since the exhibit of
the forged instrument didn’t go out with the claim and they ‘have no idea what Karl is talking
about in the claim.’ They will get it on day 19 so they can’t use. So then they will say that Karl
didn’t give them a bill. I’m going to hand them a bill. I said I want a bill of particulars for every
second you interfered with my rights and I will charge $1. So after 11 years and 7 months which
comes out to 4100 days which comes out 136,000 hours which is 16 million minutes which
371,520,000 seconds and there is the bill of particulars, for $371,520,000. Now they have the
exhibits and the bill of particulars. What are the attorneys possibly going to say to delay this
thing?

A year ago I sent social services (Department of Human Resources, DHR and CPS in some areas)
a notice to cease and desist order giving them fair warning to settle the matter we are going to
take this before a court of record. So the attorney for DHR does not believe it has done wrong.
Somehow they gave DHR human of manly characteristics. They said, it believes. Coca-Cola
can’t believe anything, it’s just a building on the side of the road. I got lucky when he said the
DHR doesn’t ‘believe.’ He emailed it to me. DHR does not ‘believe’ that it has done wrong or
that it owes me money. Now it’s saying it is not a debtor or indebted. This is lovely. They say if
they wish to pursue this matter feel free to take this into a court of record. Coca-Cola and DHR
have no standing in a court of record unless some flesh and breathing entity known as DHR
appears. If DHR ‘appears’ I’ll drop the claim. I’ve never seen DHR come to life and testify in
court. Keep the money; I’d just love to see this.

Karl: The common law court has to be between men. So they actually told me, if I wish to
pursue this feel free to pursue in a court of record. I don’t think they understand what a court of
record is. I just thought it was great that DHR does not ‘believe.’ The jury will be there but an
attorney cannot testify under oath or affirmation in a court of record. That is why I used Nihil
dices judgment which means that the wrongdoer failed to tell his attorney what he wants to do in
his defense. So the attorney obviously is going to show up. Did DHR magically spoke to the
attorney like they spoke to me in an email? Your client said this to me Mr. Attorney so where is
your client, DHR who said they ‘believed’ they had done nothing wrong? You guys sent me this
letter from DHR through this attorney? Are you telling me your client failed to tell you what to
do? I can go for nihil dices judgment instead of default judgment. I could go for default
judgment too, because obviously they are not going to appear. But if the attorney appears there is
still the nihil dices judgment. That means the defendant failed to tell the attorney what to do.
That judgment will be tendered within 21 days. On the 22nd day it will be done. I’ll chop this
down some more, but I was in the mood to start it this morning.

Things can get pretty silly pretty quick with a court clerk (not a clerk of the court). Her
underlings are subordinate to her so you talk to the court clerk. Not the clerk of court. So I have
set the rules with Debbie, the court clerk (separate office from the head judge) and she is the one
who is supposed to write the judge and magistrate’s pay checks, assign the cases to the judges, set
the docket and do the case load for the judges and she’s the big brain of the court. She is
supposed to be there forever. Judges come and go, don’t get elected, new ones get elected. They
move on. She is supposed to be there forever. I used the word “you” over and over and I require
(demand a right) of you as the court clerk not to move my case out of a court of record. No 93-
452 civil rights nonsense. Just leave it right where it is. You are to file my case, a private right of
action, and you file it with diversity. You can’t use private action if you use a federal question, a
constitutional questions or a US defendant, than you can’t use diversity. Diversity is exactly what
I am doing. I have not been A CITIZEN OF ALABAMA in my entire life, so I clearly qualify for
diversity and obviously I am not a building on the side of the highway. So I can claim diversity
between me and the DHR in a hearbeat. When World Wrestling Federation got sued kids getting
hurt when they jumping off the beds with the Hulk Hogan dolls WWF added WWE after they lost
billions in court. Nobody got a dime. WWF ‘died’ and the parents got nothing and WWE came
to life.

So people ask how I will get DHR? DHR used to be Alabama Pension and Welfare Fund in the
early 90s. They got sued for a lot of money so they changed the name after they lost a big case.
They were sued by R.C. (a child). They changed the name. If they change the name I will go
after the agents act on behalf of the principal who are all indemnified through the finance division
of the state for $1million for every wrong, act of omission or neglect in which they caused me
harm.
Greg: I think I heard Dean Clifford say you sign it I AM.
Karl: Did someone say Dean Clifford is on.
Greg: I was looking at the chat and a guest thinks you are working behind Peter.
Karl: who is Peter? I think I heard Dean say something about using I AM. I don’t decapitate my
‘i’ and diminish my capacity. I want to keep my head on my shoulders. So it’s i am.

Karl: I forgot to put my thumbprint on it. I didn’t put my name on the claim, I just wrote “I a
man: prosecutor” and I made a line under it. I’m not versus, I’m not fighting with DHR. signed
it prosecutor. I said that DHR is a wrongdoer. I’m not here to argue I am here to declare they did
me wrong and make a claim. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to state a fact and to declare. If they
want to say they did not do me wrong they will get their turn. I’ll say my piece and sit down.
Then it’s their turn. Then me as the moving party gets my turn. There is no such thing as
objections and this is not what you see on TV. A real civil court doesn’t do that nonsense you see
on TV. The magistrate is supposed to stay out of it. I showed you months ago where a
magistrate sits in a court of record in the schematic from the Federal district court. The
magistrate sits to the left and in Roanoke he sits behind.

What is supposed to happen is that I am supposed to say my piece to the jury. Then other side
has to sit and take it, NO matter what I say about the other side to the jury they have to sit and
take. Then when they have a go, I have to sit and take it. This is pretty simple with what I did.
The moving party goes first, the wrong doer, then the moving party one more time, then the
closing statement by the wrong doer and then the closing statement by the moving party. There’s
no nonsense of jumping up and screaming. Civil court is civilized. It’s pretty simple. I signed
my chicken scratch name at the bottom and put my thumbprint. The US Postal had a black
inkpad to use. I just did a black one so they think it is a copy and the original one has color on it.
The court clerk gets alarmed with color and puts up flags and she goes into the ‘stop this clown
mode.’ So I did nothing to draw attention to the claim. It’s just black and white.

When you go to court if it’s open court then my belief is that I take my claim and hand it to the
jury, and they can read the merits of my claim. They can read my claim. They can hand it to me
and say that is beautiful, we can proceed or the jury can give it to the other side and say it’s
nonsense and the case is dismissed. The magistrate will take it and record it with the clerk’s
office. Then I will ask for the judgment. The verdict will be the judgment which will be attached
and then I will ask for an order to be issued for what I claim as the compensation. Then I will
work with the defendant and see what they want to do. They know they lost so now do they want
the sheriffs to come down and kick in the door or do they want to do a sequestration? What do
they want to do? What’s your pleasure? Maybe they’ll say they’ll give $50 a week for a million
years. Sold. I just want this done. I want to get on with my life.

*********

Karl: property is so easy. I wrote 2 sentences for Jessie and Jonathan and a compensation
demand. They had 6 inches of file folder evidence against them. They had 10 to 20 witnesses and
20 affidavits against them. There were drug charges. They filed the claim on Thursday and had
the kids back on Tuesday. How simple can this be? You can’t use a statute in a court of record;
what does that have to do with a claim. So the 12b6 is gibberish. I wrote two sentences for them
and it was done. And there was a compensation demand section and it was done. Don’t use a
statute in a court of record.

Karl: common law is law that is common to me and common to the people in my society that
include the 12 people in the jury. So don’t call it common law. It is confusing the shxx out of
your people. It’s law that is common to the people in the society, to those 12 people on that jury.
If you can convince them that your law is bonafide and good and kosher, that is the ‘common’
law to those people. You can beat the guy in the black robber with a traffic ticket and can us the
Yankee Doodle stuff and say I was transporting or traveling and drivng, etc. the guy in the black
robe can read the case law on driving as privilege, and transport and I am telling you if you do 70
MPH through the little old lady neighborhood and you fill that box with 12 little old ladies, and
try to tell them you are going to come through and do whatever what you want, even if it’s up to
90MPH and I can do what I want because there is no corpus delecti, no harm, those ladies will
burn you. They don’t care what nonsense you say to the judge but you are not going to beat the
little old ladies. That is law that is common to them.

Karl: when you go to traffic court they are operating under the law that is common to them.
When you go to bankruptcy court you are dealing with matters in bankruptcy. That is law that is
common to them. That is their Juridic society. When you go to Eskimos they are going to do
what they believe. When they stand up and say this our law and what we need to survive. So if a
‘government comes in to tell them what to do, it may not go along with the Eskimo ‘common
law.’ In Eskimo country if there is trial by jury you will be dealing with the law common to the
people. Most of Canada, Australia, most of Ireland and US are common law countries and we
can rely on the jury and to say this is ridiculous. It’s is what is common law to your
neighborhood. English common law is statute and written down, stationary, stuck, planted and
it’s not going anywhere and is not pliable. It’s rigid. That is English common law and the
attorneys tricked you people. English common law was common to their legal society in
England. That is not common to the average guy in England. It’s not common to the people,
only to the legal society. It’s only common to the legal society of England.

***********
Dallas: people want to hear about property tax. People want to reduce taxes with a claim. So
people want to talk about that. We have talked about this at length. I was informed by the local
independent school district attorney that the claim he was making for a debt for alleged unpaid
property tax and was due because I defaulted on a contract. Karl believes I have a social contract
with my neighbors. I don’t necessarily believe that because I take care of me and my family and
if my neighbor needs help he is a big enough man to come and ask for help. I hear what you are
saying because if a man or woman subscribes to that thinking they could be on the slippery slope
of the social contract to show up on Tuesday afternoon and butter someone’s toast. The reason I
have a problem with the social contract is that I can’t find any legislation and I have done code
de-construction. Karl doesn’t like using the codes. I’m torn between code and common law. If I
go before a jury of my peers and 6 to 10 of the 12 pay their property taxes and are active
members in schools and community, then I will be an outsider and I don’t stand a chance of
abatement of property taxes so I my next best thing is to leave it up to the magistrate and he will
be the referee. If I do it correctly I am not entering that realm as a defendant but I am going in as
a claimant so I have written letters and given the central appraisal district order to cease and
desist, I’ve done FOIAs and public information requests and I’ve done negative averments. All
responses are non-responses and when I ask for facts they send me 80 pages of tax code. I am
trying to picture the word contract in my mind. By law it is very specific. The writing portion of
the contract is the memorialization of the agreement of the two parties.

Greg: read George Mercier on Contracts. It’s phenomenal. When you walk out the door to the
post office you are making a contract. It’s not adhesion. For example there are over 50 people on
the call and we are in contract with one another. There are over 50 people on this call and we are
in contract with one another.
Karl: I heard this. Who says we don’t have a social contract?
Greg: I said I disagree with you as far as a social contract.
Karl: so he is John Lockian and not Rousseau? You don’t believe in the Leviathan? Look, I
know you live in East Texas and there are lots of pine trees and you have property taxes. Let’s
say you have little old ladies as neighbors and there are trees knocked down so you don’t have
county services and everything has to be paid privately. Everyone hates paying county taxes so
good luck when the tornado comes. There’s no county to pull the trees off the road. So I’m a
privateer and they want to get out of their property so do they want me to move the trees? I’ll
clear them for $2K. Dallas: how about $500.
Karl: how about I go to your neighbor who will pay $4K. Do you understand that societies lived
that for thousands of years? They realized we could progress if we set up county revenue service.
If you are stuck without food and water then you are ready to pay me to clear the driveway. You
see a fire department stand around a mobile home and not put the fire out because you didn’t pay
the taxes and the fire department tax. They did the county taxes to spread the burden to everyone
in the county when there were snowstorms, or tornados.

************
Dallas: the US and the states are nothing more than insurance companies. If you get injured and
cannot pay your taxes the state will seize the property and sell it to the highest bidder.
Karl: I try to get you to understand that it is sometimes it s better to go before the man on the
black robe and sometimes it’s beneficial to go in front of the little old ladies on the jury. You
have to know how to use the system.

Caller: I’m glad you said something about the present tense. When I look at the situation and
they allowed the transfer of the property from the people. I remember what you said about
abandonment. The bank’s attorney talked the people into abandoning by saying the sheriff was
going to be called out. They abandoned under duress. If the judge is Bob……..
Karl: Bob Smith:head judge (he is a man and then the characteristics define him like
judge, father, husband). I separate Bob with the colon. The nature is that he is a man and
I first nail him as another man equal to me as another man or woman standing on this
planet and you can’t tell another man or woman what to do without fair and just
compensation and you can rely on 13th amendment that says no involuntary servitude can
exist without unjust compensation. Demand compensation and something fair and just
and equal in return. Are you going to pay for me to come to court doesn’t mean that you
can‘t demand compensation unless you want to be a chump.

Karl: If the judge tells you do a psych evaluation and he is a man telling you another man
what to do, then you as a man ask him, ‘what’s in it for me?’ It’s man to man
compensation and you ask for something fair, just and equal in return. So if I do the
psych eval judge, are you going to drop all the charges so I can go home? Are you going
to give me $50 or pay for my transport there? What are you going to do for me? Just
because he orders you to do something it doesn’t mean that you can’t demand
consideration in this contract he is trying to bind you with. Always ask for something in
return for doing something. Learn how to be a man and stand up in court and say if you
are going to give me an order who do you think you are? I am a man and you are a man;
what’s going on here. Did I cause any harm to anybody? What am I doing here and why
are you wasting my time? Who is moving this claim?

***************
Karl: if you have IRS issues you put the paper and pen in your hand. What happens when you
claim too much? You shouldn’t have done what you did. Maybe we should apologize and say
we are sorry? All people want to do is attack. I am not going to tell a man how to act like a man.
If he doesn’t want to own up to it and how can he get back in good standing, and he wants to fight
and squeal about a gold act and the CQV trust and HJR192 in 1933. I’m not always telling you
what you want to hear. If you think you can sue the IRS and get something then good luck.
You’re going to jail. Quit suing and quit attacking. I’ll go to court if someone takes something
from me. That was a contract with the IRS and you took yourself out of being a man and became
part of a machine and the machine has the right to sue. Can you pull yourself out of the machine?
Of course. Machines have no feelings. Quit fighting the machine; quit fighting the IRS. You
breathe life into the piece of paper. I can’t work with you if they are not attacking you and you
are bringing it to life. Without you there would be no existence. It’s just paper and it can’t stand
in court. You keep breathing it into life and you keep suing it. They don’t get it. Some people
you can’t make understand and maybe some people need to go to jail. Maybe they’ll get closer to
God. Maybe they need a time out to think about it.

***************
Karl: someone from Ireland called. Do you live in the Republic of Ireland? We presume
Northern Ireland has high court and he says yes that is in the republic of Ireland. You have to tell
people you are in the catholic, republic part. So in Tennessee you have what is common to the
people in Tennessee or Northern Ireland and what judges are used to seeing. If you come at them
with Virginia stuff in Tennessee he’ll think its nonsense. They will say we don’t do this in
Tennessee so you have to adapt to the different districts you are walking in to. It isn’t a cookie
cutter template. Make your writing common to what the people are used to seeing.

Karl: I have a buddy who talks about revenge and burning down buildings, hanging the judges,
throwing people in prison and I tell him that is not going to solve our problems. People want a
solution. You can do it with paper. So he asked me what I had ever done. So I started the show
and Jonathan came in and the drug charges and more disappeared and they got their kids back.
Can paper work? Yes, do you know how to put the paper before the court? That is the big trick.
Now you have the paper before the court and now you have to perform before the court. Just
because you have the ‘magic paper’ with all the words looking pretty, you have to have the
attitude of walking into court, smiling and ask what you can do for you. They have to be careful
when you walk into court and they have to be so careful of what they do next. You have them in
their personal jurisdiction and they are operating outside their office and they have to be careful
what they do to you.

Carlos: most of the time don’t we have to face the justice? Isn’t it our own fault?
Karl: yes. Someone was talking about divine providence and being loving. Court is a war; they
want to put me in a cage and take my children and scatter them to all 4 corners of the planet.
These people are brutal. When I go to court I’m respectful and I’m deadly serious and they are
very, very careful when they open their mouths. They want to steal my kids: you have to be civil
and respectful. You have to be civilized. This is no different than ‘pistols at dawn.’ But instead
of ‘pistols at dawn’ someone came up with this great idea of civil court where you can ‘slug it
out.’ I love civil court because one side talks, the other side talks, the first side talks one more
time. Then you have closing arguments and it’s done. No objections, no yelling. Everybody just
says their piece and either a black robe rules or a jury rules and you go on with your life. There
are no appeals and no bringing it to another court. You are done. That is why I love this. No
appeals. It’s over. You go on with your life. That is why I love a court of record, a civil court.
Society might even find that you were wrong. It’s all over. Get over it.

Karl: On another call I was talking about how to be non-violent when you go to court and Dean
Clifford was saying how to be violent and that sometimes you have to be violent when you are in
chains and shackles. But he is a little guy, a little cute guy who has always been able to get away
with being mouthy. I can’t get away with being mouthy. I’m a big, goofy guy and I’d go straight
to jail if I tried to cop and attitude. I can’t act like that in court.