Angela Stark my private audio # 188 Karl Lentz.
Angela Stark: relaying that they liked what you had to say, enjoyed the call last week. Guest 18 is saying,
I liked Karl, great information. Guest 23 is saying Karl rocked. I liked what Karl discussed.
KL: one lady asked me that, she said, she was trying to transcribe everything I said. I said Angela already
does all that stuff, for you folks.
AS: no I don’t. I don’t do transcriptions.
KL: you had a software on your –
AS: no, no, there is a transcript of the chat.
KL: oh, okay.
AS: but I don’t do that. Oh, no, please. I don’t have enough time.
KL: oh, no, no, someone was talking, one of these chat shows, talkshoes, they were saying there’s a
software, that when the guest and the host are speaking to the callers, that it automatically types out
what the people are saying.
AS: No, I don’t have that. You know who used to have that? Jack Smith used to do all of his calls with
that. Transcript.
KL: right you were telling me about that, you were telling everybody about that about a year ago, I
guess. The calls, and saying how that man had the ability to do that.
AS: ya, he spoke real slow.
KL: oh, that’s right, that’s right. Ya.
AS: and the software would just transcribe. I guess it is out there. So if anybody has it, I guess they can
do it. But it has to learn your voice patterns, I think.
KL: right and they couldn’t keep up with me.
AS: ya, no uh – uh. You, and Gus, or Carl Miller. Anybody that goes a hundred miles an hour, it aint
gonna work. You know. Probably come through as if you put it through the scanner to do that,
interpreting, what do they call it? When you scan a word document or something and you want it to
print out just a text. Some words it gets some it doesn’t. Chat grabber? Ya, John that is the chat for the
chat room. That’s the transcript for the chat room. But anyway, so do you want to enlighten us this
evening? I don’t have a call, special guest for tonight.
KL: ya, just got on at nine o’clock and just the web page to your chat blog thing was loading up real slow.
I have gotten hundreds of emails, this last week and I try to answer them. But I can answer them all, you
know it only takes a minute or two to answer it. All the questions are really, very simple. You know,
people making simple basic mistakes, and they need me, just to fill in one piece. So everybody is pretty
sharp out there. You know. Everybody pretty well has a good idea, but they just like, they’re stuck on
one spot. And they say well, where would you go from here? I say this is what I would do if I was you.
And then they come back and say wow that’s a great idea. I looked it up and ya, it make a lot of sense.
1
Okay I tried that, and some lady was doing a declaratory judgment. And I said, you’re basically just
asking, the lady who is North New Jersey, I don’t know if she is on there. And she is the one who is
saying that the town of Rivervale was a corporate, owned by the yacht club or the golf club of town of Rivervale was actually owned by the golf club, golf club of Rivervale. And I said just ask the federal
district court judge or ask a district court judge in your state, ask him a declaratory judgment. She looked
up what a declaratory judgment was and I said you just basically, it just, the judge gives you his opinion
of what rights you have, what rights they have and where your standing is, but it has to be a matter in
controversy. It can’t be a fake question, like you can’t say is there really a santa clause, or is there really
a God. You can’t ask judges questions like that, it has to be a controversy that is actually in progress. So
she learned a lot. She was sending me all kinds of emails, so if that north Bergen New Jersey lady is on. I
don’t know if you can see her on that thing. Because like I said, this thing is loading up real slow.
AS: Did you mean Patricia?
KL: Ya that’s the lady. She’s the lady that writes to me a lot.
AS: Let me see here. Ya, she sent me an email. I don’t think she was too happy with people giving a
response getting back to her, I’m not sure. I don’t see her on here. Let me see here. North New Jersey–
uh –uh, Patricia if you are on here press *8, I’ll unmute you. I don’t see her.
KL: Okay, I was trying to give her some help with that, she did pretty good on her own. I mean I just put
her in the right direction, and boy, she tore up those books, and she found them. Like I said she found
under title 28, section 2201 and it’s a creation of a remedy. And uh, what she did, she said case of actual
controversy within the court’s jurisdiction, it explains how a declaratory judgement works. And it just
basically says “as determined by an administrating authority any court of the united states upon the
filing of an appropriate pleading may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration. Whether or not further relief oris could be sought.” And then the declaratory
judgment she’ll have – it just basically gives you – it asks, like she was trying to figure out, does she have
to pay a tax to a corporate entity. She was trying to say the town of Rivervale is in corporation owned by
the country club of Rivervale. She said why should I have to pay, a country club who owns the town, a
tax assessment? I said just ask the district court judge or federal district court judge the question, it is
called a declaratory judgment. I said whenever you folks have a question and you can’t figure it out, and
you don’t want to spend money on an attorney, just send the question to the judge. And the judge will
give you his legal opinion is. And it is just an opinion, but he will give you legal advice. He will tell you
where you stand in that claim, it’s like well, am I a citizen of the town? Can only a government create a
tax assessment fee? For the citizens of the town? Or am i part, since the town is owned by a
corporation, does that mean that I now like a corporate employee? Or a corporate sponsor? Or a
corporate entity as well? What standing am I now in this town? Am I a citizen of the town? Or since the
town is now a corporation, am I just like an employee for Pepsi or Coca Cola? And are they allowed to
charge me a fee for that privilege to live in this town? Just ask them a simple question like that. And see
what the judge comes back with. So that is how you get legal advice without having to pay for an
attorney. The judges will give you, like the finding of facts and the conclusions of law. I said, so this the
answer I just gave her. I said, this is the answer I gave her, I just found it real quick here. I said, just write
a letter, basically to the head clerk of the court, which is the head judge is the head clerk, and in your
district the simple question. And you wish for their legal and lawful finding of facts and his conclusions
of law you can ask him a simple question as: does a corporation have a right to tax my property and
2
order me to pay their debt, they claim is now due or can only a government place a tax upon its citizens
or because I reside within a corporate township am I now a corporate citizen or one of its subjects? And
I said to her just tell the judge thank you, I said it is basically that simple of a letter, you don’t have to
make these things 800 pages long. And the judge has to give you an answer, if you don’t like it, you can
give him the old Platsky vs. CIA, a judge can’t dismiss anything that you bring to his court, because you
use Platsky vs. CIA. I think it is 1975, and that is where a man is trying to sue the CIA for information that
they had of him, and they wouldn’t release it. So he didn’t know how to really file a lawsuit in the
federal court, so the federal court just threw his claim all the time. 12B6, 12B6, 12B6. So he took it over
to the supreme court, the supreme court said no, a district court judge cannot 12B6 you. The other side
can’t 12B6 you, the CIA cannot 12B6 you, and the judge can’t grant them a 12B6 motion if you are not
competent in the law. If you are an idiot. If you don’t understand legalese. The judge has got to walk
you through it. So this what I hear a lot of people say, oh, they 12B6 me. They throw my claim out. Oh, I
can’t, oh, the judge won’t do it, I don’t understand what I’m doing, I can’t afford a . . . Do Platsky vs. CIA,
I think it is 1975. That shows you where – and the man just thought the CIA was, one of these conspiracy
whackos back in the 70’s. Oh, the CIA has records on me and I want to get information, and oh, they
won’t let me get it. And I want the fair, freedom of information act enforced on the CIA to open up their
books, show me what they got. And the CIA tell’em to pound salt. They 12B6’em like crazy. So he got
tired, he took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court actually found for this whacko
Platsky guy in 1975, and told the federal judge you can’t throw this man’s claim out. I don’t care what
the CIA said as a defendant. You’ve got to help this man, stylize his pleading so that it can proceed
through your court. So that is how I tell people all the time, the judges can’t just throw your stuff out.
They say we can’t give you legal advice. Do Platsky vs. CIA on them. And they will say well okay, well ya,
we got to show you how to stylize your pleading so we can accept it. So you get it in front of a jury
someday. They got to help you do it.
AS: I’m trying to find this Platsky vs. CIA.
KL: I’m gonna try and find it too real quick.
AS: I did a google search, there is someKL: it just gives people something else to think about. Because I hear people saying all the time oh, well,
oh, the judge won’t do this, I can’t afford this. Do the Platsky vs. CIA. That’s a great one. Here, I found it.
It’s popping up on my thing already. Ya, Platsky vs. CIA, wow, it was 1991. It says court errors of court
dismisses a pro se litigant without instructing – that’s a great one.
AS: I’ve got it on my Erwin Shiff site. I’ve got that one and didn’t even realize it.
KL: that’s a great one, because people ask me all the time, I don’t know what to ask the judge. Ask’em.
He has a duty, he is your public servant. You elected him to sit there as a Supreme Court judge of your
state. Most Supreme Court judges are elected in most states. They’re your servants. Ask them
questions.
AS: okay here what I have is cases on pro se, and there is a whole bunch Connelly Vs. Gibson, Davis vs.
Weckler, Elmore vs. McCamon, here I will put the link in. this is just a list of cases that pertain.
KL: because people always ask me aren’t you afraid of giving people legal advice, and I go no. I said
because you look at the United States Supreme Court ruling in Connelly vs. Gibson in 1957. It say
3
litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings. So, I’m not afraid to give legal
advice. They say oh, this is a warning that we are not permitted to give legal advice and anything we say,
dah, dah, dah, dah. No, if we have something in common and you are asking me my opinion, I can give
you my opinion. You can take it with a grain of salt. You say, you know what that’s my opinion. You
know, so this stuff oh well this is a disclaimer, we are not here to give legal advice. Good, I’m here to
give lawful advice. Legal advice, okay, fine, I don’t give legal advice. I’ll give you lawful advice. I’ll give
you my lawful opinion. And you can take with it what you want and you don’t want. I’m just trying to
steer you in another direction. I’m not asking you for a dime, so you know, if you want to take my
opinion take it, if you don’t want to take my opinion. You know what, maybe you will teach me
something. Maybe you’ll come back and show me –
AS: I think there is a question here, go ahead East Maryland.
EM: Hello? Ya, I had a lot of those sites up, I had the Platsky site up, I tried to get into, ah, to give you the
site for it, but (KL: I appreciate that.) a lot of good law out there on pro se litigants. Haines vs. Kerner –
KL: But be careful going as a pro se litigant. To me, this is just my opinion, if you spell the word
prosecutor, like I put all my lawsuit on Angela’s website or Angela put it on her website. If you notice
how I stylize my caption, I said Karl Lentz the aggrieved party. And all an aggrieved party means is a man
that lost his rights and now is going to court and claim them back. Prosecutor, now if you spell
prosecutor, its p r o s e, its pro se. I believe its short for prosecutor. Now if you want to say it means
something else, pro se. I don’t know. I can’t find the definition of pro se anywhere, other than the legal
dictionary. So to me I don’t say pro se. To me I say prosecutor. I’m prosecuting this case. right
EM: a recent lawsuit I filed I put prosecutor, I put plaintiff prosecutor.
KL: I’d stay away from Plaintiff too, because that’s also a legalese word. I’m not really sure what it truly
means. You see what I’m saying? That’s there term or art. It’s like a, you know, it’s only certain words
that they use, all the time. So I’m just very weary of words that you can’t find in common parlance that
you can’t find in Webster’s dictionary.
EM: I heard that last week, when you were talking, I heard you say that.
KL: ya, I’m very worried about using that kind of stuff. You know, about using any kind of word like that.
See because prosecutor, I actually found out what the prosecutor is, it says - one who pursues or
carries on any purpose, plan or business. That’s a prosecutor. So it doesn’t have to mean, it doesn’t
mean anything with law, not one word said legal, not one word said law, not one words said court, not
one word said attorney. It’s prosecutor. I like that. One who pursues or carries on any purpose, plan or
business. Like that’s my claim, I got a purpose. You know what? I like that. I’m a prosecutor. I’ll use that.
EM: Karl tell me how do you write your pro se? Do you italicize it? Do you space between pro and se?
KL: oh, no, no, no, I just write prosecutor. I never use pro se. because like I said it is just a term of art.
You know what I’m saying when I say term of art, right? Like doctors have certain lingo, that they say
amongst themselves. Airline pilots know certain words that only pertains to airline pilots. So, pro se only
means a certain thing to attorneys. So I don’t want to get into their world. I want as far away from
legalese as possible. I want to drag them into world of law, into a court of law. I don’t want to deal with
administrative hearings. I want to just go where it is man against man. I want to go in a common law
4
court of record. I just want man against man. If there is an attorney, to me it’s like, I don’t want to do it
legalese. They’ll run me over like a freight train.
EM: I put comes now and my name, and I said the injured party –
KL: the aggrieved party, well I think the aggrieved party is beautiful. Because I looked up that word big
time. Like I said I believe aggrieved just means somebody who seeking to reclaim rights that were
taken from them wrongly. I said, oooh, I like that. I’m gonna put that. So, like I said it’s whatever works
for you. Whatever you are comfortable with, you know? It’s like aggrieved, the aggrieved party. Here
you go, an individual who is entitled to commence a lawsuit against another because his or her legal
rights have been violated. Oooh, I like that. And then another definition for aggrieved party is a person
whose financial interest is directly affected by a decree, an order, a judgment or a statute, and is also
considered an aggrieved party entitled to bring an action challenging the legality of the decree, order,
judgement or statute. Its oooh, I like that. I’m the aggrieved party.
EM: How about in future filings do you change your terminology without any problem, if you choose, if
you learn like I just learned something.
KL: oh, ya, to me, it’s like you can put whatever gobbledygook you want in there, as long as the other
side doesn’t catch it or object to it. You can run with it. You can put any damn thing you want in there.
Because it’s like I said you see a lot of attorneys putting in affidavits, in the filings, you just laugh. An
attorney, they can put whatever they want, into the filings, on record, in paper. But, it is useless because
if you say, uhm, okay, now who is going to stand in open court, under oath or affirmation, swear to that
piece of paper is true? You can swear that your affidavit is true. You’ll stand up in a heartbeat, and put
your hand on the bible and say everything I said on that paper is true. Now the attorney just put 10,000
affidavits in there, he put all your bills from the credit card company, he put all - everything. And you say
oh, that’s a beautiful affidavit, that’s wonderful, look all the receipts, oooh, look at everything. Now who
is going to swear to it? See it is in open court is where you nail the attorneys.
EM: true, you are saying on the jurat at the bottom of the affidavit, is insufficient?
KL: from an attorney?
EM: ya, from an attorney, the jurat at the bottom.
KL: they only certify, they don’t verify. Verify comes from your voice.
EM: So they certify.
KL: watch the bottom how they, attorneys sign. They always sign it certified, they never sign it verified. If
you look at the bottom of my lawsuit, I verify, because that means that I will stand in open court under
oath or affirmation, put my hand on the bible, and I will verify every single thing on that paper is true.
EM: interesting I used the word verify.
KL: right because you will actually open up your mouth and say it. See certified just means, like if you
and me were in the same room right now. Like I am holding up a piece of paper, you can’t read it cause
it is too far away, do you believe that I am holding a piece of paper? Yes. Okay, certify that you saw me
hold up a piece of paper at 9:15 at November 15, 2012. Okay, so now you certified it. Now are you
going to stand in court and swear to everything I showed you on that paper like a notary? Is a notary
5
going swear that everything on that paper she stamped was true? No. she’s just like, I don’t know, the
guy put a piece of paper in front of me, certify it, say that, okay. Boom, boom. She doesn’t know what it
says. She doesn’t care what it says.
EM: that really puts it in perspective. Thank you.
KL: alright, no problem. I try to make things as simple as possible. Like I said I am working on a law
dictionary/encyclopedia. So some lady asked me that the today, what’s wrong with Black’s law
dictionary? I said I think he is actually a relative of me, cause he’s got the same last name as me, but I’m
not sure. Mr. Garner who is writing it now, but I said it’d be odd if we were. I said but the only thing I
don’t like is they are starting to take away a lot of lawful words out of there, and they are putting in a lot
of more commercial words in there. Or UCC terminology. They are getting rid of law and they putting
legal words in. so, I said I am trying to mix mine with both, and I will give you guys the definition of legal
that the attorneys use in Blacks, but then I will give you the old ancient law version of that word. And
then you can run with it whichever way you want. You want to play attorney? Go play attorney. Beat
them at their own games. Say compare this with what the attorneys say. And then say it like an
attorneyEM: alright, do you have that dictionary finished? Or are you working on it?
KL: I’m working on it. Like I said here verify: only man can verify, attorney, state actors and states can
only certify. And then verify: to confirm or substantiate by oath, affidavit or deposition, to establish
the truth, accuracy or reality of something. That is verify. How are they going to prove something is
real? They don’t know they are just a freaking attorney. They are not going to stand by and swear to it.
EM: I’m gonna try, next time in the court room, and I’m gonna object to the attorney, and because it is
all hearsay. He wasn’t there.
KL: Right. He wasn’t there. My sister did a magnificent job. Like I said, my sister is not at all a confident
kind of aggressive person, she’s very timid, she’s been a housewife basically her whole life. So when she
got divorced from her husband, he had three attorneys she had none. She was crying and begging
everybody in the family, give me 20 grand for an attorney. Nobody gave her a dime. I said, look you
don’t need an attorney, just do what I tell you to do and you will wipe the floor up with this guy. And she
is like oh, boohoohoo, I need an attorney. Give me money. Everybody hates me. I hate you mom I hate
you dad. She’s like 40. I said stop. Look, when you go to court, when you introduce yourself to the judge,
whoever it is man or woman, happened to be a woman supreme court judge up in New York. They’re all
supreme courts up there, when you go to divorce up in New York for some reason. I said just say: “i,
present myself and the case to the court”.
MYSELF', pronoun A compound of my and self, used after I, to express
emphasis, marking emphatically the distinction between the speaker and
another person; as, I myself will do it; I have done it myself
1. In the objective case, the reciprocal of I. I will defend myself
2. It is sometimes used without I, particularly in poetry.
MYSELF shall mount the rostrum in his favor.
6
And the judge lady will challenge you on that. She’ll say, so you represent yourself. i said, Ma’am, I said I
present myself and the case to the court. She said so your gonna have an attorney? She said, Ma’am I
present myself and the case to the court. The judge lady said I understand, good enough and looked at
the other side; and the other side introduced themselves. He had three attorneys, so he had a head
attorney, was a woman to go against my sister, who was another woman. So, they were smart, the exhusband was smart. So what happened was my sister plied her case to the judge, and the other side
went. Said okay, what do you say to her? So the woman (attorney) started speaking. My sister said I
object. And the judge lady said what? You said your peace, let them say their peace. What’s the
problem? Its like, did my husband have a sex change or something? Cause it sounds like a woman talking
over there. And ah, she said well that’s his attorney. She said, Ma’am did I tell you I was not represented
in court? That I did not have legal counsel? She said ya. Did I not say that I present myself and this case
to court? She said ya. She said okay, then does this woman have any firsthand knowledge to what
transpired between me and my husband during our marriage? And the judge asked the lady, said do you
have any first hand testimony to offer this court, about any dealings that this man had with this woman
during their marriage, their relationship? She said no. Then the judge said well you know the rules. And
she’s like, but judge. She says, you know the rules. Sit down and shut up. And told her ex-husband, now
answer, now you answer.
EM: in one of my cases several, several years ago, I wasn’t aware of these things, you are speaking of,
but I was aware of object, object, object. And I object to the counsel saying anything, and I kept saying
to the judge if he wants to testify, put him on the stand where I can cross examine him. And the judge
went bananas. He actually told me that if I objected one more time, he was gonna do this, that and the
other, which ever one it was, and ah, a few seconds later, I was object. And the judge couldn’t do
anything to me, I had every right to object. He wound up putting the attorney on the witness stand. And
then after I got through a few preliminary questions he cut me off, he wouldn’t let me ask any more. He
let me ask 3 questions after I got through the preliminary, and he said that’s it.
KL: Well again was it your case you were bringing the other party in, or was it their case they were
bringing you in?
EM: Well it was actually a bankruptcy. It was a bankruptcy case, so I had petitioned the court for the
bankruptcy case.
KL: You petitioned a tax court or a what kind of federal court?
EM: It was a bankruptcy court.
KL: Right so you have to abide by their rules then. So in the bankruptcy proceeding they, may allow
attorneys to testify for the fiction in law. So if you are the one who petitioned it, you could have
modified the rules. You could have said look, this is my baseball game. Today we are going to run third
base, second base, first base. We are not going to run the normal way. So if you petition the court, you
have got the right to set up the rules. But if you forget to set up the rules, they are just going to play it
the way they have always played it. You see what I’m saying? (Ya) You’ve got to bring the rules of the
case into the court. (At any time?) No, no you gotta do it at the beginning, because that is trial by
ambush. You gotta let the other side know, you can’t walk onto the baseball field and all of a sudden
they’re out because they ran to first base. Like what the hell is going on here? It’s a trial by ambush. You
can’t do that. You gotta be fair. You gotta let the other side know. And if they miss it, and you sent it to
7
‘em, and they failed to object to the rules, well then you could run them over like a freight train, when
you get there. Because it is like I gave you sufficient notice that this is how we were going to play this
game. So if you couldn’t be bothered to read this stuff, because you are under staffed or underfunded
that’s not my problem.
EM: no because they just don’t care. All they gotta do is run some kind of stupid words out of their
mouth and the judge will agree with them.
KL: No because you tell the judge to take notice of the rules, because you are the one who established
the court, you’re the one who defined it EM: but what I’m saying prior to establishing the rules, they don’t have to comply with anything, it’s a
one man or one group team. They are all in cahoots together.
KL: it doesn’t work, well for me it has never worked like that. Because I have always had praecipe day or
pre-hearing trial. And I lay all the rules out for everybody to understand. So the judge knows the rules,
the other side knows the rules. This is how we are going to play this game. And this is how we run it. So
that when we go to trial, I got rid of all the bullshit stuff in between. We only got two matters in
controversy, like we might have had thirty, we settled it in a pre-hearing trial. If you are doing the
bankruptcy thing the best thing for you to do is ask for a praecipe day. Which means a pre-hearing trial
day, get all the big nonsense out of the way. And if there is just one thing that you guys can’t work out in
the judge’s chambers between you the judge and the other party, say you know what? Let’s take it
before the jury. We’ll go before a common law court of record, only the injured party gets to speak,
you are going to have the injured man here, an attorney can’t speak. Those are the rules. I’m relying
on a 9th amendment bill of rights from the constitution article 9 and article 7. There is no such thing as a
7th amendment, there is no such thing as 9th amendment. They are the articles of the Bill of Rights.
(Sounds like he says the 1st amendment is really the 11th amendment.) So when everyone says I got a
2nd amendment right? No you don’t.
EM: what was the two articles? 9 and what was the other one?
KL: Well, I’ll just tell you that, 7th amendment and the 9th amendment, when you say 7th and 9th the judge
knows you really don’t know what you are talking about. So you say the Bill of Rights of the United
States Constitution, article 7, he knows you are talking about a trial by jury, not a jury trial, but a trial by
jury. And if you say I have rights inalienable, inherent rights given to me by God, under the Bill of Rights
of the United States Constitution, article 9 he will know what you are talking about.
EM: I had a traffic case and I demanded a 7th amendment, ah, 6th amendment, ah, wait a minute 7th (your right the 7th ) 6th amendment is criminal, 7th is civil.
KL: it is trial by jury that you are looking for.
EM: Ya, well they are both trial by juries, 6th amendment is criminal trial by jury, and 7th amendment is –
this actually was - when it went up on appeal, it automatically becomes a criminal trial. And the judge
tried to say it wasn’t a criminal trial, and I said well look at your notice. The court hearing notice, it says
right here, criminal trial. And ah, KL: Like I said if you google this you will be amazed. Like I said, you will say to yourself, your like ah,
you’ll say the bill of rights of the United States constitution article 9, and then you type in the 9th
8
amendment and they’ll be like identical. Is like why are they identical? Because like I said you read a lot
of the older law books like I do, everything under the 10th amendment, everything under the 11th
amendment was an article to the bill of rights. Everything above the 10th article all of a sudden changed
the name to an amendment. It’s just interesting. It’s just funny, because like I said, judges pick up on
certain words like that. If you are saying bill of rights United States constitution article 7, they’ll say holy
shit- banana’s, this guy knows his ___________. Because nobody knows that - , you know? What is this
guy just saying for legal reference? Holy crap this guy knows law better than I do. Holy bananas I better
back off on this turkey, cause what’s he going to do to me in my courtroom. I’m the judge what is he
going to do to me? He is making me look like an idiot. So like I say when I hear people say oh, I got a
second amendment right. No you’re really under the bill of rights under the constitution article 2, you
have the right to carry a gun. Now I don’t know where you are getting the second amendment
nonsense from. I don’t know who is trying to confuse you, or trying to make you look stupid, in court.
But you are using the wrong terminology. If you want to talk like a lawyer, if you want to talk like
somebody that knows something in court, well, how about you get it right and you keep it to a very
simple law suit. One page, so that way you know every single word, and that way they can’t confuse
you, and just stick to your word, just stick to your paper work. Don’t let them try to get you off your
document, just stick to it and say that’s my word and I’m sticking to it and I’m sticking to it till the day
I die, until somebody knocks me off my standing. I’m sticking to it. And let them try and knock you off
your pedestal, and let them try knock off your standing. Make a base of your standing on citations,
laws, codes, you make a basis of your standing upon what they recognize as their law, as their legal
system. You know you could use their codes, you could use their citations. But you got to modify them
to your own terms that you feel comfortable with and what a jury will understand. You don’t use all
their crazy legalese like platsky vs. CIA 19. They don’t use that nonsense. You just tell the jury, hey it’s
no fair, I tried to get this stuff going through this court and guess what every time I try and get it in
here, this guy throws it out. This isn’t right they did me wrong. I want to know why. And nobody is
giving me an answer. How do you like that jury when people do that to you? The jury is going ya, ya.
So you gotta come down to the jury’s level. You gotta stop playing attorney and you gotta realize
eventually you wanna get it in front of a jury and you wanna put on a performance for the jury and
you want them to be like American idol judges and give you the thumbs up. And say hey you know
what, you win. The jury trial is a total joke. They are totally like, to me, they are totally incompetent. But
you put on a performance and you win. In front of the jury. If you know the law is one hundred percent
on your side, go before a judge.
EM: I beat the IRS and you will recognize that email I just bet the IRS, I beat them with a jury trial. I
couldn’t have done it with the judge. The judge went bananas. He was, he actually just, he just, soon as
the jury got finished the not guilty verdict, the judge stood up, said your dismissed and walked out of the
courtroom. He didn’t say to me that I was found not guilty, charges were dropped, I was free to leave,
bail was, or anything. He didn’t say anything to me, he was so upset. I was on a speaking tour, I was out
in Idaho and in the providence of the lord, the friend I was staying with he had a mutual friend who was
a friend of the judge’s nephew. The judge’s nephew told him, his uncle said, this was the first tax case he
ever lost. So when I was speaking, the next day I posed a question to the people. How did he lose? (Ya)
How did he lose? When justice is upheld? When ritchousness prevail. Doesn’t everybody win? You
know, I posed that, I said that to the people. I posed the question and then gave the answer. You said, if
I quote you correctly, I hope this is alright with Angela that we carry on this monologue here, but - (oh,
ya, go right ahead it is interesting. I’m taking notes) did you say ask -, praecipe is a demand. I use the
9
word praecipe for this, praecipe for that. I am even known in the courtroom as the guy that asks, uses
the word praecipe. Soon as I went in one day, the clerk, oh, you’re the fellow that likes to use praecipe.
But I use it as demand. Demand for this, demand for that, and praecipe and demand are synonymous, in
my mind. Now you said, if I understood you correctly you, Karl you said ask for pre- that was the word I
wasn’t sure of, pre-praecipe?
KL: No, no, no just, you want ah, praecipe, hearing, it’s just a hearing. Like I said, or you could say pretrial hearing. Ya, right you kind of demand it. What it is, is you don’t want to go in front of a jury, I think
even Dean Clifford also explained it a little bit, probably. I try to make it extremely simple. He does
simple, but I think I’m super simple. But all it basically is, is, you want to get 99% of the nonsense taken
care of, that when you go before the jury trial, the judge will love you too. He’ll be like oh, great, let’s
get rid of all of this nonsense, let’s see if we can slug it out, before we go in front of the jury, let’s get all
the nonsense out. What do you guys seem, what is the matter in controversy here? How many
controversies do you have? To me, I’d say to them, well I’ve got 22 matters in controversy. And like
wow, ya we got his suit. We’ll agree to uhm 18 of them, but these three things we are not going to give
in. We’re going to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end. It’s okay, and the judge would say, you know, do
you want to give up Karl, do you just want to take the 18 and or do you have to have all 22 to be happy?
Uh, I don’t know what are you going to offer me? You know, how are we going to end this thing? And
the judge, believe me, he is taking notes. Like how you people are conducting yourselves, in these
preliminary trials/hearings. Are you being reasonable or some psycho, some kinda freeman kinda stuff,
you know. The judge is taking notes. He is going to remember now, when you go to trial how you
conducted yourself in private. He is going to be like well, Karl is a decent honourable man, he tried to
settle the matter on the private side. He gave, that is about as far as I would give too, the judge said.
Well, I don’t know, let Karl have a little leeway here with the jury. So that is why you want a praecipe
day, that way you get to meet the judge, you get to meet the other side face to face, you get to shake
hands, you get to put on a happy face and pretend AngelaStark: Karl, what does it mean on the private side? You tried to settle it on the private side, for
those that don’t know.
KL: that is the very last shot at trying to settle the matters in good faith, that you just try to say look, I’m
just trying to work on an agreement with my brother, even though he is the state prosecutor, i am just
trying to, this is my last attempt, before you go in front of –
AS: okay but, but, but are you doing it up by letter, are you taking them off to the side by the arm and
saying look, lets settle this. I mean, how does one go about settling on the private side?
EM: it is pre-formal litigation, I think would be the answer to that.
KL: ya, it’s like saying, you know you are going to trial in 30 days. You’ll say, can we please have one
more final meeting between all the parties and the judge, in his chambers? Can we just try to slug this
out one more time? And the person who says no, is acting in bad faith. You have try to make every
attempt at settlement before you go in front of the jury. Because people don’t realize this, because
somebody was on the Marc Stevens show and said the guy was convicted of in tax court. I said no he
wasn’t convicted, he was attainted. He’s like no he is a convict now. I said no he is attainted now. It is
worse then convict. Because most people don’t know what a convict is. And then one guy said to me,
oh, is that what they did on all the old Perry Mason Shows? The guy will jump up and confess at the
10
end? Yes, because if you confess, you’re a convict and you still hold all your rights as a man, and, the
public and society you still maintain your rights. If the jury comes down with a guilty verdict against you,
you are now attainted, you lose all your rights to property, all your rights to citizenship, your children
lose all their rights to titles. I said it’s an old custom. Now we have walked away from it you know, but if
you watch the old Perry Mason Movies in the 1950’s, people still knew to jump up and yell, okay, I’m
guilty, I’m guilty, I’m guilty. It’s like, it’s like is that why they were doing that in the old Perry Mason
Shows? I thought the people just cracked under pressure. No, they don’t want to be attained, by the
jury. They wanted to just say, okay I confess I’m a convict, convict me. Get me out of here, don’t attaint
me. Oh, is that was going on in the Perry Mason TV Shows. Oh, we didn’t know that. We just though the
people were broke, that Perry Mason just scrambled their brains and they gave up. It’s uhm, no, that’s
what it means. It’s, like I said praecipe is –
AS: but what I mean is you are not going to address the situations as being on the private side, you are
not going to use that terminology. Being on the private side, means just trying to go to peace with your
brother before you go to court with him? Right?
KL: right, it’s like a pre-court thing. It’s a lets meet out in the hallway kinda thing, but you’re really
meeting in the judge’s chambers two weeks before the trial. So at least the judge gets a test of your
metal, he sees how sharp you are, he sees if you’re smart, he sees if you’re ah, he gets to test you out.
You’re in his chambers now. And you guys are slinging it out between the opposing party, and you just
play a poker faced, you stay calm and cool, and I love doing this to the judges and when they start
realizing that I know more than they do, they go, I’m going to have to recuse myself from this case. I
love when they do that to me. I say no, no, no you’re good. I like you. Uhm, no, I know the other party I
gonna have to leave. When I start taking over the praecipe day, or the pre-hearing trial, when I start
taking it over, the judge is like holy cow, this guy knows his , and I’m outa here.
AS: somebody on the chat is saying so you got your training from watching Perry Mason. Perry Mason
and Raymond Burr Chit Chat between Angela and Karl. Raymond Burr was gay. And also played in
Ironside. And his waist line was 60”.
KL: I, hope that helped you sir, but like I said always get a pre-preliminary hearing date set, a couple of
weeks before the trial. The judge gets to test you out. Don’t cop an attitude, be as pleasant and as sweet
as pie, so the judge says huh, okay this guy knows his stuff. But you better make sure you know what
you are doing. Because they are going to put the best men against you. You better know how to talk.
AS: Karl what do you think about Tammy Pepperman? Beau, here has typed here into the chat the act of
1066, the cestui que vie, the 66 treaties on amitie, commerce and navigation of 1794.
KL: I stay away from all that stuff, because like I said a trust, any type of trust, there could be ten
kazillion trusts, there could be 18,872 trusts out there with my name on it. As a beneficiary I have no
right to know that I am a beneficiary. I have no right to know how they are using my name in that trust,
why I am in that trust, or what is required of me to obtain a benefit. So just because you hear all these
people saying cestui que trust, and I just laugh. I go look anybody can create a document with my name
on it. But just because they offered me this document or presented it to me like a birth certificate as a
gift, do I have to accept a gift that is going to cause me harm and injury? Do I have to accept an eight
hundred pound gorilla that’s really hungry or a thousand pound lion that’s starving? I don’t have to
accept it as a gift. I said you know what, that’s great that you tried to present this to me, but is there
11
some reason why I have to accept this piece of paper or this gift or this 800 pound gorilla? No. I don’t
accept this as mine. Are you crazy? This thing is going to kill me. So when somebody says, oh you’ve got
a birth certificate, do I have to accept that? Is it going to cause me harm, injury or loss? Yes, then why do
I have to accept it now since I didn’t create it? What are you trying to pull here on me?
AS: it’s a trust.
KL: it’s a trust, right.
AS: I don’t know it says, Beau is saying that it’s not a trust, the act of 1066 the cestui que vie act, is it
treaties on amitie, commerce and navigation?
KL: but all cestui, I don’t know if you know what cestui means? Cestui just means he, like he, she, we, it.
All it means is cestui que is he, and that is all that it means, it is French it’s like he or she. So cestui que
all it means is, he who benefits from a trust. That is all that cesti que means. A cesti que trust is he who
benefits from the trust. So, you know, or for whom the trust exists. So that trust exists for me. That’s
great. But you know what, like I said, what if my grandfather set up a trust for me, when I hit 50 years
old I get a million dollars? I don’t have to know what that trust is. And all of a sudden when I am 50 years
old, holy cow, I get a million dollars. Or all of a sudden when I am 65 years old all of a sudden, I start
getting checks in the mail for a thousand dollars a month. Like wow where did I get this from? Well, it is
something called like a social security trust, and when you hit 65 you start getting money. Oh, wow
really? Is that why my pay check was a little short every month? Ya. Well, we set up a trust for you. Well,
hell that’s swell. And I’m getting money now? Oh, that’s great. I’ll accept that benefit. So a trust, when
you’re the beneficiary of a trust, unless you are the trustor, the grantor, the person who created that
trust, you have no right to know any damn thing that that trust is talking about, about you.
AS: well it says guest 23, typed in the chat that cestui que vie means it is you.
KL: it is French for he or she or who, for whom a benefit exists. That is what cestui que trust means.
That’s exactly what it means.
AS: it is not cestui que trust that we are using. It does not say trust.
KL: its cestui que right?
AS: Ya, it’s an ACT.
KL: right, it is whom benefits from it. Who is the person that benefits from this act? So if they want to
make a law that says that when I’m 65 years old that I’m going to start getting a thousand dollars a
month payments in my mail box, okay I don’t care what act, it’s. who created the act. I don’t care who
created the trust. I don’t care what my grandfather set up, or some congressman set up for me, or the
queen of England set up for me, or some reptoids set up for me. I don’t care. Will I accept the thousand
dollars a month check from them because of some sort of trust fund or cestui que act, I don’t care. Of
course I will accept it. But do I have any right to know who established that trust? Or how I’m the
beneficiary, no. that is why it is called a trust. It is none of my damn business. So to me, that is what I’m
saying, if I want to set up a trust, and I am secretly handing my kids money when they hit 18 years old
and they are like wow, I get money all the time. I don’t have to tell my kids it’s me who is sending it to
you. I’m don’t tell’em nothing. They can just say, wow man, somebody is sending me a check in the mail.
Oh, what you gonna do with it kid? I think that I will put it towards college. Well, hey that is a pretty
12
good idea. Why don’t you do that? They have no right to know, who is sending them money. If that is
part of the rules of the trust, that’s the rules of the trust. You’re not allowed to know who’s your
benefactor. You start looking for your benefactor, say, you know what? You’ll checks will stop. So either
enjoy it, or go ahead and give us nonsense and you’ll never get another check again. So like i said,
people just make way too much out of this trust stuff. But that’s just my opinion. What the hell do I
know? That’s the way I look at things.
AS: your way of doing things, it’s interesting to learn the different ways people do things. I try not to
limit myself on just listening to other people’s ideas. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt at least to
listen. It doesn’t mean I am going to use your information, or the reverse, not necessarily yours, you
know what I mean, but you know, in general.
KL: that’s what I meant, like I said when I say social security act, they provide a benefit for me sometime,
maybe some time when I’m 60, 70, 80, 90. They change it all the time. Why? Because I’m not trustor, I
didn’t create it. So I can’t say when I’m allowed to start getting benefits from social security act. But if
you are trying to hand me a present, if you are trying to hand me a social security number, and say this
is my benefit, but it is going to cause me harm or pain somewhere along the way, well I don’t have to
accept something that is going to cause me harm or pain, cause I’m not the creator of this monster. I’m
not the creator of this Frankenstein. You are. Get this Frankenstein off my back. And that is what I’m
saying, people don’t realize that’s what the book Frankenstein is about. It’s Mary Shelley, her mom was
like the first law professor in oxford and her dad was like the highest magistrate in England. And all
Frankenstein is, is shows how a corporation exists within a society, and if you let a corporation get out of
control, how it could cause harm to man and mankind. So Frankenstein has nothing to do about a
monster. If you really study Mary Shelley, and Mary Shelley’s mom and Mary Shelley’s dad. You would
say holy cow, Frankenstein is a book, based upon corporations.
AS: really, so it is another one of those Wizard of Oz type deals, right? Well it has a whole different
meaning then what you thought?
KL: exactly. So if you want to think it is a monster movie, enjoy. I’m sorry I spoiled it for you. But it’s
really about, how man brings corporate entity into society and the ability that a corporate entity has.
AS: great it’s a monster.
KL: create a monster. It depends. Something could go wrong. He had the best intents, intentions to do
the right thing. Who knew? Stuff happens, and ah, you know, you got a monster on your hands, now
what are we going to do? You know, we’re going to round him up and kill’em. You know.
AS: kill’em? Ya.
KL: we gotta put him down, we gotta revoke his charter. So like I say when you actually say, wow, Mary
Shelley’s mom was like a, first (woman) law professor in Oxford University, in Cambridge, wow 1780?
Wow AS: say that again, slower and close to the mike cause I didn’t understand a word you said.
KL: no, no, I’m just repeating myself about who Shelley, ah, Mary Shelley’s mom was.
AS: who was she?
13
KL: I said, like I said, she was like the first law professor, female, who was like teacher or professor in
oxford or Cambridge. And her dad was like the highest magistrate, like in chancellor, like the highest
chancellor whatever in England at the time as well. So her mom and dad would explain to her, like
corporate, and how corporate society and corporate law, and she turned it into a book. She’s like let’s
make a corporate monster, who is, you know, going to terrorize, if you leave he’s out of control, and
they are going to terrorize the society and oh, my god, and chaos and mayhem can happen. So she made
it entertaining. She could have made it a law legal book, and everyone would have been bored out of
their minds. She probably, look we got 10,000 of those sitting on the shelf and nobody reads them. Hey
let’s make it a monster book, and oh, boy it, everybody will love reading this. That’s the way I write my
law dictionary. I don’t want people look at my stuff and be bored out of their minds. I put –
AS: it is interesting how some of these books, you know, children’s books, have these hidden meanings.
KL: ya, I’m sure she wrote it back then and everybody understood what she was doing, but as time went
by people looked at it more as a thriller or horror movie or horror book, and as she really tried to stylize
it as. She might told the people what she was doing, ooh, look I’m gonna write a book about commerce
but you know what, I’m gonna jazz it up a little bit. You know we got 10,000 of these books, nobody ever
reads them. They’re boring. Let me stylize it in a manner that people will actually enjoy reading. So like I
say, when people look at my law dictionary, they just laugh. They say wow it’s colorful, you got photos in
it, you got little – ya, it’s not look like Black’s law dictionary, boring. Everybody’s got a Black’s law
dictionary. I don’t want to look at it for fun. So I make my thing look like an encyclopedia, like a
dictionary, like a picture book. So if you look at it, hey let me read another page of this thing, this was
pretty cool. Does anybody got any questions there - for Ang?
AS: no, I was just reading the chat, if anybody has a question or would like to chime in, press star eight.
EM: Angela this is Fred, I am still here, I have another question if I’m available.
AS: oh, go right ahead, then we have north New Jersey.
EM: I wanted to ask Karl about the issue with the courts, the judges not having oaths of office, bonds
and uh, KL: that’s easy, bout probably 99% of them don’t operate under that, because they are administrative
tribunal hearing officers, that’s all they are. The really long way of saying it is saying civil administrative
tribunal hearing officers, you find them a lot in Australia, stylized exactly like that. But here we call them,
judges, in England they call them magistrates.
EM: what’s the best argument against them, presiding over a case?
KL: if you want to go to an administrative hearing, that’s fine. I mean there is nothing wrong with going
into an administrative hearing, if you believe that it is 100% in your favour. But if you want to pin’em, so,
where the other side can’t open their mouth and say anything, that is where you drag them into a
common law court of record, but an administrative hearing, like I said, they don’t have to take- I’ve been
asked many times to sit down here and for workers compensation and wrongful termination hearings.
So there is 5 of us that sit on a panel, I’m not under no constitution, I don’t care if this clown starts
yelling up and down, hey, I want my constitutional rights. (CLOWN, noun A countryman; a rustic; hence,
one who has the manners of a rustic; a churl; a man of coarse manners; an ill-bred man.) Dude, dude it’s
14
an administrative hearing dude. Dude, nobody here took an oath of office, did you take an oath of
office? Are you getting paid to be here? No. I’m not paid to be here either. What are you talking about?
EM: they present themselves to be a court of law. So we are walking into a quote court of law. And a
person who is as an imposter (did you ask them) is posing themselves as a judge.
KL: did you ask them, is he a magistrate, a hearing officer or what capacity is he? He’s wearing a black
robe. Ya, great, but did you ask him, what kind? Like my sister went to court one time, she was being
sued. I said the very first question you ask the judge, is this a common law proceeding or is this under, or
is this a civil administrating hearing? Which one is it? The man says it’s a common law proceeding. So I
said to my sister you got it. And I walked out of the courtroom. I said you know what to do in a common
law - You’ll be done in ten minutes, she was done in five minutes, she was done. There needs to be an
injured party on the other side. There’s not an injured party coming on the other side, then we are not
in a common law proceeding. We are in an administrative hearing. There is no corpus delicti. There is no
injured body. So, if you want to come under some sort of crazy civil code, administrative code, or
something like that. Social security could come after you. Because now you are in an administrative
hearing. Do you want a benefit from social security, well then you better believe, you better take them
into administrative hearings. You want to try dragging them into, - you have no right, this is what I try
and tell people. The Supreme Court made a couple of rulings from people when they tried to drag social
security into common law courts back in the 60’s. And the Supreme Court said you have no right to that
trust. You have no right to that fund. You have no right to that social security act. That is not yours. And
everyone wanted to believe it was theirs. They’re like no you’re the beneficiary, you’re not the trustee,
and you’re not the trustor. You are just a beneficiary, and you can be denied at any time.
EM: in my recent bankruptcy, I challenged her jurisdiction. She never responded. I challenged it again,
she didn’t respond. But I got a court letter from the United States bankruptcy court telling me the
documents I requested could be obtained from Honourable Thomas Hogan, and gave the address in
Washington, DC. I wrote him, I didn’t get an answer. ? Two months later I wrote a second letter and I
sent it certified mail and demanded an answer within 15 days. Either supply the documents or tell me
why they could not supply the documents. I got no answer. I have gone into the paper with a notice,
public notice that she has no documents. Prima facia evidence, not produced, prima facia evidence they
don’t have’em.
KL: okay, like I said when somebody asked me to sit to hear a workman’s comp case or a wrongful
termination case, I’m not under any oath, I have no bond. You agreed to come to this hearing, you’re
the one who asked us to sit and judge your claim. Who are you now to say wait a second, are you
petitioner, you brought me here.
EM: Ya, but she puts the title Judge with her name, she says she is a United States Bankruptcy court
judge. She signs her orders, judge so and so.
KL: like I said the word judge we use it so freely in this country, it’s scary. You can say like the ah,
American idol judges. See, this is where people misunderstand, the only people that can judge you is a
jury of your peers. They are your judges in this country. Now in England, those guys who wear those big
fancy wigs, they’re called magistrates. And if you etymologies the word magistrate, the magistrate was
just the guy who filled up the wine glasses at the kings court. He kept everybody in court happy. He
made sure everybody got whatever they needed. That’s a magistrate. That’s the role of the clerk of the
15
court, the magistrate. Now if you want to call him a judge and let them judge over you, over you, well
that is your peril. Why didn’t you ask for a jury?
EM: I have asked for a jury.
KL: okay, like I said, you gotta be really careful because United States court ruled, if you ask for a trial by
jury under the article 7, you’ll get it. If you say you want a jury trial you won’t get it. I mean it’s ridiculous
how they play with these words.
EM: now I used trial by jury, I used the words in the article 7.
KL: Okay so, then if you said it exactly like that, and ah, - did you try to evoke the 9th amendment and
just say I have the rights that predates this hearing tribunal that I am entering in today? That if the
matter is over $20.00 I have the right to have this matter judged by a member of 12 juries, the 12
jurists?
EM: Yes I have, and I have had no rulings, no – she’s continuing to act as if I have never done it. She’s
actually called a hearing for the 30th of this month.
KL: okay, so did you say to her, like did you give her, so did she create an order? (Creating what?) Did
she create an order yet? Did she order you to appear? Did she order something?
EM: it’s an order setting the date.
KL: okay so uhm, like I said, to me, when I look at it this way, when anybody tries to order you to do
something, you have to say to them, what gives you the authority to order me about? When did I give
up, like you said you were the plaintiff in this? You said you were the complaining party, right?
EM: well I am in some adversarial proceedings, I’m the plaintiff. But in the bankruptcy I am known as the
debtor.
KL: oh, well then a debtor is a slave, is a defendant, he’s got no rights.
EM: right as a defendant he has no rights. I know of a plaintiff, I did the adversarial proceeding,
proceedings I got a couple of them going, three of them I thinkKL: any time you are a defendant you got to realize you have absolutely no rights. You are going to get
slaughtered clobbered like a ping pong ball. So what I always tell people is you have to file a claim
against the other party that they are interfering with your rights to a trial by jury. Or they are interfering
with you rights to have a common law court of record trial proceed over this matter. So you actually
turn around and sue them, you can sue the judge, you can sue everybody who is interfering with your
rights to have an article 7 trial by jury, under the common law, under a court of record. You can turn
around and sue them that they are stepping outside of their authority scope of authority.
EM: that is known as an adversarial proceeding in bankruptcy. Unless you are going to take it out of the
bankruptcy and file it in federal district court.
KL: right like that is what I try to say to you, I don’t use fancy words like adversarial proceeding. I just say
you are doing me wrong, you are interfering with my right, stop interfering with my right, or I am going
to drag your butt into a common law court of record, and I am going to be compensated for every
16
second that you interfere with my right. And I am going to charge you a dollar a second, and right now
you are up to eight million seconds. So how are we going to play this?
EM: Well, I have already done that in the court of record, to the newspaper notice.
KL: well, like I said, the notice to me why can’t you just propose it to the other side, on one page, give
them the notice, that if they don’t stop interfering with your rights, that you are going to charge them a
dollar a second for every second your rights are, or a dollar a day or $ 10,000.00 a day for every day that
they are interfering with your right to proceed with this matter under a common law court of record, in
front of a jury. See what they have to say. But you will never win as a defendant, you will always get
clobbered, you will always get beat. You have to drag them in, you have to drag them before a common
law court of record. You have to.
EM: I’m the plaintiff in the adversarial proceedings, whether you like the words or not, that is what they
are in bankruptcy. Any side case, any issue, anything you have an issue with, becomes an adversarial
proceeding. You file it as an adversarial, and then you become the plaintiff.
KL: okay, well you see what you are still saying? You’re still using words, bankruptcy court, I don’t move
under any other court, you will never get an answer from me, I will never file any motions, any pleading,
any petition, any answer in anything other than a common law court of record. That is the only court
that I believe has the ability to judge me, because nobody else has got the power other than 12 people
to judge me. The man in the black robe is a magistrate he is not a judge. In America we call them
judges, for some Godly reason I don’t know. Go to England they are not called judges, they say see that
jury box over there? Ya that’s your judges. See the man with the big wig and those two buys sitting there
with the little wigs? Those are magistrates. The judges are over there. Talk to them. In this country we
got it backwards. For some reason the guys in the black robe you keep calling them judges. If they want
to call themselves judges and confuse you, and trick you, and you want to believe their goop-, their
nonsense, God bless you. They don’t trick me. I say wait a second, can I appeal this? Ya, well then I’m
not in front of a common law court of record, because the seventh amendment says, that once it’s been
tried by the jury it cannot be reheard or retried by any court in the United States. Are you telling me, if
you - I don’t like the decision from you today, I could appeal it to somebody else? Ya. Well then I’m in
the wrong court.
EM: is that not what a newspaper notice is?
KL: I don’t play that notice paper, I know exactly what you’re trying to say with newspaper notices. But
you know and I know, that’s not fair. You can’t put it in the obituary, in a little tiny newspaper in the
middle of nowhere. It might have been fair and square back in 1602, when everybody really read a
newspaper, but now when the readership is down to less than 1%, and nobody is going to read your
notices by the obituary. That’s not really fair. So I just tell the other side, straight up look, you interfere
with my right, I want the common law trial by jury, is there some godly reason why you have some sort
of lawful excuse why I can’t evoke the 9th article of the bill of rights and get myself in front of a jury. Tell
me your legal/lawful determination/decision. I don’t care what you use to try and explain the nonsense
that you are trying to deny me. You can’t interfere with the rights of man. You are here to protect the
rights of man. You can’t be the one interfering with my rights. Heaven help you if you do. I’m charging
$10,000 a day.
17
EM: now is that a contradiction when you say as defendant, you have no rights? Can I do that as a
defendant?
KL: no, because you are the ingredient, you are just a little tiny peon nothing, in their case. You have the
actor’s roll of the court jester, you’re the clown. You’re the punch and Judy. You’re the one putEM: in the adversarial proceeding, where I’m the plaintiff, I do have that right?
KL: No, cause again yous keep saying adversarial proceeding in a bankruptcy court. I don’t know the
rules, they could change the rules on you tomorrow. There, those rules for bankruptcy court, or an
equity court, or a maritime court, or whatever adjective you want to put in front of it. I just want to go
into a common law court of record. That’s the only thing, I only want to hear. I, don’t want to hear, if I
hear anything else, but a common law court of record, you are interfering with my rights. Well we are
going to take you to the maritime court, I don’t want, I’m gonna take you to tax court, I aint going. Is
there some reason why I can’t have what the constitution protects is the only court, the common law
court of record, is the only court that the United States Supreme Court protects and secures for the right
of the people. There is no other court that is protected by this US government or by the states. Is there
some ungodly reason why I can’t have what the constitution protects or secures from me? That is what I
tell them.
EM: do you have a comment on how you change your standing when you are in bankruptcy, do you justKL: you just want a whole new case. You start a whole new pleading, a whole new case, a whole new
suit, a whole new everything. I get so far away from their silly nonsense, the only thing that I refer them
to is the man who is interfering with my rights, is some guy named a magistrate judge, head clerk smith.
And some prosecuting guy who says he works for the attorney general’s office. Read my law suit, I put it
on Angela’s website. See how I stylized it. See how I explained how they wrongdoers. They are not
defendants, they are wrongdoers. You won’t see the word defendants anywhere in my law suit. They did
me wrong, I want to be compensated for the wrong. Am I fighting these men, no. if I was fighting them,
I’d say put up your dukes, defend yourself. I don’t want to fight that, I’m telling you, you did me wrong, I
want compensation. And if they say no, you know what, I’m turning to the jury. Jury do these people do
me wrong? Yes. You, tell them to give me money, now. Okay, give this man money. I’m not fighting this
man, I’m not bringing the controversy into the public. I’m not calling them defendants. I’m not fighting
these men. I’m bringing my case, my claim before a jury, and I’m telling, pleading my heart out to the
jury. Look, these men did me wrong. I want to be compensated for the wrongdoings that these men did
to me. Please tell these men, stop doing the wrong they are doing to me and compensate me $10,000 a
day for every time they did it too me. Now if you think that is excessive jury, don’t give me so much.
Give me a dollar, I don’t care but tell these men to stop doing what they are doing, please. And that is
the way I word it. Have you seen the cover of my lawsuit, I don’t put the letter V in there. I just put a
black straight line between the parties’ names. And I put myself as the prosecutor and everybody
underneath me is a wrongdoer. They did me wrong.
EM: and you file that in federal district court and demand a trial by jury?
KL: absolutely, that’s it, absolutely. Look at the cover it’s really simple, the way I stylized it. I used
Blackstone’s commentary Vol. 3, chapter 23, section 378 where it says: a jury at its own hazard and its
18
own peril gets to determine the delicate matters of law and fact, and once it is tried either for the
plaintiff or the defendant, that verdict is final. That’s it.
EM: I want to get a copy of that. That sounds like a good template.
KL: simple template, beyond simple. Any of their codes, if you want to refer to their codes, use the letter
cf. You gotta learn what cf. means. It’s like a not only do I believe what they did is wrong, but [cf. title
42 section 1983 says that they can’t interfere with the rights of the citizens of the United States]. Now
I’m not saying I’m a citizen of the United States but they know that what they are doing as a public
official they can’t even do to the citizens of the United States. I’m not saying that, but I’m just comparing
it to me as a man, they can’t do what they did to me. So, always compare what they did wrong to you,
to what the United States Supreme Court agrees with what’s wrong, what the state statutes say is
wrong, what the citation of the Bible says is wrong to you. But you always use cf. Like if you look at my
lawsuit, you say wow, you’ve got cf. like everywhere. Compare that to United States Supreme Court
Ruling Platsky vs.CIA, look at that as compared to Blackstone’s commentary, look at that compared to
Alabama code of 1985, section 36.1, 36.5 compare that with. They are not allowed to do that. Even
though they are their own laws. Not only is it my belief, but it is their law, that they are also in violation
of. They are interfering with my right, and they are also in violation of their own law or their own codes,
or their own ordnances. They are in violation of their own nonsense that they write. You see how I
stylize it?
EM: I’m looking forward to getting that ah, Angela give me the site on your website. Give me the ahAS: that is My Private Audio.com and then once you get there, at the top, across the top, there are a
series of links and click on the one that says guest speakers, (and say crazy man, lol) and then just go to
the list and everybody is named in the chat room, it’s in alphabetical order, Karl Lentz. And it will take
you to a listing of his stuff that he sent me and his contact information.
EM: I already sent him a couple of emails, we’ve been a little bit of back and forth.
KL: What’s your name?
EM: I’m under [email protected], it’s Fred Ulna. I sent you my book Bulldozer.
KL: oh, wow, wow, yes, I’m the guy who says to ya, I believe, IRS has a very good specific job in society
and I never attack the IRS personally because they’ve work in my benefit. Now if you don’t know how to
use IRS to your benefit, well then you’re gonna hate them. But if you know how to use the 800 pound
gorilla, if you know how to keep him on the right side of the cage, oh, they’re wonderful.
AS: Well, you know we are going to have to go into that one at another call. Cause, that’s intriguing to
me, and I think we need to spend a lot of time on that. But in the meantime, we’ve got a lot of people in
the line, waiting to ask us questions. Fred can you stick around, but let’s get to some of these other
questions. Only if you want, you can stop back later, okay. (Thank you) You’re welcome, thank you.
Okay, North New Jersey, go ahead, you’ve been waiting. Then we have Puerto Rico.
KL: Oh, wow.
NNJ: Hi, there. (Hi, is that you Patricia?) Ya, hi. Is the conversation that you just mentioned taking place
in court? The conversation was there any reason that I can’t have a jury trial?
19
KL: ah, no, you do, obviously you do all of it on paper. Because paper is so much more powerful, then
anything you can say in court. In court, you are going to be, timid, afraid, scared, it’s just natural. I mean
like I said, unless you are not afraid of going to jail. Like I am not afraid, I’m a big ugly guy. Well, I look
like a biker. So, I’m not afraid. Nobody is going to bother me. So that they know I’m gonna say what I’m
gonna say.
NNJ: in other words you put an answer into the court. Saying that, what you said about having, is there
any reason I can’t have a jury trial. But, if you’re a defendant, you don’t want to do it anywhere, right?
KL: you already explained it all in paper. There is no reason to say anything in court. I mean you’d be
crazy to go back on your paperwork, because you’d novate every single thing that you submitted to the
court. [novate (v.) Look up novate at Dictionary.com"to replace by something new," 1610s, from past
participle stem of Latin novare "to make new," from novus "new" (see new).] You could’ve wrote 800
pages, and as soon as you open your mouth and you start talking to the judge, other than saying, did
you not understand the paperwork that is in front of you? Do [are] you are not competent to lawfully
or legally decipher what I said? Do you need help in understanding what I wrote? I thought I wrote it
in plain simple language, I used two syllable words, I made it as simple as possible, were am I losing
you?
NNJ: Does any court, that’s criminal or civil?
KL: Any time you go before anybody like that, you try, you make sure you always give them a form of
a question. You never take their question and give them back an answer. It is always in the form of a
question. So if the judge asks you something, you say, you know what that is a very good question, let
me write that down, duh, duh, duh, duh and I will get you back an answer in 72 hours. Is there anything
else that you have a problem with, deciphering anything on my paperwork? I never modify it there in
court. You tell the judge, give me 72 hours and I’ll get back to where you are with an answer with that.
(On paper?) On paper, if that means you gotta go back in the cage for 72 hours, that’s fine. I am going to
do everything on freakin paper. So nobody can say I said this, he said this, because I’m try to think of the
word, oh, the judges use, what’s that word they us all the time? Oh, boy, I’ll think of it in a little while.
But what it basically says is, if you try to appeal something, the judge always has this trump card to his
appeal buddies. He is like look, you didn’t see the man’s attitude in court. You didn’t see what the man
said to me. You didn’t see he gave me the finger. You didn’t say he stuck his tongue out at me. So, no
matter what this man wants you to rule for him on his appeal, you let my decision – oh, it’s ore tenus. Its
two words. You take my word on this, he will tell his appeal judge buddies, fry this guy and they’ll fry
you. And that is like a trump card the judge can use no matter how magnificent your appeal is, he can
tell his buddies upstairs, hey, this guy gave me the finger. Oh, he did? Oh, ya and then she stuck her
tongue out at me. And then she fucking mooned me. So, like wait a second, I didn’t do any of this
nonsense. So you know what, the best thing to do is stay out of court. And get in and out of there as
quick as possible. Do it all in writing. The judge has a question for you, say that is a very good question
sir, you know what, I’m a little nervous right now, can I please write that down and I will get back to you
as fast as I can. Does 72 hours work? Is that fine? You know, will the court be happy with that? And just
talk to them like that. Don’t ever answer a question in court. A judge taught me that in Birmingham, he
taught me that. An old judge, he said sir, I’m going to throw your case out in half a heartbeat, everything
that you stylize, it better come at me in a form of a question. So, I said what? You want me to like play
Jeopardy with you? Exactly! If it aint coming at me in a form of a question, I’m throw your case out. So,
20
like holy cow how do I do this? He put me on the spot. Thank god it wasn’t for a lot of money and ah, it
worked out alright. But a judge taught me that. Everything has got to be in the form of a question,
coming back at the court.
NNJ: did he say the reason?
KL: ah, because who’s got the authority? I’m moving the matter, it’s my case. I’m not answering nobody.
I’m the one, the grand inquisitor. I’m the one asking the court the questions. I’m the one giving the
other party the questions. I’m the one in authority.
NNJ: so, what he’s saying, you as the plaintiff have to ask a question, you couldn’t make a statement.
KL: as the prosecutor, right.
NNJ: you are asking the defendant to answer?
KL: right, I can’t make statements and I can’t answer. I’ve got only phrase everything to the other party
in the form of a question, if I am prosecuting the case.
NNJ: if you are prosecuting, but what if you are the defendant?
KL: You are going to get slaughtered. I told everybody in the last show, don’t ever come in as the
defendant. Somebody else said that, I’m trying to remember, Billy Thornton said that as well. He taught
me that, and I just mastered it, beautifully. Where I take every single thing that they come after me with
and I say automatically, you are interfering with a right to _________________. And you fill in the blank.
You’re interfering with my right to __________________. That is my counter suit. But I don’t say
counter suit. I just say it is a whole new stand up on its own independent cause of action suit. You’re
interfering with my right to a jury trial, period.
NNJ: you are saying that, I don’t go into the court, back into the court as a defendant, just ignore
everything? And call up my own suit?
KL: right, Billy Thornton did a great job. Like I said what you is, you can answer theirs and say I don’t
believe they have any authority to move me. I’m only here, like under, you can use fancy words like special appearance, only so they don’t, there is not a warrant out for my arrest. Especially if it is civil. If
it is civil, like I said, under the Supreme Court Rules. It is like simple rules, like rule 101. Until all parties
are ready to proceed in the civil matter, there is to be no force or compelling of any or either of the
party to perform. There is no reason for you take the stage and act and carry out the court proceeding
until you are ready. It’s a simple law, for civil procedure. That is why it is called civilized. They can’t make
you dance if you don’t want to dance. So that is a simple rule, in civil proceedings. They can’t force you
to compel, give testimony, to move your case, defend your case, nothing in civil court, you can say I’m
just not ready. I want to stay the hearing, I want it held in abeyance until I’m ready. I got a headache,
whatever. You can make up the nonsense. You can say I’m just not ready.
NNJ: you are just doing this to give you time to get your own case together?
KL: exactly. It’s a stalling tactic. The same thing they do. It’s just, a tactic, until they can build up a case.
Marsh Clark should have done it, and left OJ, until they found a witness.
21
NNJ: so, I’m going to stall them, and then I’m going to do my own case. Can you walk us through the
procedure for starting your own case? You say in a federal court, but you have brought me to the site
where it says that all state courts are common law courts. Why would you go to federal as opposed to
state?
KL: Because like, silly me, I’m suing the governor and all the judges in the Alabama republican as well,
the governor is republican and all the judges are voted. Even the Supreme Court judge/justices in
Alabama are voted in as, you know, they’re elected. So they are all republican, so why am I, how am I
going to get a, somebody in a black robe, who is not a republican, who is not going to side for the
governor? That is diversity of citizenship, you can call it. But it is just a diversity of parties. They’re in one
state and I’m in another state. You know, but you can say what do you mean by state? Looks like I’m in a
natural state, I’m in a state of nature. I don’t have to say I’m in the state of Virginia, because some
people put me on the spot. Oh, you’re in the state of Virginia. What, you think I’m part of the dirt, the
rocks, the gravel? I’m not in a state. That’s ridiculous.
NNJ: so what you are saying is we’re on the land, and they’re on the state. We are foreign to one
another.
KL: you can say, all I know is, I’m in a natural state. I’m in a state of being, I’m a sentient being, I’m not in
any state. Tomorrow you could change the map, I thought we were all going to succeed from the United
States tomorrow anyway. So I think they are going to change the name of Virginia to Utopia land. You
know I don’t know what they are going to call it tomorrow. You know I didn’t write the rules. I don’t play
their name game. I don’t play it. I say I’m a man I’m aggrieved, I have been injured, that man did me
wrong, he interfered with my rights, I want compensation, I want him to leave me alone. That‘s my
lawsuit, that’s it, one page. When you read my law suit, it’s like holy Christmas. That’s it.
NNJ: wait, wait, wait so you are saying that all i have to do (Give them a notice) to evoke the court is to
do that first page?
KL: the first thing you gotta do is, (that’s on Angela’s site?) the first thing you have to do is (can you walk
us through this procedure?) okay, this what I tell everybody what to do. The first thing you do is write a
letter, a cease and desist letter. Tell’em you give them notice, you are interfere with right blah, blah,
blah. The right to association, the right to congregate, the right to carry a gun, the right to religions
practice, the right to whatever. The right to pick my nose and scratch my butt, to be let alone while I’m
doing it. Anything, you are interfering my right to ________________. You give them a notice, you say
look if you don’t stop interfering with this right or you stop interfering with giving me the right to go
before a jury, and stop interfering with my right to have a common law proceeding, if you don’t stop
doing this, I’m going to charge you a fee. I going to charge you a $ 1000.00 a day, until you stop
interfering with this right. Not only do I believe I have this right, but the constitution supports this right,
Alabama constitution and the new jersey constitution supports this right, state code supports this right,
the state supreme court of new jersey also believes that i have this right, so it is not only my beliefs. You
know what, I’m gonna come in with some good foundational evidence, backgrounds, proofs and facts
that my claim is standing on good foundation based on your freaking written law. So not only is it my
belief, it’s your belief. You send them a notice. You put all these citations in, that is where you do it.
22
But you don’t say, well Alabama says I can do this, and New Jersey. New Jersey doesn’t say nothing.
Tomorrow they’re going to change the state to something else. They’re pulling away from the United
States. They’re going to change to whatever they want to change it to. Asberry Park Land. Whatever
they want to change it to. So you just use their old stuff (Who is this letter to?) The judge who is denying
your right to a jury trial. Who’s ever doing you the wrong. Whosever the wrongdoer. Say, hey that’s
wrong, you can’t do that to me. Stop that. That’s the letter you give them. Hey that’s wrong don’t do
that to me, stop that. Not only is that my belief, but the constitution says this, the statutory code says
this, the Supreme Court says this, the bible says this, Ralph the cabbage says this, Magila the gorilla says
this, everybody says this. You can’t do me, this way that you are doing me. Stop. If you don’t stop I’m
going to charge you a thousand dollars a day. And I’m gonna bring it before a jury, and if the jury finds
that my belief is a good belief, then they give me the thumbs up like American idol. Hey, we like the
show and dance you just put on for us. You know, not only are they going to give me a thousand dollars
a day, hell we’ll triple the damages. Ya, that judge shouldn’t have done that to you. Hey, pay that nice
lady, judge. That is how you do your notice. Notice of cease and desist. Then when they refuse to cease
and desist, they just blow you off, huh, you can say by tacit acquiescence, you can put that in a notice
too, that if you don’t respond to this 72 hours, or 14 days or 21 days or 6 months, I’m going to say that
you tacitly acquiesce to all of the terms and conditions of this notice, and that you can do that. And then
like I said if they still continue to do this, say, well, I’m sorry that we couldn’t settle this matter on the
private side, but it looks like you giving me no choice but I’m going to have to evoke my ninth article civil
amendment, article rights of the bill of rights to invoke a common law jury trial against you.
NNJ: how do you say that, in another letter?
KL: Yup, just another letter, let 30 days go by, 14 days go by, 21 days go by, 6 months however long you
want to let them go by. You can claim a wrongful act that somebody did to you a 100 years ago. There is
no statutory limitation. There is no laches that may be imputed to the public. If you bring up a statutory
limitation, and you’re the prosecutor, then they can bring it up as a form of defense. Don’t ever say six
years went by, two years went by, 80 years went by. Don’t ever bring up any of that nonsense. And if
you drop dead and die, the judicial act of 1793 section 31 says that your descendants could pick up your
claim, if you drop dead and die. Your children’s, children’s, children could pick up your claim. Because
man can’t be lached. The attorneys can, the constitution laches the states to the federal government.
They are all lached. They all took contracts, they’re all - the judge took an oath of office. An oath of
office is they bound themselves to the constitution. Or they bound themselves to certain duties and
responsibilities. They bound themselves, they lached themselves. They have a contract to perform
under. You don’t. You do whatever you want. You’re unlimited. Your capacity to move and perform to do
whatever you want, is unlimited by any laches. Because you’re a man. You’re free to think. You’re not a
Frankenstein, and you’re not a creation of the state. You’re not a monster. It’s very simple. Believe me
when they see it, like I said, I check with the clerk of the courts office in Alabama today, see if my case
had a pacer number. So you folks can watch along. And watch this extremely simple claim go through
the federal district court, and see how it works. And I’m asking for 3 hundred like 46 million dollars,
cause 346 seconds they interfered with my right to my brand new baby. Who is now 11 years old.
EM: Karl can you cite that case number?
KL: which case is that?
23
EM: the one you want us to follow up on Pacer.
KL: ya sure I’ll email it to Angela, she can put it on whatever that guest site thing is, whatever. Some
people’s already pulled my lawsuit up, you know they pulled up my prologue, and they pulled up my
coversheet, they said. That they pulled those two up, but they said you didn’t put the suit in yet. I didn’t’
put it in yet? It’s only like 3 or 4 pages long. And all it is, 2 pages is what the wrongdoers did, who the
wrongdoers are. And the capacity of the governor stands in, as the chief magistrate of the state and how
he’s subordinates were let loose and let run out of control, and by them/him not monitoring, training
and supervising his subordinates, once I made him aware that his subordinates where out of control,
and they were running wild here, and causing harm to a man, that he now becomes liable. Because he is
the ring leader. He’s the master. He’s the chief magistrate. He is the executive power of the state. He
has the right to life and death. He could take you off the electric chair or put you on the electric chair. So
he – I go right after the, everybody calls him, like I said if you google the Alabama constitution of 1901
section 5, the executive branch of subsection 13, it says “the chief magistrate, oh, the state will have
one chief magistrate will have the supreme power of the state, he may be stylized as the governor of the
state of Alabama.” see we don’t have governors in this country. That’s an English title of Nobility Title, so
the constitution bars any titles of nobility in this country. So, nobody thinks they are better than
anybody else. So everybody has to answer to everybody for their actions, including the governor. Which
is really, he is really just the chief magistrate. I told you what a magistrate is, if you google and
etymologize the word at etymology.org it will tell you, magistrate is just a guy who served wine and
drinks to the king and his court, in his courtroom in his castle; 5, 6, 7, 800 years ago, that was the
magistrate. That’s all a magistrate is. He’s supposed to keep everybody happy, and keep the court
orderly, pick up the dirty dishes, make him say order in the court, does anybody have the law, order in
the court. That’s all he is supposed to do. He’s a magistrate. He keeps the court orderly. That’s all he
does. Same thing with the governor. He’s not supposed to be able to tell people what to do. He’s not the
governor of Jamaica in a pirate movie, say go kill Blackbeard. No, no, no. there’s no governors in this
country. Like I said only one person was ever in the United States history was allowed to accept a title
and that was the chuck will jones guy. I think congress actually passed an act that allowed him to accept
a title from France or England, I’m not sure. But I believe he is the only one who’s ever allowed to have a
title in this country. Nobody else, is allowed to walk around with a title. And they did better than
anybody. Everybody is equal here in this country. So, EM: in theory.
KL: what’s that? (In theory) no, you force it on them. You make them stick to it. The guys in the black
robe are beneath you, they are your public servants. See, man is the Gods’ representative on earth. So
there is nobody higher than God in this universe, and I’m his representative. I’m his mouth piece on the
earth, so are you. And that is why we have 12 people in the jury box, they are 12 gods. And I’m the god
of lighting and you’re the god of thunder, and we’re throwing thunder and lightning across each other,
and the 12 judges is front of us, and 12 more gods, say hey, hey, hey. I don’t care who you think you are,
I don’t care who you think you are, you’re not going to put this nonsense into society. We are going to
tell you what the hell is going to happen now. You brought this controversy into the public, here is our
verdict. You stop it, you sit down, you take that, you pay him, now you get the hell out here. That’s the
jury’s proceeding. They’re allowed to judge us. I don’t care if they are 12 little old black ladies who
watch Oprah all day. They want to sit in that jury box, I agree to the terms and conditions of going
before 12 other equal beings, oh, well. I got to take their verdict and live with it, and it can’t be appealed
24
and you can’t retry it, and there is no such thing as a redo. It’s over. The gods decided, it’s done. That’s
the beauty of the seventh amendment or the article 7. It’s done, there is no such thing, like OJ can’t be
tried again. Marcia Clark can’t say oh, we got a witness now. Now we got the murder weapon. It’s over
Marcia. Give it up. Go find something else to do. We’re done.
EM: they found something else to do and they put him in jail.
KL: that’s right. And they could put him in jail for the rest of his life for jay walking. Exactly. So he got his
one way or the other.
NNJ: do you have any, uhm, a template or an example of this letter interfering with my rights?
KL: I’m trying to think of what I gave the state of Alabama, I gave them something very – extremely
simple. I said to them this is the evidence I am going to use against you in a court. This is, you know,
prima facia evidence, this evidence will stand undisputed, you will not be able to answer to this in a
court of record. I said if I was you, I would make a settlement with me as soon as possible. Just
something basically something nice and gentle like that. And then I let 6 months go by, because I was
basically relying like on the federal tort claim act of 1947, where the feds have six months to answer.
Because they said, we’re a huge bureaucracy and it takes us a long time. And I was in no hurry. I was
building up my case. I was learning the law a lot better than I was. So I gave them 6 months. So in 6
months, is there some reason why you failed to answer? And then it just said we don’t think we owe you
any money, and oh, it was a funny answer they gave me. I love the answer they gave me. It’s cutest. I’ll
tell you the answer they gave me. This is funny. The answer that they gave me was, DHR, here we go.
There reply to me was, the DHR, which is like CPS or the dept. of human resources, not dept. of
homeland security, its DHR does not believe that you have a claim. It’s like pooh, good. They said I had a
claim, because that is how I refer to it a claim is a common law word, a claim. Like I stake the claim for
gold. I found a gold mine. I’m staking my claim. Pooh, good. So, DHR does not believe you have a claim.
DHR will not be paying you any money or giving you other relief. If you feel, ooh, good only man can
feel. If you feel that you have a claim, you should feel free to pursue you complaint in a court of law. So
it is like oh, my god. So, if they try to dispute anything for common law of record, a court of law is a
common law court of record. That’s a court of law, it’s not a court of equity. There is two courts in this
country, a court of law and a court of equity. A court of law is a common law court. So it’s like holy cow,
the state attorney generals’ office sent me this letter, like 6 months ago. They said they don’t believe
that I have a claim. Oh, good. They don’t believe? No, they can’t believe, they can only maintain. Only
man can have a belief, the state can maintain, but they can’t believe anything. Only man can believe. So
then it says, DHR will not be paying you any money. So, it’s like oh, good, so they must think that I have
something of value that I want from them. Well, as far as I know, DHR, doesn’t have a printing press,
they can’t create any money, so I don’t know what the hell they are talking about. And it says if you feel
that you have claim you should feel free to pursue your complaint in a court of record. So oh, good, so
they just said that they will no longer be talking to me on the administrative side. There will not be
contact between me and you on the private side to remedy this matter outside of a court of law. So they
are telling me, take me to a court of law. Ok, I am going to grant you your wish. You want to go before a
court of law, holy cow, buddy, you realize what you just wished for? We’re going to take you to a court
of law. Here we go. And the only person who can speak in there is going to be the governor, himself, the
attorney general, himself and the trustee of the insurance fund. The risk management of the general
liability trust fund who is holding my money from me. Cause I claimed as a beneficiary of that fund,
25
because I been injured, because of those wrongdoers, I demanded x amount of dollars. And that trustee
is holding up my payment. And he has no, legitimate authority or lawful authority to deny my claim. I
proposed them a claim, I told them the evidence, I gave them exactly why, I said I am a beneficiary, give
me it. He said no. not without a court order. I said oh, wonderful, so you want a court order? He said
yes. I said buddy, in a common law court of record, who creates the orders? He said what? I said the
prosecutor does. The plaintiff creates the orders. Do you want an order? Hoohoo, you’re gonna love this
order. And then I gave him an order. The orders are in there. I think some guy named tom murphy read
me the orders. He said oh, boy, I loved your orders, they are one sentence long. I said you’re damn right.
You’re making a order to the waitress at Denny’s for an order of pancakes. You’re gonna say give me
pancakes, sausage and a biscuit. You’re not going to give her 800 pages of how you want the biscuit
made, or how to kill a cow, or how pull a wheat and how to chafe the chaff off the wheat – I want 3
pancakes, bacon and a biscuit. You make the order simple. Then you tell them give it to the clerk, now
hand it to the other side, hand it to the state. They know how to say I’m not going to grant this man –
I’m not going to carry out this man’s order. Good, don’t. Let’s set this for a jury trial. Yay. Let’s go. That’s
your answer? Ya, good. Let’s get this show on the road. You want to have a precipice day? You want a
pre-hearing day? You want to get the matters of controversy out of the way? Let’s do this. On day 22,
we are going to be sitting in front of a jury. You’re ready to go, let’s go. I’m ready to go. And that’s how I
deal with them.
NNJ: well, if your uhm, you were going after them for money. Now they are coming after me for money.
(Okay) How would I fashion that letter, interfering with my rights, if they are coming after me.
KL: why do they believe you owe, how do they believe you owe them a debt? (Pardon) You owe them a
debt? Huh?
NNJ: they are saying I do, yes.
KL: okay, now who is claiming you owe them a debt?
NNJ: the attorney for the plaintiff. (Okay, the plaintiff) Certificate of tax sale.
KL: an attorney can’t make a claim. Only a plaintiff can, only, only, only a man can make a claim. An
attorney can’t make a claim.
NNJ: so what would the letter say?
KL: so, who’s making a claim that you owe somebody money? If it is an attorney, they are filing a false
claim. Because an attorney can’t make a claim. If that is the only instrument on record, before a court, I
don’t care what kind of court it is.
NNJ: well, a complaint is that a claim?
KL: ya if he is claiming that you owe the debt, somebody is saying that Miss New Jersey, you’re from
New Jersey, right? (Yes) Miss New Jersey owes XYZ money. Okay, XYZ is going to have to come to open
court put their hand on the bible and swear under oath or affirmation that you owe them money.
NNJ: is this how the letter reads? (What do you mean how the letter-) you said the letter was to the
judge. That letter number one.
26
KL: I said if a judge is interfering with your rights to, say a – whose ever interfering with your rights, you
tell them to stop interfering with your rights. I said it could be a right to religion, it could be a right to
free association, it could be a right to carry a gun, it could be a right to have a jury trial. So the letter is
just fill in the blank, who’s ever doing you a wrong, say, you are interfering with my right to carry a gun,
you are interfering with my right to free association, you are interfering with my right to have a jury trial,
you are interfering with my - and it could be addressed to anybody. See my stuff isn’t case specific, I’m
not saying this what you do to a judge, and this is what you do to IRS, and this is what you do to credit
card, and this is what you do to mortgage company. This is what you do to everybody. You fill in the
blank. (Okay) Whoever is doing the wrong.
NNJ: but what would be the right of interfering for a jury trial?
KL: if the judge was interfering with your right, you say to the judge put it in the paperwork, way before
you walk into the courtroom. And said to the judge, hey you know what? I didn’t get an answer back
from you. I expected to get an answer back from you within three days, I told you in my notice that if
you don’t give me a jury trial, your gonna interfere with my rights. Are you trying to have a hearing now
today? And you’re still going to try and conduct this matter without a jury present? Yes. Well, then I’m
sorry ma’am I don’t know how to explain this to you, you are still interfering with my rights, and I don’t
know how you are going to proceed in this matter, when I clearly established the rules, as I the
prosecutor said I will move a claim through your court. I’m not coming in as a freaking defendant. You
guys got to stop saying you’re the defendant all the time. Because a defendant can never, there is
nothing in the rules, where a defendant wins money. A defendant always loses money, or he breaks
even. But he never wins anything. Why do I always want to be the loser? I don’t, ever, want to go in a
game of chess or monopoly and say the best I’m could do is lose. I don’t want to play. What’s in it for
me? I don’t see a reason for me to be here. You know what? I’m gonna make a reason for me to be
here. I’m gonna be the winner. Somehow I’m gonna win, or I’m not gonna play. So you’re interfering
with my right to a jury trial. Right? Okay. Somebody’s claiming I owe them a debt. Okay, who’s claiming
the debt? An attorney can’t make a claim. He can’t claim anything. He has no idea what went on
between me and the other party. He wasn’t there. He doesn’t know what we agreed to. And how we
were going to make the terms and conditions. He has no clue. He is coming in as third - he’s coming in so
far at the end of this, this matter it’s scary. He has no clue what’s going on. And I’m not going to sit here
explain, turning state’s witness on myself, and explain what actually happened between me and the
supposed person who is claiming I owe them a debt. I’m not going to sit here and explain it. I’m not
going to turn states witness on myself. Let the plaintiff bring forward the information himself. Let the
plaintiff swear to it.
NNJ: do I tell the judge that the attorney can’t talk, swear or bring in a claim?
KL: you told the judge in writing this, right? But you’re not opening your mouth to the judge, right? We
already established that you were never going to open your mouth to the judge, right?
NNJ: Right, how could I tell him that he’s proceeding against me? If I’m not in court, you said he’s having
a hearing, and I was supposed to go into court, and I say you are still interfering with my right to a jury
trial. Why, because you are having this hearing, this is all in writing –
KL: like I said you put it all in writing. If you go to court, and you want to say – if you read word for word
what you said, say judge what don’t you understand in this thing, I said I will appear when I see a jury
27
present. I do not see a jury present. I will not be appearing today. You are interfering with my right to a
jury trial. That is what it says right here line number 2. Are you still, you know, still interfering with my
right to a jury trial? You ask the judge yes or no. well, then there is no reason for me to be here today.
What is the purpose of this matter, the hearing today? Because I don’t know how you’re gonna move
against me when you know you are in violation of the law. You’re breaking the law judge. You’re
interfering with my right. You can’t do that. You can’t outstep outside your scope of authority. You took
an oath of office to uphold and obey a certain set of rules. Because we already established the fact that
she is a judge. And that she took an oath of office under title 28 if you are going under a federal court
judge or under like say, I’m trying to remember, title 4 or title 5 or article 6 clause 3 where every state
employee and every judge has to take an oath of office to be bound to the constitution. So you tell the
judge are you breaking your oath, are you breaking your promise, are you breaking your word that
you contracted with people to abide by the constitution? Are you telling me right now, are you telling
everybody in this courtroom right now, that you are not bound by the constitution? And that you feel
you could breach your contract with the people and I am just supposed to accept that? Is that what
you wish to have happen today? But you put everything in freaking writing. There is no way in the
world the judge is going to allow you to – like I said when I do that to them, they all recuse themselves in
the prehearing trial. Because they say holy cow, I am not going to get into the courtroom with crazy guy
Karl, he’s going to tear me up. He’s tearing me up in my own chambers. I’m certainly not going to let him
put me out on public display and tan me a new hole. I’m going to recuse myself, and say oh, I know the
person you are suing Karl, I went to grade school with him, you know what my sister had a barbeque
with him Thursday, you know I am going to have to recuse myself. Every judge I go in front of, they all
recuse themselves, at the preliminary hearing, in there chambers. They all recuse themselves. Because
you put’em on a spot there, in their chambers. You set up a preliminary hearing date. A precipice day.
That’s how you nail all these judges. You don’t wait until open court, that’s crazy, that’s suicide. You put
them all in their place in writing, you ask for a preliminary hearing trial, to set and establish the rules,
this is how I am going to appear, this is how I want them to appear, that is where I want the jury to sit,
judge that is where I want you to sit, this is what I want you to do, that is what I want them to do, it is
your case. You’re packing the suitcase, I want my socks over here, I want my tissues over here, I want
my Kleenex over here, I want my clothes, my iron, my hairdryer here. I’m packing my case. This is my
case. My suitcase. My case and my suit, is going to be put on in front of the jury. I am going to put on my
suit in front of the jury, and they are going to determine the merits of my suit. And they’ll say hey, that’s
nice, I like the way you fucking did that collar. Ya, that’s pretty cool aint it. They are going to see my
accoutrements that I attach to my case, my witnesses, here is my exhibits, here is my testimony, hey I
got a pretty cool suit in this case don’t i? Ya, that’s pretty cool suit. It’s American idol. Ya, we’re your
judges here. Ya, thumbs up, you win buddy. It’s all a game it’s all a show. You just gotta know how to
play it. Once you know how to play it, it’s fun. Until then you betterNNJ: getting back to this letter number one. I’m saying you are interfering with my rights to a jury trial.
Trial by jury. (Okay, I like that.) Okay, and that’s only one line, and that is it, that’s all I say.
KL: well it is a good thing to say you are interfering with it, then what I would do is put the terms and
conditions in, if you insist on interfering with my rights, and I appear on the 30th day that you wished
me to or you ordered me to, and I don’t see a jury there, I am going to be extremely upset. And I am
going to charge you $ 10,000 for wasting my valuable time. Because you know the rules. Under article
6 clause 3 you took an oath to bound by the constitution, I’m using my 9th amendment, I am just going
28
to use amendments right now, so I don’t confuse you right now. (I understand) I’m going to say the 7th
and 9th amendments. I have a right to a court of record. That’s the only court, that’s the only form of
court that’s secured and protected by the constitution of the United States. There’s no other court
established in the constitution for the people. Everything else is due to an act of congress. The federal
district court, the circuit court, the Supreme Court, are all, except for the Supreme Court, are all acts of
congress. The only other court that is mentioned is the supreme court of the United States, but that’s
the supreme court of the government of the United States, not the supreme court of the people, it’s the
supreme court of the government to put the checks and balances between the executive branch and the
legislative branch. That is all the supreme court of the United States was for, was for the checks and
balances for the government and the states. The state had a problem with the feds, feds had a problem
with the state, they could go to their supreme court, and slug it out. That’s what the Supreme Court was
built for. It wasn’t built for us. Our court is a court of record. That’s the 12 people in the jury. 7th
amendment clearly stipulates, once it is decided before a jury, it can’t be retried. It can’t be heard in any
court in the United States. Including the Supreme Court. It’s simple.
EM: Karl, real quick, you write that letter to the judge or do you put it in as a filing in the case?
KL: nope, you write it straight to the judge. And don’t - none of this nonsense in the newspaper. If I was
you, I’d send it to the judge, I’d send it to the judicial review board of the state, I’d send it to the circuit
court judge as well. That you got an out of hand crazy district court judge down here, that is totally
loony tune. But you don’t say that, but at least to get the grasp of what you trying to go with. So don’t
go too patriotic, don’t make it 800 pages long. Make it one page long. Maybe 3 sentences, and you’re
done.
NNJ: and you say, how – if you insist on having this hearing in 30 days, and there is no jury present, I’m
going to be extremely upset.
KL: ya, you better say that as nicely as you can. I think I’m going to realize that you still don’t believe I
have a right to ah, under the constitution that this matter is more than $ 20.00 and you still believe you
have the right to interfere with that, I’m going to be highly upset and I think your boss is going to be
upset at the circuit court and I am already notifying him as well. I’m putting you on notice. I’m letting
your superiors know. That they are going to be held liable. And you can do that writ of mandamus thing
that I’m going to demand of them that you obey the law. And if you don’t obey the law, they are going
to take over. So, how are we going to do this ma’am, or how are we going to do this judge, sir? How do
you want to play this game? Do you want me to put you on notice with your boss? And say you are not
holding up your oath of office? Where do you want me to go with this sir?
NNJ: so, will I expect an answer?
KL: I hope they don’t give me an answer. What do I want an answer for?
NNJ: so if they don’t answer you, you say they are acquiescing?
KL: I’m suing them.
NNJ: to the fact that you’re gonna get a jury trial?
29
KL: I’m gonna prove to the jury, I gave them time to answer they refused to answer, jury, you know
the rules, she knows the rules, the maxim of law, tacit acquiescence is acceptance of the rules. There
you go. They accepted.
NNJ: that’s your second letter? You write your second letter? You acquiesced?
KL: no, you put that in your first letter. Say if you refuse to respond, if you fail to answer in 72 hrs, or 14
days or 6 months that you know, I am going to use this as a form of tacit acquiescence that my claim is
just and true, and fair. And I am going to present this to the jury of evidence of why I am suing you. You
can sue somebody for interfering with your rights. Nobody is immune. Nobody can interfere with your
rights. You claim you got a right, nobody can deny you rights. Your rights can’t be surrendered. They
can’t be revoked, they can’t be taken away. There is no such thing. If they could take away your right to
do something, it’s a civil privilege. It’s not a right.
AS: Okay, we gotta move on, because we’re running out of time. And people are in line.
KL: go for it.
NNJ: is there any way you could give the procedure, after that to establish the case, in the federal court?
KL: like I said, go (in your own sausage)you basically have told the other side that, if we can’t settle this
matter on the private side, I’m going to move it to a common law court of record in a federal district
court. Because obviously I’m not going to get a fair hearing in a state court. Because you are a state
judge. You get paid by the state. Obviously your buddies are going to back you up. So you know what I’m
going to have to do is, I’m going to have to take you into the federal court. How do you want to deal
with this lady? And then you gotta make sure that the federal rules say you know you gotta abide by
certain federal rules. You know, you gotta say look, you know, she is interfering with my rights, it’s a
federal question, you say it is a federal question, and you let the federal district court judge decide
whether she had the right to interfere with your rights to a jury trial. And like I said,
AS: you are repeating yourself now, you know. It’s getting late, we gotta move on.
KL: right, that’s what I say to people, about declaratory judgements, you can either write to the federal
district court judge and give him a declaratory judgment, ask him can you give me your opinion federal
district court judge, I got a state lady judge who is giving me a hard time interfering with my right to a
jury trial, can you give me my standing, if I brought it before you? How would you rule on this? And the
judge will say okay, a state judge lady is giving you a hard time? Yes. Okay, this is her standing, this is
your standing, you are using article 6 clause 3, and she is ignoring you, right? Good. They’ll give you the
opinion. And he’ll send the opinion to the judge lady. And he’ll say now, judge lady, you still want this
lady to drag you into federal court, because I already ruled in her favour. Because now when she comes
here, she is going to win a half of a heartbeat, because everybody here in federal district court is already
aware of what it going on. So, make sure to settle this on the private side, that’s a declaratory
judgement.
AS: okay, stop. Alright, east Maryland did you have a question? Or was that from before? Okay, we are
going to move on, North Nevada go ahead, did you have a question? North Nevada? You’ve been
unmuted. Do you have a question? You have to unmute your phone, if you have a mute button.
NN: Okay, I just turned the mute button off. What a nice night with Karl. How you doing Karl?
30
KL: this has got to be Tom. Huh?
NN: fantastic, fantastic. What about our right to clean water?
KL: you sue the president yet?
NN: we’re going to. We’re putting it together, in our common law court of record. All 50 states, want to
join in, have you heard?
KL: only one page right? You’re only gonna send Obama one page, right? No more 800 pages.
NN: it doesn’t take much. It doesn’t take much with people that are, you know, discharging.
KL: you are only going to send him one page, right? No more 800 pages, right?
NN: nope, no more 800 pages brother. Your awesome, you’re so god send.
AS: did you have a question?
NN: ya, what about the right to clean water?
KL: what do you mean the right to clean water? I told you the other day about common grounds and
nobody has the right to contaminate a common ground. No matter who they are. A government agency,
a building, a single person, nobody has the right to interfere with the man’s right to enjoy the common
ground, or the common water or the common air. That’s my belief. And if somebody, if you find
somebody doing that, you know discharging on the common ground, or the common water, you say you
hold them liable for doing it, and like you said, EPA isn’t enforcing the law well then their boss is the
president of the United States, and he is a public servant. So you tell the guy in charge, of the DEA or
whoever else homeland security, I’m putting you on notice. You have some crazy subordinates out here,
that there is a law called the EPA ACT, clean act of 1972, and they are failing to enforce it. I’m telling you
your duty as the executive branch is to enforce the laws of the congress. I’m giving you notice that if you
don’t start sending some people out here and doing their duty, I’m going to charge a fee of $10,000 a
day and we will bring some guys in here from china who will start installing filters and start billing the
united states government failing to clean the water. We’ll bring an outside contracting agency and we’ll
hand you the bill. If you don’t want to, we’ll find somebody else to do your job.
AS: alrighty. Next up. North New Jersey. Go ahead North New Jersey.
NNJ: Yes I got a question, what if you had 2 hung juries, and you had a, not a trial by jury, but a jury trial?
And can they try you again for a third time, even though you had 2 hung juries.
KL: oh, ya, hung jury that’s scary, man. When you get a hung jury, man, that’s crazy. What’s the
problem? What seems to be the problem, man, that you can’t settle this on the private side? What’s
going on?
NNJ: Well I got a friend that’s in court. At first he had a hung jury and then the second time, 4 of the
jurors walked out because, they said, this court targets black men. The third time he had a hung jury. SoKL: what did he do wrong? Did he do wrong to a state, a private person, what did he wrong?
NNJ: oh, this is just a traffic infraction.
31
KL: oh, just traffic? And you had a jury trial for that? Why didn’t youse go before the judge?
NNJ: that’s a mistrial isn’t it?
KL: no, whenever I go to jury - whenever I go to traffic court, I hate going before a jury. Because a jury
will say, I explained that thing on the last call. I said I got a traffic ticket for driving in reverse, for going
all over the road, for failing to go – I went backwards through a stop sign, and I knew a jury would
convict me. The jury will, they’ll attaint me, they’d find me guilty– there’s no doubt about it. I’d be
attainted. So, I said to that judge, I said, but I didn’t break the law. He said what do you mean? There’s
no injured party. Nobody here’s testifying by me driving backwards, 90 miles an hour going through stop
signs, all over the road, I didn’t hit nobody’s mailbox, cut across anybody’s lawn, didn’t run over
anybody’s dog, I didn’t have no contract with that cop, because that is my car, and I can drive it anyway I
want. And the judge is like, well no I’m going to find you guilty. I said judge can I bring the law into the
court? He said what law? I said it’s in every code book. I said what does it say in the footnote, because
he read the legalese, he read the code. He says in the commonwealth of Virginia, its first time driving in
reverse its $50 fine, 1 point of your license, the second time its $150 fine, third time its $500 fine and 6
months suspended license. Now read the footnote. He said, well it’s lawful to drive in the
commonwealth in reverse, as long as you don’t damage property, and another person told you that they
couldn’t drive the car in that manner. Huh, he said your case is dismissed. I said no it’s discharged, I aint
coming back, but I got better things to do, to explain to you the difference between dismissed and
discharged, when you could – didn’t understand the difference between legal and lawful. So what your
friend did was illegal. What he did was not unlawful. Did he cause any property damage to anybody
when he was driving his car?
NNJ: No, no he didn’t. But uh, no he didn’t bring it up, but to my understanding, there are no trials-there
are no jury trials for traffic infractions. That I know of.
KL: he don’t need to go to a jury, just tell the judge I did not break the law. And you explain to the judge
difference between legal and lawful, if the judge is an idiot. Sometimes the judges don’t know. Because
that was first thing that I asked the judge, he actually said you wanted a jury trial. I said well this very
simple, ah, citation that I’m doing here. Reckless driving, going through a stop sign backwards, speeding,
all over the road reckless, and driving in reverse. I said this is very simple. I could get this done in 5
minutes. He said, simple? I said ya, I get all this thrown out in two minutes. I said this is a joke. I said do
you know the difference between legal and lawful? He said, well absolutely.
NNJ: well actually he is not a judge, we found out that he is not a judge. But he is still doing, but he is not
a judge.
KL: right, so a lot of these administrating hearing officers, don’t know the difference between law and
legal. You gotta teach them. and how you do it, is you present it to them, a week or two or a month or
two before you actually go to trial. And then you go to a precipice day with these – administrating
hearing judges that are doing traffic court. You could ask him can I have a preliminary hearing with you
in chambers, with the prosecutor. They will give it to you. You state your case. You explain to him look,
this is what the law says. And I actually used the Virginia code of 1950, it’s like 16.1.343. I said to the
judge read the footnote. And he read the footnote. He said it’s lawful to drive in reverse in the
commonwealth as long as you don’t cause damage to property or the person whose car is, told you, says
you couldn’t. He’s huh. I said judge it’s an ancient law, I said that’s law. What you’re reading is some
32
legal nonsense code. I said the price went up from $2.00 in 1950 to $50.00 now in 2010. I said your
legalese always changes, but the law remains the same. The law never changes. As long as there’s not an
injured party, I could do whatever I want on this planet. And nobody could tell me no. nobody is my
damn daddy. We are equal here. If you want to drive backwards, feel free. I wouldn’t think your nut. But
you know what if you want to wear that funny black robe, I think you’re a nut. But I wouldn’t ever be
caught dead wearing it. But, fine, I like to drive backwards, so, I guess I’m a nut too. But we are all free
to do whatever we want to do in this life aint we judge? And you just go on with your day. He’s not
going to hold you guilty. He’s gonna go oh, ya, this guy makes sense. And your gonna slug the problem
out on precipice day, on preliminary hearing trial. Don’t wait till the day you go to court. There is no
reason why, you can’t say to the judge look, I wish to settle this matter in chambers, I wish to settle this
in a preliminary hearing. Is there some reason why we have to have a jury, is there some office hours
like a college teacher, is there some office hours that you have, that I could just meet with you and the
prosecutors want come here? Can we have a three way phone call? Like I did that with the attorney
general of Virginia. He stayed in Richmond, I stayed in the valley. And we had a three - phone call, I sat in
the judge’s chambers. And we slugged it out there in the judge’s chambers, and the judge realized, holy
cow, Karl is going to run me over like a freight train in court. And the judge recused himself. I said no, no,
no you’re doing great buddy. Stay, I like you, you can be my judge. He said, no, no, no, I know the
prosecutor, she worked with me, I can’t, I got go. I said, no, no, no stay. And they just, nobody was ever
re-assigned the case, and it was over. It was a couple of years ago, and they never bothered picking it up
again. So like I said, there is a lot of ways you could settle this without a jury, and there’s a lot of ways
you could settle this stuff without opening your mouth in court. Slug it out in the judge’s chambers with
the judge, at a preliminary hearing, a precipice day. I am sure there’s some sort of rules in your civil code
book, somewhere in North New Jersey that says something about a preliminary hearing trial, if you
demand it, if you wish it, that you could move the matter into some sort of a plea bargain kind of thing,
with the parties, all of you. I am sure there is something in there.
AS: okay is that good enough for ya?
NNJ: Yes thank you.
KL: alright, I hope I helped you.
AS: Okay, next we are going on to California. Go ahead California.
CA: Hi Angela.
AS: Hi, Dallas.
CA: ya, I was listening in, but was kinda listening in to what’s gone on here, and I’m pretty busy with my
dad, taking care of him. But I heard you just mention to the previous caller about ah, getting it, not
getting it dismissed but getting it discharged. Can you explain for us here, out in listen land, what you
mean by the difference between dismiss and discharge? And how you effect that with a judge?
KL: oh, sure. Basically I told the judge look, you could dismiss this because there is two types of bills in
this world, there is bills of account and there is final bills. So, now if you want to leave my citation or
ticket so the state or the county could use it, to create bonds with it or security instruments with it, fine.
We just dismiss it and you could use it as a form of security instrument. Because like I said there is two
types of bills, a bill on account and I’m still going to be in debt to the county, I’m going to be in debt to
33
the state. So you could bundle all my traffic tickets and everybody else’s traffic tickets and you could sell
it off to an investor like a derivative. Just like they did with mortgages. This is how the counties and
states are writing out their day traffic tickets like crazy. But they just want it dismissed not discharged.
Because once they are discharged, they can’t use it as a form of debt instrument, to create credit for
their county or the state. There is a guy named Marc Stevens, who has gone crazy. This guy calls up and
says, oh, 9 cops didn’t show up and everybody in the courtroom, we’re all like wondering what do we do
now? What do we do now? The cops didn’t show up, and all our cases were dismissed. What is going
on? And marc Stevens says oh, the cops, they should be summonsed to appear. And they should be
dragged in handcuffs, these maniac psycho cops they get away with not appearing in court. I said Marc,
they don’t want them to appear in court any more. They want the bills to stay on account, as a billings of
account. That way when they bundle up, especially the county of LA, a huge county, they could have ten
million tickets on account every month. And they could say to their investors, look we caught 33% on
these bills, every month. So we got steady income of 3 million dollars, coming into the county of LA. So
you see we have a legitimate source of income that we can generate. So will you now buy our bonds?
And they’re like okay, cool. You got a whole bunch of debtors. Ya, we got a whole bunch of debtors. So
that is what I was trying to explain to marc ste - this guy Marc Stevens, on some liberty radio network
thing. He’s like ah, that’s crazy. Ah, I need to see absolute proof. Proof? I said, I would do it. If I was the
judge I’d tell the cop, get out of here, get out of here. What? I want this case discharged, we are just
going to dismiss this case. Just get out of here, we’ll leave this guy ticking in limbo for the last 6 – 7 years
because this guy doesn’t know how to discharge this off his record. He is just going to be happy to walk
out of this courtroom today with a dismissal.
CA: How do you actually discharge it?
KL: you don’t. Say, since there is no compelling party to move it. But why would you want to do that
unless it’s affecting your insurance policy, or something like that, or it is hurting your employment? Well
just let the county keep it. Let the state keep it. I don’t care, if you want to have 10,000 tickets with my
name on it, and you can generate money for the state and county without taxing me, you get investors
to buy this hoky doky derivative bond nonsense, like mortgages on houses, and you can somehow
generate an income for the county, and you fix our roads and provide for our schools, well god bless ya.
I’ll go out there and generate as many traffic tickets as you want me to. As long as –
CA: it’s just that, so instead of doing just like you’re telling exactly what they are doing with the
mortgage notes, I know, cause a friend of mine has gone through that right now, and he did a
securitization audit, and friends have caught it, and found out that the note was on wall street and it
had nothing to do with the servicer that’s attempting to collect somehow. (there you go) so, they just
take it and they use it, (that’s right) and they keep using it, keep taking funds of it. Ya, it just goes all over
the place. So that is what they do with it, when they dismiss it. (Exactly) it’s just, it’s not really relieving
the charge, they keep the charge, and they miss it somewhere else, where it is a dismiss, I look at those
words, it is missed here, it is found somewhere else.
KL: they can bring it back up in like 7 years, some places it is 10 years. They could recall it. If not I’m
pretty sure the state would just let it die. They are not going to bring you back, take it – they are going to
have 10,000,000 tickets every month. They got so many cops running around out there, writing up
citations and tickets, it’s scary. But if I saw the cops, if I was the judge I saw the cops coming into the
courtroom, what are you doing here? Well, I wrote out 1,500 tickets last month. No, no, go out there
34
and write up some more. I’m just going to dismiss all these clowns, we going to keep this ticket thing
going. You know, just, just go out there and write tickets. So, if the judges let us in on it, the things, like
wow. You mean I am actually helping the community and the state, and the county by going out and
getting traffic tickets? Ya, and your not – you’re just going to dismiss this, you’re not gonna charge – no,
no, no, we’re going to bundle it up and sell it some crazy guy in Asia or Malaysia. You know we are going
to sell to some guy in Iceland. Like we do with your mortgages. Oh,
CA: yea, you know, I guess it no different than, I know when I was – I know I have talked on the call
before here, I have been arrested three times, just for traffic tickets. Because of things I was testing out
of the courtroom, when I was in jail, and they release me, I ah, they had this one guy that kinda looked
like, could have been wearing a red suite on December 25, a nice old jolly looking guy, and he told me
sign right here and I’ll ah, release you and give you your property. I went, what are you going to do that
for? Why, give you property? No, re-lease me. Why you gonna do that? He said what you talking bout? I
said re-lease me, if you’re going to re-lease me that means that somebody had me leased before I was in
here, in the jail. And now you are leasing me back to them. Is that what you are doing? He said, ah,
interesting. And he walked away and got my stuff. I knew what I was talking about, but then it pretty
much like you’re saying, discharge and dismissed. (Right) we don’t really look at the words, and see how
they apply. (right) but like I said, things are bonded, things are put on notes and they sell it off, they put
it on wall street, put it in other, with other investors. And they do things with it, because it’s paper.
KL: right so go get, you go do your duty and go get as many traffic tickets as you can tomorrow.
CA: ya, okay. Well, thank you very much, I appreciate it.
KL: not a problem.
AS: thanks Dallas. Thanks Karl, you know what it’s, we’re over two hours and I gotta go.
KL: that’s great.
AS: it was good, I’m glad you came on. You know I would really like to get into your thinking on the IRS
and could, do that, one of these Thursdays.
KL: alright you could find people that hate the IRS, and I’ll back them up. And I honestly believe that they
are a great organization and really do believe it helps men get closer to God.
AS: well that’s good. I want to hear your whole theory on that, and how to use them to your advantage.
I like that idea.
==============================================
i’m going to require the court to hear my claim at the same time that it’s hearing his attorney,
whatever, whatever this man known as attorney general. See what I’m saying, you’ve gotta hold these
people liab-, see you said that somebody called an attorney general (right, peter) okay, peter, so the
guy’s name is, okay so you say to the attorney general, you gotta call him peter, (right) he says I’m the
attorney general, is that like you first name, middle name, the attorney general, is that what you go by?
Is that your name? The attorney general? Or is your name peter? If he says well no I’m the attorney
general, say well I’m here to talk to my fellow man, that woman has got my property. or this man over
35
here has got my property, and I order the immediate return of my property, somebody in this room has
got my property and I order this court to return my property now. Who knows the whereabouts, who
knows the location of my property, bring it forth, return it upon I now. Simple. Jessie did it.
And then I explain that diminished capacity of the status of a man by capitalization, and capitalize means
to take advantage over something. Take it, you need to capitalize, here you are taking advantage over
somebody else. That’s where you are capitalizing on a situation, capitalist, you are taking over on
somebody, making a profit. (I noticed something earlier today, when I did a long hand I, capital I, it looks
like a little (dip?))ya, like I said the upper case I there looks like a dead corps, man, like the arms and legs
spread out with no head (right exactly) and then the lower case I, you know, the lower case I if you do it
fancy looks like a guy running. Or like a guy moving, a guy moving, a guy running a guy free to move
End of august show with Angela stark: the attorney general, or look, crown barrister or something that
has some sort of a power, authority or control over her case, only a fellow man has the capacity to have
finger tips and eyeballs to read it and see this, a prosecutor doesn't have that capacity, it’s a claim from
a man, it's a god like image. Something created by god, you better turn your eyes or you are going to be
blinded, you don't have the capacity to stand and talk to God face to face. it aint gonna happen, the
story with Moses or whatever, he tried to look at God and turned away, he still - his hair turned white
and whatever happened to him. You can’t look into the face of your creator, you can’t do it. So that is
what I’m saying, he is not going to come after you as a man, saying that what you are saying is not true.
He is going to come to you in person, behind a mask, behind a wig, behind a big black gown, he is going
to come into court dressed as a woman not as a man, and he is going to be wearing a wig and a gown.
He is not going to appear in court as a man, he is going to appear in court as - anything but a man, he is
not going to appear in court man to man. He is going to be, come cloaked under color. He is going to be
disguised under a mask in person, he is not going to appear in court as a man. You can ask him a simple
question are we talking man to man. It’s like absolutely not. He will never hold himself out liable, talking
man to man. Let’s just talk man to man, no, I’m going to talk legalese. No, I’m not going to hold myself
out liable. No, I'm going to hide, I'm going to hide behind this mask, I’m only going to appear in person.
And you are going to appear in person too. Oh, no I'm not. I don't wish to, I’m going to appear as a man,
and the only person that is going to appear had better take his mask off and better appear as a man as
well. I want to know who i am fighting against. You better drop that mask.
KL…read books to talk like these guys, oh you better believe it. When you actually read the books, you
pick up a style of their pattern, and your like, ach, I got it, I got the way these crazy guys wrote back
then. And they were really beautiful the way they wrote. So I’m gonna write it the same way. If it
worked for them, its gonna work for me. So I read this as one long sentence. The Lentz court requires a
magistrate, it has come to the attention of said court that the services of Wallace Cappel Jr. magistrate
are available to serve said court. If Wallace Cappell Jr. believes he is qualified to minister the affairs of a
court of record, his honourable services will please said court. There you go, there is my order, signed,
dated, thumb printed, done. And a really cute thing I said to Dan, I said to Dan yesterday, did I explain to
Dan why I don’t like these silly gold seals. You know like people tell you oh, go get a seal –
Dan: ya, because (muffled) the only seal is us, our thumb print. Our finger print. That’s the seal. That’s
the true seal. Any other seal is legal, it has no significance to anything.
36
KL: because when I use, I say to people, that what I believe when one of these people say, oh, you gotta
get some gold leaf paper, and this embossing machine. Looks really good when you photocopy it, and it
really looks raised and it really looks like you know what you are doing. The only problem with that is, I
tell people, is like watch this, I’m gonna take my thumb print, and I’m gonna take my finger print and I’m
gonna stick it on top of your gold seal. Why? Because man created that gold seal, no gold seal ever
created a man. No gold seal ever created a thumb print. To create that sealing machine, it’s covered
with man’s fingerprints. I’m the creator of those seals. Man creates the seals, man creates the sealing
machine, I trump the seal. There you go.
Dan: ya you are the seal.
KL: I trump any man made seal. I don’t care how damn fancy, I don’t care what kind of gold you’ve got.
Did gold ever make man? Did the gold leaf seal ever create a man? No. man created that gold leaf.
Man’s finger prints are all over that damn sealing machine. All over that damn seal. So there you go.
That’s why I explain thumb prints and why I don’t use silly gold seals.
This is not a contract, my signature does not appear. It might look like it appears, but it does not appear.
It (muffled) might appear to be a signature, but it is not a signature. I assume no liability, no
responsibility for this signature. Non assumpsit. It’s like the letter p make sure it is assum p sit when you
google it. Non assumpsit, it means this signature does not appear. It is under the security part around
the UCC. You can read it under the ah, chapter 9. If you want to waste your time. Or just go into like
Webster‘s 1828. Look under non assumpsit. It means yes there might be a signature, yes it appears
(muffled) but it doesn’t appear. You bear no liability. I write N/A and my signature, there you go and the
trooper never even realized what I did. He didn’t care.
EM: I did put a box around it.
KL: don’t do anything fancy snacy stuff. Unless you want to take the Taser right down to the ground, just
do N/A and your name. As fast as you can.
EM: well at the time I put a box around the signature.
KL: oh, well. Oh, well. You can do that too, but like I said man, you want be as fast as “you want my
signature not a problem, sir. Dah, dah, dah sign your name, and dah, dah, dah there you go sir, is there
anything else I can do for you sir? Lovely day, lovely day.
___________________________________________
Like ah, you just put a notice and you put a claim of conusance is now before the said court. I require
that the said case be held as court of record, and it says name, I will affirm and verify in open court that
all of the here and above?? be true. And that’s it.
KL: there you go. (That’s the whole thing) that’s what I said to the guy yesterday, everybody will want
out of jail now. You are supposed to be in jail two – three Tuesdays ago now, whatever it was.
---------------------------------------------------------Dean Clifford: IRS
37
This what the letter says: attached here to is a copy of the W8B in which designates my proper political
status, for now and forever more, or until I rescind it. By the same token, it also reflects my status from
the age of reaching the age of majority, nunc pro tunc, from the beginning as it should have been.
Please correct the records to reflect the same as I am not nor have I ever been a citizen of the United
States of Corporate. Please accept my sincere apology for having used the wrong IRS forms in the past,
as I was misled.
Dean Clifford – please forgive me of my mistake. Ask for forgiveness and you shall receive. That letter
has got a lot of good stuff in it. It is rare that I hear one that does have a lot of good stuff in it.
EM: ok, look I won’t take up any more of your time. But I appreciate your opinion.
DC: no I think that was very good information for people actually, very good information for people.
Now that puts the burden of proof on the IRS, to prove you were anything other then what you are
claiming. You correct the mistake right back to the beginning, as far as I’m concerned you should be able
to claim back all income taxes ever paid along with that letter. Put that in there. It is my will that you
return all monies ever paid in error, thank you
38