Secrets of the Legal Industry Part 1 of 3

L [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] having talked to um a number of you today and having talked to a number of people that are patriots associated with the Patriot movements Patriot sympathizers I think it's safe to say That some of the things that I'm going to share with you today May invite a little contention you might even be a little bit shocked at some of the things I say uh nothing that I say is meant to do anything but inform and Empower people that I regard as friends and I don't remember exactly how the saying goes

but there is a saying something to the effect it's better to Be insulted by a friend than kissed by an enemy or something like that in other words I'd rather hear an unsavory truth than an attractive lie so at any time during a program if I say anything that's contrary to what you've been told what you've been led to believe and it kind of makes you winse a little bit bear with me bear with me let make my case because I think by the um the end of the presentation I think I may share Something

with you that you can actually take away from here and actually um benefit from hopefully if I do my job that's what I'm here to do are we ready good morning morning how is everybody this is my inaugural uh seminar I'm um here to share some secrets about the legal industry have a couple of helpers Deborah Lee and Mark May that Are uh fellow members of an Oklahoma City due process organization known as juse my name is Richard cor forth I'm the person that was build as being the the one to put this on I

don't have anybody to introduce me so I guess I'm introducing myself but I'm not not going to do much in the way of introducing I will tell you that I'm not an attorney I have absolutely no formal legal training at All I'm not a legal expert I'm not a legal advisor not a legal counselor and in fact when it comes to knowing things about law if I were in a contest I probably wouldn't get past the first round there's probably people in this room that know more about law generally in certain subjects than I do

but I am not intending to make a long- winded speech to try to impress you with everything That I know about law what I'm here to do is tell you a few secrets that I believe will enable you to win if I'm you sitting out there and I'm listening to me what I would be here to find out is tell me how to win I want to know how do I win we've all been around this movement for 5 10 15 years and we've all heard speeches we've all been to seminars we've all had this

massive amount of information that we've been asked to Absorb assimilate but it seems that the part of the formula is that's missing is somebody needs to tell us how we use information to win is are we somewhat in agreement with that okay all right so if I can tell you something that will Empower you to win I think we're all winners and that's what I'm intending to do and I'm going to try to make it a little bit of fun too because this struggle that we're all in has been so Hateful and mean-spirited and downright

dishonest that the only things that I can think of to compare our legal industry to that have happened in this Century are things like uh the Gestapo the mafia it's hateful it's evil but uh if you didn't have a little bit of comic relief uh I think it would destroy you emotionally so we're going to try to have a little fun with this U today too So I'm not any kind of a big shot legal advisor expert in fact uh kind of think of me this way I'm kind of like your old U kindly Uncle

Luke and Luke is my middle name and remember that because it'll be important later but it's kind of like I've uh come up behind you and I'm watching you playing checkers and I notice a triple jump that you've overlooked and I'm there Whispering you Know take that triple jump look right there there and one of the things about the law business the legal industry is some of the most important things about law are actually so simple that they're easy to overlook they're just absolutely so darn simple that in an effort to try to understand them

we make them way too complicated and in an effort to try to lead this movement Towards some new day when we can all achieve what we want to through the legal system there are some false prophets there's a lot of misinformation and so one of the things that I hope to accomplish today is free you of your tether you know what your goal is and you've been struggling for years to reach that goal but I'm here to tell you friends you Probably didn't reach that goal because you're on the end of a tether and didn't

realize it and I want to cut that tether I want to set you free of that tether by giving you a different approach and some different information and there are only about four very simple truths and if you know and understand these truths you will be empowered to to win nobody can guarantee a Win our legal system for sometime to come is still going to be a crapshoot but you can win and we're going to actually look at four cases out of a goodly number of cases that I've worked on these are real cases and

we're going to uh fit what I call the truths about the legal industry we're going to to see how those are actually threaded into these pleadings and how this empowers us to win if you walk into a Courtroom and you see a flag and that flag has gold Fringe around it do you think that that means that you're in a military court or a court of admiralty or Maritime jurisdiction how many have heard that how many believe it how come how come why okay okay here is the first truth which I have to share with

you that Court does not get its Jurisdiction from that flag it doesn't even matter if there even is a flag there that flag does not confer jurisdiction on that Court here's the first great secret where does the court get us jurisdiction well first of all there are actually [Applause] two levels of courts we have a two-tiered court system there are the Supreme Courts and Their tribunals there are Court cours of inferior jurisdiction and I imagine most of the minds in this room are clicking say yeah I've been in some of those inferior courts and they

sure are inferior now when we're talking about Supreme Courts like the United States Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court where did they get their Jurisdiction they get their jurisdiction because of who they are they are constitutional courts but what about these courts of inferior jurisdiction where do they get where do they get their Authority where Congress kind of because they're legislative courts Congress created the federal court system it's not the Constitution Congress created it to settle courts uh To settle cases and controversy but when a judge of an inferior Court puts on a black

room and walks into that room and the bay says all rise is that person a judge at that moment no the reason they're not a judge at that moment is because they have not established jurisdiction because they don't have jurisdiction like these people do now we know in all of these struggles we're in this level down here when we Start our fight or when we're pulled into that fight where do courts of inferior jurisdiction get their power to act no no yeah yeah you you you got it right the courts of inferior jurisdiction are empowered

to act by pleadings sufficient to invoke their judicial Authority which means that the people the people not the attorneys the people that walk into that Court Empower that person in a black robe to be a judge that person is not a judge until actually four things happen there's two very important things how many remember judge wner man that guy was great he was great it's too bad that we can't clone him and send him up and let him be the Supreme Court if you remember those old programs judge wner always began every court Session with

the same pronouncement do you remember what it was I've read your complaint I know you've been sworn he never conducted a session until he said I've read your complaint I know you've been sworn until he did that he was not a judge because a judge is somebody that has judicial power he did not have judicial power until he did that now jurisdiction has four corners on it it's A four-legged t it's not a three-legged table or two-legged table or one-legged table it's a four-legged table and if you take away one of those legs it's not

a cord anymore it won't stand it'll fall down and we are going to understand how we put four legs under that table and we're going to understand what we can do if our money or property was taken in a three-legged Deal we're going to learn how to do that it's possible now then so that's the first secret now y'all seem to be somewhat embraced of that so maybe it's not a great shocking secret to you but the reason I mention it is determine what your winning point is and focus on it and plead your winning

Point don't go into a courtroom and tell the judge judge I'm not going to step in Front of this little bar because you'll get jurisdiction or I want you to move that flag because that's wrong jurisdiction that's tether that's holding you back you don't win with that stuff at least I don't know anybody that does you win when you know how to invoke the Court's Jurisdiction when you Empower that judge to make the decision that you want that judge to Make now then if we get our marvelous Constitution and our constitution is marvelous by that

I mean our United States Constitution is marvelous and we go to a certain article in that Con in that Constitution and we read it like a second amendment or First Amendment or whatever whatever we're thinking we're pursuing Fifth Amendment whatever we read that Constitution are we informed of what the Law of the land is no no that's the second great secret is the Constitution state constitutions statutes laws rules what meaning do they have as you read them in their black and white print instructions to government uh true but we won't go there as far as

what they mean to us they don't really mean anything except a hint A suggestion of what the law is because we have a common law system the American common law system is arguably based on the English common law system which I think is actually based on Viking law but that's another story for another day but we have a common law system now I know that there's probably some controversy about what's meant by common law but a common law system means that you can't read the Constitution the statute rule or anything else and know What it

means because there is a cluster of organizations that rules and determines and tells you what it means and that's back over here that's these Supreme Court people the Supreme Court tells you what that means you think the second amendment gives you the right to keep bare arms maybe but who do you have to ask What the Second Amendment means the Supreme Court they're the guys that tell you this is what this law means now you can waste a lot of time a lot of effort and a lot of energy and get false hopes and get

crushed if you read some statutes or some rules or some constitutional articles and start thinking that that establishes a basis for whatever you want to Accomplish the Constitution the stand statutes and the rules as far as we're concerned are largely silent because they don't tell us what the law is to find out what the law is we have to find out what the Supreme Courts have said that that particular law means now that's the second great secret but it's really pretty simple stuff because we have a means of finding out what the law is it's

written down we can go read it we can rely on it we Can use it and if we're in a court of competent jurisdiction it's fair open and honest which is not a given is it but we can win can't we where do we find the common law where do we find this common law that we can rely on there's only one type of book that has this common law it's a federal and state annotated statutes now if you can go on the internate and find the federal and state Annotated statutes are better better web

browser than I am because again that's a secret they don't want you to know that if you can read the annotated statutes now you know what the law is now you're empowered to act you can go into a law library and often do over the state capital there must be a 100,000 books in there I don't know maybe several hundred thousand but when I go in there I go right back to the state annotated Statutes because I know that all of his other books are probably Philosophy of Law those annotated statutes are going to tell

me what the law is by reading them I'm going to know what the law is and here's another thing that's really kind of shocking or maybe it's shocking it was shocking to me when I discovered it is I used to have the belief that if I was going to know enough about law to actually argue effectively man I was going to have to Spend thousands of hours in a law library and I've spent probably several thousand hours in a law library but you're way overshooting your mark because it's not complicated it's actually very simple because

the annotated are not going to publish law cases they're going to refer to them as the decision but they're going to publish the holding they're going to tell you the essence of that decision And that essence of that decision out of that case is that one paragraph that one sentence or maybe just that one phrase that you need to win and and that's all you need if you know how to use it at this time I'm going to U ask my associate Mark May to read a case he's going to read a case in its

entirety this is going to be the only case that we're going to read today because to me there's a lot of things I'd rather do than read a case but we're going to read one to illustrate this point Mark May is going to read a case called trenzy versus pagaro trenzy versus pagaro is one of the most important cases that has ever been decided by the United States Supreme Court and he's going to read it and as he reads it I want us to listen for the holding of the case Triny versus pagero action to

nullify an outstanding deed and remove a cloud on title to sutain premises defendant move to dismiss the District Court Wood J held that the fact that a state in person action acting attacks of a trustee might be revived did not preclude federal court from taking jurisdiction of an inrim action nor was Court precluded from taking jurisdiction by virtue of pending Arbitration proceedings which would not determine title to the land involved motion denied courts fact that a state in person action acting acts of a trustee might be revived did not preclude federal court from taking jurisdiction

of an inim action nor was Court precluded from taking jurisdiction by virtue of pending arbitration proceedings which would not determine title to the land Involved two the courts there is no bar to parallel federal and state actions where each court has jurisdiction over the persons federal civil procedures statements of councel in their briefs or arguments are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment Federal rules civil procedures 12b Cohen Shapiro Berger and Cohen by David burger and Herbert B Newberg Philadelphia Pennsylvania for the plff silver and barski by JD

barski Philadelphia Pennsylvania for defendants would the district judge this case arises out of a dispute over the extent of the plainist ownership interest in ATT track of land of of approximately 47.6 Acres located in Gulf Mills Pennsylvania known as Rebel hill by an agreement dated April 29th 1960 title to the land was taken by the plff and the defendant Pagliero on May 9th 1960 pursuant to a second agreement between the party's title was transferred to a trustee straw party Howard Richard Esquire for the benefit of trenzy and pagliero thereafter on May 13th 1960 Pago and

his attorney Albert Foreman Esquire procured a blank Deed from the straw party and his wife it is this blank deed that the plaintiff by a civil action filed with this court seeks to have nullified following the delivery of the Blank deed the straw party Richard executed a deed on November 29th 1962 conveying Rebel Hill to trenzy and pagero as tenants in common this deed was recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds for Montgomery County a civil action was commenced by Pago in mcgomery county in December 1962 against trenzy and Richard as defendants in

the court of common pleas on the ground that Richard at the instance of Trenzy violated his duties as a trustee when Richard when Richard executed the November 29th 1962 deed in favor of transy imp Aro this action resulted in a mistrial and trenzy filed a petition to have a case refer to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association the mcgomery county excuse me the mcgomery county court granted this petition and Pago appealed the order to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Which is awaiting decision at this time the arbitration has not reached the hearing stage the defendants pagero

and Foreman had filed a motion to missed the action in this court because of the possibility of further action in the mcgomery county court and the arbitration appeal before The Supreme Court also the defendants contend in their motion that this action is moot because the deed is in the control of the mcgomery county court having been Offered an Evidence in the original action and not in possession of pagero finally the defendants argue that if the state supreme court sustains the order for arbitration this court will lack jurisdiction decide the matter this court has jurisdiction because

of the diversity and the amount involved the mcgomery county in prum action attacking the acts of the trustee and which resulted in a mistrial as a fores said does not preclude the court From taking jurisdiction of the inim action this court if the facts weren't such as such a determination could nullify the blank Deed on May 13th 1960 as prayed for and declared the record excuse me declare the recorded deed creating ownership as tenants in common between the parties valid or render such other relief as might be proper in so far as the land itself

is concerned on the record before us the arbitration proceedings on appeal Concern plain of Trustees claims for the pack for the back pay and collateral matters under an agreement between the parties there is nothing before us which would warrant a determination that the arbitration proceedings will in any way determine title to the land involved notwithstanding the statement at argument that a counter claim had been filed in the arbitration proceedings by Defendant which raised the question previously before the mcgomery county court and furthermore no mention was made of the May 13th 1960 blank deed in this

counter claim in so far as we are able to determine from the oral oral argument or the record the action before this court being partly in Rim because it seeks to nullify an outstanding deed and remove a cloud on the title of the premises is not in conflict with the Inum action before the state court or the arbitration board in so far as this action is pum in that it seeks to restrain the defendant from executing the blank deed in favor of anyone other than the plaintiff the federal court May Pro proceed with the litigation

because there is no bar to parallel federal and state actions where each court has jurisdiction over the persons and that's based upon Penn General Casualty Company versus Pennsylvania the defendant motion to dismiss for failure to State a claim unsupported by affidavits or dispositions I'm sorry or depositions is incomplete because it requests Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form of requir IR by rules 12b 6 and 56 C statements of councel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a

motion to dismiss or summary Judgment order and now this 28th day of May 1964 the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice thank you Mark is anybody Spellbound fascinated location okay that is um you can get the sight off of that we're not going to do that again and you're probably thinking man glad of that cuz I'm here to tell you I don't Know how many law books there are I don't know how many cases there are there must be millions of them I don't know maybe a billion of them but if you go

into a law library trying to support your cause you're going to read cases you're going to go blind and insane but trenzy versus pagliaro is absolutely earthshaking if you heard the holding of the Court how many people here have been Worked over with a summary judgment okay what did we learn from treny versus pagaro what was the holding and I guarantee it was one sentence the holding of trenzy versus pagliaro statements of councel in brief or argument are not sufficient for a summary judgment did the light bu just go on anyways that again please statements

of counsel in briefer Argument are not sufficient for summary judgment take it to heart memorize it get a tattoo that says it because that is one of the most important principles on law in law and that is one of the most powerful things that you will ever learn and have to use there are four legs on this table there are four legs before that inferior court has jurisdiction that's not according to me Remember I'm not a legal expert that's according to United States Supreme Court and what are those four legs you've got to have two

people that are opposing that's two of your legs you've got to have the subject matter but that one 1 14th thing that has probably been missing 50 million times in this country when we got shafted in the court was a competent witness where's the competent witness That's the fourth leg on that table that table doesn't have four legs that Court did not have jurisdiction period That's gospel not because I said so but because that's what the Supreme Court said that jurisdiction means would that be or either way you've got to have somebody at some point

in time before the Judgment raise their hand and testify under oath and subject to Cross-examination or it's nonsense no no admissions are a value but you still have to have a witness and what have jic unless was going to be four legs on that table can we use those affidavit affidavits can be sufficient but remember an affidavit can be challenged an affidavit if un if unchallenged is going to be testimony before the court and that's going to be The fourth leg on the table and that's why I'm here to tell you that the other side

uh supports their pleadings with an affidavit which they rarely do but if they do you subpoena that witness because you want to question them under oath also depositions count but again you have the right to challenge and interrogate that witness and so if there's a deposition or if there's an affidavit those are Extremely powerful particularly the affid David but they're still at some point in time if challenged before judgment they have to raise their hand and swear that it's true if you challenge it and they don't do that then their affidavit is no but what

if they've already got the Judgment against you we'll get to that we'll get to that and again how do I know this how do I know This because this is the common law our federal system is a common law system all of our all of our states excepting Louisiana are common law states and I'm not talking about marriage and sharing property and community property I'm talking about what the law means as determined by Supreme Courts and the idea that is the kernel of Truth in trenzy versus pagero is a thread that Runs through everything criminal

simil it runs through everything administrative it's it's got to be there it's got to be there how do I know here is a very good statement and again this is from an anotated statute actual facts Not Mere allegations of complaint are determinative of issue of jurisdiction a that what I just said if there's no witness there's no facts If there's no facts there's no what no jurisdiction it's not what I think I think it but it's not true because I think it it's true because it's the law it's not the law as you see it

in statute or rule it's the law because the Supreme Court says yes yes you've got to have a competent witness to have that fourth leg on that table or there's no jurisdiction um I'm going to ask uh Deborah and Mark to pass out some Holdings that's this page right here and uh we'll take a glance at some Holdings and also I'm GNA kind of turn around and show you some pages that I've got out of annotated statutes all these law books may be very intimidating but when it gets down to reading the Holdings of what

the Supreme Courts have said the law means it's really not that complicated I've been questioned under Oath by two different judges where'd you go to law school why I've never been to law school one judge said uh well where'd you get your fine legal training he said well I can read and right it's a little bit more complicated than that it helps to uh be able to think somewhat analytically uh it also helps to uh be somewhat confident when you speak in front of people but really it's not Really terribly complicated stuff you know if

you needed a craniotomy don't call me I'm not qualified I'd kill you if you're refurbishing your house you want a trim Carpenter you better get Don Vance or somebody because I'd cut off all our fingers there's a lot of stuff that I don't know how to do I'm not trained I'm not educated in that particular discipline but law is Different law is reading writing speaking and analytical thinking if you can do those things you can do law and don't they hate it don't they hate it um Deborah would you read the Holdings in that pass

out come up to the microphone if you will let and read those Holdings you don't need to read the case site just to holding mon versus car yeah just read just read Just the opinion like lack of subject matter jurisdiction lack of subject you may need to stand closer to the microphone B it over lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waiverable and can even be raised on appeal after judgment on the merits schmi versus Hunter allegations in pleadings are not to be considered as evidence tending to establish jurisdiction except for the limited purpose of

determining type of Action inj cash and affidavit where it did not appear therein that the a aant had competent knowledge of the facts sworn to was not a sufficient compliance with RS to 232 d18 and 232-1191 liability proofs are competent and persuasive Burnham versus suprior Court judgments or Judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void per Justice Scalia with three Justices concurring and five justices concurring in the Judgment Hatchet Supply under Texas law no answer defaults are not Pres presumed to be final judgments First City Texas balmont although judgments entered after conventional trial on merits

is presumed final under Texas law summary judgments and default judgments are not entitled to such Presumptions Babcock subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waved by parties conferred by consent or ignored by court at subject matter jurisdiction may not be waved and courts May raise the issue s spon Edwards lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that is never wavered waved cenith subject matter jurisdiction can never be waved and can be raised at Any time even after trial thank you Deborah okay now did this just tell us how to save ourselves a whole lot of time

yeah we've got to get our hands on that adapated unless you're a subscriber to Lexus you're going to have to go to a law library to do it for the federal would you go to the United States code annotated is that the set of books that you're talking about yeah and for the state would it be Oklahoma State annotated yeah and they say annotated you repeat the question yes the question was for the federal do you go to the federal code annotated the answer is yes there's actually about three different sets depending on which body

of law but it's all the same you can't read the rule you got to read what the judges have said the rule means so this will save you a lot of time when you're fighting anything to look in the Annotated to look to see what the courts have said said in their Holdings because remember in pagley versus tag or pagle ARL do we really need to read a thousand cases all we really need is one sentence that represents the holding of that case to use in support of our own case now then there was something

else that came to light in What U Deb just read do anybody hear the word void anybody hear the word subject Matter jurisdiction does anybody excited please get excited and the reason I say get excited is because without subject matter jurisdiction the court did not have authority to act and is that judgment a valid judgment that judgment is a void it is subject to Collateral attack if you can avoid it don't ever do A direct attack on a void because you're asking the same idiot of a judge to rule on his own work you always

do a collateral attack which means you sue them anybody know what the statute of limitations is on voids never runs out the statute of limitation never runs out that means that you can pick your shots and wait for your time you bring suit against no no you bring it against the opposing party We'll get to that okay now let's talk very briefly about subject matter jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction is my one exception to the claim that all of the stuff is really very simple and we try to make it way too complicated subject matter jurisdiction

is the one thing that there's a tendency to try to make too Simple and a reason that that's done is they don't want you to know what it is they'll try to confuse you and try to get you to admit that what they're talking about is venue we're not talking about venue we're talking about subject matter jurisdiction well this court can handle this court can handle foreclosures excuse me that's venue I'm not talking about venue I'm talking about subject matter Jurisdiction well this is a judge this district judge no no a district judge has no

inherent jurisdictional Authority whatsoever well he's heard a th foreclosure cases we're talking about venue I want to talk about subject matter jurisdiction now here's a um an analogy that I think helps understand what we mean when we talk about subject matter Jurisdiction if you are a board certified physician a medical doctor an oncologist you would have venue to operate for cancer would you but would you have subject matter jurisdiction operate for cancer because before you can have the surgery you've got to do what got to get permission no permission is important consent is important but

that would be personal jurisdiction the thing that you have to Establish is that there's a cancer to be operated on you've got to do the fact find first before subject matter is complete subject matter is not just the ability to make a decision of a certain nature it's actually having the facts in front of the court to make the decision it's just like that doctor he better do a biopsy he better make sure that there's a tumor There because if he operates and there's no tumor he's in big trouble unfortunately our judges are not held

to the same standard yet as far as accountability but they are held to the same standard and the reason for that is if you can show that that doctor operated without a fact find that's a void and again is this because I thought it up it's what the courts have said it's What the courts tell me the law means anybody here from Texas there's a nice little case called Merl be done and I'll lay that back on the table if you if you guys want to take a look at it copy that site and this

was actually referenced um in what Deborah read I'm going to read it again final judgment under Texas law no answer defaults are not presumed to be final Judgments has everybody been rung up on a default judgment before okay is it a final judgment in the eyes of the Court no they thought it was but it wasn't final unless an examination of the record shows that there were four legs on that table which means you can go back and look at that record and if there was never any Witness appearing and testifying to the facts that

was a three-legged table and you can get that thing removed I'm not saying will or shall I'm saying can another Texas case although judgment entered after conventional trial on the merits is presumed final under Texas law summary judgments and default judgments are not entitled such presumption what does that mean it means they're not res Judicata it means they're not over until you want them to be over it ain't over until it's over and who controls that who empowers the court you do you do if it's not raised you toata and the Texas Supreme Court has

said hey hey go go ahead with your summary judgment go ahead with your default but be forewarned if that person comes along a year later 30 years later and finds it failing appearing on the face of the record they have a right to petition their government to remove that is that good news for anybody now how solid is this confident witness stuff because I have a perception that's probably shared by a lot of you that we've been about 35 years into something called the Great Society and it's meant nothing but degradation of her Institutions anybody

agree with that okay but is the real legal institution still paying attention in other words triny versus pagaro was 40 years ago was 40 years ago at the Supreme Court said hey hey you guys are not paying attention out there if there's no competent witness here there's no case so pay attention that's 40 years ago the Supreme Court said that are the courts Of competent jurisdiction still saying that happy to tell you that they are because it was never reversed and it's being followed this is a New Jersey case great little piece of legal writing

even though it was done either by a judge or a judge's Clerk and I'm not going to read this case because promise you wouldn't read any more cases because it's really not that interesting but what we get from the holding of this case and this was New Jersey and this This was the Autumn of 1999 is you can submit a piece of evidence through an attorney but if it doesn't have a witness's signature on it it isn't dated it's not evidence can't be seen by the court you've got to have a confident witness who will

appear and testify now two of the things that I've advocated ated today were recently seen in this election that we just Had who finally determined what the law was in that election Supreme Court okay and it's also true that there was a judge that to me probably might be maybe as good as U as judge wner by the name of Sanders Sauls do do people remember Sanders Sauls Sanders SS threw out the gore people threw them out threw them out they appealed him but he threw them out and they went whining up to their Florida

Supreme Court and one of the things they whined about is well there were just boxes of thousands of thousands of these questionable ballots in that courtroom and that judge never even looked at them why didn't the judge look at him no wi there was no witness there was was no witness you know one one of the Supreme Court Justices of Florida actually was not a Dodo several of them were as the Supreme Court of the United States proved when They did what's called instruction to the lower court and they are lower than the United States

Supreme Court although Supreme in Florida one of those Supreme Court justices in Florida asked the attorney for the gore campaign at any point in time did any person so much as pick up one of those ballots hold it up to the court and say what it meant no what it Was never evidence though it's setting in the courtroom but that doesn't admit it as evidence because it can't get there except one way through a competent witness and here are these guys where they making $500 or $1,000 an hour they're idiots they're idiots because they haven't

been paying attention to the law that still endures today they've been playing games and they got beat fortunately of course if it weren't for Our common law system they'd have won but fortunately we still have a common law system that Cas it's not a published case I'll give it to you and you can make a copy of it if you'll get it back to me but it's not a published case and there's an interesting if we have time today we'll talk about U unpublished law um the um 8th circuit has made one of the most

Meaningful decisions in the history of the world if it holds and in as much as the eth circuit says that you have to follow precedent in the decision or publish new Authority or your appellant decision is not any void it's unconstitutional how about that we'll talk about that later if we have a chance um so I discovered the law of Voids in 1993 I discovered the competent witness in 1995 like I told you from very beginning I'm not a legal scholar because I've been knocking around in this war for about 15 years since about 1986

but that's what I want to share with you if you don't know these things you do now you do now um as far as When we are representing ourselves when we're going to court when we're doing battle I have a little bit of advice and that's do it as far as testimony is concerned don't ever be afraid to testify you have to think about what's at stake it's scary I know it's scary scary for two reasons one it's not our game I have no intention of ever Becoming a licensed practicing attorney just never going to

do it I was looking at the paper this morning and on the front page of the sports section it had a picture of Randy Johnson does everybody know who Randy Johnson is and here I was born within a few days of Nolan Ryan used to have a pretty good fastball and I actually had some some baseball Ambitions but I got hurt I Always thought noan Ryan got my spot but there's somebody that's probably going to be uh more dominant in the game of baseball as a pitcher than Nolan Ryan and that's Randy Johnson this guy's

about 6'1 and throws these 100 mph fast balls and what must be even more intimidating his control is not that good maybe he does that on purpose but how would you like to be how Would you like to be a left-handed batter facing Randy Johnson I mean there he must he must look like he could almost Reach Out And Touch you he's so big he'd scare the heck out of me but you see it's been 30 some years since I played baseball it's not my game going into Court's not your game and so it's a

little scary the other thing that makes it scary is we are always at risk of being Absolutely clobbered if we haven't done our home work or if we've been misled and get clobbered but in these wars you have to think about what's at stake and there's a lot at stake financially emotionally socially it's life-threatening so you have to gather the will and resolve and the courage to go Testify and you can build up your own self-confidence and your stock way up if you come back to this meeting and think about the things we've discussed and

think about the fact that facts only get in front of a court one way through what confident witness everybody go sit has anybody here just sat in the courtroom waiting for their number to come up and you're sitting there you're watching these proceedings how often how often when You're sitting there do you see an attorney jump up and another attorney jump up and then a couple of witnesses jump up how how do you see that because it's just the attorneys right what did we just learn about attorneys can they [Music] testify you can beat the

snot out of them I know because I've done it and I've coach to other people to do it because when you comes time for your Hearing you are a witness you are the witness you're the key witness and you can have your say be prepared and speak your peace and then when that attorney starts to talk here's what you do very loudly you say I object and that judge is going to look at you because you have upset his little tea party what are you objecting about so an attorney it's not a witness he Can't

testify oh well he's um he's just uh discussing points of Law and I'm going to let him continue you got to talk now he gets to talk that attorney gets to talk again what do you do object he's still testifying he's not a witness he's come here without a witness that's his Peril us on it's the movements if it's a if It's a movement's priority if it's your motion if your action you talk first but even if they but even if they talk first you still object even if it's action yeah yeah just object you

object and object and object object until the judge tells you don't object anymore that's kind of because there's no controversy there unless winess you're exactly right because of fourth leg is not on that table question I said there is no controversy Unless there's witness establish a full jurisdiction full jurisdiction it's not there but as far as test testifying don't be afraid to testify did you say that you could testify but if you're swor in is anything that you say consider testimony it's his pleadings also is we're going back to the flag see The credibility of

that hearing is not dependent on the flag but it's not dependent on a lot of other peripheral factors either it's depended On what pleadings and so whatever the record shows and that's why if there's going to be a Judicial determination you always want to have a court reporter there because you want it on record what was said you want your oral pleadings to be recorded you want your objections to be recorded but it's that critical information that's in the written and oral pleadings which must be sufficient to empower the court to act those other Things

are kind of like ceremony so because you're not an attorney you can you can talk even though you're not and it would be sufficient for you're a witness you're a witness you can testify as to facts that attorney can't can't testify to one fact whatsoever so that's a little bit more power for us depositions somebody wants to depose you jump up and down shout shout hoay I'm glad I get to make a record I get to Tell my story don't be afraid to get in a deposition just be worry before the deposition ever begins that

that lawyer is there to trick you deceive you mislead you abuse you and do anything else he can to intimidate you but make them sweat I have made two attorneys cry in court I was deposed in a lawsuit that I was involved in and attorney kept coming back to the same thing and I kept Answering it the same way he never did get me to actually impeach myself in that first deposition uh more than a year later there was a second deposition so here I was in the second deposition and here was this hot shot

high dollar stockholder lawyer of this big law firm and U he begins by saying what from your first deposition do you want to change it's called Impeachment watch it well I don't know that I want to change anything and that's thing answer that you want to give well why don't you know I I just don't know if there's anything I want to change see because if you said that there was nothing you wanted to change then you're verifying that if there's anything in that original deposition that's a mistake you've Insulated that for him but if

you do say that someone to changed you've impeached yourself as a witness not credible change your mind I don't know if there's anything I want to change well have you read the deposition yeah yeah I've read it okay well then what do you want to change I don't know if there's anything I want to change well why don't you know well that deposition was 97 pages long I don't remember Every sentence of every paragraph every page I don't know I don't remember what what I might want to change or might not I just don't know

I said you want me to read the deposition and tell you as I read it if there's something I want to change so you niggle them you play their own game what I want you to do is answer the question I've already answered it I don't know I don't know so don't be afraid to be disposed just do your Homework and be prepared for it there is one body of people when it comes to making law that's just under the Supreme Courts and they are the jurors the only people that are more powerful than jurors

in this whole legal Psycho Drama are the Supreme Courts I will always request ask or demand a Jury they never gotten one never gotten that far most cases don't go there there's settled something happens they just don't get in front of a jury but I guarantee you that I will take my chances in front of a jury of somebody maybe my peers maybe not any day before I will allow a judge to make a decision on my life so those are things as we as we fight these wars be ready to testify be eager to

Testify be ready to be dep opposed and when it comes to actually making the decision ask for a jury one of the reasons why you want to ask for a jury those lawyers on the other side are terrified of facing a jury they're scared to death of juries juries are made up of people do people like lawyers no they hate lawyers Not only that it's a rare lawyer that really has competent effective courtroom experience even at the hearing level most incompetent nonsensical business that I've ever witnessed as near as I can as near as I

can tell I'm responsible for probably three lawyers not being lawyers anymore you can do it too you can do it too is there any cases where they won't let you have yours uh only petite Cases in other words little tiny ones only little tiny ones if there is a certain amount of uh currency and controversy in Most states you demand it you need to actually look at the state that you're pleading in some some plates uh some states don't want you to demand they want you to request okay read their law follow their rules and

what we're talking about pleadings too uh I pride myself as a legal writer maybe maybe I'll make that boast maybe I Am a good legal writer but your pleadings do not actually have to be Sterling examples of the legal writing art again why do I think that do I just happen to think that all right all right yes the Supreme Court Supreme Court has said that in fact if you would like to know the case where they said that one of the cases where they made that ruling and determination was Haynes V Kerner now I've

got it here But I promise you I'm not going to read you any more cases won't do that to you it's boring but if we get Hesby ker and we look at the holding of Hesby kerer and again this is United States Supreme Court they say accordingly although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of the petitioner's allegation s ass sem representing themselves we Conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with further proceedings consistent herewith what the Supreme Court just tell you

that according to the Supreme Court if you're representing yourself you cannot be dismissed for failing to State a claim upon which relief was granted because the Supreme Court says you do not have to be a Philadelphia Lawyer we understand what you want that's sufficient you can't be dismissed you get the opportunity to present proof and supportive your claims it's also true that the courts when you're representing yourself they are the guardians of your Liberties you walk into a court and tell the judge J you're the guardian of my liberties We think most judges will do

well I'm not your attorney because they're ignorant but they are the guardian of your Liberties you know why Supreme Court says so here's an example District Court instead of Simply dismissing plaintiff's prosay actions for injunctive Relief and damages against Central Intelligence Agency F Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation And defense Intelligence Agency on grounds that he failed to name responsible federal government officials should have explained Court should have explained correct form to the plaintiff so that he could have amended his PL pleadings accordingly the Supreme Court expects that judge to tell you how to do it

right if you're not doing it right are we getting a little bit more power as we go along Here uh that's actually platsky versus CIA I'll have all these papers that you do not have laid out and you can be able to uh make copies of the sites later so do we understand the power of voids voids a judgment that is void on its face may be attacked at any time judgment being void execution issued thereon was void and the title could not pass to purchaser on at execution of the sale there a couple of

cases that's a couple Of Holdings I have worked cases across this country I've studied statutes annotated in many states and to some degree and usually a high degree the courts are in agreement that there can be no three-legged tables and that when a person discovers that they've been walloped with a three-legged table decision Can have it removed now when we're um when we are um doing our platings there's uh some powerful tools that we can use that will give us some degree of immediate belief of you want to help Deborah pass out uh the uh

superior court of New Jersey that's the injunction and then the notice of list pendants there well I don't know if they have These did you pass out all the documents okay well that should be uh about one or two documents back in your stack when you get to that okay the first one that we'll look at is an is an injunction you should have one John Q and Jane citizen superior court of New Jersey John Q citizen it's the one that looks like this John Q it's New Jersey yeah okay this is a procedurally proper

motion for a preliminary injunct and again it's not procedurally proper because I say so again it's because the annotated statute says if you're going to file an injunction make it look like this this injunction actually asks the Court to stop any action to take property that's important but the injunction also gives the reasons why and the brief in support now I'm going to read that the brief in support of an injunction and this is always important to Prejudice the court in your favor it is not now nor has it ever been Our intention to avoid

paying any obligation that we lawfully owe you want to remember those words they're they're Gospel to use in many sentences SS Dey cheet and how's the name of the law firm reporting to act on behalf of greedy Mortgage Company have repeatedly refused to document and verify an obligation which we may owe greedy mortgage company as required by law what are we alluding to there was there a competent witness no we will suffer irreparable harm by denial of this preliminary injunction we have lived at our address in our home for many years with our Children we

will lose our Abode and suffer irreparable harm by denial of this preliminary injunction we will suffer insult degradation and deprivation of personhood benial of this preliminary injunction we are likely to Prevail in our petition the record in the underlying case makes us makes our claims undeniable public interest will not be impaired by granting this preliminary Injunction the public interest will be impaired Ed by denial of our preliminary injunction by public awareness that citizens can be victimized by those who declare themselves to be of a superior class everybody had anybody had that feeling okay we have

no other remedy at law to protect ourselves from parties record show have conspired to deprive us of our most fundamental rights denial of our preliminary injunction will cause us to Bear a Greatly imbalanced harm greedy Mortgage Company harm would be delayed possession air harm will be loss of aod damaged reputation character and assault on personhood denial of our preliminary injunction goes beyond economic injury the cost to the court on error later corrected to the favor of greedy Mortgage Company Incorporated is not as great as the cost to the court for error later corrected to our

Favor Grant anting our motion for preliminary injunction conserves the property no matter who prevails denial of our motion for preliminary injunction directly affects the property by reducing it to a status of a bell which can't be unrung emotionally has everybody been in this teapot before okay now then the reason that I gave this to you is because I want you to rush out and Get me put in jail for practicing [Laughter] on this is and again it's not because I say so but this is a performa that you can use on your own behalf anytime

that you're fighting the evil ones of the establishment put your own facts and your own names into this and file it into court and try to get injunctive relief you're probably not going to get it because not enough judges out there Have been informed of the fact that there's a Revolution going on and you're part of it but they might Grant it I guarantee one thing if they read it they're going to take a deep breath before they do anything because they realize that somebody knows what they're doing many knows what they're doing so they

better crank it up a little bit as far as how they proceed They better watch it they might make a fatal mistake that is always going to play into it now you also have a notice of list pendant a notice of list pendant will stop the transfer of property it will stop the transfer of property it needs to be procedurally proper and again that's why I'm risking being incarcerated in my old age for practicing law this one's Right this one crosses the te's and dots the eyes because there has to be a pending action there

has to be notice and opportunity to the opposing side the property has to be subject to the principle of the notice of list pendant and it has to be sufficiently identified so that there's no mistake about which property you're talking about now almost all property is subject To the principle of list pendant so when you're fighting them and you don't want your property to be taken away file a notice of list pendant because there might be a Sheriff sale but it's not going to be resold the notice of list pendant will stop that because a

person acquiring that property is informed that they may have to give it Back with damages back we we'll get to it we'll get to it um what we're probably going to do this afternoon is have a question and answer and maybe even even discuss some specific uh matters that you may be involved in but the other power behind the notice of list pendant when a title insurance company goes to inspect a property and they find one of these Hot Potato I don't want any of That because because they know they know that they may have

to pay a claim they're not going to ensure it not if there's not notice now you can do a quiet title without a notice of list pendants but with all of these things we've got to remember that we've got to put four legs on a table too now I know a lot of people that have trust and they say do I want to file That trust in the courthouse and my answer is maybe I probably wouldn't until you are threatened with a an action then you want to file it because if it's not on file

if the other person has no means to know about it it doesn't mean anything anything because you've got to put that first leg on that table which is noticed to the person that person has no means to know about that they cannot be subjected to [Music] it how would the person find out about it that is for sale it is where is it filed okay that's sufficient they they've got to have a means to be able to find it out you can't surprise them with it after the sheriff sale you don't have toile your you

just have well the the person that's considering the property has to have a Way to ascertain that that document is exists for it to operate I mean it's kind of a golden Ru thing how would you feel you went to the courthouse there were there were no incumbrances on this property you bought it somebody comes along later and says well you know I got I had this trust in my safety deposit box here now you're out of luck well how was I supposed to know that could you a Notice um I don't know sounds like

a reasonable Theory but I just don't know the theory that you could file a the notice of registration uh it strikes me as being sufficient but I don't know I'm not qualified to answer that I have to give it some research but what you might do is go to the law library get in the annotated statutes look in the index under trusts and it'll all be there and if it Ain't there doesn't count wellne sounds good to me I I don't have any basis to dispute him or affirm him either way I don't know use

it against everybody but because see it's not something that you use directly against your opposing party it is to inform anybody that might acquire that property that they're acquiring it their own risk and it's their Peril anybody read the Vern Holland case that was recently decided in the 10th circuit see see the people that acquired that property are the ones in real Peril not the IRS that precipitated The Taking of the property but the people that got the property and I tell you what if there was a notice of Lis pendant they're dead Ducks they

have no defense because they should have known better well I don't know I don't know lady says That all they can sell is the lean on the property and not the property I don't know uh I'm inclined to agree just simply because I know that IRS has a long history of ignoring all laws and all rules but I've got you know I I may have my own surprise for them in a not too distant future does anybody need to take a break we need U if they've already taken your Stuff you had a for Clos

room you counter you counter suit and you put the the depend on proper involed and your case out Rive that case the less come back if I understand your question yes so that's a nice thing about the body of law that I'm talking about here today is most of these things are never over until you want them to be over until you've either want or you just want to fight anymore you can you can string these things along for years And years I've worked a lot of people I always tell them right in the beginning

I can't guarantee that you'll win but I'll guarantee you one thing you'll make those people on the other side and their attorneys absolutely miserable because I do know how to do that do do we want to take a 15minute break at this time all right 10 10 okay let's uh it's uh about 8 minutes after let's be back about 20 minutes after yeah Your web