When in Rome…

I am surprised by how many people there are that seem to view the right to self-defense as being something strictly associated with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Soldier vs. The Gladiator.

I’m surprised because I cannot understand the mindset that, when it comes to being able to defend oneself, or someone else who can’t act for themselves, why would you knowingly limit yourself to only being able to do so with a gun or other physical forms of combat? No soldier goes into battle untrained in at least some form of hand-to-hand combat, because it would be utterly foolish to rely on the fact that your gun, or ammunition for it, will always be available on a battlefield when you need them most. To think this way is severely limiting to how well one is likely to do when having to improvise in battle. Ask any United States Marine or Special Forces soldier what his most important weapon is, and to a man they will answer “my mind.” These soldiers know that it is their mind, their ability to critically analyze, plan, and act in an instant on the available information is what will keep them alive and fighting.

Soldiers are also taught how to think strategically and pre-plan their course of action to the best extent possible. The smart soldier also plans for multiple contingencies that account for both the success and possible failure of the primary and secondary mission objectives. But the truly wise soldier plans not only for all for these things, but also with the constant reminder of the primary rule of war, that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

The ability to plan ahead-of-time is the primary difference between a soldier of war and a gladiator of the Colosseum. While a soldier will usually have the opportunity to survey the field of battle beforehand, or at least to study a map that will provide some sort of useful information and intelligence about the terrain and what does or may exist there, a gladiator rarely has such an opportunity. A true gladiator would be forced to enter into the arena without any idea of what was on the other side of the hypogeum doors until they were opened. He was usually driven onto the killing grounds at spear point if he would not enter willingly to face whatever was awaiting him and his companions there. Sometimes it would be other men, sometimes animals, sometimes machines, and sometimes it may be any combination of these. Sometimes the gladiator would have comrades to battle beside him, and at others he would have to battle and kill those he had come to know as friends off the field. A gladiator had to be truly adaptable and willing to do whatever it took to win, because it was the rarest of occasions when he would step into the arena with the odds of survival and victory already in his favor.

In addition to the real gladiators and battles that the Colosseum accommodated, it was also host to the Praegenarii, or ‘mock gladiator,’ who served as a fill-in act during intervals and scenery changes between battles. They usually conducted their mock fights in a comical and clownish manner for the entertainment of the crowd and the Emperor during the lulls between games. They would conduct mock recreations of the days highlights in the gladiator games or other historical battles of other legendary gladiators. They even sometimes performed mock versions of great historical Roman campaign battles, that is, when the Emperor was not forcing real gladiators to shed real blood to reenact them. It was not even unheard of that, if the Praegenarii were particularly displeasing to the crowd or the Emperor in their antics, the next battle to be watched could very well be between the clownish and unskilled Praegenarii and the real gladiators.

The Original Roman Colosseum.

In ancient Rome, the Colosseum was a huge open arena that covered approximately six (6) acres. Its seating capacity allowed it to hold between 50,000-80,000 Roman spectators. The arena floor of the Colosseum had 36 individual trap doors installed, allowing for what was then considered some very elaborate special effects by modern standards. But these trapdoors could also contain hidden dangers that were yet to be unleashed on the combatants, or even be rigged as a trap to injure or kill them. It is said that more than 700,000 people of all races, religions, and descriptions, died on the bloody arena floor over the years that it was active. The Colosseum of Rome was an extremely dangerous and ugly place to be a combatant, whether voluntary or involuntary.

 

The New American Colosseums.

Ancient Rome may have had the Colosseum, but modern America has its own smaller scaled version of this dangerous battlefield, we just have a less grand name for them, courts. This new form of the ancient Colosseum has guards and games masters, just like the original. Also just like the original, they are each presided over by their own little black toga-wrapped Emperor that thinks him or herself to be a god in their own right. Despite the egocentric nature of their own self-importance, we normally just call them judges.  By Comparison, if you think the Colosseum was a rigged game against the original gladiators, you haven’t seen anything that compares to the rigged game that is the American court system.

The New Gladiators.

Did you know that there were more than twenty (20) different types of gladiators that appeared and fought in the Roman Colosseum. But despite all of that diversity, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the diversity of new American gladiators that exist today.

It should go without saying that, considering the potential consequences of having to fight in the Roman Colosseum, it would be hard to imagine that someone would actually choose to voluntarily become a gladiator to do battle there, much less to do so on an ongoing basis. This wasn’t really a problem in the days of the Roman empire, as most gladiators were prisoners, slaves, or otherwise conscripted into service. It is in this sense that the American People have been compelled to participate in the ‘just-us’ system as one of these new types of gladiator. This happens because they are being forced to enter into this new American Colosseum we call the courts, where they have to defend themselves against an often much more powerful foe. One who is well known for not fighting fair or following the rules in order to win its battles. This foe is the State, its agencies, and its actors.

This means that the American people now face a choice much like that faced by those who were unfortunate enough to have been conscripted into the role of the Roman gladiator. Learn, train, fight, win, or perish (lose).

 

The New Praegenarii.

The only bright side of this new system is that the role of the gladiator victim is not the only one that has been carried forward in a new form, there is also a new kind of Praegenarii. Be aware that the new Praegenarii in our modern version of the Colosseum comes in two different forms, that of attorneys, and the other as Patrinuts. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both are usually pretty reliable for providing the crowd with a good laugh or eyeball roll at their antics and stupidity.

The Attorneys.

The attorneys act more seriously and gladiator-like, much as the Praegenarii who were reenacting true-to-life versions of Rome’s most glorious campaigns and battles, but would still do so with some small comedic elements if one watches closely, and, occasionally, even with a grand explosion of clownish and ignorant behavior. The truly nefarious thing about the attorneys as modern Praegenarii is not really their level of actual skill in the use of the normal weapons, but rather their unscrupulousness and totally underhanded methods of combat, which is usually done by completely twisting and corrupting the weapons themselves beyond recognition. While most attorneys that you will encounter in these arenas have all the skills necessary to look and act like real gladiators, they almost never have the skills and expertise necessary to engage in a real fight and win it. The key is in knowing how to tell just when and how a battle is winnable, and what tactics will work best to accomplish that end, which you can best learn and apply by watching and listening to other attorney(s) and comparing what you hear and see them do to what you should have already taken the time and effort to know for yourself about the proper way to engage in these fights, and that is through the learning the rules of engagement and other information described below.

The Patrinuts.

Then we have the Patrinuts. When a Patrinut dons the garb of a gladiator, it is truly a sight to behold. Not because of how awe-inspiring and fearsome they look, sound, or conduct themselves in battle, but because of how the complete massacre of the Patrinuts that usually ensues more closely resembles that gaggle of foppish and totally unskilled clowns and buffoons with inferentially poor acting skills who pissed off the crowd of Roman spectators or disappointed the Emperor to such an extent that they were forced to fight to the death against a group of real and battle-hardened gladiators. A gladiatorial battle involving a Patrinut will almost always provide some level of entertainment, usually ranging from sheer cross-eyed boredom, to slack-jawed disbelief, to outbreaks of belly laughter so uproarious and voluminous that the Emperor orders the entire Colosseum cleared until he can decide upon a course of action. Which usually winds up being that the Patrinut is stripped naked and thrown to the lions for the sheer entertainment and appeasement of the crowd.

 

How to Survive the Colosseum and
Retire as a LIVE Gladiator.

If you wanted to survive the Colosseum as a gladiator, you had to learn how to be the best and most awesomely skilled gladiator you could be. This means that those men and women had to become skilled in every manner of weapon, shield, and hand-to-hand combat technique they could learn and master in whatever time they were allotted to make ready. They not only had to master the weapons of war, but also the accompanying accouterments by becoming masters of horse and chariot, conventional and unconventional battle tactics, and thinking and acting on their feet in the heat of battle. It meant learning how to think, act, and react very differently than they once did, or ever would again.

This leads us to the as-yet unrealized problem faced by most Americans today, that these preparatory requirements have not actually changed for any of us as the new American gladiator. Why you might ask? Well, like it or not, there is always the possibility even today, a much greater one in fact, that, just like it was possible in the days of Rome, you could just as easily be conscripted to appear in one of these newfangled Colosseums and coerced into engaging in a fight you never asked for or wanted.

Learning how things worked on the arena floor, and how to adapt to whatever situation or enemy that may arise, was extremely important to a gladiator’s survival. In our modern-day arenas, just like the gladiators of old, you need to learn several things before you have to enter if you are to survive to see another day. The longer you have to prepare and train to sharpen your skills before that day arrives the better. The wise gladiator is one who knows that, even though he has yet to actually enter into the theater to engage in a real battle, he should take advantage of the time he has to make himself as battle-ready and survival -prone as possible.

By studying the rules and tactics necessary for waging these new kinds of engagements, you can be far more successful than you might otherwise think. The primary rules and weapons used on today’s field of battle are the Federal and State Rules of Evidence, Procedure, and Judicial/Professional Conduct. These are formidable and trustworthy weapons in the hands of a skilled gladiator. Augment those skills with an irrefutable understanding of the multitudinous variations of the other weapons and skills of war used on the battlefield, meaning the modern laws and statutes, and you become an awesome gladiatorial force to be reckoned with. It is not nearly as difficult as many would have you believe to become equally or superiorly skilled compared to most of the attorneys that you will face in this arena. Remember, far more of them are really just a bunch of clowns and buffoons who are merely playing at the role of being a real gladiator than even they tend to realize. This usually makes them overconfident and foolish in how they will try to duel and deal with you more often than not. Which means that the better you prepare and hone your skills at being a real new American gladiator now, even if you currently feel that you have no need of such skills, the more likely it will be that your newfound talents will enable you to more quickly draw your opponent within reach of your legal weapons for a quick and clean kill if and when the time to fight finally arrives.

But, beware still the fickle and spiteful Emperor, for he is the most dangerous opponent of all. His is the power to overrule everything, even your hard-won victory, at least for a time. However, the better you handle these weapons and yourself, the more likely that the Emperor is not going to be willing to risk angering the crowd when they are showing overwhelming support for you as the victorious gladiator, no matter how much the Emperor might secretly wish to do you harm. The more knowledge and skill you have, the more likely the Emperor will not act upon his own capricious whims or out of sheer envy and jealousy over your popularity with the People when you finally stand as an uncoerced and free man at the end of the day.

Just try to avoid stepping in all of the Patrinut blood pooling on the ground as you leave the arena.

State Administrative Agencies Regulate Only “Legal Persons.”

The bane of all fundamental human rights in America today is the rise to power of an unconstitutional institution known as “administrative law.” It permeates every area of our lives in ways that even a Korean Kimche fart in a tiny room with no windows can do.

Administrative law is unconstitutional because it is used to violate every single rule of due process that exists to protect our individual rights. It allows punishment without judicial review, and legalized extortion as a legitimate power of government that the People never intended or approved. In short, it is legalized theft backed by the power of the State.

The Patrinuts all think that the only remedy to be had in such instances is to use what they refer to as “commercial processes.” For example, legal remedy based upon unsubstantiated theories such “Accepted for Value (A4V),” “Commercial Liens,” or “U.C.C. Redemption.” Not only have I never found any lawful merit in these processes as the Patrinuts try to apply and use them, but they usually wind up making matters much worse for those people that try to do so. I also say that these theories are unsubstantiated based upon the fact that 1) I have never seen any of them work as described, 2) I have never seen them produce results that are repeatable in multiple instances, 3) I can find no law or authoritative documentation that establishes any of them as valid legal remedies for anything the Patrinuts try to use them for, 4) more people lose, and lose worse by using them, than those that are not using them.

It also doesn’t help that you pretty much have to swallow a whole sheet of LSD-laced postage stamps to have any of the Patrinut theories even begin to make any sense, which is why they can only EXPLAIN to you how they think it is all supposed to work, but cannot actually PROVE or document any of it from an authoritative verifiable source. This is compounded by any attempts they may make to convince you by posting links to statutes and small sections of case cites from questionable internet resources, and then you reading them only to find out that the case citations are completely fake, totally out of context, or not at all on-point for the issue at hand. Then, the pièce de ré·sis·tance turns out to be that Patrinut guru that’s been providing this information to the public forum has the reading comprehension and interpretation skills of a cardboard box, with the box itself actually being far more useful than this Patridiots so-called information. At least you can take all the stupid documents, videos, recordings, and other crap you got from the Patrinut and carry it all to the trash in the box.

So, while the Patrinut crowd is so busy over-complicating everything, even how to be stupid and proud of it, I almost always have found that the best real remedy in the law that one could possibly seek out and rely upon, is one that already exists in the law itself. Especially one that is verifiable, reusable, reliable, and produces repeatable and consistent success in multiple instances. This is something that I have never seen any of the Patrinut’s alleged  remedies accomplish.

What does this all have to do with administrative law you may ask? Well, believe it or not, despite its unconstitutionality in so many ways and areas when it comes to due process, it very often also provides you with an immediate remedy to any administrative issue you might currently be having to contend with. Administrative law generally supplies this remedy in the form of what is commonly referred to as an “affirmative defense” against any administrative allegation(s) and the related monetary fine(s), fee(s), or penalty(s) that might otherwise follow if left unrebutted by an answer to said allegation(s). The downside being that any failure on your part to provide and answering rebuttal results in you actually losing the issue by default and then having to seek remedy anew at a greater cost and effort to yourself.

Affirmative defenses are not strictly limited in availability to administrative law. Many areas of law, including criminal, have statutorily provided affirmative defenses for certain types of criminal allegations.  For example, in this screen shot you can see all of the individual chapters of the Texas Penal Code where the phrase “affirmative defense” can be found in relation to certain crimes. If you click the picture it should take you to the Texas Legislatures web site, where you can follow the individual returned search links to see how an affirmative defense applies to a particular crime and how to use it for your defense if you are accused of the crime and the defense applies.

Search Results - Penal Code 'affirmative defense'

This is pretty much the same way it works in administrative law as well. The one caveat is that administrative statutes don’t always specifically state that an affirmative defense exists. In which case, you have to know not only how to read and comprehend the statute, but also how to determine if such an affirmative defense is actually available as a remedy.

Which brings us to the actual purpose of this article. Texas has what is known as the “Texas Commission on Environmental Quality” or “TCEQ” for short. The TCEQ is a State administrative agency, and one of their areas of jurisdiction is the oversight of “irrigators,” which is really a shorter and more fancy term for “underground sprinkler installer and repairman.” Now, the TCEQ, like any other State administrative agency, is all about the money, which normally comes through the form of licensing, such as those who wish to be state licensed irrigators. But, also like any other State administrative agency, they like to abuse their power and authority. Which also means that the legal counsel for the TCEQ is more than willing to intentionally pervert the administrative laws to those very ends. Usually for the purpose of extorting excessively exorbitant administrative fees, fines, and penalties, from those who are unlucky enough to fall within their jurisdiction and/or invoke the ire of any of the petty bureaucrats therein.

I have a friend who is an irrigator and owns his own irrigation business. A business he has worked in for more than 40+ years. He started this business long before there even was a TCEQ and before it was necessary to obtain a license to simply earn a living by burying plastic pipes in the ground to run water through so your lawn doesn’t turn brown and blow away.

Needless to say, the TCEQ decided to set their monetary extortion sights on my friend, to the tune of over $6,000.00, per allegation, per day of alleged violation. In other words, to extort enough money to either force him out of business or to fund their whole budget for the next six years. My friend is almost 70, and runs a crew of 3-4 people from a single pickup truck and trailer. Needless to say, that kind of money simply doesn’t exist for him. There is also the slight problem that comes from there being a constitutional protection against “excessive fines imposed” in the Texas Bill of rights, to wit:

Sec. 13.  EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW.  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.  All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Administrative law agencies and their legal counsel would have you believe that these protections are not available or applicable to you if they have set their sights on getting your money. They are patently wrong on that front. These protections are available to the People, but, they are not available to the “legal person” that the statutes regulate. In the ‘legal’ eyes and presumptions of administrative law, these two ‘beings’ are not the same, and have totally different existences and rights. Which, believe it or not, is actually a correct interpretation of the law.

However, what happens to that legal presumption when it is being applied to one of the people that is not also one of its “legal persons?” What happens when the TCEQ tries to apply its regulatory codes, which clearly state that they apply only to the legal person who is one of their licensed irrigators, but not to the living being who is not one who possesses its license?

Well, in this case, what happens is the statutory inference of an unbeatable affirmative defense that ensures that we can prevent the TCEQ from accomplishing its goals of either extorting my friend out of all of his money, or forcing him out of business altogether because he won’t kowtow and allow himself to be forced into acquiring their license. In other words, his remedy, and yours, is actually already built into the law itself. They just hope that you don’t know that or how to find it, much less make use of it.  The key to it all is to never leave them an ‘out’ that they can use against you, whether now or later.

English Language Words versus Legal “Terms of Art” – The Corruption of an Entire System of Language by the Legal Profession.

Words. Can you even imagine the state of your life, or our society, if we didn’t have words? Whether spoken or written, we could not have gotten where we are today without words. We use them to describe and define so much of our world, even to sometimes provide a voice to our innermost thoughts and ideas. As humans, we use words to add dimension to our thoughts, to convey our ideas, to communicate with one another, and to further our learning and mutual understanding of so many things. At least, most of us use them for that purpose.

But, there are those among us that have always sought to use our complex language of words in ways intended to provide themselves with some advantage over those less educated in the intricacies of our language and may not fully understand the meaning of the words and phrases used to implement it. These individuals of evil or self-serving intent, a class of people we commonly refer to as “grifters,” devised methods of writing and speaking that was geared toward intentionally deceiving particular individuals, or the masses in general, when weaving and pursuing some scheme to eventually separate the targeted individual or group from their hard-earned money, the majority of which was sure to wind up in the grifter’s pocket.

The most common vernacular for such persons are “con men” or “con artists.” The tradecraft of such individuals is not difficult to understand. They are nothing more than thieves, i.e. common criminals. But, unlike robbers and thugs, they rarely use force or weapons as the preferred tool by which they ply their trade. Instead, they use charm, wit, and words to facilitate thievery upon their intended victim(s) by fraud and deception.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, however, these types of con men haven’t disappeared, or even legally wiped out. Oh no. They still exist today, and in much larger numbers than ever before, and operate much more publicly than before. Which makes it clear to us that they have simply gotten much better at organizing and plying their trade, while becoming much less noticeable as a criminal element than they used to be. In fact, they have actually managed to legitimize themselves and their entire profession by turning their practice of fraud and deception into an actual socially acceptable and highly lucrative form of ‘legitimate’ business.

No, today, such deceitful and deceptive individuals are more commonly known by a far more prolific and nefarious singular name, attorneys. Which means that it is imperative that you fully understand that there are no bigger, better organized, and more “legal” crime syndicates on the planet than those of the National and State Bar Associations. The members of these associations have an actual license to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of “The State” and its totally corrupted form of “law” and “justice,” that truly serves no one but themselves.

What you are going to see in this book is an attempt to precisely explain how this is all designed and setup to carry out the very same plan of fraud and theft that the con men of yesteryear were so well known and notorious for. Only now, those con men are in total control of the very system that was once used to protect the public by hunting them down and prosecuting them for their actions. But, those days are now long gone.  Read on and see for yourself just how true that actually is.

 

Dealing with a Condescending Prosecutor or Judge.

Whenever a prosecutor or judge is actually arrogant enough to make the statement “I’m not going to argue the semantics of the law with you,” consider, and remind him or her that the law itself, including the statute(s) that s/he is trying to use against you, is actually comprised of nothing but legal semantics.

Remember, our American laws are not written in common everyday English, but, rather, they are written in a language known to a particular few as legalese. Legalese itself is not merely constructed of words and sentences, but is a particularized and meticulously crafted language unto itself. It is a language made up entirely of carefully chosen and defined terms and phrases that look and sound exactly like those with which you are normally readily familiar, but, they actually have an altered or alternative legal meaning and context. Which is to say, they are the legal semantics.  These terms and phrases are also known by another name, terms/phrases of art., which we will discuss in more detail momentarily.

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines legalese thusly:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [1]

n.

The specialized or technical language of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse.

The Collins English Dictionary online provides us with the Webster’s New World College Dictionary’s more expanded, and rather clarifying, definition of the term:

le·gal·ese  (lē′gə-lēz´, -lēs´) [2]

n.

The conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman.  (Emphasis added).

In this definition, you can see where legalese is both known, and intended, to be incomprehensible to the layman, i.e. the non-attorney, thus, giving the legal profession a monopoly control, use, and understanding of its own language, which it uses to the utter detriment of all those who themselves fail to become adequately fluent in the language.

You see, the very explanation of legalese itself is an example of legal semantics in operation. For lack of a better suited and simplified explanation of the issue as to what legalese is, just remember the following; legal semantics is the simultaneous process of altering the common language meaning of words and sentences, thereby converting them into the legalese format of terms and phrases, and then applying an alternative legal meaning and context rather than the normal common meaning and context, regardless of the fact that the terms and phrases you see and hear may look, sound, and are spelled, the same way that you normally recognize and are familiar with.

In which case, the only proper response to such a statement from ANY attorney would be:

I know you won’t argue with me about it, because you are legally and linguistically incompetent to do so, and would lose that debate within a matter of minutes if you tried. Therefore, I suggest that you just stand over there quietly and remember why it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool rather than to open it and remove all doubt.

 

Terms/Phrases of Art.

So, what exactly is a term/phrase of art, and why is it important to recognize the difference between such terms and phrases when compared to the common English usage of similar appearing and sounding language?

The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines “term of art” this way:

A word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. [3]      (Emphasis added).

While the online version of West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2, defines the phrase in this way:

A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context. [4]   (Emphasis added).

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law then goes on to provide us with some clarity as to exactly why this differentiation of language is important to know and fully understand, as it is the precise avenue by which the perversion/corruption of our understanding of our common language use has taken place.

A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.

The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.

The legal system constantly and subversively construes our every use of language as being legal terms of art rather than the real common meaning and usage. The primary reason that there is any misunderstanding at all about this fact is because those professionally operating within the system are constantly telling the rest of us that, unless the law creates a specific definition for a given term or phrase, then, they too are always using regular English words and sentences in their everyday common and ordinary meaning and context, rather than legal terms and phrases of art having an entirely legal meaning and context.

However, we know, and can logically prove, that this claim is totally false. We know it is false because, unless there is an actual legal issue, they have no reason to be communicating with us at all. In other words, whenever an attorney or judge makes the statement that they are construing a term or phrase in its common and ordinary meaning and context, they actually mean its common and ordinary meaning and context in relation to law, not common English.

Therefore, whenever they communicate with us, regardless of their purported reason, they are still using legalese terms and phrases, not common English words and sentences. Which, in turn, means they are actually always communicating with us using only the common legal meaning and context as commonly defined by a particular term or phrases legal usage, not its common everyday English usage. The governmental and legal systems simply cannot communicate with us in any other way or language, as the only language and context they know and understand is that of the law itself, i.e. legalese. Which makes the terms and phrases of legalese within the law the only means by which they can communicate and interact with us at all.

For those people that want to fight every single court battle as if it were a contractual agreement and obligation involving waiver and mutual consent, this understanding is paramount to achieving any level of actual success in resolving whatever issue(s) they are bringing to your door. Why do I say this is true and necessary? Well, consider this example:

How do you enter into a contractual negotiation with someone else, and how exactly do you define and satisfy the necessary terms of that contract as far as offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds?

How do you know exactly what is being offered and exchanged, and contractually required, if not by the terms of the contract itself?

How do you know what the other party is promising to offer, do, or deliver to you in return for your consideration, and what must that consideration be comprised of, federal reserve notes, gold or silver, or a bushel of potatoes every week for ten years?

Now, what if none of the parties attempting to enter into this contract spoke the same language, and couldn’t communicate in any way so as to directly understand one-another? Before you could move forward with establishing the contract, you would need either an interpreter, or, you would both need to learn one or the other’s language, correct?

So, if you are going to argue that the system is trying to contract with you, don’t you think it beneficial to be able to understand the language so as to comprehend precisely what the offer is, as well as the potential penalty for either party if they fail to fulfill their individual part(s) of the agreement? Wouldn’t that same understanding also be useful in exposing and renegotiating or refusing the unfavorable or unacceptable terms or unconscionability of the agreement as offered?

Personally, I think it would be tantamount, as compulsory contracts are nothing new when it comes to governmental coercion and corruption of the rule of law. But, unless they want to start an outright civil war, they are not quite ready and willing to abandon any and all semblance of complying with certain rules and requirements of certain contractual agreements as they relate to substantive and procedural due process.

Be aware, I am not saying that contractual arguments are the arguments to make in many of these cases that we are forcibly compelled to endure and get through, but, it is a good example of how to think about what is actually happening in relation to lawful and legal process and procedural requirements, as they are also specific contractually obligating terms already agreed upon by the very construct of government and the creation of the laws that contain them. Making a violation of those laws by those within the system a very big deal, even though it may not look or feel like it at the time.

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=legalese.

[2] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/legalese.

[3] Oxford Living Dictionaries, English  “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term_of_art.

[4] West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art.

Patrinuts – A short course on expediting your federal conviction by being mentally lazy and stupid.

Well, certain types of people are STILL thinking that there are legal ‘silver bullets’ to solving this problem that we ALL have in the form of a wholly corrupt and fraudulent government and its use of authoritarian principles as a means of controlling the population.

And I am once again having to debunk this Patrinut stupidity where the belief that failing or flat-out refusing to read and understand the statutory schemes that are being used is somehow the equivalent of being able to deny their [mis]application to the people without ANY other offering of substantive facts or evidence.

Now, I would MUCH prefer that the process be that government shall NEVER apply ANY law to a living man unless it can first and foremost demonstrate exactly how and where its authority to act against him is constitutionally delegated and written into the law as to how and when such power specifically applies, but that ISN’T how this corrupt system operates. As my previous article on the due process violations surrounding legal presumptions demonstrated, it operates almost ENTIRELY upon legal presumptions and conclusions rather than facts and evidence, at least as far as THEIR side of the equation goes. We, as defendants, literally have to prove everything that we say or do in this corrupt system, right down to validating it with DNA in some cases.  Meanwhile, the statist psychopaths we have serving as bureaucrats and their henchmen, as well as the self-serving judges and attorneys, are free to interpretatively change the law on a whim to suit the outcome that they need or want it to have today versus how they wanted or needed it yesterday. This isn’t consistent with the rule of law. In fact, it more closely resembles a game of Russian roulette as to how the game of “what does the law really mean regardless of how it reads” will end this time around.  How else do you explain the diversity of opinions in the courts on what should be nothing more than a commonsense understanding that every individual has the absolute right to freely make their own choices and exercise all of their inherent and fundamental rights, provided that they do not cause harm to or infringe upon the equal rights of others?

And it certainly doesn’t help when we equally refuse or fail to do our own due diligence in understanding exactly what it is our public servants are trying to do whenever they are trying to do it. And this article on “SILVER BULLET TO YOUR RIGHTS” I have linked in here is a prime example of exactly that type of failure. It is trying to explain how one gets a passport by declaring that they are a “non-citizen national” rather than a “U.S. citizen.” And while it is accurate regarding the deleterious effects of declaring yourself to be a “U.S. citizen” under numerous other parts of federal and state law, it is not the same argument or case here. The definitions of “United States” and “U.S. citizen” appear by inference to apply to the several states of the union based upon how they are defined along with “U.S. national,” and “U.S. non-citizen national” for the specific purposes of obtaining a passport.

Now, this is NOT true for numerous other parts of federal and state law when it comes to the meaning of “U.S. citizen,” but it cannot be assumed in ANY form of law that any term or phrase will ALWAYS have the same legal meaning regardless of the legal subject and context in which it is being used. And it is in this misconception of how law works that the Patrinut theories and myths excel and abound.

PLEASE!!  Do NOT do the stupid shit this linked article “SILVER BULLET TO YOUR RIGHTS” is telling you to do. It is NOT at all accurate in what the the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations means in relation to citizenship status as it pertains to applying for and receiving a U.S. passport.

The article is only dead wrong because it’s DEAD WRONG! It would be a grand improvement upon education and competency if people would actually learn to read and then bother to research and COMPREHEND just what they are reading before spreading it around as actual fact, which this is NOT.  The author of this article obviously made no attempt whatsoever to research the legal definition of “non-citizen national” or “national” as defined under the federal statutes or the actual legislative acts of Congress.  Which is odd considering that they certainly wanted you to know that it’s a felony for any governmental or private entity to deny you in any right, benefit or privilege because you fail or refuse to disclose a SSN (Privacy Act of 1974).
For instance, in relation to federal law regarding passports, THIS is where one finds the legal definition of “U.S. non-citizen national”;
And this is where you find the explanatory statutes on exactly what a “national” is in relation to the passport laws:
In other words, this ‘method’ is a fast-track to federal prison for falsifying a federal government document and perjury. And the person that is on their way there for doing this stupid shit can thank their own gullibility and laziness for their 5-10 year enjoyment of striped sunshine. Consider this your fair warning about taking this ‘silver bullet’ crap at face-value.

Patrinuts – Here we go yet again. The Micheal C. School Theory of Law & Liability

Okay, we’ve been here a time or two before, but it appears that we must do so yet again.

What happens when legal theory collides with legal fact and the facts are irrefutable and correct? It is in this aftermath of such a collision that the Patrinut community runs into some seriously unstable legal ground. And to make matters even worse, they still choose to build their symbolic legal house that is their legal theory on that same unstable ground. This is as financially suicidal as building a million dollar home over a known unstable sinkhole knowing that you can never get insurance coverage.

Case in point, one “Michael C. School,” who thinks that his understanding of “trust law” is the golden ray of sunshine guaranteed to repel government and its agents on every level, sort of like sunshine, garlic, or holy water to a vampire.  There is only one little problem, what do you think the vampire will actually do if you are relying upon a simple flashlight, fake garlic, or regular tap water instead of the real thing?

Well, let’s find out.



Michael C School  Michael C School Jerry Howe The first step i did was in Common Law and created a Poormans Patent on the Testamentary Succession Revocation so the State cant deny my Rights. After i completed that part of the Process, then i filed for the name change in Court.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:45am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I’m guessing you have already completed a UCC-1 filing with your secretary of state is that correct Michael? So you’re now a Secured Party Creditor?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:49am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So for what reason(s) are you saying that you did this Michael? In laymans terms?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:53am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So the state can’t deny your rights to what exactly?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:55am

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao Lauw, Randy Neroni, your thoughts or questions on this.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:57am

Michael C School  Michael C School  The State cant use presumptive authority against me anymore. A grand jury has to convene with an Indictment signed by a lawful judge. A cop cant just stop me and harrass me unless he witness’s me commit a breach of the peace. UCC-1 is inferior to this by Contract, so no i have not filed a UCC-1 against the all caps name. I rescinded the original contract granting authority to create the Strawman account, which “should” also revoke power of attorney from the IRS all in one step. Filing a UCC-1 would still leave me under Presumptive Authority because Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked from the State.
Michael C School  Michael C School From the Office of Michael C. School
Executor of this Instrument
To: Public Notice
I Michael Charles School “One of The People” and also One of the People of the State of California Claim this as the correct spelling of my Lawful Birth Name. The ALL CAPS NAME OF MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL IS A Fictional Entity Negotiable Debt Instrument created by the State without any disclosure to my parents who were the Lawful Guardians and Custodians of my Body and the Executor’s of my Share of the Trust until I reached the age of majority.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
I Hereby Revoke any and all Implied Testamentary Succession privilege The State has acquired without My Consent. The Clean Hands Doctrine applies to all Fiduciaries bound by Oath to Protect the Beneficiary of the Trust which is Michael C. School ONLY. MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL is a DBA Fiction (Doing Business As) This is Usury as Michael Charles School does not operate as a 3rd party fictional re-presentation of the Living Being. Michael Charles School is a Pro Se’ 1st Party Contractor ONLY who uses Written Instruments Lawfully Executed as my “Will.” Article 1 Section 10.1 (Obligation of Contracts cannot be Impaired.)
Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].”

“The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. ”
City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922): “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief.
Executor of this Instrument
Michael Charles School
Autograph Date

Witness

Before me, _____________________________, the subscriber, personally appeared Michael Charles School, to me known to be the Living Soul described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and sworn before me that they executed the same as their own free will act and deed.

Witness Autograph ______________________________ (California Jurat Attached)

Date___________________
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:05pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I believe this is where the Sovereign movement fails as Testamentary Succession hasnt been revoked but the Strawman account has been validated by Authenticating the Birth Certificate which i did not do. Yet……

Michael C School  Michael C School This is new ground for me and i believe i have completed it correctly. If i made a mistake anywhere i would appreciate the input so we may have a complete process for Remedy all the faster.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:08pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Seems like magic scroll theory to me.
The “state ” doesn’t presume anything. It’s officer shitforbrains that makes presumptions and initiates controversy, or takes advantage of potential controversy.

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a great opinion Randy, but where are your Facts? Officer SFB implements departmental Policy not the Law.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:29pm

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw One might ask the exact same thing for this lame brained theory that “the state can’t do A, B, or C to me because of my magic make-a-wish document.”
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Tao Lauw Eddie you are a follower not a leader, thats the difference between us. You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law. By your response its obvious that Jurisdictionary is all you got. “People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.”
Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)
[But then again Eddie, you have an all caps name on your drivers license as a Debtor not a Secured Party Creditor.] “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”
Ohio L. Ins. & T Co. vDebolt, 16 How 416, 14 L. Ed. 997
[Oh but you are a Citizen or Natural Person you say?] “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.”
Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
[Hmm how do i Occupy the Office of the Executor of the Estate as One of the People since i am the Beneficiary of the Trust, not the Surety like Eddie Hmm that sounds like CONTRACT LAW.http://jec.unm.edu/…/online-training/contract-law-tutorial] “Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisos of either, it is so far void.” Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840).– FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138 -178) “Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes.–It is abiding truth that “[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). HARRIS V. NEW YORK U.S. Supreme Court•401 U.S. 222 (1971)
“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Terral v. Burke Construction Co.,.
—Royal Indemnity Co. v. Werner, 979 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1992) explains that “A Claimant is damaged upon filing of a complaint.”, “All Codes, Rules and Regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human / Creators in accordance with God’s law. All Codes, Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process as applied to Sherwood T. Rodrigues.” – Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan (US Secretary of Labor) 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)—CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC INFERIORITY habitually misbehave, and have no sense of responsibility to their fellowmen or to society as a whole. These individuals fail to learn by experience and are inadequate, incompatible, and inefficient. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, 300; Wilson v. Walters, Cal.App., 112 P.2d 964.—1983 Caselaw- COLOR OF LAW
Only two allegations are required to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “First, the Plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). See Tillman v. Coley, 886 F.2d 317, 319 (11th Cir. 1989); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989); Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir. 1989). JOHNSON V. CANNON, (M.D.FLA. 1996)United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division•947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

 

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwMichael C SchoolBlah blah blah. One, I DON’T even HAVE a license and haven’t had one for over a decade. I don’t register my cars or anything at all. 

So please don’t try to tell me what I have, much less what I know. However, unlike your attempt to make ME look stupid, let’s take a tour of the demonstrable stupidity of your so-called facts in your imbecilic comments:

0) This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have seen in awhile:

“You only know Statutory Law but not Contract Law or Consumer Law or Business Law.”

Just what the hell do you think contract, consumer, and business law IS if not STATUTORY Braniac? Pull you head out of your ass, soon, because the lack of oxygen is costing you your precious few remaining brain cells.

1) Your Rodriguez case cite is as fake as your last IQ test. And the fact that you don’t KNOW that proves that your ‘research’ is either moronically sloppy or non-existent.

2) Your Terral cite is ALSO incorrect AND taken COMPLETELY out of context. Here is the full sentence of the cite:

“The principle established by the more recent decisions of this Court is that a state may not, in imposing conditions upon the privilege of a foreign corporation’s doing business in the state, exact from it a waiver of the exercise of its constitutional right to resort to the federal courts, or thereafter withdraw the privilege of doing business because of its exercise of such right, whether waived in advance or not. The principle does not depend for its application on the character of the business the corporation does, whether state or interstate, although that has been suggested as a distinction in some cases.”

Proving once again your Patrinut sucking skills is better than your vetting skills. Here is the ENTIRE opinion just in case you learn to read:

https://supreme.justia.com/…/federal/us/257/529/case.html

3) The Ohio Life Ins. case DOESN’T exist under the cite you have, nor does it exist in similarly named cases. You are now up to four self-inflicted FUBARs in just one comment. But, you seem to enjoy making slanderous comments about others while not doing your own ball-check before stepping into the ring, and now we’re going to see just how well you handle facts over fiction.

4) The CORRECT cite for Lansing is “Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829),” and that case went AGAINST the individual and FOR the corporate state. The proposition of the case was this:

“In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the crown and parliament of England in lands under tide waters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high-water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low-water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad.”

In other words, it DISPROVES your intended implied use of the case in bolstering your so-called position.

5) The Luther case is one that you are ALSO taking out of context and offers no support for your alleged ‘process’ OR ‘paperwork’ methods. The full sentence of THAT cite goes like this:

” No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government and establishing a new one in its place is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.”

As anyone with an IQ higher than the number of ounces in an average can of soda can see, the case is speaking of the unified political body of the people, not one guy that thinks he’s found the way to write his own personal incantations to ward off the state.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html

6) The correct cite for Houston is “Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820),” and guess what, you are using ANOTHER shit-cite. It doesn’t exist in the opinion. So sorry, want a lollipop, ’cause this ass-whoopin’ is about to continue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

7) On to other non-surprises, your Mapp case cite is as non-existent as your ability to make a winning argument! No such language, implication, inference, or wild fucking guess is to be found in the opinion.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/1/

Bro’, I could do this ALL day and ALL night, because I totally fucking LIVE to destroy STUPID in all its forms. But, since I believe I have CLEARLY established that you really ARE the fucking moron I only assumed you originally were, I’m not gonna’.

The next time you want to appear intelligent and like you know what the fuck you are even doing on this planet, go talk to a kindergartner, maybe they won’t make you look so fucking stupid if you just stay in your corner of the sandbox.

supreme.justia.com

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 · 15 hrs · Edited

Dan Bramschreiber  Dan Bramschreiber ha ha ha he surely hasn’t listened very much or very long.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Have you heard of Trust Law? Testamentary succession refers to succession resulting from a legally executed testament. (*The Birth Certificate)
Testamentary succession is also known as the right of inheritance. A testamentary succession is fixed and determined at the moment of a decedent’s “death”.
What exactly is “civil death?”
The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost all his civil rights, and as to them, is considered as dead. Quick v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 207 Ala. 376, 92 So. 608, 609.
The following is an example of a case law defining testamentary succession;
“A testamentary succession is that which results from the institution of heir, contained in a testament executed in a form prescribed by law. [Succession of Christensen, 248 So. 2d 45, 47 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971)].” Juridictionary will only take you so far in life…….
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:30pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It is a great opinion. On that we agree.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:33pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Can you show me where i am wrong in the Law?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:34pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Yes I can. You ready ?
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:35pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Who has the burden of proof?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe State in a criminal proceeding.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Ive already rescinded the Contract granting Presumptive Authority to the “State.”
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:38pm

Michael C School  Michael C School I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Can you prove all that stuff you’ve accused yourself of?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Michael C School  Michael C School It works in Court
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:39pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Saying it works in a court and proving it did are two different things I’m looking for the proof.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:41pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni It’s all false witness. False witness against self is still false witness.
Why anyone still attempts to prove anything in a venue where he cannot prove any claim he makes, is beyond me.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Lol! I posted my Doc’s as you requested and i am a firsthand witness. I have a Counter-Plaintiff Complaint template, just got to find it and i will post it. Defendant is the Surety. Counter-Plaintiff is a Beneficiary.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:43pm

Michael C School  Michael C School Randy do you understand Precedence and Precedent are not one and the same?
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 12:44pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I understand what file your documents are going.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:46pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe I saw you docs Michael. Interesting they are, but they are not evidence in and of themselves that you have gained some sort of advantage or remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:47pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Let’s create an example scenario for the documents use.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:50pm

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I’ve seen people try to argue this stuff to a judge that I know was giggling on the inside.

He was so encouraging though. He’d say “so how is it that the statutes don’t apply to you?”.

He’d listen to the whole thing and then say “that’s your opinion, the court disagrees. What else you got? “.

Must have been a slow day and they were bored.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 12:52pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe So, say your local county court issues a warrant for your arrest for failure to appear on a traffic violation/summons issued by a sheriffs deputy. Let’s say that warrant is issued in the all caps name. Does this name change thing mean you can just ignore the warrant? Is that what you’re saying Michael C School?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 12:55pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Does it mean that if you are arrested on that warrant that they have the wrong guy?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 12:57pm

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Really Michael, I’m just trying to ascertain what verifiable advantage or remedy you propose to get out of this name change. Because unless there is some advantage or remedy to be gained from it, than it seems to me your time would be much better spent studying the use of Title 42 so that you can get remedy.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 1:22pm · Edited

Tao Lauw  Tao LauwTick, tock, tick, tock… methinks he hid beneath a rock.
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I have 4 kids and a life, Eddie, Randy Neroni why dont you guys debate me on the air? Randy Dees with the Wake Up Mission or Randy Shannon with 42 Action. 1983 is great if you like inferior Jurisdiction. Pro Se’ is the best position to bring forth a Title 42 1981 action. You are unlimited in your ability to CONTRACT.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981 Tick Tock Eddie

  42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by wh…

law.cornell.edu
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Debate you about what exactly?
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School There’s more to Law than you think. Do you know how to enforce your Rights and create your own enforceable Contract?
<Link to more Patrinut bullshit removed in the interest of public safety>
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni You know what I know and think?
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School I know you only know part of the law like Eddie and i see how you both hide behind each other instead of use Law in your replies. Acing Business Associations (Acing Law School )
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Thats a good book to get, its on Amazon cheap.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I agree with Eddie because he knows what he’s talking about. Knowledge is a big deal with me.
Like · Reply · 2 · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni I used law on you earlier. You put the burden on yourself and couldn’t meet that burden. I didn’t win so much as you ensured you couldn’t win.
That’s exactly what would happen with your tactic in a judicial setting.
You want to prove that statutes don’t apply to you as an affirmative defense rather than leave the burden of proof on an accuser.

What possible advantage is in that?
Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School You didnt quote any law. You posed a question, i answered. I am a Counter-Plaintiff as One of the People. The State cannot proceed without an injured party and the State cannot be an injured party to an action.
Like · Reply · 16 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni Injury is not the only way a party can have standing. A legal cause of action can also suffice.
Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Depends on how much law you know. An entity has inferior standing to One of the People. Was there a Breach of the Peace witnessed by an officer of the Law? Corporations have Charters which can be revoked for breach of Ethics, Breach of Fiduciary obligation, Contract Fraud, etc..
Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many charters have you revoked?
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni How many suits have you defended ? How many prosecuted?
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Why didnt you accept the on air debate then? HMM.. Tao is a follower of Jurisdictionary but cant create an enforceable Contract.
Like · Reply · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw “Follower of JurisDictionary?” You are smoking too many of your own turds there dude. I suggest that you make note of the comments I have posted here that might just be taking the wind out of your sails and your clobberfoot out of your ignorant mouth.
Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He wants to debate what I think, according to the answer he gave.
Is that accurate, Michael?
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw  Randy NeroniHe lost that debate before he even made the challenge, he’s just too wrapped up in his Patrinut blanket to see a clue.
Like · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs

Jerry Howe  Jerry Howe Tao & Randy, thanks for taking the time to set this straight. Michael‘s not the only member of this group who is still clinging to some of the various patrinut myths.But this is not the first time I’ve called him out on it because I’ve caught drift of him attempting to impose or propagate those theories over the use of real remedies such as what this group was founded upon. At least when it comes to some of the other folks who might still be clinging to these false beliefs and false hopes, they tend to remain quiet here in this group. And that’s OK because I figure, in time, if they keep reading and researching their beliefs might evolve past the nonsense. For that reason I really hate the idea of throwing people out of the group. However, in this case, because this has become an obviously ingrained pattern for Michael C School, I’m probably going to have to remove him from the group. I’m going to make a final determination on that later today. Once again, I thank both of you for your time and I certainly appreciate all the invaluable knowledge and skills you bring to this group.
Unlike · Reply · 3 · 5 hrs

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Jerry HoweThen might I suggest that you take his more egregious comments here and make a single post out of them, as well as my refutation of those comments. At least then, people won’t be so willing to just jump on the phantom silver bullet bandwagon.
Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Michael C School  Michael C School Lame asses is what you are.
Like · Reply · 43 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C SchoolYeah, excellent point-by-point refutation of the facts provided. Grow the fuck up.

You posted bullshit as truth and then reaped a whirlwind of ass-kicking corrections to your bogus information. You get off on passing off bogus information as if it is irrefutable fact and then you call US lame-asses?

Your ability to insult others is on par with your ability to do legal research and comprehend law, lower than whale shit on the bottom of the Laurentian Abyssal.

Like · Reply · 1 · 33 mins

Michael C School  Michael C School You two are ridiculous. Good riddance. Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law.
Like · Reply · 32 mins

Tao Lauw  Tao Lauw Michael C School – Your statement “Statutory Law is inferior to Contract Law is irrelevant considering that you know even less than nothing about either if your other information is any indication. You are floundering more and more every time you open your mouth.

And now you’ve gone and forced me to make you famous as a perfect example of all that is wrong with the Patrinut theory of law. Way to go jackass.
Like · Reply · 1 · 29 mins

Randy Neroni  Randy Neroni He’s another one that’s going to claim I’m wrong as he goes into the cage.
Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins



So, as you can see, even when given the facts that refute their already shaky lawful and legal foundation, they can’t get over their own cognitive dissonance to see past the fallacy of their understanding of the case opinions, the statutes involved, and piss poor arguments, much less the total fallacy of their now thoroughly discredited legal theory.

It is this very type of legal disinformation and delusional strategy that is costing people their rights and property at an already tremendous and ever escalating rate. NEVER take a case cite or statutory explanation at face value, regardless of how allegedly trustworthy the source, especially if it’s an attorney. Learn to both read and fully understand them for your own sake.

MEME - Beware of Stupidty &amp; Liberals T-Shirt

Patrinuts – A Perfect Example of What NOT to Do.

And so it goes…

Someone on Facebook reached out to me today to take a look at a video from his first court appearance for several “transportation” related allegations that have been made against him by the State of Arkansas. This is the video of that court appearance.  Turn the volume up if necessary and listen well to the verbal exchanges that takes place between the Individual and the Judge presiding over the hearing.

Which brings us to the rest of today’s lesson in how to go to court and how to make a proper challenge to said court’s presumption of jurisdiction in these sorts of matters.

The individual who posted this video has received numerous comments from the Patrinut crowd cheering him on and telling how great a job he did in addressing the court and making his challenge.  In order to understand the magnitude of the educational issues that we face in getting people properly prepared for these Ponzi schemes that are our lower courts, I have chosen to post ALL of the top level comments that were made.


Sarah Gallousis

wow, your so calm.
Like · Reply · Report · 5 hours ago

Scott Bailey

you dont have to prove jurisdiction they do
Like · 6 · Reply · Report · 5 hours ago

James Grogan

David Schwartz. This is what I’m talking about.
Like · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Benjamin Parker

You also need to demand a Probable Cause hearing because we all know they have none. They just arbitrarily skip that along w/ not informing you of the nature of the charges.
Edited · Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 minutes ago

Shawn Warren

That is the default they are now in dishonor of.
Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Kenneth Paul

ack quie essan ce
Like · 3 · Reply · Report · 4 hours ago

Heath Richards

You’re a martyr of the freedom movement, My Friend! God bless you and all that you do.
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Kevin Freeman

When she made a plea for Shawn Warren you should have said my business here is done, and this has nothing to do with me, I am now leaving
Like · 4 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Radley Bradford

I thought you had a button cam, regardless, fantastic work!
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Benjamin Parker

Did you enter an affidavit or something similar beforehand stating that you are the man not the corporate fiction that the summons is for? Have heard its always best to enter things into the record before you go to court and say as little as possible when there.
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 3 hours ago

Sean Westmoreland

In common law you say nothing you stand on claim ! And they have to prove jurisdiction! Which they can’t! Remember you break the law just going into their court by showing up as the corporate copyrighted name
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Sean Westmoreland

But u did pretty good! I would never appear!
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Sam Kelley

Those psychopaths will play their utterly childlike in mind written and spoken LEGALESE word spell and paper games all day long with you. They simply will not recognize anything but the LEGAL entity existing on a piece of paper which is PRESUMED to be SUBJECT to their corporate RULES and their privately owned and operated corporate Maritime Admiralty courts of LEGAL contracts and commerce. You’re dealing with psychopaths who have not one grain of decency, morals, empathy or intelligence. Stop going to their “courts”. Just void their bullshit LEGAL offers to contract on paper. When those utterly mindless corporate CODE enforcers hand you a TRAFFIC CITATION to sign representing the LEGAL NAME, void that shit. Write Refuse for Fraud, in the dead man LEGAL NAME box, and write your autograph in either corners of the offered contract to APPEAR to PLEA. But have the corporate CODE enforcer UNDERSTAND that you were not and or never are engaged in DRIVING, but were or do only travel. The burden of proof is on his dumbass to show evidence of you engaging in commerce on the roads for profit, gain or compensation. When he or she UNDERSTANDS, then they agree to the facts stated. So they go ahead and issue the fraudulent TRAFFIC CITATION anyway, and you get to Refuse it for Fraud and void that crap. When the “court” sends a NOTICE of a HEARING or TRIAL, then you take the copy to the prosecutor’s office and ask if they are attempting to use a fraudulent contract containing false evidence in their LEGAL proceeding. If their stupid asses say yes, then you advise them of the third degree Felony fines and imprisonment for attempting to use such false or fabricated physical evidence in a LEGAL proceeding. That should materialize into a DISMISSED. That’s if they have any fukin sense. Then tell them you will be more than happy to carry your ass on down to the Federal Court House to file those Felony charges on each and every INDIVIDUAL who participated in the fraud. Get the Feds snoopin around there and then see how they do.
Edited · Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Pat Jenn

can you post the claim?
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Patty Brzezinski

I think you did a great job Shawn. I give you a lot of credit. Your video is a great learning tool for those that go to court after you. Cudoos.
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

David Coelho

YOU THE MAN! Keep it going you’re not alone
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Shell Glow

Well done 😀
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Brian O’Donnell

You did great.
Like · Reply · Report · 2 hours ago

Ricky Dean

You did very well, however you weren’t very specific on what type of jurisdiction the court lacked.
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Michael Romero

If he has a “License” they have “Jurisdiction”, thereafter, agreed to be “Surety”.
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Elissa Lynnie Thygesen

When they say ok, say, I object. (My 2 cents)
Like · Reply · Report · 1 hour ago

Bradley James Smith

That bailiff standing next to you is reason enough for dismissal. That was an outright act of intimidation, especially because the bailiff was not transferring records from you to the judge nor was there a reason for his interference within your space as you neither presented a risk to yourself or anyone within the court. File for dimissal due to intimidation and file a claim for emotional and psychological damages due to the trauma of that intimidation.
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 53 minutes ago

Michael Romero

If it were a PUBLIC Court, that’s correct. The “Bailiff” being Armed makes him/her the “belligerent”. However, none of you are objecting to it.
Like · Reply · Report · 50 minutes ago

Michael Romero

Those are Private COURTS feeding on the PUBLIC ignorance, and that changes every thing.
Few will gain what I just said.
Edited · Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 49 minutes ago

Tao Lauw

I do wish all of the great legal minds providing this inherently ignorant advise would actually learn a thing or two before opening your mouth and risking SOMEONE ELSE’
HIDE with this stupidity.  (See my discussion posted below these comments).
Like · 1 · Reply · Edit · 29 minutes ago

Shane Messner

Like · Reply · Report · 24 minutes ago

Shane Messner

Great job!
Like · 2 · Reply · Report · 23 minutes ago

Randy Rebel Brown

Keep up the good fight my brother. I do similar in court. Been there 10 times. The last two they threw out…. However, I received two more pieces of paper from 2 other idiots in costumes to appear just recently. I will see how that goes. Never relent and never relinquish your inalienable rights,. You have harmed no person and no property, therefore have committed no crime. Thank you for standing up my brother
Like · 1 · Reply · Report · 6 minutes ago


So, you can plainly see that there are many in the Patrinut community that have absolutely no clue about law or how it works, much less what they are talking about in relation to all the other stuff they were commenting with. But, what they do have in abundance is way more mouth than they know what to do with when it comes to telling someone else how they should construct their own platform for legal failure. It completely amazes me how they egg each other on in their commission of legal suicide by the demonstrable ignorance and stupidity they propagate, and all because they are just too damned lazy to learn the proper methods and procedures for winning their case on appeal, or possibly even before it begins with a properly established affirmative defense and/or jurisdictional challenge.

Understand, this article isn’t for those of you that know how and why you have to make a proper record for appeal, it’s for those that haven’t a clue. Especially those Patrinuts that are under the mistaken and far more often delusional belief that they are grand champion players of these games. To actually win on appeal, it is imperative to understand how to properly make the record, because the lower courts are not designed to comply with the law or to administer any real justice of any kind. No sir/ma’am. They are there to siphon money from an unsuspecting public that has no clue how to play their legal games by the standardized rules, especially when the lower courts are not acting in compliance with those rules themselves.

After he made this post, the Individual PM’d me. This is the conversation that took place between myself and the Individual directly. Please pay attention to his comments where I used a bold and underlined font to make them more visible. Even more to the point, pay closer attention to my explanation of what to put in a proper Motion to challenge the courts jurisdictional presumptions, which will look just like this text.



  • Conversation started today
  • Tao Lauw

    2:06pm

    Tao Lauw

    What state is this in?

    Also, do you see all those comments on your post for the video? Just HOW much of that EXTREMELY bad advise did you attempt to actually use?

    Did you file anything in writing in this matter?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:26pm

    Shawn Warren

    Arkansas and I did a conditional acceptance notice

  • Tao Lauw

    2:35pm

    Tao Lauw

    I must also assume that this was your first appearance on the citations in question?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:41pm

  • Tao Lauw

    2:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Try not to take this the wrong way, but there are some things I need to ask you up front.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    Sure go ahead

  • Tao Lauw

    2:45pm

    Tao Lauw

    Have you even bothered to see WHAT the subject matter is that is being regulated by the statutes you are charged under?

  • Shawn Warren

    2:46pm

    Shawn Warren

    Yes in my conditional acceptance

    They have failed to state and are in default

  • Tao Lauw

    2:51pm

    Tao Lauw

    Okay, try to understand that you NEED to forget that shit. It is a totally INCORRECT methodology for dealing with these ass-hats. If you are going to insist on listening to that crap and doing it anyway, then there is nothing that I can say that is going to make one damn bit of difference for you. And if you believe it will work, then proceed as you have and let me know how that actually turns out for you. Deal?

    Now, do you even realize that it is “TRANSPORTATION” that the statutes themselves proclaim as being the regulated subject matter over which they have jurisdiction?

    In other words, the code is regulating ONLY those engaging in the BUSINESS of transporting persons, goods, or property from one place to another FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE as a CARRIER.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:53pm

    Shawn Warren

    Deal and yes I comprehend that. So go to trial and and have them prove I was engaging in commerce?

  • Tao Lauw

    2:55pm

    Tao Lauw

    Did I say “commerce” in this instance? NO! The term is “transportation” as THAT is the specific term being used to describe the regulated subject matter. And while they ARE related, the specific subject matter title is the issue to remain focused on.

  • Shawn Warren

    2:56pm

  • Tao Lauw

    2:58pm

    Tao Lauw

    Let me show you something here that is STRAIGHT out of your own state code that would have ended this bullshit at your first appearance if you had only NOT used that damned Patrinut crap and simply used their own bullshit regulations against them:

    2. A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016), Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries, Subtitle
    
    1. Public Utilities And Carriers, Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions,
    
    Subchapter 2 -- Transportation, 23-2-201. Definitions., Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated Official Edition © 1987-2016 by the State of Arkansas All rights reserved.
    
    (1) "Department" means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and
    
    (2) "Transportation" means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier ...

    LOOK at number TWO in this text. WHAT does it say “transportation” IS?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:00pm

    Tao Lauw

    Look at the whole thing as it appears in the code:

    Title 23 Public Utilities and Regulated Industries Subtitle 1. Public Utilities And Carriers Chapter 2 Regulatory Commissions Subchapter 2 — Transportation

    A.C.A. § 23-2-201 (2016)

    23-2-201. Definitions.

    As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

    (1) “Department” means the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department; and

    (2) “Transportation” means the carriage of persons and property for compensation by air, rail, water, carrier pipelines, or motor carriers.

    HISTORY: Acts 1957, No. 132, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-151.

    http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=b580cfeb3a5a103547babc30c31aec46&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzk-zSkAl&_md5=6a899bbc4fd63b0b3e185819c6f74e3b

    The term “carriers” as used here is PLURAL, as in applicable to EACH of those things listed, i.e. “AIR carrier,” “RAIL carrier,” “WATER carrier,” “pipelines,” or “MOTOR carrier.”  You get that?
  • Shawn Warren

    3:02pm

    Shawn Warren

    I see. So how would I use this in court?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:02pm

    Tao Lauw

    So, how about you STOP looking for magic beans and silver bullets and use their own statutory scheme to beat the shit out of them so you can sue them for malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, and constructive FRAUD!!

  • Shawn Warren

    3:02pm

    Shawn Warren

    Make them prove I was transporting ?

    • Tao Lauw

      3:31pm

      You file a WRITTEN “Motion for Discovery,” citing this statute and demanding that the prosecutor turn over ANY evidence in their possession or of which they have knowledge that shows that you were engaging in “transportation” for purposes of receiving compensation or “for hire” as a “carrier.”

      THEN, after they CAN’T provide you with that evidence, you file another WRITTEN “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” that challenges both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction like so:

      ===========================

      The prosecution has provided no discovery showing the existence of any facts substantiated by eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that proves Respondent was engaging in any acts of “transportation” at the time of the alleged offense.
       
      Further, the prosecution has alleged no facts and provided no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that would implicate Respondent as having ever engaged in “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation(s) being made, which Respondent believes is a necessary fact element essential to the State’s claim of both subject matter and in personam (personal) jurisdiction.
       
      There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire as is required in order for Respondent to have been engaging in any form of “transportation” as that term is defined and used within A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2) in relation to the allegation being made.
       
      There is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence in the form of a Bill of Lading, Passenger Manifest, Commercial Logbook, or any admission by Respondent himself or that of an eyewitness that Respondent was ever being paid to transport persons, goods or property for compensation or hire or was acting as a “carrier” for such purposes.
       
      As there is no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant matter.
       

      As no eyewitness testimony or physical evidence of subject matter jurisdiction over Respondent exists, the State has no standing to bring an action against Respondent in any matters relevant to “transportation,” including any alleged offenses defined thereunder within the laws and statutes of “this state.”

      Furthermore, absent subject matter jurisdiction, and absent any facts or evidence proving that Respondent was ever engaged in “transportation” as defined in, and for the purposes stated in, A.C.A. § 23-2-201(2), then there is no evidence of the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent in the instant matter.

      Therefore, this court lacks subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, the two primary elements of jurisdiction over Respondent.

      As neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks subject matter standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.

      Whereby Respondent moves the court to immediately dismiss this matter with prejudice.

      =====================================

       

  • Shawn Warren

    3:34pm

    Shawn Warren

    I will do just that. Thank you very much for your help.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:36pm

    Tao Lauw

    There is one thing that you need to understand and expect; the lower court isn’t going to care about or respect the law. THAT is why you do EVERYTHING in writing, so that the higher court can see what actually happened when it goes to appeal. STOP worrying about losing at trial. The game is RIGGED to virtually ensure that you DO lose at trial in the off-chance that you can’t or won’t get your appeal done in the manner and time required.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:36pm

    Shawn Warren

    I am tired of never getting anywhere with the patrinut stuff. Want to be able to defeat them the right way and I am tired of being martryer

  • Tao Lauw

    3:37pm

    Tao Lauw

    So make damn sure to STUDY and faithfully follow the procedures for perfecting and getting your appeal. Start reading and learning about that NOW, BEFORE you actually need it. Make notes, recheck them, study them, then make sure you follow them.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:37pm

    Shawn Warren

    Yes I comprehend I will have to appeal. I will lol up the timeline houses for appeal in Arkansas

  • Tao Lauw

    3:37pm

    Tao Lauw

    Just promise one other thing if you don’t mind…?

  • Shawn Warren

    3:38pm

    Shawn Warren

    Sure what?

  • Tao Lauw

    3:39pm

    Tao Lauw

    Tell everyone else about how the Patrinut bullshit DOESN’T work, and that you CAN beat them at their own game IF you will just learn HOW. Because there simply ISN’T any shortcuts in the form of magic paperwork or legal silver bullets to getting it done.

    The ONLY silver bullet comes AFTER you have kicked their asses on the law repeatedly, THEN they will avoid you like the plague.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:40pm

    Shawn Warren

    You have my word I will.

     

    Cause none ice it has worked for me so far and I’ve been trying for close to 8 years

  • Tao Lauw

    3:41pm

    Tao Lauw

    The only thing that I heard you do properly and for the right reasons in that video is to begin with “I’m here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the instant matter.” Everything else was wasteful and self-prejudicial bullshit.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:42pm

    Shawn Warren

    Right. I am still learning.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:42pm

    Tao Lauw

    Now, I posted the same thing I wrote here for you as a comment on that video link you sent over. Let me know how that all goes over with the Patrinut crowd that has collected there.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:43pm

    Shawn Warren

    I appriciate your straight forward not beating around the bush answers.

     

    I will keep you posted.

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Also, may I use that as a group discussion lesson on my wall, legal discussion group, and my blog? Better to use it to teach others what NOT to do as well as what TO do.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    Please do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    Your video I mean?

  • Shawn Warren

    3:44pm

    Shawn Warren

    That’s part of why I do what I do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:44pm

    Tao Lauw

    If you don’t mind, is it small enough to email or do you have it in DropBox or somewhere online that I can link directly to it?

    It isn’t easy to download one from Facebook is why I’m asking.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:45pm

    Shawn Warren

    Uploading to YouTube now I can email it to you if I can figure out how

  • Tao Lauw

    3:46pm

    Tao Lauw

    If it’s on YouTube then that is enough. Just send me the link once its up.

  • Shawn Warren

    3:46pm

    Shawn Warren

    Will do

  • Tao Lauw

    3:55pm

    Tao Lauw

    Also, would you mind if I use this chat session to show your thoughts on the matter?

  • Tao Lauw

    4:14pm

    Tao Lauw

    You need to amend one of the paragraphs to read thus:

    As no jurisdiction exists over Respondent in this instant matter, and the State lacks standing to prosecute the matter, there is no justiciable issue before the court, thus depriving the court of the final element of jurisdiction.

    Got it?

  • Shawn Warren

    4:21pm

    Shawn Warren

    Use what ever you need. And I just got the first call saying to make the judge pay the taxes on the charges. Jean Keating work.

    Got it



As you read in his own comments, for almost eight years the Patrinut crap simply hasn’t ever worked for him, and it certainly doesn’t work in the manner that its many uneducated and illiterate-in-law advocates would like you to believe it does. If it did, then they would be doing nothing but posting win after win by doing the things they do.  And they simply don’t, because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t properly address the issues being litigated. It doesn’t work because their methods simply  don’t follow LAW. Which is an issue that I’ve addressed on this blog before in another article.

So, if you aren’t willing to even read the laws and statutes that the other party is trying to use against you in these courts, just how do you ever intend to understand the allegations and fight back against them? Osmosis? It’s like playing a new board game you’ve never seen and don’t have the first clue about what the rules are, or even the point of the game. And yet, using only a plethora of magic Patrinut paper incantations and origami non-pleadings, you expect to beat all the other vastly experienced players by simply saying “I win, you lose!”  And just in case that sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because you have probably heard something similar before:



As you can see from the Arkansas statutes themselves, he already had an affirmative defense that would have served him well and most likely gotten the Judge’s attention enough that the jurisdictional challenge during his court appearance might have ended both the proceeding and the matter much more in his favor. Especially if he went to the appellate court  with a documented case of having properly made the oral objection and jurisdictional challenge in open court as well as in a properly written Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Two things that will never help you win a court case is willful ignorance and being too damned lazy to learn how to do something properly that needs to or must be done in relation to the case being adjudicated and prepared for appeal.

Therefore, I issue a call to action! PATRINUTS UNITE!!

Then, PLEASE, hold each others clammy and pasty little hands while crossing the legal streets, and march your ill-informed and unstudied asses right down to your local law library and learn to frickin’ READ already!!

Just once, for your own sake and the sanity of those of us that have actually made the effort and sacrifices necessary to really and truly understand the fallacies of your arguments and position, TRY to comprehend how law is supposed to actually work!! Especially before you open your miseducated and unprepared mouth and provide useless disinformation to otherwise innocently ignorant individuals as if you know what the hell you’re doing!! STOP trying to make people believe that you have actually done the dumb-ass shit that you are proclaiming and that it’s legally infallible, which I would wager considerable money that none of you actually have. And if you did, then there is even better money to be made betting that it has never worked any better for you than it will the poor schmuck that is dumb enough to believe you know WTF you’re even talking about.

Doing this crap doesn’t make you look intelligent the way you think it does. Just the opposite in fact. But what it does do is literally make you a stumbling block to others in understanding the true nature and function of law as well as making you a direct danger to the legal safety, health, and welfare of your fellow man.

Do You Suffer From PatriNUT Allergies?

I keep encountering the same demonstrably incorrect reading, research and arguments surrounding the various Patrinut fantasies of how things work in this country in relation to actual law and that which is merely ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’

I have watched these claims and arguments make the rounds regularly in the Patrinut community, and they are always presented as THE one perfect answer and silver bullet to ALL of the woes we currently labor and suffer under. The problem is, there is no such silver bullet solution to our current crop of problems, and believing that there is one is rather delusional in itself. I have had to address and demonstrate the fallacy of the Patrinut proposed explanations/solutions time-and-time again as being neither true nor even reasonable to accept as fact. And honestly, I think that any moderately intelligent and logical person could be totally stoned on Vicodin and bourbon and recognize many of these legal theories as being less believable and likely than their own drug-induced delusions.

Yet, after thorough analysis of WHY people continue to spread this disproven crap as fact, even after they have once again been shown that it simply isn’t true and doesn’t work that way at all, it appears to always boil down to one of two things as the root cause, bad developed reading and comprehension skills coupled with even worse critical thinking and logical analysis skills. Shockingly, even while engaging in all of these off-the-wall theories, no one ever seems to consider the possibility of a rather obvious alternative, that the system as we know and understand it is entirely manipulated and controlled by a well-organized and entrenched criminal cartel that doesn’t care one iota for what our rights are, what the law is, and what the limitations originally imposed upon their actions and authority actually is.

Apparently, however, the cognitive dissonance associated with this possibility is so great, it causes certain types of people to resort to mystical and arcane reasoning to try and explain why that possibility alone simply cannot be the truth. So, they concoct a wide array of historical and legal theories involving powerful magical legal incantations and documents that will purportedly stop the abuses of power and authority as quickly and effectively as a Buick-sized chunk of kryptonite would bring Superman to his knees. And while there is tons of actual and inferential evidence of there being very real conspiracies by a few, or in some later and recent cases, many, of those in power and government over the slightly more than two centuries of our American existence, the Patrinuts see literally every single action by anyone in a position of presumed authority as part of a conspiracy to steal everything and enslave us all that began even prior to the war for independence.

The Patrinut promulgators of these legal and political myths appear to always begin by making multilayered presumptions and inferences that are based upon a particular but totally incomplete foundation of alleged and presumed facts into an, at best, unstable legal or political theory. From there they appear to then spend their time digging around for anything that they can find and misread into something allegedly representing a proven factual bit of information supporting their theory.  And even when it is something that they have experienced firsthand, they almost always reach an unsubstantiated conclusion as to why the outcome of their situation was what it was.  And I have personally witnessed or know those that have gone to jail precisely because they were trying to use this nonsense as valid countermeasure in their court case or other governmental dealings.

Some of these Patrinut theories include things like “The ALL-CAPS Name,” “Birth Certificate = Surety Bond,” “Birth Certificate = Converted You Into A Corporation,” “If you ‘Understand’ Something then You Agree to ‘Stand-under’ That Something,” “Write Non-Assumpsit on Citations/Bills/Legal Documents or Instruments,” “You Are/Have a ‘Straw Man’,” “UCC Law Controls EVERYTHING,” “All Crimes [Everywhere] Are Commercial,” “Birth Certificate = Straw Man,” “Post Master General is More Powerful than the Entire Government,” “Accepted for Value = Pay ALL Your Bills From Your SSN Account,” “BAR Association = British Accreditation Registry,” “The Pope/Vatican Owns Us All/Everything,” “The Pope/Vatican Controls ALL Governments,” and on and on and on….

What I have NEVER seen in conjunction with ANY of these theories, however, is a single shred of actual documented proof that the theory or outcome is even remotely factual and accurate. Instead, any documents that are put forth as this so-called ‘proof,’ at least, in every single case that I have personally looked into, have turned out to be nothing more than someone’s extremely poor reading and comprehension skills, a complete or partial reliance upon other unresearched bad/misinformation, or an intentional misrepresentation of what is actually written and/or what it means.

 This is especially true when it comes to court opinions on a given subject. I see a constantly circulating barrage of the same bogus group of court rulings where the poster, who has obviously failed to research and verify the information presented, is claiming the case contains a particular cite relating to a particular subject or area of law. In the cite there is language that appears to be the ‘legal silver bullet’ that both explains and solves everything. The problem is, the cite does NOT actually exist ANYWHERE in the opinion OR the pleadings of the entire case, nor does the case even remotely infer the outcome or discussion as stated in the cite. It is totally FAKE! At other times, the cite is being reworded to mean something the original wording did not convey or intend, which means that it too is FAKE! But, for some reason that I have yet to fathom, people simply accept the posted cite as completely true and irrefutable without research and verification of any kind whatsoever.
 The disinformation specialist, i.e. the Patrinut initiator/propagator, then takes this same sort of misrepresentation and disinformation chicanery and applies it liberally to legislative enactments and statutory schemes, resulting in an equally predictable idiotic and potentially legally dangerous outcome for the misinformation end-user who doesn’t bother to do their own due diligence and research into the information before relying upon it. A perfect example of this type of statutory dissimulation is FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that Hillary Clinton should NOT be criminally charged in her private email server incident because the FBI could not find any actual evidence of intent to commit a crime. The problem with this analysis, however, is that the statutes that make her actions completely criminal do not require intent in order to for the offense to have been committed. The standard of the statute is negligence, which even Comey admitted existed in abundance. Thus, his suggestion that she should not be charged with even a single crime remains something of a real head-scratcher. But, that is a conspiracy best explored at another time.
 The thing that astounds me the most about the plethora of Patrinut myth propagation specialists is that, when you ask for supporting evidence, or you disprove their ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ by showing that no such statute, case opinion, or reading of either is actually true and correct, they become downright hostile to the one that exposed them to the real facts that they were missing. Instead, they react with the equally idiotic response of “I don’t have to prove anything to you!” Hey, Patrinut Boy/Girl, a little reality newsflash for you, you could not have demonstrated my point any better as to your lack of comprehension and learning skills with that response, because, if you had any such skills, you would already know that the rule of ANY law and legal system is that “he who makes the claim MUST be the one to prove up the claim.” And this is what astounds me so, that these are the very same people that claim to be demanding and searching for the absolute truth, and allegedly providing that truth for us all to see, but who seem to utterly resent anyone that provides facts and evidence that disproves what they believe and are presenting to others. You would think they would be happy to learn that they were mistaken, and that there actually is a more logical and provable theory of what and how things are going or being done wrong.
 Do you understand my quandary yet? A Patrinut spouts bad or intentionally misleading information, all the while decrying that many folks “just don’t get it,” and that the statist and corrupt government shills are trying to spread constant disinformation to mislead us all, and yet, if you dare expose that THEY are doing the EXACT same thing, suddenly YOU are the bad guy in their little fairy tale. It doesn’t even matter if you explain that you don’t think their spread of misinformation was intentional. Just by challenging their misinformation, you become a “hater of real truth” because you dared challenge and destroy this self-described “prophet patriot’s” unsubstantiated version of realty with actual facts and evidence that proved him or her to be at best mistaken, or at worst, intentionally and deceitfully disseminating misinformation. I have had this exact experience numerous times on Facebook and other discussion forums. And cognitive dissonance being the highly contagious disease that it is, all of their little disciples jump on the hater band-wagon and start calling you a fascist or some other equally intelligent attack upon your person and character. It leads one to ask the question “just what color IS the sun on the planet where these people live?
 So much for the unity and interaction of the real Patriot community when it comes to working together using factual truth and accurate presentation of information for use by others. The disinformation keeps us divided and chasing our tails and other legal phantasms rather than helping us recognize the real problem and reaching a viable solution in an organized and unified manner. And the longer we remain divided in our understanding and direction in creating a solution, the stronger our real enemy gets and the less options we have available to regain control of our lives, property, and government.
 Therefore, with all of that in mind, might I suggest something here? If you are going to study law and the legal system, or even just American and political history in general, and then try to use that information to actually assist and educate others, you should either learn or devise a reliable “Standard of Review” for your research and theories. Something like this would at least be a good start:
 Standard for Review:
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:
.
… (a) First understand who the parties are (from their origin);
.
… … … (1) Always know yourself first, free individual acting in
… … … …. your private capacity, or an individual acting in a
… … … …. public ‘legal capacity’;
.
… (b) Discover the true nature of all other parties second;
.
… (c) Then you must understand the historical and
… … . environmental nature of the relationship; and,
.
… (d) NEVER rely upon multiple levels of inference, rather,
… … . use ONLY one level of inference that is a
… … . REASONABLE and PROBABLE result based upon
… … . the existing fact(s); and,
.
… (e) Only then can you understand how applicable laws
… … . may effect the relationship; thus, it is time to study
… … . such laws.
 
Rule 2: Review the details of the relationship in question only after you have completed the review required by Rule 1, then review the actual terms of the relationship and the details in question in accord with what you learned from applying Rule 1.
We are all too divided and suffer from too much tunnel vision in wanting to be the real-world version of Neo, the “chosen one,” when it comes to solving the problems with the very real Matrix that we currently live in. What the Patrinuts have to come to understand is, Neo’s ‘Matrix’ existed in a movie studio and special effects lab, so that’s why he could fly and stop bullets with just his thoughts. Our Matrix exists in a much more tangible and dangerous world. And despite how cool it would be, we can’t fly, and if we try to stop bullets using just our minds, there’s going to be some really dire consequences for believing that we were capable of doing so.
So, to all the Patrinuts out there, you’re correct about one thing, there is a real Matrix. The downside is that your political and legal explanations and solutions for dealing with it aren’t.