Redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com



The roots of Law… ‘Common Law’ - part 2

The real fundamental basis of how law really operates

(Walls in our Minds - blog talk radio with Terry Dodd, Gus Breton and friends)

RADIO: (00:55)

Good evening. This is Terry Dodd.

We are here for another awesome show here tonight …We are doing a follow up to our show last week.

We started out talking about Common Law; and we only really got warmed up a little bit. We’ve asked Gus Breton and some of his associates to join us again this evening.

Gus, if you are there, please open us with a prayer.

GUS: (01:23)

Thank you Terry.

Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this opportunity to reach out to people around the country.

Give them some good news…something they can use to make life a whole lot simpler.

It’s a pretty incredible responsibility to get accurate information out there; I’m hoping you’re going to have your hand in this, to guide me through the whole thing; and people should be looking to you; and looking inside ; feeling their way through things and paying attention to that peace that’s within.

Let that peace guide them, because the stuff we’re talking about really comes from the inside. It’s not something you learn to mimic. There are no magic words, so help us all to reach inside and feel the guidance…and thanks for being with us tonight. AMEN.

RADIO: (02:30)

Thanks for handling that duty.

We try to make it a tradition here at walls in our minds, to always open it with a prayer;

I tell ya, the shows where we have forgotten to do that…well…it’s been pretty evident.

Gus, I really appreciate your availability, and making yourself available.

I see this as a spiritual battle we’re in ; and I guess when people ask me;-

“ what can we do ; What can I do ?”…

*** THE NUMBER ONE THING IS, THEY CAN MAKE THEMSELVES AVAIILABLE.

You are always available; I know a lot of the folks rely on you for their chat, and their conversations.

Just trying to share things with each other ; I really appreciate how available you are.

I know that our Father in Heaven – that’s a big key to Him too. I think that’s what he loved about David so much.

Last week – we really didn’t get too much into the big picture.

We focused a lot on the smaller stuff.

I’d like to suggest here at the beginning of this show…

Common Law is all about the pecking order; that we talk so much about here on

‘Walls of our Minds.

Red Beckman, who’ll be joining us shortly ; he always brings us back, he puts that compass on the spiritual battle and the pecking order ;tries to keep us online here, no matter what we’re talking about.

But this concept of Our Creator – HIM - that gave us our unalienable rights.

If it wasn’t for the 10 commandments; all of his Commandments ; All of his right rulings –

REALLY IS THE BASIS FOR COMMON LAW ; would you agree with that?

GUS: (04:52)

I certainly would.

There are a lot of different writings out there – different Religions.

They all have a lot of similarity, that for us, we look to.

It just so happens, we live in a Country that founded it’s law system on the Judeo-Christian view of life ; on forgiveness.

• There are over 600 statutes in the Bible

• They give a lot of direction on where to go

• What not to do

• Having respect for your fellow man and for the people around you

One of the first things I picked up when I was hanging out with Karl ; and he says it a lot –

• “If you don’t know that God is there – if you don’t know that ; then, you will never have the potential to be the ‘man’ you’re suppose to be

…because…

• Only when you know, that you were created, will you ever know that you have the authority to do and be, what you are suppose to do and be.

• Without that, your going to get run around - the system is going to ‘run you around’. They are going to know that … YOU…don’t know.

RADIO: (06:35)

I want to talk about the ‘big picture’ here, before we launch back into talking about moving your ‘claim’ in a court ; which Karl has been most articulate about that; but –

Before, when we were talking about the importance about acting as a ‘man’ –

One of the things that you brought out is –

• There is NO higher status for a human being, than the ‘man’ created in the image of his creator.

GUS: (07:25) That’s correct.

• When you ‘know’ you are created in the image of God, then,

• YOU KNOW you cannot be judged by the ‘system’

• The system cannot judge you because –

• YOU…ARE IT’S CREATOR….(NO MORE THAN YOU CAN JUDGE GOD)

• Only other people, created in the image of God, can judge you…

• And they represent the ‘society’ that you’re in.

RADIO: (08:08)

Red Beckman has just joined us…Red, would you like to say Hello to Gus ?

RED: (08:30)

I really appreciate the words that I’ve heard here.

• We have to have a real focus in what we are trying to do.

• Millions of our fellow Americans out there that have absolutely NO CLUE.

• *** They are not taught in their homes, their churches, schools,

major media; anything about the Common Law ; ( God’s Law.)

• The fact that we are creators, created in the likeness of our heavenly Father

• We are going to have to become more focused about reaching out to our fellow Americans with the message.

The ‘junk heaps’ of History, are piled high with Governments.

The Roman Empire was there…it was a great empire…and of course…

History records the rise and fall of many Kingdoms and Empires.

Most of us in our life time, have witness the fall of the USSR in December 1991.

So, we need to stress the fact that –

• WE, the people, survived the fall of the Roman Empire

• WE, the people, survived the fall of all those Kingdoms and Empires in History

• WE, the people of Russia, have done a fantastic job of surviving the fall of the USSR.

• We, have to stress the fact that, Governments are not eternal.

• GOVERNMENTS HAVE A TENDENCY TO … ‘SELF DESTRUCT’.

So, if we can get that message across to people… the fact that –

• We, the people, created the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D.

King John, was such an outlaw that he had the people reduced to a futile state ; and

• The Magna Carta was written by people outside of Government

This is what we have to really get across to our fellow man right now –

• Common Law was not created by Governments

• Common law was written by the survivors of Government mischief, terrorism, misgovernment, etc…

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence: it was not created by Parliament in London, England, which was supposedly the governing body. It was -

• We, the people, created the Declaration of Independence In 1776.

• We, the people, created the Articles of Confederation.

• We, the people, created the Constitution in 1787.

• We, the people, created the Bill of Rights.

We have to use this background information, to get people to understand the

• IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMON LAW WRITTEN BY THE PEOPLE

Any law written by –

• Government, Congress, Senators, Representatives, The Courts, The executors branch

Any law by those people, calling themselves Government

• ANY law the Government creates; is inferior to the law that we, the people, wrote.

“I tell you – that just gives me a thrill, every time I think of it.”

We have been so programmed to believe the Common Law came out of the trash heap of History.

• The common law is very much alive today

• Common law is being put to use right now, as we speak

• We are learning to use the common law to bring back our freedoms and our liberties.

RADIO: (14:30)

Thanks Red.

One of the first Commandments we ever got from or Creator that shows in scripture, is

• The Commandant to subdue; to take dominion.

I’ve personally come to the decision –

One of the most important things that we can do, in order to defend the rights that Our Father in Heaven has given us is to

• *** Learn the common law.

• *** Restore our knowledge of the common law.

• *** Use common law in the defense of our rights.

Gus, I asked you a question a couple of weeks ago; I’m going to ask it again now.

I’d like you to spend a little time on this one if you can -

“If a small percentage of the people, knew, and were able to use the Common Law - what difference would it make to us, … locally…. Statewide … and across the states ?”

GUS: (15:35)

The primary impact, I believe it would have is;

• If people around you understand the law,

• If people understand their rights to be let alone,

• You would have more respect for your community.

The lack of respect in our community is a really big problem, because nobody is held accountable.

It would lead to a lot more accountability.

When we talk about Common Law –

• It is NOT the English Common Law

• It is NOT the American Common Law

• It IS THE Common Law that was created long before this country ;

• The stuff that was written about in the 1640’s, with a specific mandate :

• *** To create law according to the mind of God as revealed in his word

• *** That’s the Common Law I’m talking about.

• *** The Law that is Common to ALL man.

So, as people learn that law they will

• Have a whole lot more respect for their fellow man

• Crime rates would go down

The accountability of Government; small and large; states and Counties, etc…

It always comes back to the same thing –

• Somewhere in that Government, there is a corrupt individual

• Accountability would cause the man who was harmed, by that corrupt man in office ; to be able to hold him accountable.

• Once you start holding a [wo]man accountable, that’s in an official position, for causing you harm or injury,

• People in these positions would have a whole lot more respect for the rest of us.

It doesn’t have to be nasty…

I was talking to somebody about Common Core –

• It used to be – no child left behind. Now, it’s common ; they keep manipulating the education system and a lot of people complain about that.

But if you were able to put a ‘claim’ in showing your child was harmed. You could say:

You Teachers get $100 for each kid that you teach ;

I want that $100 a day; I’m going to teach my own kid, because

I don’t like what you’re doing – You’re causing harm to my kid

If every man or woman that felt that way about common core did that; sued the school system through the state, for a small amount of money: - ( a small group of 20 – 30 people)

The fact that they did it, would really, really resonate.

There’s a lot you can do when you have accountability.

Naturally, that would flow up to the Federation of States, that we call the ‘United States’.

It could have a very big impact.

But it starts -

• In the family

• By shutting the TV off

• Reading books like ‘Uncle Remus’ – things teaching integrity and respect for your fellow man

If you don’t have that – it will never work it’s way up to the top.

RADIO: ( 19:35)

Our Courts have been -

• consumed and occupied by the judiciary and the Barr Association, basically operating now as Corporate Structures; as legal fictions

Our school systems have been -

• taken over by tax exempt foundations

Our Agriculture and everything -

• is now all Corporately controlled.

The Corporations are now primarily controlled by the ‘BANKSTERS’

They have basically ‘brain soiled’ us, as Red calls it.

Everyone one of us – from the time we were born.

I’m 63 years old, and I’ve had to come to a decision, that most of what I had been told throughout my life, by

• Media

• Information systems

• Education – certainly through the false History that we’ve been taught

• I’VE JUST BEEN LIED TO - ALOT.

That control has consumed us, to the point of almost destroying our Republic.

Common Law would control those mechanisms, if people knew how to use it.

GUS: (21:00)

Which control mechanisms – the corporations ?

RADIO: (21:07)

Yeah – the Corporations… the ‘legal fictions’.

All the control they put on individuals to ‘enslave’ them.

• It seems insurmountable, but, one man – even one man – much less a small group of people;

• Knowing Common Law seems to take a stand against that, and

• Fully capable of defeating it. (the control mechanism)

GUS: (21:37)

The ‘roots’ of our Government ; the Declaration of Independence – that

• All men are created equal

• Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights

• Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness

• To secure these ‘rights’ , Governments are instituted among men.

• It’s to ‘secure’ these ‘rights to property’, Governments are created.

• To ‘secure property’ ; ‘protect property’ ; ‘preserve property’

When you have a corporation –

• ANY COMPANY out there –

• They are an ‘extension’ of that Government

• Their ‘primary’ function is to Secure ; Protect ; Preserve - the property of a ‘man’.

• PERIOD… THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT !

When a Corporation -

• harms a ‘man’;

• Their Corporate Charter is ‘On the Line’ !

• IT’S A VERY RISKY THING... (for that company)

The problem is –

• People don’t know what to do about it

• People don’t know how to act as a ‘man’ in Court, and

• Hold that corporate entity accountable for the harm they’re doing to a ‘man’

A lot of times, there are people ‘complaining’ about the education system or ‘complaining’ about something else.

• Complaining does not do any good.

• YOU HAVE TO SHOW THERE WAS A ‘HARM’

You can’t go into Court ‘complaining’ – You have to go into Court with an actual -

• Loss

• Injury

• Harm

• That you can show and prove in Court

Once you have that -

• YOU have, ‘accountability’ on your side.

It depends on what the circumstances are, but most of the stuff we talk about is ‘complaining’. Most People just ‘complain’ and write letters.

As you know, I was very much involved in the ‘Redress Petitions’, here in New Hampshire; and I still believe that that should exist for the general public…

But, your petitioning to the Legislature, which is the higher entity – as far as the government is concerned…

As a ‘man’, you should not be ‘petitioning’ them.

We should let them know –

• This is what happened

• There was a ‘harm’ done

It was done by -

• That man ; that Company ; that corporation

• It is my right to have redress, so we’re going to have it here, and I’ll

• Present my ‘case’ to the legislature

It should NOT be ‘optional’ : you are not ‘petitioning’ for the hearing.

Things like that need to change.

*** Studying Common Law stuff is a better way to get ‘redress’.

Redress (v.) (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

mid-14c., "to correct, reform;" late 14c., "restore, put right" (a wrong, error, offense); "repair; relieve; improve; amend," from Old French redrecier "reform, restore, rebuild" (Modern French redresser), from re- "again" (see re-) + drecier "to straighten, arrange" (see dress (v.)). Formerly used in many more senses than currently. Related: Redressed; redressing.

Redressal (n.) (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

"a setting right again," 1800, from redress + -al (2). An earlier noun was simply redress "reparation, compensation, adjustment" (late 14c.), from Anglo-French redresce, Old French redrece, redresse

That’s why I started - Redress ~ 4 ~ Dummies - :

To get -

• good foundational information out to people,

• so they could start and

• build from there and

• learn more.

One of the big problems is

• People do too much ‘Complaining’

• They don’t state their ‘Claim’

• They don’t profess their ‘Claim’ in open Court

• THEY JUST ‘COMPLAIN’.

RADIO: (25:05)

Well, there’s been a lot of misconception out there.

Let me back up for just a second :

If you look at the ‘redress’ side of this, what we found was that the formal petitions that have been filed by -

‘We, The People Foundation’ ; Bob Schlitz and all of them are a good example of that :

• they repeatedly went in 15 – 20 times, and

• Filed formal petitions of Grievance, under Constitutional Violations to the Government

• Every time they put in a petition for grievance - IT WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED

We’ve seen the Judiciary and the rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure

• have basically written out any Petition to the Courts by the people on Constitutional issues.

• They just say – ‘you don’t have standing’

People began to say – “we need Common Law Courts”

And, they tried to figure out a way to create what they thought was a ‘Common Law Court ;

Now, after several years of digging into this ; Karl, and people like that ; George Gordon and others ; Bill Thornton and now yourself ;

• Showing people how you can take the

• Common Law into ANY ‘court- of –record’.

• This is a new doorway for most people

• It WIPES OUT – ‘you don’t have standing’ – kind of arguments

• It provides a ‘path’

• If people were to learn this and to start seeing it all over the place where a lot of people are bringing in their petitions, by way of......... (part missing due to dead spot) ......... it’s going to shake their tree, isn’t it?

GUS: (27:15)

• People would NOT be bringing in ‘petitions’

• People would BE bringing in ‘CLAIMS’

RADIO: (27:22)

I understand...

My point is, we’ve been going round about it in all the wrong ways.

• *** Now...We’ve got a way they can’t ignore.

GUS: (27:35)

Like I said :

*** Our Government is created to secure, protect and preserve ‘property’.

That’s the foundation of our government.

‘OUR’ ENTIRE Court system is based on that…

If you have been

• Harmed

• Injured

• Had a loss

Then you are a [wo]man aggrieved.

• “Nobody has a higher standing in that court,”

• than that ‘man’ who seeks remedy –

• who seeks ‘redress’ ;

• that is the ‘function of our Government.’

When that [wo]man goes to Court and ‘acts’ like a ‘[wo]man’;

(not like a Prose’ or Plaintiff by making a ‘complaint)

But, he

• acts like a ‘man’

• by making a ‘Claim’; and

• he ‘presents’ himself ;

• he presents ‘HIS’ case to the Jury

• he makes his ‘CLAIM’

• he stakes his ‘claim’ – right there in Court

• NOTHING SUPERSEDES THAT

If you look at the language :

I just got a court decision from a lady I’m helping out; and in the Court decision it said :

“The father complains about something to his Attorney, who proffers.

The woman testifies to these particular events, because she is there.

She was there as herself, and demanded to be ‘sworn in’, before she started.

So, she is testifying ; and the man is ‘complaining’ through his Attorney who’s proffering.

Think…about the difference between the woman who is giving testimony; or it could be a man; but you have -

• One ‘man’ giving testimony

• One ‘man’ complaining

That is the difference between Common Law

• She - was moving ‘in’ Common law

• He - was moving ‘in’ Statutes

• In the same court room, during the same hearing.

The court right now… it’s funny to see the paperwork that’s going from side to side.

The Attorney’s actually asking the Court, how she’s suppose to handle the responses to this latest paperwork.

Because she is acting ‘in’ Common Law –

the Attorneys’ asking the Court – ‘Do have to recognise that paperwork?’

*** Because, if I answer her paperwork, then I’m admitting that it’s true’… that is ‘lawful’ paperwork; and she doesn’t want to admit that, and,

*** she’s asking the Court - the Courts permission to ‘NOT’ answer.

So, it’s pretty neat to see how it all works itself out, but

• there is obviously some line that Attorney does NOT want to cross.

RADIO: (30:15)

You and Karl ; I’ve heard you both talk about ‘Moving Your CLAIM’…in the Court.

Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what that means;

To ‘move your Claim’…in the Court.

GUS: (30:30)

Alright. When we talk, we typically talk about

• filing your own case

• you go to the Court House and ‘YOU’ put in a ‘CLAIM’

For instance - a ‘claim’ could be –

• i, a man, claim that John Doe trespassed upon property by way of eg: robbery, theft, forgery, etc… That would be the ‘claim’.

• Then, you would put the exhibits in

• And, you have to have a remedy.

• But, that is BASICALLY the Claim.

You’ve got 2 parties

• There is a ‘cause of Action.’

• There’s evidence submitted

• That’s it….that’s the claim.

• Typically one page (1) is fine… It covers everything

I put one in today.

I wanted to keep it on one page so, I went and got some 8.5 by 14 paper;

Because when you write the claim out by hand, it’s hard to keep it real, real small.

There was plenty of room left at the bottom ; I just needed an extra half inch or so.

That’s a ‘claim’ that we typically talk about; but –

This past Monday, I was in Court with a Lady and she wanted to put her ‘claim’ in; and they told her that in that Court ; they don’t do trials by jury.

So, instead of filing her own claim; (it was a last minute thing) she just put it into the case.

When they announced the case, she came up and talked about what she wanted to get done with the ‘claim’ and the judge told her – “you can’t put a claim into this building.

You’re going to have to do that in the other Court House down the Street in the Superior Court.

The Judge asked her – “did you mean to put in a ‘counter-claim’?”

She said – “No. I’m a woman. I have to put in a ‘claim’.

The Judge repeated himself, then said –“Well, you’re going to have to go down the street and do your ‘claim’ over there.”

The Judge asked one last time –“You sure you don’t want to do this as a ‘counter-claim’?”

I told her to do a counter-claim ;

The woman did a ‘Counter-claim’.

So, even though she was in ‘their’ court ; it was still her ‘claim’, that was ‘in’ their Court.

It was a ‘counter-claim’.

So the Attorney went first, he proffered, and put his case forward ;

Then, when it came to her ‘claim’ – the Judge told her to

• Raised Right Hand, and she

• swore in; and

• ‘professed’ her ‘claim’; and

• gave ‘testimony’ how it actually was.

This is a simple case. Typically, you get a decision in 1 - 2 weeks; but the judge said it was going to take him 5 – 6 weeks ;

Because she’s claiming $20 a day for stress and anxiety because, they filed this thing back in May; and she wants $20 a day up till the hearing which was on Monday; so she is looking for just over $2,000 from the Attorney for ‘Barratry’.

barratry (n.) [pic] (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

early 15c., "sale of ecclesiastical or state offices," from Old French baraterie "deceit, guile, trickery," from barat "malpractice, fraud, deceit, trickery," which is of unknown origin, perhaps from Celtic. In marine law, "wrongful conduct by a ship's crew or officer, resulting in loss to owners," from 1620s. Meaning "offense of habitually starting legal suits" is from 1640s. Sense somewhat confused with that of Middle English baratri "combat, fighting" (c.1400), from Old Norse baratta "fight, contest strife." This was an active word in Middle English, with forms such as baraten "to disturb the peace" (mid-15c.); baratour "inciter to riot, bully" (late 14c., mid-13c. as a surname). Barataria Bay, Louisiana, U.S., is from Spanish baratear "to cheat, deceive," cognate of the French word; the bay so called in reference to the difficulty of its entry passages.

noun (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

1. (criminal law) (formerly) the vexatious stirring up of quarrels or bringing of lawsuits

2. (maritime law) a fraudulent practice committed by the master or crew of a ship to the prejudice of the owner or charterer

3. (Scots law) the crime committed by a judge in accepting a bribe

4. the purchase or sale of public or Church offices

*** She didn’t go after the Company that the Attorney represents –

• She went after the Attorneys ; for

• Moving a ‘false claim’; with

• ‘NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE’ - or nothing.

The Attorney who showed up was NOT one of the Attorneys that were supposed to be there.

There were two Attorneys; she had been mailing them questions that she wanted answered, so she could get ready for Court.

She had sent out three letters –

One in June, one in July, one in August; and

*** THEY NEVER ANSWERED.

Right before Court, she had put in something that said she was looking for some cash for Compensation, for the stress.

So, these two Attorneys didn’t show up.

Some other Attorney showed up ( I happen to know this guy... he’s a nice guy)

He’s actually the former County Prosecutor in our town... good decent guy.

• The case got started and

• He had ‘not filed’ his appearance

Half way through the case, when

• She started testifying

• Testifying this man (the Attorney) had NO CAPICITY to be here and speak IN THE CASE

• The judge made the Attorney ‘file his appearance’ right there in Court.

• THE JUDGE STOPPED EVERYTHING AND MADE HIM FILE HIS APPEARANCE

• Then she ‘OBJECTED’ EVERYTHING he had said.

• Then, they continued.

It was just a really neat hearing.

She was calm, mellow.

It wasn’t her first time in Court, but it’s her first time in Common Law, so she was speaking of the difference scenarios.

There were -

• Many times when the judge said - “I can’t do that.”

• Or, she ‘objected’ to something, and he ‘overruled’ her.

• So, the judge put up a road block;

• But, meanwhile, the judge would give her ‘hints’….these little ‘hints’ – like detour to the right ; detour to the left ; you can’t go this way, but… he would give her certain words – to ‘test her out’

• Little road blocks to see if she knew her stuff, because she was acting in Common Law.

• When she got stopped ; she was wondering which way to go ; she wasn’t sure;

• HE would say a word or two; and you could see the ‘wheels’ going around, and she was pondering and then she ‘moved’ forward.

• She was able to figure her way through.

It was really, really, neat to see such a awesome judge in a scenario like that, that instead of ‘steamrolling’ over the ‘woman’…

• If she had of been a ‘defendant’ …it would have been all over.

• She would have NEVER had a chance to ‘present’ her ‘claim’.

The judge allowed her to proceed; to say everything she had to say

• And, to do it in a manner that was ‘really respectful.’

I thought it was positive to have an opportunity to see that.

That’s NOT what we typically talk about with a claim.

What we’re talking about when we do a claim in Common Law is,

• you… are the moving party

• you…actually go first

• you…speak your ‘CLAIM’

• you…lay down a testimony

• Then…the other side has a chance to defend themselves.

So, those are the 2 ways you can go with a claim.

RADIO: (37:25)

What does that do to the status of jurisdiction or authority of the Judge, when you move your own ‘claim’ in the Court ?

GUS: (37:40)

When you’re moving your own claim in the Court :

For instance – in this case;

• Her ‘claim’ said that she was a ‘woman’

• And that she did not understand ‘legalese’ or the ‘customs’ of the legal society.

• There was enough in there to let the judge know

• that he dealing with someone who was not speaking in legalese but,

• someone who was speaking ‘in’ Common English.

• And there was a ‘woman’ present – someone who was the ‘creator’ of government – (if you will; if you want to go that far)

He played his role perfectly well

• He (the judge) – could not give legal advice to either side;

• he’s suppose to be a ‘referee’ …

• However, his job is to treat the ‘persons’ that are in court… in ‘that’ particular capacity, that they are ‘in’, while in that court.

( eg: brother to someone and Uncle to someone else…it’s just a different status you have..you act differently, behave differently, treated differently)

• In Court, it is the same way…depending on your ‘status’ you will be treated differently.

• She was in there, moving her own ‘claim,’ as a ‘woman’,

And, you could tell…

• The Judge was just ripping through people throughout the day; we watch some stuff go through …and she said…

• “I couldn’t believe how nice he was to me, after all these other people.”

It was neat… It made a really big difference, you know.

What technical difference did it make? I think it just came down to that…

• There was a ‘woman’ in court…

• There wasn’t a ‘defendant.’

• There certainly wasn’t a ‘complainant.’

She wasn’t putting a ‘complaint’ in against the other side.

• It wasn’t a cross- complaint.

• It was a cross – ‘claim’

RADIO: (39:50)

When you’re writing that ‘claim,’ – and you might want to talk a little about the importance of writing that ‘claim,’ - but also, can you give us some of the key elements, that you would want to include in your written claim.

GUS: (41:30)

I’m looking at a claim here, that we put in yesterday…I believe.

• It’s got the heading - the name of the man - [surname] Court, eg : Smith Court

• At Superior Court House (of the County / Town you are in)

• With the ‘Case No:…(with an UNDERLINE, which they will write it on, once it comes up))

• Claim:

• Type of Claim : Trespass

• Type of Trespass : Forgery

The two parties:

• a) Prosecutor – the one ‘moving the case’- ‘i, a man’

• b) Wrongdoer – a particular bank

• i, a man, require court of record ; trial by jury; (separated by semi- colons )

You can see Karl’s paperwork at –

There are the 15 documents that Karl put into a particular case listed there…and that is the format I am using here.

So, the next section is:

• i, a man claim, i own all property at (particular location)

• (name of bank) does cause harm to i, a man and injury to property by way of forgery.

• i wish to settle all verifiable claims to said property that are true, post due and owing.

• (That’s it. You’re claiming what you believe)

‘i believe no man or woman by the name of (Bank name) will ever come to court to verify under oath and affirmation, any claim made by this particular bank is true, due and owing.’

(Next section: what it is you are looking for…)

• i wish, order and require this Bank to cease and desist all action which interfere with my rights to this property and

• i wish that to be reflected in the County register of deeds, and

• i wish, order and require compensation equivalent to the amount of this property, they are trying to steal from me, as compensation for what you’re trying to do to me

• i say here and will verify in open court that all herein be true

• i will forgive those who trespassed against me, as I would wish those whom i trespass upon to forgive me of my debts

That’s basically the whole claim.

• There is the ‘claim’ itself…which is three (3) sentences

• Then, there’s the ‘statement of belief’…(this is what I believe, in this case)

• What your Compensation / your remedy will be to cure the trespass.

That’s pretty much it.

The entire claim is on one (1) page, with about one (1) inch left at the bottom of the page.

RADIO: (46:15)

I’d like to try something here and, Red, I need your permission, here to do this.

I’ll seek permission instead of forgiveness. I know forgiveness is easier to get than permission but…

Red, you’ve got a case, that you’d like to bring forward.

I’d like to hear, if you were willing Red, for you to tell Gus, and our listeners…how you plan to approach professing your claim, and exactly how you want to approach that, going at the court…

And, I’d like for Gus to offer his suggestions, about how he might do it differently..or whether there’s something that he hears that, might be a problem, or create a problem or, what he might suggest that might enhance that case….

Red, are you open, for that kind of little exercise?

Red: (47:15)

My situation In Montana is different, because I have been …20 years, since I sued that Federal Judge in Montana…

The case was docketed with the US Supreme Court, the first week of August, 1996.

Then, the Solicitor General, in December of ‘96’, noticed all the parties to the ‘action’; that I was correct in what I was saying in my ‘complaints’ against the Judge, and that, he was NOT going to ‘oppose’ me.

If you’ve got that kind of history, in your life, in what you’re doing, in your activities, it makes a difference in everything that comes down.

After I had sued the Judge, the IRS tried to intimidate me, as they had been trying for 25 years, I guess, or so…

Of course they put a ‘lien’ and a ‘seizure’ on a very expensive piece of property really.

It was commercial acreage, right on an interchange on interstate 90, in Montana.

They were trying to intimidate me and get me to back off…

Well, that was 94.

I had an Attorney, file the ‘action’…I gave him the paperwork, but at that time I was on the speaking tours…I was very rarely home and I had to have somebody, that could monitor the case because I knew that, they would wait for an opportunity where I was in some place like Philadelphia ; clear across the country or up in New Hampshire, and they would schedule a hearing where I could no way make it, and so, I had to have a Attorney.

When the case was docketed against the Federal Judge with the US Supreme court, it had a real shock effect with the internal revenue service. (IRS)

So, I had filed that ‘Quiet Title Action’; I had the lawyer file it, which I didn’t want to do…

The lawyer of course was a friend of mine – he’s a very good trial attorney… but, when I had him do it, he said –“Red, you can’t win this. They’re really going to be on this case.”

I said- “ that’s alright. You do what I tell you”…and I paid him up front, so he couldn’t complain.

So he finally filed the action. I had given him the paperwork to file.

Anyway, when that case was docketed against the Federal Judge in August of ’96, I was out of town.

The lawyer got a phone call from the District Council of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and told the lawyer – “We’ve got to settle this case ; we’ve got to get this case cleared up.”

The lawyer come at him, he was totally out of the loop said – “What’s going on here?”

The District Council said this – “We are going to have a very bad precedence coming down.”

As a result of this, the IRS had a different respect.

They understood what I had done against the Federal Judge was ‘Common Law’.

They grasped the fact that this ‘Quiet Title Action,’ that I had the lawyer file; was going to get hammered on this too.

Of course I’ve got this other advantage, in that I am the Co-Author of the book –

‘THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS.’

I was the spark that started the Montana people, researching the fraud of the 16th Amendment in 1980.

So, the IRS and the District Council – they were all shook up.

As it was, we - (myself and IRS) - ended up writing out what it would take to settle and I got $145,000.00 out of them.

Now how many people have got $145,000.00 out of the IRS?

It was my money of course, but they had no intention of ever letting somebody like me, get my money back.

So, a lot depends on what you do and I think in the case that Terry is talking about, it’s going to be a very difficult situation because of my being in Washington State, and I want to file it in Montana.

It has to do with one of my brothers’ estate, because I am the Court Appointer / Administrator of my brothers’ estate.

He has a conflict or a controversy with the state of Montana, and the IRS, so it’s a little bit complicated in that regard.

So, when I file this action ; if I get it filed, the first thing in that complaint – it’s going to be Common Law of course, because, there’s not going to be an Attorney involved.

Anytime you go non-attorney and such, it’s not very difficult to maintain the status of a Common Law Case.

I’m going to list the authorities, under which I am filing this action.

Of course I will use the 1st Amendment Right to petition for redress and grievance, and I will use the 7th Amendment – right to a 7th Amendment Common Law jury trial.

Then, I am going to put in a ‘Judicial Notice.’

A ‘Judicial Notice’ is a very, very effective tool.

I would recommend to anybody filing a Common Law Case, - consider

• filing a ‘Judicial Notice’ – right at the beginning, before you go into the body of the complaint.

• You file a ‘judicial notice’ and put the Judge on ‘notice.’

• This would be a case where there’s money involved, that the Government has taken control of in one way or another.

• You put the judge on ‘notice’ ; saying that he

• has a very serious conflict of interest in this matter; in this controversy, because

• he is a beneficiary of the tax laws of this country; the tax laws passed by the Congress and such.

• He is a ‘beneficiary’ because he is ‘paid’ from ‘tax money’

*** THIS GOES FOR

• EVERY JUDGE

• EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT IN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM.

They all take the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

They are all beneficiaries of the Tax Laws, because that’s where their salary comes from.

You put them on ‘notice’… that they are

• not going to have the authority or power to make –

• any ‘findings of fact or conclusions of law’ in this controversy

• This just - ‘CUTS THEM OFF AT THE PASS.’

*** I haven’t seen a case yet, where it didn’t have the effect of stopping them in their tracks.

If you get into trial, you can

• Subpoena the Government agents that are involved in this controversy

• You can bring them in, and

• Have them ‘sworn in under oath’, and

• You’re not going to get one of them, that’s going to jeopardize himself in any way

• Your going to ‘get the truth’ ; it’s going to be the truth all the way.

subpoena (n.) [pic] (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

early 15c., sub pena, from Medieval Latin sub poena "under penalty," the first words of the writ commanding the presence of someone under penalty of failure, from Latin sub "under" (see sub-) + poena, ablative of poena "penalty" (see penal). The verb is attested from 1630s.

1. the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body.

verb (used with object), subpoenaed, subpoenaing.

2. to serve with a subpoena.

Like in my case, where I have standing and the Court can’t deny me that;

because of the fact that I am the co-author of the book – ‘The Law That Never Was’- Vol 1.

I was very much a part of that process.

I am putting the ‘complaint’ in the form of an Affidavit.

There will be a copy of the

• Title page

• ‘Judicial Notice’

• Affidavit – will be the main body of the ‘complaint’

• Each 1 of the 12 people on the Jury is going to get a copy of that

• There isn’t going to be a judge saying – “no, you can’t do that – the statute says something or the judicial practices says something – or other.”…It does not count.

• The judge isn’t going to do that – because of that ‘judicial notice.’

• You can give each and everyone on the Jury a copy of your authorities, your lawsuit and the authorities to have that action filed.

The jury can take that file home with them if they adjourn the trial for the day and they come back the next day.

They can take the file home with them because

• the judge cannot ‘invoke’ the ‘rules of the court’ because of his conflict of interest.

invoke (v.) [pic]

late 15c., from Middle French envoquer (12c.), from Latin invocare "call upon, implore," from in- "upon" (see in- (2)) + vocare "to call," related to vox (genitive vocis) "voice" (see voice (n.)). Related: Invoked; invoking.

1. to call for with earnest desire; make supplication or pray for:

to invoke God's mercy.

2. to call on (a deity, Muse, etc.), as in prayer or supplication.

3. to declare to be binding or in effect:

to invoke the law; to invoke a veto.

4. to appeal to, as for confirmation.

5. to petition or call on for help or aid.

6. to call forth or upon (a spirit) by incantation.

7. to cause, call forth, or bring about.

When the judge knows that

• there is an ‘awareness’ of his conflict of interest

• a strong ‘awareness’

• he is NOT going to take a chance, because they know what happened to Judge Batten – the Senior Federal Judge in Montana, when I sued him.

The Solicitor General said I was correct, therefore he was not going to ‘oppose’ me.

*** There’s a tremendous opportunity to make some corrections in our political system, here, at this point in time.

There is one thing I want to mention – a little offside to what I was talking about here…

As we are processing all of these ideas, remember that -

• Our Heavenly Father sent down some law -

• Common Law

• The 1st and 2nd Commandments tell us that Our Heavenly Father is the only real GOD and

• in the 2nd Commandment it tells us, that he’s a jealous God ; and of course, this is what brought down the USSR; a lot of Empires and Kingdoms, because

• Governments have a tendency to try to become as small ‘g’ gods, and

• They think they can break the laws that GOD has put in place.

RADIO: (1:02:23)

Red…I think you’ve thrown a lot at Gus here.

I think you need to let him get in, to make sure he’s clear on what your tying to do and understands your approaches.

RED: (1:02:35)

I just think we need to have this in the back of our mind –

• That our Heavenly Father is going to … it isn’t going to be a formal complaint

• He’s just going to put them out of business.

That’s what happened to the USSR – and I think there’s a high probability… and that’s why I said…

If I file this action, it will be because this system is still in power… If it’s gone, then I’m not going to file it, because we’re going to have a different system developed.

That’s all I have to say for now.

GUS: (1:03:20)

I’m not sure what the action is, or what you’re trying to accomplish.

You say, you’re doing this on behalf of your brother…

What is the action …and what is the harm that has been done ?

RED: ( 1:03:37)

The harm was that they put ‘liens’ … they put ‘false liens’ on our properties – mine, and my brothers’ both.

They’ve really got themselves in trouble with this because, there was

• No due process – no constitutional due process or anything, and

• It started in the state of Montana, rather than the Feds, but

• The state of Montana and the Feds, the IRS, are working arm in arm, so

• The Action…the decision I’ve made so far is

• I will start the ACTION in State Court, and then

• Call in the IRS agents and such, bring them in as witnesses, to where…

• Their testimony will hang them out to dry…that’s the idea.

lien (n.) [pic]

"right to hold property of another until debt is paid," 1530s, from Middle French lien "a band or tie," from Latin ligamen "bond," from ligare "to bind, tie" (see ligament).

1. Law. the legal claim of one person upon the property of another person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.

GUS: (1:04:42)

So the intent is to…

• Get the ‘liens’ removed from the ‘property’

RED: (1:04:48)

Right…right.

GUS: (1:04:50)

Ok…

I’m very familiar with the process that you’re explaining; and some of the complications that are there.

The reason I have embraced, this particular view that I’ve recently come across, is because of it’s simplicity.

One of the things that I’ve taught my children and other people, that are stressed out with life is…

• At some point in your life, you had some peace on the inside …and

• When you find that peace again, do whatever it takes to hold onto it.

• A lot of that comes, by keeping things really, really simple.

• When things get complex, people get stressed out, they lose their peace.

I’ve always had a hard time concentrating on complex issues, so, when I finally understand them, I really, really understand them, because it took me forever to get them.

So… I really appreciate, a much simpler way of doing things.

In this particular case, I would say that -

• You can file a ‘claim,’ against whoever it is that has these ‘liens’ for ‘forgery’

• Do it in your local district court

• File a ‘claim’ against these ‘wrongdoers,’

• Against the ‘man’ – who is acting in ‘that’ capacity ; not the IRS agent…eg Bob, Frank, Jim…whoever it is who put these liens in, because

• ‘In’ Common Law – your claim would be very simple.

Your ‘claim’ would be :

• i, a man, claim … Bob, Frank and Jim (do 3 separate claims…one for each one)

• Bob ‘trespasses’ upon ‘property’ by way of ‘forgery.’

• YOU would have a preliminary hearing set up

• YOU would let the Court Clerk know what the ‘Court Rules’ are.

You would tell the Clerk that

• YOU ‘require’ the Clerk,

• put a Magistrate on the case that is skilled in ‘Common Law,’ to schedule a preliminary hearing

• The ‘man’ who is being accused ; needs to come in

• He needs to produce the ‘evidence’ that supports why he should not be charged a certain fee to compensate YOU for the stress.

That’s it ….That’s the whole case.

So, he would have a preliminary hearing -

• And if he doesn’t show up…

• YOU issue a ‘warrant’ ; you have him arrested, you have him brought in,

• To make sure he gets – ‘Due Process’ …and the chance to face his accuser…

• YOU spell out the ‘case’, and if he decides to plead the 5th, and remain silent… well, he had his chance…

• Then, YOU write the ‘order’ – for the Magistrate to ‘witness’ and

• To put through the Clerk’s office, so the Clerk can ‘witness’ it…and

• With the aid of the Sheriff, you can have this ‘lien’ removed from the ‘property’.

That’s pretty much it…

There’s really not a whole lot to it.

*** In Common Law – YOU make the ‘rules of the Court’.

*** “One of the ‘rules in MY Court’ is : Legalese is grounds for contempt.”

It’s a real simple rule – don’t be using that Black’s Law language in

• MY COURT… This is ‘my’ court.

• Every ‘man’ has a ‘right’ to hold ‘his court’ in that ‘public’ building.

• I go in ; I pay my fee just like everybody else

• I want to use a room just like everybody else

• I want the aid of the Magistrate & Clerk to ‘witness’ the truthfulness of my paper work ; my claim – to witness for me

• So I can move on with my life

The simplicity of that is

• It’s always your court

• You’re always under control

• Nobody writes an order without your consent’

• If the man comes in and does not produce the evidence to show it is not a forgery, it’s all done.

• It has to be removed from your property….. [the lien]

On the other hand…

If the man comes in and says –

• I have this evidence, this evidence and this evidence, etc…

• Then, you move forward to a trial by jury, where you’d actually go through the whole trial and let the jury make those decisions; and live by the determination of the jury.

Trial by jury

• You would put your ‘claim’ in before the jury

• Give the jury all the facts of what actually happened

• Then, the man who put the lien on there, would have a chance to defend himself

• Then, the jury would make a decision and it would be FINAL.

That would be it.

The judge is only there to make sure that

• The rules that you set up in the case are followed

• The ‘law’ of the case is whatever you put the law in [ for instance, if I get arrested for ‘forgery’, they’re going to say that it was statute such and such…

• When you get ‘your’ case in Common Law, you’d simply say the law of the case is….. [ eg: forgery – statute NO.#]

• As found in …[ Quote passage from the Bible that has the law for peculiar case]

So, it would be a -

• ‘man’ – moving the case according to the word of God

• The jury makes the final decision [according to the 7th Amendment]

• It’s final – It’s NOT appealable and it’s all done.

RED: (1:10:55)

I didn’t mention the fact that, and I should have ; my thinking in going into the state courts…

There are probably hundreds, perhaps thousands even, of income tax cases.

The book –‘ THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS’- vol. 1 ; came out in April, 1985.

It will be 30 years, coming up this next year, in April.

There has been numerous cases where, people have tried to, use the 16th Amendment ; fraud : ‘failure to have it properly ratified.’

The evidence is so overwhelming and, they have tried to use it, and been beat up in the courts because they are

• Always defended by lawyers – and the lawyers and judges will make sure you loose

• So, we don’t have ANY case law, in 30 years – we don’t have any case law, and we’ve had the judges admit, they are more or less instructed;

• they are NOT to let these cases go, where the 16th Amendment ratification, is questioned.

This is why, I’m going into the State Court; this is why I’m going at it the way I am.

I suspicion that, the State of Montana will be given some instructions from the IRS and the Federal Courts, probably very quick; to hurry up and get rid of those liens and not let this go to trial.

Of course, here I am coming up 86 here shortly, and that would probably be easier on me in some respects.

However, after spending as much time and as much money as I have, over the years; on this 16th Amendment question, I really want to see it go to a 7th Amendment, Common Law Jury, and see what happens then.

I don’t know if you’re aware of the Federal Judge, District Judge in North Carolina, that made the statement in open court, and I’ve got the transcript of that case, where he says,

• he has examined some of this evidence on the 16th Amendment and he’s convinced that it was not ratified, but he said-

• There is NO court in the land that’s going to do that.

So – it has to be a Common law Jury that’s going to handle this. There probably isn’t anybody that’s better equipped to do it than I.

Even with a disadvantage of my age and all of that. That’s the thing in my case.

We’ve helped people with traffic cases using the Common law and it’s just been, man….

• There’s no trial

• It’s a lead pipe synch; if you’re going to get yourself out of the jam they put you in –

• If you use the Common law and especially,

• Nailing them with the ‘conflict of interest’ is really, something that REALLY puts the judges, whether it’s the Local Traffic Court Judge – whoever – it puts a real scare into them so, I’m just so excited about what you’re saying because, we need people to do all the - what some might consider minor cases.

• I can assure you that – ANY time you go into Court with a Common Law Case; if you win, the word goes out in ‘the system’ very, rapidly; and they start studying; and if you remind them of the fact that -

• This Government that we have today, that’s trying to god – that it could go down and go down very quickly – overnight – just like the USSR did.

• What are all the Judges going to do, especially the Federal Judges – what are they going to do, when the Government goes down? Boy, they’re in a heap of trouble.

GUS: (1:16:20)

Of course they are but, getting back to what you were saying earlier –

The ‘conflict of interest’ with the Judge;

• There is NO ‘conflict of interest’ with the Judge, because the

• Judge is only there to testify to the truthfulness of your ‘claim’

As far as the IRS agents testifying – they have -

• ‘NO firsthand knowledge’ – so, if you don’t allow them to proffer, to speak, except under oath – what are they going to ‘testify’ to ??? They pull up a paper saying – This is your paper – this is your transcript – this is your paperwork – whatever it is;

• There is NOT a man alive that can take the stand and verify the truthfulness of ANY piece of paper brought into Court by the IRS. Period.

• There is NO truthfulness there – there’ no man that can verify that, that information hasn’t been messed with – the IRS agents can’t do it either – NOBODY CAN DO THAT.

• I’m a ‘man’. I’m saying that I don’t owe anybody anything: If you say that I owe it.

• If you’re an IRS agent, and you ‘believe’ that I owe anything – then, write me a Bill what you believe is True, Due and Owing – SIGN IT – give it to me and tell me that’s what I owe, and I’ll pay the Bill.

• The reason you’re NEVER going to get an IRS agent that’s going to do that is because, they KNOW they have NO idea HOW that number got on that paper…They are NEVER going to say ANYTHING. That is what it comes down to.

I’m on the end, I’m telling you what I believe, and our Country is founded on the principal that -

• You can believe what you wish to believe, and that, nobody can make you act according to something you do not believe in…that’s what it really comes down to.

It’s about -

• Who’s going to come forward and change my ‘beliefs’ ?

You’re dealing with another man.

Underneath the IRS agent suit, is a ‘man’.

• That man ‘in’ Common Law is bound by the principles of the Common Law. He’s not protected – he’s got no immunity. So, giving you a Bill of the exact number that you owe – you’re not getting that from the IRS agent; you’re getting that from a woman sitting there with a pen in her hand writing it out. It can be much simpler and , as far as setting case law, and precedence for everybody else – you’re only setting precedence in ‘their system’.

You’re never going to be setting precedence ‘in’ Common Law, because

• in Common law, there’s NO RECORDS.

• The case comes in - the case does it’s thing - the case is done.

• They don’t keep records of that – they seal those cases and put them away so nobody can find them, so you’re NOT going to ever get a precedence in Common law.

But,

• Drawing out the ‘man’….

• Pulling him out of his Uniform

• Making him stand before God and man – as another ‘man’ – not as some creation of Government, is where it’s at in Common Law.

RADIO: (1:19:55)

I’m just wondering again.

I think our listeners need to very clearly understand –

• Why certain testimony is NOT allowed under Common Law – you touched on it but I believe, some additional information on that would be helpful.

GUS: (1:20:15)

Alright. It’s not only Common Law. It’s anywhere.

• When you’re testifying, you’re speaking about the truthfulness of something.

You swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and here you are – they ask you a question and, you proclaim to know the truth.

• You don’t know the truth – ONLY God knows the truth.

• ALL you got is what you ‘believe’ - you don’t have the truth; so, when you stand up there and you start talking, you’re actually professing a ‘belief’ – that’s not the truth.

And, if you’re holding a piece of paper – what else are they going to have?

• They were not there

• They didn’t see you at your job, working, earning the money.

• They didn’t see the inheritance or whatever.

• They have NO ‘firsthand knowledge’ about anything.

ALL – that goes through these Courts is paper, so –

• Every dot of ink that is on that piece of paper has to be verified by a man with firsthand knowledge about EVERY SINGLE WORD that is on there... (the word ‘the,’ the word ‘as,’ the number, the dollar sign, the parentheses)

• Everything has to be verified by that ‘man.’ It’s impossible to do if you’re not the man who created the document.

• And, if you are the man who created the document, where did you get that information ? ….You got it ‘secondhand’ – and it’s hearsay.

• It is absolutely impossible for these people to provide actual testimony

• in a Statutory Court – the Judge will allow it.

• You can say that you ‘object’…and he’s going to ‘overrule’ you.

But the rules of testimony; the law of testimony is still the same –

• If it isn’t firsthand knowledge - it’s ‘hearsay’.

In Common law, in a Common Law Court ;

• The man who is offering ‘hearsay’- he’s lying: He’s not telling the truth.

• There is NO paper that stands ‘in’ Common Law;

• if you can’t verify that paper with your mouth,

• and explain every detail of it and why you know it’s the truth;

• then, you’re out of luck.

There’s not a whole lot of ‘?’ room with that process.

RADIO: (1:22:50)

I want to reiterate to anyone that’s listening on the phone…

If you would like to ask a question, or have another case you’d like to bring here and see what Gus’ suggestions are, hit a 1 on your phone, so I can know you’ve got a question, and we’ll give you a live mic.

Red, did you get anything out of that – that would help you ?

RED: (1:23:20)

I’ve been through so much of that in the past, and of course you see, I haven’t gotten into…this is what I appreciate about Karl;

what he’s saying and what he’s doing because, most of what I have done, like in a tax court…

• We have been able to destroy the tax court, practically. It’s really been an easy thing to do… with the tax court.

But, him talking about the lady, wanting to get paid for the stress;

I’ve never done anything like that, and I think – I think, that’s a great deal!

I think that is something that – we need this kind of thing going on, where people come into the Court, that they don’t have a reputation as being litigants and all of that.

But, they come in and they’ve got a ‘claim’ that they’ve been damaged and such.

Boy, I’ll tell ya…

If we had a few thousand of these happening around the country,

• it would have a - ‘well of an impact.’

I like the idea.

Anything that has an impact on ‘the system’, I’m all for it.

GUS: (1:25:30)

Red, one of the things…if you’re going to proceed in your case, the way you’re talking about;

One of the things that will destroy their case is -

• They claim that – ‘based on this law, this law and this law, this code, that statute, there’s a debt.

• They base ALL their stuff on Codes and Statutes

• Those CODES ARE NOT LAW

• The LAW is actually in the ‘Library of Congress’ under lock and key

• A company called Thompsons, out of Canada, actually goes there, and

• They look at the law and interpret it into ‘code’

• What you’re looking at is an ‘interpretation’ –

• What the IRS agents are talking about, is an ‘interpretation’ from some French Company ; some Canadian Company.

• IT IS NOT THE LAW AT ALL

• So, if they want to say, “this is the Law”…then, bring in the law, here in front of me

• The law that’s signed by the members of Congress and show me where that law applies to Red Beckman.

RED: (1:25:45)

Yep. I’m firm in my convictions that, there isn’t anybody in the Federal Government and to an extent – people in the State and the County and City Governments.

I think there’s pretty much a general conviction that

• The system cannot survive, continuing to operate as they are.

• The whole system is going to collapse, of it’s own weight

And when I have a chance to talk to somebody, a Government employee – I don’t care what level they are – I say to them,

• “Tell me, do you really think this system can really survive all of this criminal activity that is taking place?”

• They all know there’s criminal activity

• They all know that their taking advantage of people that have been dumbed down on purpose, intentionally, by the powers that be…they all know that

• They all know that these people are being taken advantage of

• The whole system is corrupt and it’s going to collapse one of these days and it’s not too far away.

GUS: (1:28:40)

It’s not too far away.

One of the things that would help people is -

• If they understood that they are NOT a PERSON…

• That, they are a [wo]man

• To not take on the ‘assumption’ of titles, as all these titles people take are just a burden, eg: defendant, plaintiff, person

• The language we use ‘in’ Common Law is also extremely important

For example the word ‘ARGUE’….if a judge says, “Are you ‘arguing’ with me?”

He’s NOT asking you – “are you giving me a hard time?”

Argue means to

• polish

• to shine

• to make clear

• to see through the complicated thing

• to see through a situation

• to see through it clearly, to the other side

• When you ‘argue’ your point = making your point ‘clear’

• You are ‘defining’ your point

People don’t realize the true meaning of the ‘word’

The whole language of Common Law

• the actual words

• the actual meaning

is very important.

When a judge talks to you -

• He’s talking to the ‘man’ and the ‘person’

***** The word ‘YOU’ is a joiner, joining man/person

So, there’s a lot in the ‘language’ regarding Common Law.

We talk about – “Can this Government survive with all this corruption?”

I like to look at it a different way – ‘why blame the Government?’

You know, how long can the Government exist when

• People refuse to get involved

• People refuse to figure out how to hold another ‘man’ acting in ‘that capacity’ responsible for their actions – (IRS agent, Doctor, etc…

• If they are causing harm or injury, then

• Learn to be a ‘man’ and hold that ‘man’ accountable.

Instead of going bowling on Thursdays and Monday Night Football and Saturday Night B-B-Qs, and Sundays out in the boat all weekend, etc…

It ridiculous, people spend all their time focused on we have to live,

we have to enjoy ourselves, we have a right to pursue happiness all the time, etc…

*** People are NOT taking it ‘upon’ themselves to be RESPONSIBLE.

You know, I was teaching ‘redress’ for 2 years.

It’s in our Constitution – Article 31…The legislature shall assemble for the ‘redress’ of public grievances

It’s a mandate, and yet, people were not taking advantage of this; they were not following through.

They were NOT even interested – because it’s not MY PROBLEM if my next door neighbor is being threatened by the IRS; building inspector;etc …

Because my life is just beautiful;

So, they don’t care about their neighbors.

They don’t care about nobody but themselves.

It is a very selfish society.

And, I think –

‘WE’- are the problem – not so much the Government.

We’re going to get what we deserve.

RADIO: (1:32:10)

We’ve got about 28 minutes left here Gus…

Red, thanks for being here for our ‘roll play’…

I think our listeners got a lot out of that process.

Area code 480 – what’s your question for Gus?

RALPH: (1:32:42)

Gus, this is Ralph.

We have several things we are working on right now.

We have

• A wrongful foreclosure – with a Bank who has literally kicked us out of our house; gave us 1 hour to leave, and we now living on our land; unimproved land

• A photo radar ticket from 2010 – we are working with the Private Attorney General on that, to get that resolved

• The IRS has been stealing money from my Social Security – I need to know how to move forward on that also.

GUS: (1:33:20)

Ok.

The traffic case –

1. You were ‘in’…. ‘inside’ your ‘property’ – you were ‘relocating’ it…moving your ‘property’ – from here to there.

You were NOT travelling –

‘Travelling’ = the ability to go from one State to another State without a passport…. That is the ‘right to travel’

I read up on that about a year ago, but what it comes down to is ….

• You’re a ‘man’

• The Government exists to secure, protect, preserve your ‘property’ – that’s it.

• You were using your ‘property’ – moving it from one place to another.

• The Government cannot tell you what you can do with your ‘property’

• That’s the foundation of your ‘argument’

• Anybody who goes against you for doing so, are

• a) ‘Bearing false witness’ against you

• b) Extortion – the man that is prosecuting the case is saying, you do this or else – that’s extortion. Ok – that’s that.

The Foreclosure –

Unless they -

• produce the ‘note’

• Brought the note in

• showed an ‘accounting’ of the account

They are using a ‘forged instrument’

RALPH: (1:35:00)

We’ve been ……? So, it’s been shredded.

GUS: (1:35:03)

EXACTLY!

• It was separated from the land, from the ‘property’

• It’s an ‘unsecured’ note

• But, you are NEVER going to WIN – ‘in’ THEIR COURT

• You need to do this - ‘in’ YOUR COURT

First of all -

• you have to find out, if there is any ‘authority’ for the Attorneys to be working on behalf of that Bank ?.

If you don’t’ see

• ‘Power of Attorney’ that was written out, then those Attorneys might have just bought the debt….they might be just 3rd party debt collectors….so you need to check into that.

If it’s the Attorneys -

• Then, it’s ‘Barratry’

• Your talking about them moving a ‘claim’ - they’re stating that the Bank is ‘moving’ party, when they don’t have any interest in the property whatsoever… It’s just bunch of Attorneys looking to make some money.

You have to look more into the details to see if its’

• Barratry

• Forgery

• Theft by forgery

You got to look into those kinds of things and move your own case against the ‘proper’ party…find out who that is.

barratry (n.) [pic] (from ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

early 15c., "sale of ecclesiastical or state offices," from Old French baraterie "deceit, guile, trickery," from barat "malpractice, fraud, deceit, trickery," which is of unknown origin, perhaps from Celtic. In marine law, "wrongful conduct by a ship's crew or officer, resulting in loss to owners," from 1620s. Meaning "offense of habitually starting legal suits" is from 1640s. Sense somewhat confused with that of Middle English baratri "combat, fighting" (c.1400), from Old Norse baratta "fight, contest strife." This was an active word in Middle English, with forms such as baraten "to disturb the peace" (mid-15c.); baratour "inciter to riot, bully" (late 14c., mid-13c. as a surname). Barataria Bay, Louisiana, U.S., is from Spanish baratear "to cheat, deceive," cognate of the French word; the bay so called in reference to the difficulty of its entry passages.

noun, Law.

1. fraud by a master or crew at the expense of the owners of the ship or its cargo.

2. the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up lawsuits and quarrels.

3. the purchase or sale of ecclesiastical preferments or of offices of state.

RALPH: (1:35:15)

The Judicial Notice is also on the Judge who made the judgment – is that also correct?

GUS: (1:36:25)

A Judicial Notice is a ‘waste of time’ because

• That judge is working in ‘their’ Court,

• With ‘their’ statutes

• With ‘their’ rules

• Everything.

When ‘you’ are in ‘their’ Court; when you agree to be a prose’ litigant:

a ‘prose’ - is a ‘man’ who has a license to ‘act’ as an Attorney ‘in’ that particular case, till it’s done.

So, you’ve been given ‘permission’ by the legal society to be an Attorney for the day…that kind of thing.

As a defendant, your roll is to walk over and pull the thing off the clothes rack that says ‘defendant’…and put that ‘suit’ on.

When you got that 'suit’ on , you’re like a Piñata.

That’s exactly what you are -

• you are a ‘prose’ defendant –the ‘man’ who is going into court to get whooped, by the other side.

So, giving Judicial notice that you don’t like being a ‘piñata’ – is NOT going to get you anywhere.

RALPH: (1:37:30)

I am actually talking about

• putting him on ‘notice’….Judicial Notice

• filing a ‘claim’ against him and doing it under Common Law

GUS: (1:37:42)

Like I said – a Judicial Notice is a ‘waste of time’.

What it is, is…

• This man is a ‘judge’ – acting in his capacity as a judge

When he’s doing that,

• his job is to treat whoever is ‘in’ HIS court room,

• according to the ‘role’ that THEY are ‘choosing’ to play

• YOU CHOOSE to be the ‘DEFENDANT ‘

• You didn’t FILE YOUR ‘CLAIM’

• You didn’t go in there as a ‘CLAIMANT’; A ‘PROSECUTOR

• He’s not going to tell you

• He’s not going to give you legal advice

• He has to be fair to both sides, according to the role YOU WISH TO PLAY.

• If you wish to play the Piñata, that’s it… that’s the role YOU have chosen.

So, giving Judicial Notice is NOT going to do any good.

Somebody IS coming after you for this ‘property’ – you need to find out WHO it is:

• Is it the Bank?

• Is it some 3rd party debt collector?

• Find out WHO THE PARTY IS

• Let them know you are a ‘man’ ;

• That the Government does not exist to cause harm to a ‘man’ ;

• They are an extension of Government and certainly, they do not want to cause harm to a man;

• And , at this time, your actions are causing harm to a ‘man’

This kind of letter writing begins by writing a simple letter -

Dear Bob,

‘Are you the man I need to talk to about ironing out this problem’?

YOU NEED TO GET INTO THIS LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN TO:

1. Find out WHO actually has the ‘authority to cause the harm, to cease and desist.

2. Once you identify that ‘man’ – give THAT ‘man’ notice…not the judge.

3. Give that man ‘notice’ – fair warning, that he is causing you ‘harm’ and that you ‘wish’ for it to stop.

4. If he does NOT stop, then you have the ‘right’ to pursue with a ‘claim’.

Unless it’s an emergency –

If someone is standing on your foot and you need that ‘man’ off, then

• Your not going to write him a letter – your going to do what you got to do.

The IRS is very much the same way

• Who says I owe this money ?

• Who says I owe this debt ?

• Where’s the [wo]man that ‘claims’ that there is a Bill that is True, is Due and that is currently Owing ?

When you deal with these people ‘man’ to ‘man’ ; not in their ‘official’ capacity; what you are doing is pulling them ‘out of their immunity’

• Giving you the opportunity to put a ‘claim’ in later.

RADIO: (1:40:45)

Thank you for your questions Ralph.

Area Code 817 – you have a live mic.

BECKY: (1:41:07)

Hi, it’s Becky. How you doin’ tonight ?

I appreciate what you guys are doin’.

I got a situation like you were speaking of, on the ? this year.

Some years ago I had a company that I worked for for less than 30 days; they claim that I had earned in excess of $50,000.00 in that 30 day period.

Obviously, it was not the truth – in fact I earned a whopping $795.00

However, that particular year, I received notice from the IRS that I owned them $1,300.00 taxes, due to this claim by this company.

I’ve argued with them; needless to say I’ve never paid it and don’t intend to.

However, now it has accrued penalties and interest and it’s an astronomical figure.

So, I can stand in court after I establish who is claiming the damage, correct?

At which point, that’s when I claim as a ‘man’ – I’m demanding this person step forward?

Is that what you’re saying Gus?

GUS: ( 1:42:30)

There’s a little bit more to it, and before I get into the answer, I would like to let everybody know that -

• Talkshoe is a Company that does this ‘blog’ type of thing

• If you want to ‘tap’ into the source that I’m tapped into, go to

Talkshoe and look up Uncommon Law by Karl Lentz….

• ID number: 127469

I just wanted to get that out there before we got too late into the call.

That’s where you’re going to find all the answers you’re looking for.

As far as the thing you are dealing with – how long ago was that?

BECKY: (1:43:16)

It’s probably been 15 or 20 years.

It hasn’t been resolved yet. I refuse to pay them.

In fact, I’ve never filed again since then.

They are not bothering me for any other taxes.

GUS: (1:43:40)

Well, what you’re dealing with, you need to start writing letters.

You need to find out

• WHO it is you need to talk to dissolve this issue

• Once you have identified that [wo]man, you explain to them, you don’t believe there is a debt that is due

• You ‘believe’ someone put in some wrong numbers someplace, and that

• You want them to look into it and get back to you.

• You don’t fill out forms

BECKY: (1:44:25)

I’ve filled out 3 disputes forms and every time they said –

• ‘We don’t have it on file or whatever.

Then it got to the point where they sent certified letters – I wouldn’t sign for them.

• And finally they called me.

GUS: (1:44:40)

Becky, can I ask you a couple of questions ?

Have you ever heard of legalese? (Yes Sir)

Do you realize that is an ‘actual language’? (Yes Sir)

I didn’t know that – I just found that out.

I thought it was just a ‘word’ in the ‘patriot’ community

We use these ‘words’ sometimes to describe things and I never realized

• Legalese is an actual language

• defined as the ‘language of legal documents

• There is NO LAW that requires you to understand the language of legal documents.

• Legalese is a ‘foreign language’

• You – are a ‘woman’ and you speak Common English

• You do NOT understand ‘Legalese’

• You do NOT the ‘Customs’ of the legal society – because it’s not your society, you’re not a member

• You don’t have the ‘right’ to participate

• You are ‘incompetent’ in legalese

So, these forms that they give you, these documents they provide for you

• You’re ‘incompetent to fill out those forms’

If you fill out those forms and you do so, because you ‘believe’ you are competent –

• they will treat you like you are competent

However, if you say –

• I’m not filling out these forms.

• I have no idea what these forms are

• I don’t understand legalese, the customs of the legal society

• None of this makes sense to me

• I’m a ‘woman; ’ I take a pen and I write on a piece of paper

You got a letter from me saying –

• Who are you?

• What do you want from me?

• How do you know me?

That’s it…

That’s the 1st letter you write to them.

• Why are you sending me this paper in the mail?

If you start writing –

• I got this letter dear tax payer and you start talking about the money, then

• Obviously, you understood the language on that letter;

• Which makes you competent and accountable.

If you don’t understand the ‘language’ on that letter, then you’re

• A woman who just got some piece of ‘junk’ mail

• You want to know who’s sending it to you and

• Why they are writing to you?

If you go to Karl’s Talkshoes ; and listen to the archives,

• Your going to get all the answers you’re looking for

BECKY: (1:47:38)

Fantastic.

I appreciate the help.

God bless you for what you do.

RADIO: (1:47:47)

Thanks for calling in Becky.

Area code 907 – You have a live mic…What is your question for Gus?

MARIA: ( 1:48:06)

Hi Terry. This is Maria.

I appreciate these shows. They’re incredible.

I’ve got renewed hope and

• I think people who figure out the simplicity will have renewed hope and hopefully, they’ll be able to get ahead of the learning curve a little bit and

• be able to utilize some of these common law methods, and

• the common language and

• the letter writing and

• just the simple things, we’ve seem to have forgotten over time, or that we were ‘trained’ out of using.

I think my question was mostly answered with the TALKSHOE number, and I do need to work on reviewing some of that.

I wanted to comment a little bit about

• the effort by the Federal Government to discredit Common People using the Common Law, when they target people under this made up ‘boggyman’ that they call the ‘Sovereign Citizens Movement’.

• There are a lot of people – there was a guy here in Alaska that was arrested yesterday

• Then today, I saw that Eric Holder, brought some Policeman from Fairbanks, who were credited for having gotten Schaffer Cox arrested.

• Eric Holder gave them an award today in DC; gave them a big pat on the back for having taken out some of these ‘Sovereign citizen folks’.

• Then, there was another woman in Pennsylvania who had a homemade license plate.

Just appreciating what you guys are doing to educate people away from the minds of the complexities of what the DHS calls the Sovereign Citizen Movements, and

• Getting back to the simplicity of the Common Law.

RADIO: (1:50:38)

Maria, have you met Becky before?

Becky, do you know who Maria is? (No, I don’t)

Maria is running for Vice Lieutenant Governor in Alaska on the Constitution party.

Becky is running for Governor in the State of Texas. (Great. Nice to meet you)

(Becky- Nice to meet you too….good luck)

MARIA: We’ve met the number of signatures that we need to get valid access, and what we’re really doing, more than running for office is just trying to establish the Constitution Party in Alaska.

I wanted to mention to Gus that, I put this in my platform –

• The Restoration of the Common Law in my platform and we talk about it everywhere we go around the State, to talk to people WHY we need a Constitution party.

GUS: (1:51:36)

That is pretty cool.

If I remember right, you’ve been listening to Karl for a couple of months, haven’t you?

MARIA: ( 1:57:47)

Yeah.

I was fortunate to meet him through Terry on one of the calls we were doing for Schaffer; so I’ve just been studying it as much as I can , as often as I can.

It’s probably the most exciting thing I have come across in my adult life.

GUS: (1:52:08)

Fantastic.

It’s been drilled into their heads by people like Perry Mason that – that’s how Law is.

• That’s a bunch of Crap.

• It’s not that complicated

• I’m a ‘man’ – and if I have caused NO man harm, then,

• Who and why are you talking to me?

And, that’s it.

There’s not a whole lot.

• It really does come down to something that simple.

If you are ‘willing’ to be treated like a ‘person’ instead of a ‘man’ then

• Now you’re being treated as a Sovereign Citizen or whoever

And if you don’t ‘deny’ that role

… and I understand that ‘sovereign citizen: -

• nobody goes around saying their Sovereign Citizens -

• it’s just a name that law enforcement gives to difficult people, just to put a ‘tag’ on them.

If anybody is wondering -

• I have a license

• Tags on my car

• Register my car every year

• It’s just one less thing I have to deal with

• I do have a Passport – I didn’t print my own

I go with the flow because –

• I don’t want to get tased

• I don’t want to get shot at

I believe

• most of the rules and the laws that are out there are practically fine.

• Stay out of my house

• Don’t tell me how many gallons my toilet can flush – that’s none of your business

But, keeping people safe –

• The men in women in law enforcement and our Government for the most part, I think are fine.]

For those that are not

• It would be great if the others stepped up and held them accountable, rather than the people

But, that’s a burden that we have -

• We need to learn how to hold another [wo]man accountable for causing us harm

• We need to speak up when we are in Court.

When you go to Court; A lot of people say “The Judge just went with the Prosecutor – he was helping the Prosecutor out”

• Did the judge know you were NOT a person?

• Did you know that you were NOT a driver ?

• That, that was NOT a vehicle?

• That you were a ‘man’, moving your ‘property’ from one place to another?

• If you DON’T tell him; how is he suppose to treat you like a ‘man’?

We need to start

• accepting the responsibility; some of that responsibility

• A lot of it rests on our shoulders.

It is nice to have a much simpler way of dealing with things.

MARIA: ( 1:54:47)

It resonates with me about the ‘simplicity’, but the people

• Don’t seem to care

• They don’t want to know what’s in their Constitution

• Many, many people don’t

• But, I’m running into many people who do

I scribble on a piece of paper and this is a RED BECKMAN…He gets all the credit for this, it’s fabulous.

Looking at the proper alignment of Lawful authority, and showing people on a scratch piece of paper…

The proper lawful authority –

[pic]

I draw a simple sketch and I’m telling you, people don’t want me to throw that sketch away … they want to keep that with them.

They are so thrilled that’s it resonating again…

Ok – that makes sense.

*** That now brings all the political powers ‘inherent in the people’ –

That makes it mean something.

YOU understand WHO’s in the ‘proper lawful authority.

The other brilliant revelation that I got from Karl is:

• Just because the Attorneys use OUR PUBLIC COURTS AND USE OUR PUBLIC JUDGES the most ;

• Doesn’t mean that, that’s what they’re there for.

*** It’s a ‘life changing’ thought ***

• They’re there for us

• That’s public money

• Those are for the ‘people’

***** “We need to have access, just like we did with the Bible; being printed in English – being printed in our own language.

We need to have access to the ‘LAW’ in the very same way”.

And, people seem to ‘get that’…ok – that makes sense.

You don’t have to hire an Attorney to get justice ; but at the same time -

I’m still really, really shaky on the learning curve, and look forward to learning so much more about how to REALLY go about it, and doing this properly.

GUS: (1:57:07)

For the people that you’re talking to that are really looking for Constitutional substance, there’s a case –

West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnett : 319. US. 642

There’s a statement made about the 3rd Paragraph from the end. It says –

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”

So, our Government cannot tell us, we have to ‘believe’

They can’t force us to ‘act’ – to confess it by our actions.

So, people who say -

“I have to fill out this form...I have to do this...I have to do that...”

You don’t have to.

I choose to do what I do in my life.

The court decisions that have come down are very clear –

• Your right to believe as you wish in this one case, is very, very well said, in that one paragraph.

• That nobody – high or low, in our Government, can cause you to confess anything.

RADIO: (1:59:53)

Everyone have a great night. We’ll see you next week for Walls in our Minds.

2:00:00 END TRANSMISSION

*(so, if I go from sober to drunk…I am going from one state to another state - I’m ‘travelling’?

..just a thought. ( ( ( ( ( ) THANK YOU GUS….from Genene

-----------------------

The Creator

Man

Man created Governments

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download