You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
----Dedicated to Pursing God’s Will for the World----
You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!
Replies
Only a man can put something on the record, write from your heart not
your mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBFdmrESe0E
Restoration of property from Gov., moving a judgement, lifestyle of man
Craig Lynch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BdR_Jd5I4g
Order vs. must, how and when to speak in court, and understanding
bankruptcy Craig Lynch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lpKZcXegKY
Dealing with fines, castle doctrine, balance between the legal society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAQK2n8fbng
Important aspects in regards to filing your claim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh9NphAyIVE
How to reclaim your status as a man, constructive trespass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1J7W2kYWjE
Know the (Common) Law, Protect Yourself From Their Lies..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd09qIiqZE
Johnson City Tennessee - April 16th 2016 5 hour seminar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3MI70PFBw
==
https://www.scribd.com/document/286693191/Drunk-on-Karl-Lentz-46-docx
http://jurorinlaw.com/talkshoe/klentz/887048.html
Karl Lentz’s website:
www.broadmind.org
Karl Lentz 57 to 100 combined
Karl Lentz 57 - An incompetant, or idiot bares no liability
Karl Lentz 58 - How to cross a border as a man
Karl Lentz 59 - Commercial lien process vs. common law process
Karl Lentz 60 - Understanding a common law lien
Karl Lentz 61 - Who's the petitioner?
Karl Lentz 62 - How to remove a misdemeanor and the need for a third party impartial witness
Karl Lentz 63 - Take vs present a notice
Karl Lentz 64 - Understanding orders in court
Karl Lentz 65 - Competancy and habeus corpus
Karl Lentz 66 - Asking about jurisdiction, and when to speak in court
Karl Lentz 67 - Rights are property, and when to speak in court
Karl Lentz 68 - Judge vs civil administrative hearing officer
Karl Lentz 69 - Understanding void judgements
Karl Lentz 70 - Understanding federal courts
Karl Lentz 71 - The three notice process does not apply in common law
Karl Lentz 72 - Court of original jurisdiction and the supreme court
Karl Lentz 73 - How to refer to the man in the black robe
Karl Lentz 74 - Finding the plaintiff
Karl Lentz 75 - Seizure is a good thing
Karl Lentz 76 - The IRS does not take you to court
Karl Lentz 77 - Public and private property
Karl Lentz 78 - UCC in court
Karl Lentz 79 - Contracting your kids away through welfare
Karl Lentz 80 - Relevance of the constitution
Karl Lentz 81 - Notice of recission
Karl Lentz 82 - Land, property, and real estate
Karl Lentz 83 - Land of the self governing
Karl Lentz 84 - The use of i in letters
Karl Lentz 85 - Affidavits
Karl Lentz 86 - It's a word game
Karl Lentz 87 - Dismissed vs discharged
Karl Lentz 88 - Non acceptance of your best effort payments means the debt no longer exists
Karl Lentz 89 - Corporations don't exist
Karl Lentz 90 - In court vs. At court
Karl Lentz 91 - On the record
Karl Lentz 92 - Karl's 5 step process
Karl Lentz 93 - Filing a claim against a complaint
Karl Lentz 94 - Payment options for filing a claim
Karl Lentz 95 - How to respond to a letter from the IRS
Karl Lentz 96 - How to deal with a psych evaluation
Karl Lentz 97 - Motion for sanctions
Karl Lentz 98 - Order a lien or garnishment to be lifted
Karl Lentz 99 - Common law according to American Jurisprudence
Karl Lentz 100- Only a man can ask for payment for an order
Karl Lentz’s website:
www.broadmind.org
to order invoice pads, training DVD’s, workshops, seminars etc.:
www.unkommonlaw.co.uk
Karl Lentz’s Talkshoe call:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc"&HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc"cmd=tc
Word Nerds (Gus Breton’s call):
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=134084HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=134084&cmd=tc"&HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=134084&cmd=tc"cmd=tc
CalmInLaw’s community call (Mike’s call):
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=133802HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=133802&cmd=tc"&HYPERLINK "http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=133802&cmd=tc"cmd=tc
Angela Stark’s website page on Karl Lentz:
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Karl-Lentz.html
Youtube Channel page:
https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos
http://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/about/about-craig-lynch/
KARL LENTZ DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE COMMON LAW ACTUALLY IS.
"Common law" simply means "case law" written by judges (as opposed to statutes or constitutions written by others).
THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/
"Common law" ("case law") is still the single most common form of law used in the United States today.
HOW THE "COMMON LAW" IS DEFINED BY THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF
ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!
State v. Quested: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS '[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS, CASELAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10th ed.2014)." (in the 7th paragraph of Justice Johnson's "Dissent", at about 75% through the text HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4145277851828805289&am...
MORE ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON L:AW" ITSELF:
State v. Hyde: "THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS '[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS. Black's Law Dictionary 293 (8th ed. 2004)." (in the 7th paragraph, at about 75% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7712646074919813387&am...
THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is sometimes called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES, THEN WHY IS "COMMON LAW" SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW" ?
THE ANSWER IS "BECAUSE IT [THE COMMON LAW] IS NOT WRITTEN BY ELECTED POLITICIANS, BUT RATHER [IS WRITTEN], BY JUDGES, IT IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS UNWRITTEN LAW OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." Scroll down to about 30% through the text HERE. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx.
Indeed, that is precisely the way that the Supreme Court Of The United States uses the term, "unwritten law" (referring to laws written by judges as opposed to laws written by elected lawmakers). In over-ruling an earlier decision in Swift v. Thompson, the Supreme Court Of The United States wrote in Erie v. Tompkins,"First. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, "FEDERAL COURTS exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... ." (iIn the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&am...
These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" REALLY MEANS LAWS WRITTEN BY JUDGES (AS OPPOSED TO STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN BY OTHERS.).. "Lex non scripta" is Latin for "unwritten law". But, this term also means laws written by judges rather than laws written by others, as this ancient explanation makes clear. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx
HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN AN ALLEGED "CONFLICT":
But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", another name for the "common law", meant that the "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER This resulted in amateur legal theorists simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the common law should be (as long as it was more favorable to them than today's laws are). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they claimed that it conflicted with today's law and thereby created a scandalous legal conspiracy to be outraged about.
This imaginary "conflict" between the "common law" and modern laws is arguably the number one gripe of amateur legal theorists today. But, they are mistaken about what "unwritten law" really is and they are mistaken about whether it really conflicts with today's law. It does not. Unknown to amateur legal theorists, today's law INCLUDES THE COMMON LAW which is still "case law" written by judges and which is still being made every single day all over the globe.
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?
1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. NOTHING MORE.
2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM "CASE LAW" WHICH IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
3). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION".
4). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS".
5). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" .
6). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES".
7). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE".
8). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS".
9). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS".
10). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS".
11). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING".
12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.
13). BECAUSE "COMMON LAW" IS ACTUALLY CASE LAW WRITTEN BY JUDGES, IT IS THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.
14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, IT IS THE LARGEST SINGLE PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.
15). THIS MEANS, "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH TODAY'S LAWS, IT CONFIRMS TODAY'S LAWS, IT REINFORCES TODAY'S LAWS , IT STRENGTHENS TODAY/S LAWS. .
16). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN THE "COMMON LAW", BECAUSE THE "COMMON LAW" IS TODAY'S LAWS.
Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.
Best Regards,
Snoop
BEWARE OF THESE FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves).
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-...
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-th...
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Wi...(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Ri...
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-am...;\
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-...(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016