Topic: LEGAL "FACTS" MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, BUT SHOULD - page 2. (Read 613 times)

There you go again. Attorney's do what Karl does all the time.

Take a look at any attorney court case. You have the attorney for the plaintiff, and the attorney for the defendant. One of them loses the case. Does that make him a freeman, simply because he lost?

When you talk about the things that I talk about, if you want to ignore the law, that's okay. But other people don't ignore the law. Take Judge Judy on TV. She runs common law courts of record, except that there is an appeal to a jury. You are missing a whole lot of law.

And when you say that I am wrong just because I am wrong, you are really talking about yourself.

Do some research into the law. You only seem to know about freeman stuff.

I admit that you have a really good format in not capitalizing the beginnings of your sentences, your personal pronoun "I," and that you don't use much if any punctuation. This is good common law writing... showing that you are not in their jurisdiction at all, by not using their grammar. Are you sure you're not really a freeman, and that everything that you write is common law freeman style?

You do a good enough job without punctuation for anybody to follow what you are trying to get across (most of the time). But if you really want to get out of their jurisdiction, stop putting spaces between your words. Nobody writes like that. If you dropped the spaces, you would be completely outside of their jurisdiction in court. It might be a little difficult for folks to follow, but I bet they could work their way through. (I know. It's the booze that makes you write this way. But it's almost in perfect form for filing a common law claim.)

your still stuck not realising it. and just blindly following karl lentz's preaching like your his religious follower

goodluck with that

p.s i never followed the freeman stuff you spout out because i can see passed your preaching and copy and pastes. i instead research beyond your preaches and do things you are apparently too afraid to do

many people have seen your flaws and seen you lack the first person experience/knowledge/research
i have no idea why you are just a copy and paste drone follower of the stuff you read. but hey, goodluck with your narrowminded vision to refuse to stand back and do independant research

enjoy your life in la la la land

and no dont just auto reply with the empty response of why you should continue believing the crap you believe. atleast take a step back and research whats behind the la la la
and then look at your first topic post and truly research every numbered point of your topic post and verify each bit.
dont just be a blind drone. DO SOME RESEARCH
and no dont auto respond pretending you done the research...this topic has proved you just copy and pasted without verifying
and no dont just auto respond that im just 'wrong cos im wrong'. as a drone response of many usually write. DO THE RESEARCH
and no dont respond with some typical offensive reply .. just do the research

you can insult and say anything. but in the end.. just do the research and learn..
..or stay a drone

You talk about doing research. But I don't blame you for not realizing that Karl Lentz isn't freeman. Who wants to check into stuff that he thinks is junk?

Here is how to see that Karl Lentz's "stuff" isn't freeman. It's easy.

Freeman people file hundreds of pages of documents in their "briefs." They talk about God, the rights of mankind, freedom, and all kinds of stuff that doesn't have anything to do directly (most of the time) with their case.

Karl is different. Karl files one or two pages in his claim. All they have to do with is who the parties are, what the other party has done wrong, and what Karl wants as payment for the wrong they have done to him. If there are other docs or pictures, they are referred to as attachments, and they don't go into any more detail than necessary to back up Karl's case.

What Karl does is the same as attorneys and DA's do all the time. It's to the point, and let's get this thing done and over with.

I'm starting to think either that you are completely ignorant of court operations, or that you are out there to keep the people from recognizing how fast a case can be handled by the courts. And especially that people don't need attorneys.

All your blab about freemen is pointless. But it sounds like you adore them and their stuff, even though it all failed you somewhere along the line.

you still have not realised the whole 'la la la la' stuff of the karl lentz example that you thought was a freeman win...
seriously.. do the friggen research

figure out for yourself what was behind karl lentz's 'la la la' and you will realise he did not freeman win at all. and his freeman chest rubbing was not even applicable to what became the result. h did not have to evn say the freeman script that he tells others to say. if he instead actually told viewers what was behind his la la la section people would know how to win a case like the scenario.

its like saying
here is how to pal an orange
go up to an orange and argue with it to unpeal, shout and scream and then la la la. then you will find it has unpealed
where the la la la = and then grab the orange and peal the skin off

he metaphorically hid the need to peal the skin off to make people think it became unpealed by arguing nonsensically for hours was the solution

just do the research
realise the flaws then realise whats ben hidden from you. then realise why you are blindly following the speaches

P.S
you can always spot the religious followers by the way they respond with excuses not to do the research and instead try to fight for why they should just believe in what they have been preached

When are you going to wake up and realize that when a freeman wins in court, they don't call the joker a freeman any longer? No wonder you don't win in court. All you use is freeman stuff... the stuff that didn't win.

Why don't you show us how to use the law in ways that work better... if you're so smart?

your bullet points are not american law
they are a copy and paste of some dude you made loads of silly points(not law) and then what appears more likely just threw in some random cases.
your actions are the same as if told you cigarettes are healthy by cutting out a food label for vegetable soup and stick it on a pack of cigarettes.. but it dont make them healthy in reality


again the cases do not tally to the points. and many people have told you this. .. just accept it
this makes the pointd irrelevant which makes your topic irrelevant which makes your context silly and irrelevant

you really would be better off researching more or copy/pasting freeman stuff less
im trying to do you a favour here by trying to catch you up with stuff people knew a decade ago
if you want to take the slow route. see you in 10 years
or you can just wake up and realise your info is freeman misbeliefs

in short just stop copy/pasting freeman crap

^^^ Now you are calling American law the silliness.     

your references are the silliness

even what you refer in other topics as a freeman success was not a freeman success
that karl lentz video where he 'la la la' was not a freeman success..
h actually la la la over the important bit he didnt want to talk about as it would reveal what actually happened

freeman successes are not about having legitimate claims dismissed due to lawful reasons but usually about wasting soo much time and causing so much disruption the hop is they drop the case or offer an out of court settlement just to stop the headache freemen cause

your whole rhetoric is for even small things, to go to court, cause disruption and demand things and counter claim and then threaten to sue and to demand a trial.. when the reality wont get you the result you want. but the pretense is to cause so much drama that the other side just gives up the fight.

sorry but in the real world if you punch someone, your not going to be always able to talk your way out of a fight or play the whimpy victim card to get away from getting hurt. you will still get smacked down

realise that.
understand that
actually research it

anyway the point of my calling you out on your crap is that you are not researched enough or even understand the reality of things enough to be trying to make topics about legal 'fact'
so either realise your limitations or research more to get passed your limited scope of knowledge and experience as it has ben very very evident that you pretend to follow all the freeman stuff but have not personally tried them in the real world. you just watch, listen,read, someone elses stuff. and instantly without checking. just believe what they said is real and just copy and paste it as if its your own experience/knowledge

sorry but you have been told many times on many topics by many people.
its time you took the advice and do the damned research

No point in defending the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between freeman mistakes and freeman successes.

As long as you talk mush, nobody will be able to understand, even though they read all day.

The thing that I did was to reference a website. So, all your talk at me is silliness.

no point in you defending the freeman path you took. just realise you walked down the wrong path

oh and many people told you in this topic that your references are not refering to the points.. cant you even read.

time to wake up. many. MANY things you mad points about had irrelevant references
LEARN TO CHECK what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader
LEARN TO RESEARCH what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader
LEARN TO UNDERSTAND what your copying, when you say something like a empty thought script reader

in short think before you write

have a nice day

If you look closely, you will find that there are all kinds of legal references in the stuff... real legal references that are actually there.

The "freeman" you are talking about, is simply a misusing of the things that are used in law and court everyday.

Notice that there have been changes all over the judge-issued common law. If you shepardize court cases, you can see where many of the judgments have been changed by later court cases. Common law of the judges never remains the same.

If you want to focus on mistakes of the "freeman," that's okay. When freeman cases win, they are not called "freeman" any longer.

you are quoting freeman stuff..

the freeman throw in the word 'common law' to make it sound/look like what they/you are saying is about real common law/constitutional law stuff. but the stuff your quoting is not real common law/constitutional/law stuff

your quoting the freeman misunderstanding stuff of commonlaw/constitutional stuff

you keep quoting it all the time. you just dont realise it.

even this topic shows you lack actually cheking the sources. you just copy and paste it and have the misbelief that its correct even without the research/checks/trying things out.

people have pointed out many times how you have misunderstood it all.

just take a couple steps back from the walls surrounding you that you think ar protecting you
and realise you are stuck in a hole
stop screaming at people that are telling you to get out of the hole
stop screaming at people that they need to jump in the hole with you
and just realise your surroundings.. your stuck in a hole and you really should learn to climb out of it

...
courts do have judges
courts do have jurisdictions
people can accuse other people and not be the victim
others can represent victims

trying to turn a claim against you into a defamation claim against the accuser is not an automatic win just by turning up and denying recognising the accuser
trying to counter sue your way out of the claims against you is not a automatic win against your accuser

you have ben following too many 'a la la' quotes that are not explaining what really happens in court.
stop acting like you are the sole person that has found the fountain of knowledge and you are uniquely the only one that knows what you know. actually see that your fountain contains toxic knowledge and many people have realised it decades

your freeman beliefs have been demythed. sorry but your freeman trend /fad is outdated
just try to do some research that does not involve the freeman troll community and your will start to see the where you have been getting it wrong

YOU are not quoting real common law/constitutional stuff.. YOUR quoting the freeman misinterpretation varient

You're the one who is calling what I show freeman stuff. The reason you do this is that you are completely misusing or misapplying it, just like the freeman.

your the one linking freeman stuff all the time..
i never linked any freeman stuff.. im trying to help you to see the light at the end of the tunnel you dug.
you are about a decade out of date.

its time you do some proper research and realise what your even reading.
your links are from a community that have not done the real research and fooling people into how to act in court. but the reality is if people tried to do these things they would get in more trouble

take the previous post in this topic where i highlighted the 'no judge' thing. the case had nothing to do with 'no judge' and even then the jurisdiction argument of the case was foolish.
your points dont make a point because they lack the real research

you have ben told by many people now that your 'facts' have no credibility so just wake up and realise it
your beliefs of karl lentz and his crowd are sorely misplaced. all h can do is la la la over the bits he doesnt want people to know. when in reality the la la la bits are the actual things people should know.

just wake up and do some research

Your problem is that you are using freeman arguments. Where are you using them? They are the glasses that you are looking through. All you can see is freeman arguments wherever you look.

badecker.. you are soooooo fooling yourself believing the freeman stuff

the whole 'capitalised name is not a human but a corporate entity/fiction' crap that you have ben spoonfed is wrong on so many levels

you have been fooled into thinking when someone is born a 'trust' is set up of a corporate fiction..
sorry but that aint how it works

your truly stuck in a decade old myth
you are not preaching something new or revolutionary.. your stuck spouting out a busted myth of a decade ago.. you just dont realise it yet

what you do not realise is that people can later in life set up a trust and put their assets into that trust and that way distance themselves from any repurcussions.
but pretending your name is a trust set up at birth. is literally as stupid as shouting out that your not human and you identify yourself as a helicopter

do you know that many smart people dont buy cars. they lease them. that way if they default any loan(credit card/mortgage/personal loan). a debt collector cannot knock on your door and take the car as a recovery value because the car does not belong to you. so its not your asset for them to take.

you trying to denounce your birthname is not going to stop your car thats registered to your name from being taken. however putting the cars registration in another name of a trust unrelated to you will protect you

you really have much to learn and about a decade of stuff to catch up on
atleast try to look passed the myth. stop just treating it as gospel and really try to do the research

You misunderstand Islam. Their fellow brothers according to the Koran and Hadiths are fellow Muslims. Other people are infidels and can be treated in any way a Muslim wants. That's the difference between Islam and most other religions.

Generally other religions say to convert people, but don't harm them. Muslims say this too, regarding a time-period where the Muslim tries to convert the infidel. But if the infidel isn't converted, he is supposed to be executed. The execution time is a judgmental thing, based on the safety of the Muslims when they do the executing, and based on how close to Islam conversion the Infidels might be.

We all might have ideas on what Europe is to do with immigrants. You read my ideas, above. No punishment except for harm and property damage. There is one other thing that I didn't spell out in this thread. Threat. Knowing what Islam is, allowing Muslims to immigrate is accepting a threat. But what Europe does is up to them. Most of Europe is not under the non-agresion ideals I suggest. Their governments are civil law governments, which are basically like religious Islam without the religion part.

However, none of this has much to do with the points in the OP directly. So, what's your point?

read human history there is property over the means of production (equity) there is exploitation, islam is easy to handle as everyone thinks he goes to hell if he harms his fellow brothers but it can backfire, (exploitation etc.)

historically armies that go into battle in order to get into paradise aren't very good armies as they dont seek to win. islamic state terror spreads now because world is still influenced by american hedonism (liberalism) but once this turns, armies seeking to die are not good fighters anymore.

secondly what do you recommend what shall europe do with those migrants it gets from third world?