The Secret to Winning at Court – Court Remedy

Update: Sept 18: Added robert: menard’s advice from The Magnificent Deception.

This is NOT legal advice. This project is part of my law studies to become educated in law. These are my notes. Thou should find competent counsel (not an attorney) if thou needs advice.  

Note these points first!

Note some things first:

  • ‘Understand’ means to agree, as in ‘we have an understanding’. It really means ‘to stand under’ and I think that comes from one signing under the name someone else on a contract, meaning acting as a guarantor, or at the very least ‘stand under’ means to abide by the contract. The question ‘do you understand?’ means ‘Do you agree?’ Keep in mind that thou may say ‘No, I don’t understand.’! As in ‘No, I don’t agree to the charges.”
  • Thou is not a ‘person/persona‘. The person/persona is a corporate entity or trust. Be man or woman.
  • Thou is likely an State Citizen but probably not a U.S. citizen, which can mean someone born in a territory such as Puerto Rico. The Northwest Ordinance set up a government to manage territories. That government still operates. When they greet thee, they are simply asking if thou is a territorial citizen. See also “I am from one of the united States.”
  • Thou also is not a ‘resident‘. ‘Resident’ and ‘residence’ can actually be political, not geographic, terms. Look up the legal meaning of resident. There is a building in Washington, DC, called the former residence of the Spanish Ambassador.Thou lives in thy body. Thou lives on the land, not in it. Thou is not ‘in’ the courthouse. Thou is possibly at the courthouse. 
  • Thou is not a defendant, a mister, a suspect, or a person. These are actors or titles in their play/game on their court. Thou is man or woman!!!! See Anti-terrorist videos below to learn how to thwart the mister game. 
  • Thou is not ‘you‘! The pronoun ‘you’ is always plural!!! The judge is asking if thou is there for (1) thyself and (2) the trust that has a name similar to thy given and family name; they use ther terms FIRST and LAST names. The judge is talking to two things, and therefore uses the plural tense ‘you’. Read more. And also read Shakespeare.
  • Appearance means to grant jurisdiction!!! It does not simply mean to show up. Either avoid court altogether by replying to summons or just sending it back (see below).
    • Definition: ‘If One does ANYTHING ‘Beneficial’ or ‘Detrimental’, One ‘HAS MADE APPEARANCE’ as a Party’ (per CJS). If it ain’t ‘Neutral’, you HAVE “MADE APPEARANCE”. Taken from this site
    • Or if thou goes to court, make a ‘special‘ appearance, not a ‘general’ appearance, as noted by the Antiterrorist below in one of his court videos and on legal-dictionary.
  • Note, giving bail may mean making an appearance (See Bouvier’s law). Stick it out in jail. Don’t sign anything. Don’t take anything, without first asking if thou can reserve all rights whilst accepting a blanket. 
  • Summons means ‘notify a party to appear in court’. Related to the definition of appearance above, thou does not want to make an appearance. From all that I’ve read, avoid court altogether. But thou is required to respond to summons and any notices, or return-to-sender. Thou can’t dishonor a summons by ignoring it.  
  • Courts can only rule on disputes or controversies. Many people quote the bible stating, “Agree with thine adversary, on the way to court…” Possibly meaning that if thou conditionally accepts an offer, such as a ticket, then there is no dispute. There is a counteroffer.

Get alerted when this page or this site is updated. Subscribe to blog updates.

Don’t admit to being the defendant

The thrust of this approach is that one does not admit to being the ‘defendant’. A Karl Lentz radio show reminded me of a point that a court case involving UNITED STATES is actually:

UNITED STATES  v. one of its franchises.

That franchise might be named JOHN DOE.

  1. A summons is sent to the location where john of the doe family (john: doe) lives or works.
  2. john, the man, mistakenly thinks it is addressed to him, whereas it is really being sent to the franchise (company/corp) called JOHN DOE
  3. john, the man, mistakenly goes to court, and when the Judge says, “Are you JOHN DOE?”, the man mistakenly says ‘yes’, and thereby becomes the agent or surety for JOHN DOE (the corporation), and then is liable for the charges.

The point is the man walked into a case involving two other parties.

What people recommend is that one must ask the judge “who is the defendant?”. Evidently the judge and the prosecutor will not point to the man. They will keep trying to trick the man into thinking he is the defendant. Ideally pose these questions in a letter.

One must say, “I am a man.”

One must ask,

(1) “Am I the defendant?”
(2) “Am I the plaintiff?”
(3) “Is this your case?”
(4) “Is this my case?”

Start at 13:12.

‘Understand’ means ‘to agree’ and ‘guilty’ means ‘pay’. Don’t ‘understand’. Don’t make an agreement.

‘Guilty’ likely means ‘to pay’ or ‘payment’. There is the gold word ‘gild‘ or ‘gilded‘, meaning a gold border, and there are Jewish gold coins called ‘gelt‘. Guilty likely means ‘to pay’ and therefore ‘Not guilty’ likely means to ‘not pay’.

As noted above in red type, the word understand means “agree” or “stand under”, so when the judge asks, “Do you understand the charges?”, the judge really means, “Do you agree to the charges?”

And charges means a charge for a service or a charge on a bill.

The man mistakenly answers, “Yes.” thinking that he merely said that he comprehended what has been said.

Then the judge asks, “Do you plead guilty or non-guilty?”

The man who has already agreed to the charges, then says “Non-guilty” which means he is not going to pay for the charges he agreed to.

Avoid all this by not understanding the charges. Say “I don’t understand.”

Note that many noteworthy people say courts are actually banks!

Don’t sign anything

Here’s an excerpt of the book Paper Arrows (recommended by Yusuf El).

Important case about arraignment. See text below image.

In this case, it was determined that the jailers cannot hold anyone more than 48 hours without a probable cause hearing or a bail hearing or an arraignment.

(One must “sign in” for the bail hearing or arraignment, so do not sign.)

Send back the summons!

Editor’s note: This tactic is to send back the summons (return-to-sender) to avoid making ‘an appearance‘ which is to accept and grant jurisdiction.

This also leverages the concept of Service of Process, which is something thou should definitely learn! That linked page also touches on the concept of making ‘special appearance’ to challenge jurisdiction.


Neutral response:

Print & Cut along dotted line

These enclosed documents were inadvertently received, and opened by mistake. These enclosed document(s), which appear to be____________________________________________________, are not understandable, acknowledgeable or recognizable under the penalty of False Personation must be returned.

The enclosure herein contains the aforementioned and misdirected documents; as there is not enough knowledge or information disclosed to form a responsive answer, said documents are being returned forthwith.


Singular response

print & cut along dotted line


I inadvertently received the enclosed document(s) which appear to be

I do not know what this is all about. I do not understand or recognize these document(s).

I do not have enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.

So I am returning these document(s),

Immediately: Place documents to be returned in a new envelope.

Immediately: Address new envelope with document sender’s address, also use this address as the return address. DO NOT use YOUR name or address on this envelope, Do not use any headings or signature on your response. The object is to return the presentment in the most neutral, non-committal manner possible Immediately. Do not rebut the issue or address anything in their documents. You simply return unwanted presentments. This is simply a misdirected posting being returned to the sender.

It is well worth thy time to read the other variations or examples of this on

Declare in writing thou is a man or woman — Karl Lentz Method Explained

Explaining the Karl Lentz approach. From Critical Mass meeting in UK.

“Many people are worried when they’re writing out anything that they want to put into court about using their name. Don’t be afraid of your name. It’s yours. Be proud of it. It’s not going to hurt you.

If you go in as a person, your name is going to be written all over you. It’s on your back. It’s like a monkey. It’s going to ride you and ride you hard.

But if you stand up and say, “I’m a man. My name is Freeman ______.”

That’s it. I’ve already claimed my status. I’m a man.  From then on in, no one can tell me that I’m a person. You’ve just done away with all of their myth.

So you want to be a man or a woman. So I’m a man in court. But how do I become a man in court. That’s your paperwork. You’re going to an administrative court. An administrative court can only hear your paperwork. You’ve no voice until you tell them who you are. And you tell them with your paperwork. A 2D court can’t hear a 3D voice. It can only hear 2D paperwork.

So the first thing you’ve got to do is enter some paperwork into that court to a court number (?) to say I’m a man. Once you’ve done that, you’ve claimed your status. You’ve said to them, I a man in this venue have a voice. Once you’ve got a voice you can speak.

This will terrify them. Of course it’s going to terrify them. Who wants to be talked to as a man in their court. They’re all persons.  The judge is a person. The clerk of the court is a person. The solicitor is a person. Everybody else there is a person.

And don’t try to be clever. Don’t try and say oh the paperwork they’ve sent me what they’re trying to do… Be a simple man. A simple man can only read what’s written in front of him. So if you’ve got a summons from Her Majesty’s Court and Revenue, I expect Her Majesty’s Court and Revenue to be in court because her majesty’s court and revenue, according to that piece of paper in front of me is the one who’s bringing the claim and I want to hear the claimant’s voice.

So you say the nine words.

I a man require the plaintiff appear in court.

Or “claimant appear in court” depends on what your summons says. And when you get to court, because you’ve put the paperwork in, =

To be continued….

From the YouTube comments:

  • Q. What kind of court proceedings would this work?
    A. One where there is no injured party or one where the plaintiff is a fiction of law.

Thou is not a defendant or a person or a mister. Those are legal fictions – titles – offices. Thou is man. See this video series. Thou might also want to ask:

  1. Are we are the record? [If it’s not on the record, then it can be reviewed on appeal.]
  2. Judge, do you have an oath of office? [Wait for reply. Then say,] For and on the record, this court takes judicial notice of the judge’s oath.
  3. More here in this three-part video series.

I do not consent. How to win in court.

(Editor’s note: This tactic may only work if one first tells the judge in writing that one is a living man or woman. See Karl Lentz method explanation on this page. The court can’t hear living men/women until the living man/woman enters paperwork stating, ‘I am man’ or ‘I am woman’.)

Do not sign anything. Do not get a lawyer. The rest appears below.

Here’s the text:

Do not sign anything.

Do not get a lawyer.

You tell the judge this word for word and nothing else.

This is for the record. I am here in the body of flesh and blood.

(Now read these four sentences)

  1. I do not consent to these proceedings.
  2. Your offer is not accepted.
  3. I do not consent to being surety for this case and these proceedings.
  4. I demand the bond be immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if [I’m] damaged

Your case will be dismissed.

The judge has no choice other than to dismissal of your case he/she can not bring up the bond. Then give this to every defendant. The courts will close down because the courts are a Private Business and not a justice machine as originally thought.


Thou might also want to get the case discharged and with prejudice. A dismissed case may be re-opened. A discharged case may not. Similarly, with prejudice means, though maybe in a different way, that the case can’t be re-tried. At least get the case dismissed with prejudice. The “with prejudice” part should do the trick. Also, thou might say to the judge that it is your wish. “I wish that the case be discharged with prejudice.” Thou may only wish for something. Never want of anything. Wants may be denied.

Don’t ever accuse thyself! – from The Magnificent Deception by robert of the menard family

“Some things that we can do in court. First of all, don’t ever accuse yourself. If you go in there and this is one of the key things I found, we asked the prosecutor “Will you please identify the accused party?” The prosecutor just walked away. We got it on the record that he was in the court room but the accused was not.

“They will ask you, ‘What is your name?'”

“It’s none of your business unless and until you’ve accused me.  They want you to give the name, ‘OK, you’re the accused  and you step right into it.

“You can say, ‘I’m not giving you any name whatsoever until someone accuses me.”

Watch video below – start at 1 hour and 30 minutes.

COURT: Who’s Who and What to Say

by Mary Croft  – My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily to go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Continue

Bill Turner’s Approach

This is slightly similar to the Karl Lentz approach above. For example, Bill Turner says one must ask the prosecutor to ‘please put your hand on the shoulder of the defendant’, and this, of course, is impossible, because the defendant is a dead estate [why? because it was either created for the afterbirth material that comes about of mom or because a trust was created when thy was born, because they assumed thy mom was unwed, and then no one has claimed this trust, so the beneficiary is lost at sea, or dead; until thou alerts everyone that thou is living].

All of Bill Turner’s videos are amazing. Note, he has a new YouTube channel.

You are not a mister – Three videos by AT

These videos are excellent. Know these words by heart! Practice.

Also see the AT’s videos about dealing with the police.

I am idiot.

This came to me as a true story although I cannot confirm how true it is but did come from someone who gives reliable information. Here it is without any changes.

True story:

A man went to court. He told the judge he was an idiot and didn’t understand their statutes. He asked, “Do you prosecute idiots in your court room?” “No,” said the judge. “Get out of here.” He left. The Judge then said, “If there are any other idiots in my courtroom, get out now.” They all stayed, got prosecuted, and fined . . . except the idiot who left the courtroom.

“Idiot” is another word that has changed its meaning over the centuries, although not as dramatically as “nice” once it was imported into English.
The Greek “idiotes” meant simply “private individual” (from “idios,” meaning “personal”), as opposed to a “public man,” a politician (government agent mine) or other well-known individual. (“Idios” also gave us “idiom,” one’s own way of speaking, and “idiosyncrasy,” one’s personal quirks and habits.)

‘I object to the whole thing’

(Editor’s note: This tactic may only work if one first tells the judge in writing that one is a living man or woman. See Karl Lentz method explanation on this page. The court can’t hear living men/women until the living man/woman enters paperwork stating, ‘I am man’ or ‘I am woman’.)

“I object to the whole thing.”

“It is my wish that it be that way.” (Your wish is the judge’s command.)

(Repeat/Similar) The Secret to Winning in Court

(Editor’s note: This tactic may only work if one first tells the judge in writing that one is a living man or woman. See Karl Lentz method explanation on this page. The court can’t hear living men/women until the living man/woman enters paperwork stating, ‘I am man’ or ‘I am woman’.)

Here’s am image showing something almost identical to another entry posted on this page. Found on Facebook with comments below.

See text below this image.


The judges do not want this known but you’d never get a bar attorney to help you with this!

This was reported to have happened in an LA Superior Court recently:

A woman said four things –

First – I do not consent to these proceedings.

Second – Your offer is not accepted.

Third – I do not consent to being surety for this case and these proceedings

Fourth – I demand the bond be immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if I am damaged.

The judge dismissed the case immediately and told her to leave the court.

Someone had listened to what she said and when they were called for their case, they repeated her words, and the judge dismissed his case, told him to leave the court, got up and told everyone the court was closed and would not be open till the next day and left the court.


Subscribe to Email Updates

The real meaning of public and private
Those in office, must follow the rules

3 Responses to The Secret to Winning at Court – Court Remedy

  1. Ryan says:

    Lets say, one reads aloud the 4 part “I do not consent…consent to be surety to this case and these proceedings”, and was cut off by Judge and given a following court date to “prepare”… Then what??

    • Reliable Source says:

      I think you need to first enter-in paper work stating thou is a living man. The court is 2D and reads only paper, until thou says ‘I am a man.’ or ‘I am man.’ See the Karl Lentz video on this page and the transcript.

      The court can’t hear living beings until the paperwork is entered. Part of the reason may be that the courts my actually be probate courts that are administering the estate of someone lost at sea (seven years without any activity).

      They don’t expect the living man to show up! Many people say all courts are probate. The word ‘summons’ is also used to reference calling forth a spirit or ghost, so that the spirit appears!

      I might consult the (paid) options from Escape Court Harrassment. See option #3 since thou is already in/at court. The free version of this offer may be at, but thou might have to order by mail order.

    • Paul Shuker says:

      The judge has no right to impede upon your rights as a man/woman and therefore broke canonical rules by interrupting you and not allowing you to finish. “Am i not a free man/woman? Do i not posess the right to speak when and where i am?” Also mention canonical rules to the judge and watch them shit themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.