The Secret to Winning at Court – Court Remedy

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!

  • ‘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 of someone else on a contract, meaning acting as a guarantor. At the very least ‘stand under’ means to abide by the contract. The question ‘Do you understand?’ means ‘Do you agree?’ Keep in mind 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 (Federal) 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.
    • Musicians have ‘residencies’ in Las Vegas, meaning they are there temporarily. A man or woman’s domicile is more important.
    • 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. 
  • NEW: In some contexts, ‘United States’ is a corporation, as stated plainly in Title 28, Chapter 176. Is thou being sued by a corporation?
  • 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.
    • The word ‘appear’ is odd, in that it is often used to say either something suddenly became visible, such as the man appeared out of nowhere, or that something may be a certain way, in that it appears to be true. Some say the entire court procedure deals with spirits that are summoned and then appear, in front a priest in a black robe. Some say all courts are probate courts dealing with the estates of dead people. Maybe, and this is a stretch, long ago, the ‘court’ would summon the spirit as a courtesy. Regardless, the word appear is odd in this context. Either way, don’t make a general appearance; reserve thy rights! 
  • 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.

Also read Court Survival Guide

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. Here’s how the scam may work:

  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 may pick up a paper, which is actually the defendant, and point to the man, but what they have done is point to the paper. The defendant is a trust or franchise and that is why it is paper! They trick the man into representing the franchise.

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 14:04.

‘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 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”.

Here’s how the scam may work:

  1. 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.
  2. The man mistakenly answers, “Yes.” because he thinks he merely said that he comprehended what has been said.
  3. Then the judge asks, “Do you plead guilty or non-guilty?” As noted above, this means is thou going pay the charge?
  4. 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. Off to (debtors) jail!

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

Note that many noteworthy people say courts are actually banks and the judge is a banker.

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. From

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),


  1. Place documents to be returned in a new envelope.
  2. 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,
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Consider adding ‘Third-party Affidavit of Mailing” on the envelope and note and having a friend witness thou placing materials in envelope and sending.

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

If thou did not send back the summons

This continues from the prior approach. Here are screenshots of the tactics explained and sold onEscape Tickets IRS Courts“. I have listened to this man on Angela Stark’s show and I think he knows what he’s talking about. He’s succinct. Variations of Option 1 are available on his group’s background page. I do not receive a referral fee.

Escape Tickets, Courts etc - screenshot of definitionsEscape Tickets, Courts etc - screenshot of purchase page

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.

Dealing with Presentments: Why we lose in court

Read the court sections of Dealing with Presentments. Here’s a portion:

Why do we lose in court? It is not because it is a military or maritime court (which it is), often evidenced by the gold fringe on the flag. It is not that we are under implied or adhesion contracts to some municipal corporation (if so we could raise the issues of contract law). It is not a plethora of other reasons advocated by innumerable “patriots,” all of which “reasons” are rabbit trails. So, the short answer to why we lose in court is that we lose if:

  1. We dishonor any of the people and processes that impinge on us, thereby enjoining the issues described in the presentment so that we become bound by the matter. We have no right to deny or speak to anyone else’s utterances, and doing so lands us in the middle of their novel.
  2. We traverse and therefore contractually amalgamate ourselves and our strawman into the court’s jurisdiction so that we endure in the flesh the results of whatever trial or hearing might occur dealing with our strawman. It is the strawman that appears, is tried, and sentenced, not us. By traversing, however, the real us gets to go along for the ride and experience in reality the judgment against the strawman.
  3. We fail to discharge the charges, thereby authorizing the system to enforce commensurate consequences on us.
  4. We have no facts in evidence substantiating our position placed by a competent witness on the court record of the case. This crucial matter is discussed below in greater detail.
  5. We have not bonded the case.

Let us briefly discuss these issues:

  1. We avoid acting in dishonor by accepting and returning for value whatever presentment or charging instrument we are provided with and by not arguing, fighting, denying, or ignoring.
  2. We do not join the dispute by traversing, by which we leave our own ground and tacitly give reality and credibility to the opponent’s claims and allegations that are not facts but only presumptions and assumptions until we stipulate (expressly or by dishonor). Enjoining the issues in a presentment, such as denying allegations or charges, or saying that we don’t owe an alleged debt, is a dishonor that enjoins us with the court’s jurisdiction and our own strawman and creates a dispute that grants a court subject matter jurisdiction. It sucks us up into the made-up game of imaginary disputes between fictitious entities. The definition of “traverser” in Black’s Law Dictionary confirms the point succinctly:

Traverser. In pleading, one who traverses or denies. A prisoner or party indicted; so called from his traversing the indictment. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 1345.

  1. Whenever we (i.e., our strawman) are “charged” with something, that charge is a bookkeeping entry of liability on the ledger and must be “discharged” by entering a balancing, offsetting asset. Filling in the asset side usually occurs by the loser parting with public funds of some kind, such as a check or FRNs, or doing “community service,” or being bonded and incarcerated as the surety. When we discharge the charges by acceptance for value, which is a Banker’s Acceptance, we end the controversy and become the owner of the contract. Each of us is a private banker. Under banking our acceptance and return for value establishes the facts and makes us owner of the transaction. We then own both sides of the deal, i.e., both the creditor and debtor side. By accepting from the private side and providing the value from the private, i.e., substance, side we end the dispute and remove from the equation any controversy for a court to resolve.
  2. It is imperative to understand that the admiralty/equity courts of the system do not deal with reality, substance, and facts in evidence. They deal in assumptions (such as unsupported claims and charges), and presumptions (unexpressed rules by which the system operates), and stipulations (agreements that create the “facts”). Because they are strawmen and cannot be competent witnesses through sworn testimony, neither attorneys nor officials can place actual facts in evidence on the record that a judge can judicially notice, such as claims supported by sworn testimony, either through an affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, or testimony under oath on the witness stand in open court, or deposition.

Continue at Dealing with Presentments

Anecdotes, such as gold and silver as payment

[Editor’s note: all anecdotes in this section are from People’s Rights.]

One man said to the court, “The Constitution says “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”, but this court constantly Does, so this court must not be “The State”. If you are not “the State”, Who the Hell are you people?” Court said, “Case Dismissed”, “record sealed”. (See Article 1, Section 10) [Editor’s note: Could it be this simple?]

Another man, told them “I am not a “subject” of the British Crown, and the Court Rules and State Codes are “Copyrighted“, and I do Not have permission to use them, therefore the Prosecution cannot use them against me.” – “case dismissed”, “record sealed”.

Another man was ORDERED to get an Attorney before the next HEARING date or he would be put in jail. The date arrived, and the Judge said, “Well do you have an attorney?” The man said “Judge, I tried, but I couldn’t find an attorney who was qualified and willing to take my case, who was not an “Esquire“. “Case Dismissed” , “Record Sealed”

Steven Ames’ (of Harrisburg, Pensylvania) Father denied that he was a British “Subject“. The Judge said “You prove you are Not one.”

The reason that the Court “seals the records”, seems to be that they (Judges/Lawyers) do NOT want the knowledge to get out:

  1. that the Courts-are NOT Courts of Law, but Courts of ” “Subject” Code Behavior Administration”.
  2. that the Courts are Not Courts of the State government (with separation of powers), but “private meetings” of “Lawyers” only.

See more on People’s Rights.

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.)

Matrix: Sovereigns cannot be convicted of statutory crime

From Matrix and the Constitution

Under our corporate governments no Sovereign can lawfully be tried or convicted of any statutory crime. I recently discovered how to avoid prosecution under the Trust when a Sovereign is taken before a
corporate prosecuting attorney or a judge:

First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the record, and if not, insist upon it! Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the proceedings are being recorded!”

Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary of the Trust, and I am appointing you as my Trustee.” Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record.”

Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”

Someone uses this approach here:

Screen Recording 2022-05-13 at 6.24.13 AM

From this youtube video

(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.


Also read Court Survival Guide


Do it all in writing, per karl:lentz

New to the site?

  1. Review these slides
  2. Read this, 
  3. review this diagram of US vs USofA,
  4. read these six PDFs,
  5. watch Richard McDonald's seminar intro
  6. learn to speak like a simple man
  7. If this site ever goes down, the archive is on the wayback machine.

18 comments on “The Secret to Winning at Court – Court Remedy

  1. 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??

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  2. yeah!! No, your not a man!!

    people have not gone down the rabbit hole far enough to get out of the dang bibliotheque Law merchant rule book: King James letters patent 1611!!

    In the beginning they came to the planet…they made Heaven (the government offices) and Earth (where Man would live to profit Heaven) and then they made Man… is just a label they made… The book is not about a divine Creator…it is about the Laws of this planet and if you don’t grasp the perspective your still a slave as a part of Mankind!!
    Go back to your ancient traditional Cultures… pick the one that is most up front in your life and learn the ancient rules and make the correct applications as such!! Get over their Vatican rule Unium sanctum…don’t stay in it under their label as a Man…that was the first treason against your people’s ancient government, your people took!!
    …never take a title from those not within your Lawful Indigenous governance; In fact the only title you are to have is the one that is the title to your flesh!! stick to that and you won’t go wrong!! Your not Man!! That is their title, not the peoples!! and if you can use your original language even better.
    Oh… The Symbolic Dictionary by Charles Dabauz busts the real meaning of the bible open…its entirely about corporations and corporate rule on the planet for those not registered Living through the christ applications of law! So best get registered living and reclaim that security!!

    1. What is you mean by the comment of the only title I need to stick to is that of the title of my flesh how would I apply that in the courts to replace the man/woman statement

  3. oh, p.s.
    When they ask you if you are guilty or not guilty… You must always answer Innocent!!
    To pay for ‘being shameful or not’ has no bearing on the matter. Always, always your personal name (that is printed on your ID) is innocent… my gosh it is not even animated. how could it commit a crime and feel shame or no shame about it? 😉

  4. Comment from someone i know: “The federal guberment is restricted to the District and Territories, as well as government purchased land. Everything else is the States’. // We ARE NOT US Citizens but citizens of our respective States. // Since the 1930s the original Article 1 courts have been masked and essentially are no longer in existence, unless we require them when we go to court. In its place are administrative courts, just designed to transfer currency from The People. The majority of cases brought against you have no injured party.”

  5. This is an old thread obviously and I dont know if anyone might still reply but could you explain the wording of what that woman said – particularly the last sentence ? I dont understand whats being stated there
    “Fourth – I demand the bond be immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if I am damaged “

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.