|0.00|> We had this on tape, by the way.<|4.00|><|4.00|> A computer was taping it on digital.<|6.00|><|6.00|> And Carol then identified himself,<|9.00|><|9.00|> that this is a Title IV USC-1 flag, and gave his name.<|13.00|><|13.00|> So we had established, double-witnessed,<|15.00|><|15.00|> Title IV USC-1 American flag jurisdiction.<|18.00|><|18.00|> What jurisdiction do you have on your side of the phone?<|21.00|><|21.00|> We won't answer that question.<|23.00|><|23.00|> We're not going to, but sir, do you have our paperwork in front of you?<|27.00|><|27.00|> Well, yes, we do.<|28.00|><|28.00|> I said, well, guess what, folks?<|29.00|><|29.00|> Everybody's staring at our United States flag in front of you because I know for a fact we put them on every one of your contracts.

Now, what, who is out there and what are your names? Everybody gave us their names. What is the jurisdiction of your side of the phone? Well, we won't talk about that, he said. We won't identify with this here. Then one of the attorneys popped up and said, Your Honor, it's obvious that he is challenged in the jurisdiction of this court and I move for a dismissal. And we wish to sanction him for court costs and attorney fees under 16F. The judge comes back with, no, I hereby deny that request to sanction these people for court costs and attorney fees is their only pro se. He was covering himself because he would have stepped into an extortion. So then we came back and said, you as attorneys, and even you, your honor, are an attorney as you have not joined with this court.

Therefore, you have come to a discovery hearing and didn't participate. So we sanction you under 16F. We identified ourselves and we've got this all on tape. As soon as we said the word tape, we got a dial tone. And that was the end of that. Next day we served all of them with sanctions under 16F. The judge refused himself from the case. First he dismissed it completely. He said this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case. And I refuse all sanctions against them. Well, we did a notice of refusal for fraud. Now, you don't do a motion to dismiss. I am a solid object. If you are an object, just like this here coffee cup, you will dismiss something that is. If we file a motion to dismiss their action, we say we are acknowledging the fact that it does exist. Therefore, it exists, it must have value. If it has value, now we have to argue about it.

So we automatically give their dismissal credibility upon our dismissal, thereby dismissing us because the judge will be prejudiced against us. Our case will be dismissed with prejudice because we interpret with their dismissal. So you don't file a motion to dismiss anything. You do a notice of refusal for fraud under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9B. Because the notice of dismissal, a motion to dismiss, they're going to serve upon you, hence your name in uppercase, Don DeGarrett. They're dismissing a dead person. And guess what happens when you do that? They initiate mail fraud. Because any piece of paper given to you with fictitious names or fraudulent names, the word fraudulent, excuse me, the word fictitious comes under title 18-1342 mail fraud, which then joins the 1341 mail fraud. Each one carries a five year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. However, when a bank, institution, initiates mail fraud by allowing the IRS to come in there and seize your funds.

That's an institution mail fraud because you're moving the paper without authorization from the court and it carries a one million dollar fine. It says so. Look it up in your books, in the booklet there. So you guys could have been in an IRS situation where the IRS comes in there and they go into your bank account and take your money out saying we've got all this authority. authority, they're gambling the fact that you're going to walk into an admiralty court with no constitution, it's a free for all and the judge is going to give them everything. That's been successful that way since 1933. However, with today's technology based on the mail fraud and on the gear, you got them. You got the IRS and you got the bank folks. And the banks are not going to allow the IRS to come walking in there and out of the million bucks a pop take two thousand bucks out of your account and have to pay a million dollar fine.

Only one federal state actually does not allow it. It should be about a million dollars a count. It is. Well, it's a million dollars for each action that they would take. That's what the court allows for. Or if it's three people involved it would be three million. court. Right, that's just a fine, that's not counting paying back the money. Plus then you've got your constitutional violation, where's my due process? Now in your paperwork you've got a complete complaint writ of error without a due process of law.

You've brought your writ of error by a constitutional violation. Where was the court hearing given the IRS? Where was the common law court hearing on the 7th amendment? Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38A giving them permission or giving them the authority to go into your account and take your equity out of your account. That is even statute totally required. Right. You can pull that up in a dozen different ways and they are all going to come up with the same thing. But they are gambling that Joe Public doesn't know about common law. They think the constitution is dead and they are going to be able to drag you into an advocacy court and pick your pockets because you are going to go in there and give up all your rights.

that key thing for paying income taxes. If you are involved in a corporation, if you have a corporation, if you pay out salaries and make that low cap except for $50,000 a year, starting first of 1997, you are supposed to sign a form to IRS and send all these forms out to people that are involved in business to make, to allow the government according to the IRS to take electronic funds transfers from your checking account to pay your taxes. So this is only our bank thing. If you don't contract with the bank you won't have that problem. If you don't have a checking account, in other words you're going to automatically use electronic transfer. All your paychecks go right to the bank.

They can't move anything of your sweat equity without a contract beforehand. Because the whole sweat equity program in itself is by contract, was created by contract. Like when they send you a notice of levy, there's willful intent because you don't have contract approval when you take money through the willful intent plus there's even a prior notice and the owner's law to include willful becomes more aggressive. So now we're at a 12-pound 10, it'll be half of that. Well, it comes under mail fraud. Then it didn't initiate the solid mail fraud. 1342 and 1341. But they never thought that we were going to crack the formula on this thing. Well, they give you your information, the others don't merit to your honor. You may have your information, you may not have yours.

Yes, we do. You have no idea what you just did. Well, even when we gave them this information, you know what they said? So what? Threw us under a Title 42 USC 1983 injury. Nobody's ever won one. You know why? Because they did it wrong. The tricks and the traps that they fell victim to were these. One, are you the person appearing pro se? Are you the dead person acting as an attorney for the corporation? You go ahead and file your Title 42, U.S.C. 1983 at the clerk's office. That's the first thing she says to you.

And she has the authority given to her by the United States Supreme Court to disqualify you at the gate. Okay, we'll take your money and then ask you that question. Stamps it, puts the $300 in disqualified, and hands it back to you. Nice commerce. Try again. of life suits in Spokane, Washington. And the lady, the court, asked that specific question. And you're the person appearing pro se. I resisted the thought of being pro se. And then I said, you know what the word pro se means? And she said, yeah, you represent yourself.

And that's exactly what the judge said. So that's what she's told, that's what the judge told her to say. Now that's not the proper way to address it. When the individual addresses you, are you the person appearing pro se, you do make a statement, I refuse a statement for fraud. Then you snap back with, I am a citizen in party. And that's what we did out in California.

And the clerk took a, stood up, took a big step back, says I will file these for you. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. Because we made it well known. Now over in Hawaii, we went to the clerk over at the federal building and we presented her that. She gave us that answer. And we hit her with citizen of the party.

She says, these aren't in standard form. I'm not going to accept them. I said, you have to accept them. You are sworn of oath and affirmation to process these papers. Well, the judge told me not to receive any documents that got flags on them. I said, oh, now we've got a conspiracy. I said, this is wonderful, ladies. I said, I'll tell you what, we'll be back here in about four hours with a Title 42 action against you personally for violating our due process of law. And the clerks were sued at the federal building there for $25 million for constitutional violations. Then a judge was incorporated in the case as a co-conspirator.

Then we went ahead and tried, about a week later, we went back to the state court. We did the same thing. Went in there to file the papers and, no, we are not going to take, those the judge said were not allowed to take any papers with flags on. And she was, she was, she was real smart about, and you can go ahead and sue us under a 1983 action all you want. I'm going, 83 actions? We don't do 83 actions. We do 86 actions for negligence. Woo! That one, boom! Instant red face. Goes running back to the judge.

Gone about five minutes, comes running back. Kiss her. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Everything filed. Really nice and slick. So the people get their property back and the money is gone? Yes, they did. Matter of fact they got one year of mortgage payments as penalty because the bank would not accept the mortgage payments for years. They could foreclose the land on them.

They got a year of mortgage payments and the five million dollars that they asked for in damages is still waiting for trial. I don't know when they got the schedule. I haven't been home to pick up my messages. That happened to everybody when I did mine in Denver a few weeks ago. He says you don't want to file this. So I did it. So they're here in Philadelphia and they're going to provide. And he says are you sure you want to file this? I said I'm giving you $120, file, stand and give me my copy back.

They don't want to take it. They don't have a choice. Right. Now another unique thing happens here, $120 commerce contract and it's under common law for 7th amendment common law hearing. Now they're bound by the private contract to uphold the constitution of the United States and that clock is running. Now the magistrate judge when you sign these waivers getting rid of the magistrate judge and they say well we're going to take it anyway. Now the article 3 judge is authorizing you to do that. Now guess what?

They burn up your 60 days of time and they fall into default while the magistrate judge is still sitting on it. Because when he hands it to the federal judge, the federal judge thinks that he's got another 60 days. Uh-uh. They were already disqualified. He didn't take action on it and now there's cases in default, the government owes you that money and somebody's going to jail for violating, for interfering with due process of law and obstructive justice under 1512. Yeah. What matter do you put the black on the top of the paperwork? You put it on the upper right hand corner because everything to the blue, to the right of the field has jurisdiction. It gives you full jurisdiction of your paperwork.

So you set the flag up on the top right hand corner? Right. Is it in color or photographic? No, you've got to have color one. Black and white. Hey, you know what? I flew on Northwest Air. Okay, last night I came back and guess what the flag is on the side of the plane? It's a nice American flag. It's red, white and a black field with white stars on it. Field with white stars on it. Northwest Air. KLM. Then there's another flag up in Boston that just popped up about three weeks ago.

A white field with blue stars. Well that was a flag in secular literature back prior to the Civil War. But you stop and think a second. A white field with blue stars? That's not a United States flag. Matter of fact, that flag isn't authorized anywhere in the world. You know what? It's an equity flag. It's a foreign entity flag. And wherever they fly that under the jurisdiction of that flag, regardless of what it is, that has no constitution.

And if you walk in and make a contract with that, whatever comes down is just like putting a gold fringer on this one. It doesn't exist. There's no constitution for that or authorization for it. I can take this book here and say this is the flag and put it on the standard and if you want to come in and swear allegiance to that, I'll have an equity court too. So then the black, the black fish is saying that this airline doesn't have any constitutional rights when we're up in the air. This happens to be a ship in a sea of air and the captain on this ship is absolute king, they have absolute authority when that thing is airborne. And they put the flag, their colors on that ship, they're flying their flag. Right. There's no insurance claim that you can grab either. There's no liability to the airlines with a black field and a white star.

How did someone get to that point? The flaw of the flag. Somebody was working for that. It's not true. Somebody did it. Yeah, you know, there's all kinds of little tricks going on every day. You know, once you become aware of this stuff, the old wheels start turning in that. You want to get on an airline that doesn't have any insurance, any liability? You know those insurance policies you're buying out there in the airline?

Absolutely, they're just collecting money. You don't have to be a lawyer. You can now, it's a thing that ever existed. Now you're going to like this one. I don't need this podium here, I'll pull this out of the way. Yeah, we can just leave it there. That's good. All right, what does that say? Ailings for State Farm. Right.

When we were, I was in California a couple weeks ago, we went up against State Farm Insurance Company and they got 24 of their crack attorneys together to go up against our Title 42 suit for a $150,000 claim on an automobile accident for malpractice. We sued the insurance company because it wouldn't pay out a $30,000 claim and so we went for damages based on the frauds they had perpetrated on mail fraud for the way the case was presented. They, knowing that I was involved, went ahead and produced a perfect document, upper lower case, answered all the questions, made sure that the complaint complied with everything that was necessary to be a legitimate complaint. Not a motion to dismiss, just a complete answer. But it said, the whole document was done but the brackets were put in with really fine ink pens, bracketed to F. A normal person probably wouldn't have caught the F, would have just blew through the document. And said, wow, you know, this is really good, these guys have answered and traversed with us from A to Z.

We're going to win this thing. He goes, but what's that bracket doing around the F there? That means the F don't exist. I wonder what the word ailing means. Look at that in Black Claws Dictionary. It comes under grandfather clause. It means it means corruption from the beginning. So now let's put their name in. Plaintiff is corrupt to state a claim on the original subject matter. That's what it said.

By putting little brackets around there. Here she traverses on the document. What happens? She is now confessed to being corrupt on the original claim that she put against the insurance company and now can be sanctioned for court costs and attorney fees and sued for malice because she just signed a confession saying that she was corrupt. Justice Clarkson put brackets around the F. Nice little trick, but we wrote in a letter. Try again guys. We outlined it for them. We refused the document for fraud.

Right. We refused the document for fraud and outlined it. We also took, we had another document come from the federal judge and it was four pages long all of which were about 100 of the words in the document were bracketed. And the time we got done reading it, it said that we were ordering ourselves to plead guilty to everything that was yes was no. And it's just, you know, like, of course we're never going to bother you people again and we're going to be completely prostrate ourselves at the mercy of the court. And just the whole thing was written. Yes, yes, and just the way it was written. So I corrected the paper and I sent it back to the judge, federal judge, and I said, This is really poorly written.

It says it's a fraud. It says you've got to go back to law school and learn how to write documents properly. It says, and furthermore, I'm sanctioning you under 16F for failing to take this case to court under FRCC 38A and denying us a 7th Amendment right to trial. And besides that, you're in default of our contract that I paid $120 for. And that went to the federal court. That's going to the United States Supreme Court. And he'll have no remedy. He signed it. It was a confession.

I mean, they're getting afraid now because every time that they come up against this technology now, it's just backfiring. Every time they put their hand on paper, we're not suing them for what they're doing. They're absolutely immune from what they do. Get that in your head. The police officer arrested is absolutely immune. You've got to start every single injury with a prepositional, constitutional, statutory violation.

Preposition violation first, then you can talk about your noun verb. Okay? Is that clear for everybody? And I don't care what your subject matter is. This thing is good not only here in the United States, it works in every country of the world. It will establish the common law of every government and get the gold fringe out of every court in the world. The patriots in all 250 nations of the world can come together now and go after the people, go after the Rothschilds for the fraud that they put upon the planet. And maybe we can stop all these wars they are going on. Because these wars are being fought because of the fraud and the extortion that's been going on.

I'm going to steal your land, only you're not. Everybody is going to pick up a gun. Exceptional war, war of technology. They are informed of the truth of what's really going on. They started to tell them, you want to stay out of the country. They started to go on the crack side out. That's why Russia is making it. And they done it once. Well the technology is here. I mean there's a, we've got a lot of technology.

We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology. We've got a lot of technology.

and they don't want it. Well, the technology is here. We've been broadcasting this over the radio now since I think February we started. What's your radio station? Where do you broadcast it from? No, no, I was on shortwave with Dave Hingston in Las Vegas, Nevada. And we did a 29 hours with a broadcast that went out and then he taped everything and he edited out all the small stuff and then he has been giving that to six other radio stations across the south and they have every night there are six radio stations putting out my word on this procedure that's going worldwide and little by little it's like gunny apple seed we got apples all over the United States and they could be planting seeds a long time ago. Anybody that tries to put this stuff in the internet.

Anybody that tries to put this stuff in the internet will be vaporized upon putting it in. You cannot get it, I mean you can put it in and try to retrieve it, it's gone. The government has got a pac-man in there to stop this thing. They got some real good hackers. Well they just want to overhaul the whole internet. A couple months ago they shut it down for three days. They invented the whole system in the first place. Well they wanted you to all have Windows 95 because they have access to the inside of your computer so Windows 95. I took mine out. My system crashed four times in two weeks. You know what? Nobody else's system went down and got crashed and went to zero. Just mine.

Anybody that's a patriot, they know you're involved with the system or whatever, they just send that virus back through there and eats your system, eats your hard drive right down to the bone. So I unplugged my computer, purged it. My computer has been tested to be a 99.97 virus clean. The guy that came in and did it with a, well he said this is the best virus program in the world. He said this thing will certify if this thing is clean. He's never seen a computer higher than an 80. He said you got a 99.99 or 99.97 came up on the clean. It did get a little better. Now the gentleman's been infected and he's cleared the problem. The only problem is it works in Motorola and they kind of walk like a hawk.

Even in the old system where everything comes in the computer, gets sorted out if there's a virus in there, gets stuck over here and there's all the other information. I won't plug in. Simple as that. I just, my office technology, and I'm too big of a... Well, they're watching me. Yeah. I mean, you've got 750 cases out there and every one of them has got Dave Miller legal aid on there and every judge in the United States and half the attorneys working on it are scratching their heads.

You know a funny thing the other day, I was down in, we were down in Dallas, a couple of cases were presented to me from Dallas, and they had James McDermott's paperwork from Madison, Wisconsin. In other words, the attorneys down there when they were presented with these Title 42s didn't know what to do with it so they wanted to find out where this thing all started from. So they called up to Wisconsin where this all came out from. And Mr. McDermott has been the one who's been assigned to this thing in Wisconsin. And he's been at it longer than anybody. So he's kind of like the leading authority on it. But he uses phrases like Boulder Dash and Poppycock and I'm going. How do you learn? Fifth grade. Yeah. Radio tape.

Oh no. Dave Hinkson, when I made the tapes with him, he just he tapes his own stuff off of his own radio show. And he he takes those the information like this here. He he gives it to the other shortwave people. They just broadcast and you can take them off the airwaves if you've got short waves. So they first establish a prepositional, constitutional, statutory violation. It can be either, you have to start with a preposition first. And then begin with a violation of due process. Well your due process, I would come in first because due process is a blanket. It covers both statutory and constitutional in one preposition. Then add a second preposition, in other words, without due process of the law, you didn't have a Fourth Amendment warrant.

Establishing a second due process, I mean a second preposition, which then gave you a cause of action under negligence. First you have to establish the knowledge and then negligence, and then what were you negligent of, and then go through the whole thing. Now in the paperwork there under B1 there's 27 points of different procedural violations. I think that's in the B section, second or third page. B or just B? It's in my, yeah starting B1 and B2 is at the beginning of the book is the area that has a series, now this is a procedure of events that take place.

I got 20,000 hours of research into this project over 16 years. This isn't an accident. I made contact with the United States Supreme Court in 1990 and somebody took me under wing and that and we traded. I gave them information and I did research and gave them information and they gave me information back and forth. And that's where things like the least common denominator were established. We have a patriot in there that wants to save our country. That wants the common law back and so I've been the vehicle by which this has happened. Most of the answers and the procedures in that were gotten by me but you know you give me something I'll give you something or give me some verification.

This procedural thing in B1 and 2 is in your opinion laid out to flow properly? Yes, this is a tightrope. This is a tightrope of flow. In other words, if you go ahead and say, well, I'm going to sue you under an 83 injury, you're going to lose. Right. Now, when you address the court saying you establish knowledge first, then your conspiracy, and then your injury, those three things, and they have to flow in that way.

They will always answer you, you can't do it under 83, 85, 86. They're always going to reverse it. They're going to talk about the subject matter of your immunity using statutory cases, hoping that you're going to say, oh yes you did. And the minute you traverse, you've lost. Now the procedure was written in the Bible, and what did Jesus do? He demerged. Never traversed. Never once. Anywhere in the Bible did he ever traverse. Is your name Jesus? What are you going to do with it? Would you be more definitive? Would you define your intent? I'll say either or. Yeah. I mean, it's just, you know, you can take any question asked you and demerge. What is the will of the intent of the question. You ask if it's a yes or no, if somebody asks you, did you say that question? You guys all saw me write it up there and if one of you were to ask me, did I just write that up there, which should be a yes or no, I'd say what would you do with the answer if I gave it to you? What is the intent? What is the will of your intent? What is the criminal, what are you going to do with it? Criminally, what is the will of your intent? Now you've got to act upon it. And if you can't answer that question then I, under the 5th amendment, can't answer your question because I can't self-incriminate myself. This is a common law court. I've established my jurisdiction. That's why it's so important ladies and gentlemen to establish your jurisdiction. I don't care if it takes you half an hour arguing back and forth or whatever. Get your jurisdiction. Now we went into court three weeks ago in California a friend of mine was out there and she was quite nervous, went into the court and she approached the bench and held her flag up, everybody standing.

Judge doesn't, by the way, judge does not sit in common law, he stands. So it's to intimidate you. Part of intimidation. Yeah, judge will always stand in common law court. Now the judge stood and Sandra, first word out of her mouth was, this is a Title 42, meaning to say this is a Title 4 U.S.C. 1 flag. But the minute she said Title 42, the whole audience jumped up. Everybody was in the... and the judge dives for the microphone and puts her hand over it which creates automatic instant feedback and the whole room goes squeal. She keeps her hand on there with the squealing going on so none of this can be recorded.

And then the attorney goes, No, no, I mean this is a Title IV U.S.C. 1 flag and this is a common law court. And then I'm standing next to her and I say, I concur with that. Who are you, sir? I said, I'm David Miller. You go sit down. I know who you are. I thought for a second, I don't feel like going to jail anymore. I don't have the power to argue with the judge. I said, I am the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And went and sat down. I could have been held in contempt for making that statement.

But I wasn't. Then the next question, no we were both inside the bar. Because it was not my trial and I spoke out of turn, a 6th amendment counsel can only be, only she can talk to me, only Sandra can talk to me in a whisper and I can talk to her in a whisper. But because I addressed the judge personally, I could have been held in contempt. But the judge said I will oppose your due process, I will guarantee your due process of the law. And I walked out of the bar and sat down in the back. I've challenged two courts on the right to counsel. One, on the first one, exactly like unions do.

I can whisper, I can counsel, I can defend. On the second one, it's just giving me 100%. I can actually argue for the defendant. Right, but that's at the judge's discretion. You had a patriotic judge the second time around. And that's really important because the judge is going to talk to you in some codes if you're bright and you really know what's going on. I'll give it to you in a few minutes. Now, the next thing that happened was I went and sat down and the judge said, well, you didn't show up at the last two hearings.

And why was that? And the signer stood there and didn't say anything. About 20 seconds went by and I told her, I said, you get trapped, you get nervous, don't be intimidated, say I want to talk to my Sixth Amendment right of counsel. So that's what she did. She perked up and said, I want to talk to my Sixth Amendment right of counsel. And the attorney snaps in and says, I object, your honor.

And the attorney goes no I guarantee Ms. Darnell I'll hold her due process of law. Mr. Miller? So we went up to the bar and we're talking there and she said wait a minute I'm not going to do this. You guys go outside we're going to call another case while you guys converse. So we went outside, came back in I told Sandra you've got to establish, you've got to make this a common law venue. Got to challenge the jurisdiction here. You're standing alone. We both identified but only you gave your name. I didn't say my name yet. So you go back in there and get this jurisdiction we established. Even though she has said I'm going to hold your due process, you still haven't established this jurisdiction. So she goes back in there and she holds her flag up again. She says this is a Title IV USC1 flag and this is a common law jurisdiction and the judge says I see you have your flag with you. Now this is a patriot, patriot judges code to another patriot because you have two people traversing the flag. When she said that the other attorney did not know it, which just happened, she acknowledged and gave the court jurisdiction under common law.

By the judge asking you to leave. You have to reestablish jurisdiction. Correct. Under the rules, under continuance of evidence that comes under. Now because we left the courtroom and went into the bar, walked outside the bar, I could add, she could add an identical twin, come back in and replace her. This has been used as a defense before. To foil and contaminate the court. I said now because we left the bar, you must reestablish jurisdiction when you walk back in. The reason she asked you to leave was a ploy on her part to recapture her flag again and her jurisdiction. So when Sandra walked in the second time, she said, this girl knows what's going on here and I'm not going to go ahead and screw around with this thing. I'm going to go ahead and give her her acknowledgement, see if she moves on it. So then the attorney then came back and said, your honor, we seem to have a problem here with jurisdiction.

Now, Zandra here is saying that we don't have jurisdiction here in this case, so I move that this case be dismissed. As we don't have jurisdiction. Or would you ask her, is she yielding jurisdiction to this court? And because now again, Sandra has just identified the flag and the judge has traversed. So we've got common law venue, but the attorney is now trying to recapture. The attorney is making his effort and the judge knows that the trick is going to take place. The attorney also knows, the judge is going to give the attorney a chance to recapture the admiralty flag and Sandra surrenders her flag. So Sandra sits there for a few seconds and says I have to talk to my sixth amendment counsel.

Again the attorney says I object. He says no, this is a common law venue. Ms. Starr gets to talk to her attorney, to her right to counsel. But you guys take it outside again. So we go outside again. We go outside again. I said every time you come outside the bar you lose jurisdiction Sandra. I said you got to go back in and reestablish it each time. I said that's why she keeps sending you outside the bar. So when you go back in she's back under her admiralty. But then you have to give your name back to the court again to reestablish the contract. So then the third time I says, now the judge is going to say these exact words to you. She is going to say, are you yielding jurisdiction to this court to have your case heard?

And Simon says, well what does that mean? I said, she's asking you, are you going to give her jurisdiction in her amnesty. So you come back and you make the statement yes I am yielding jurisdiction to this common law court under title 4 U.S. C.1 flag and this is common law. And my name is Sondra Lynn. So then she came back in and the judge said word for word what I was going to say and I could just see that little smile come up you know because I was over to the side and she repeated exactly as I said it and the judge put her head down. This is a common law venue. I hear if I set this thing over for trial tomorrow, October 22nd. So I'm going to back out to California tomorrow to handle the case.

But knowing where the traps and the tricks are going to be laid before they happen is very important. And they are going to try and try and try. She's a good judge. I said you've got a good judge here. She's a patriot judge. But you have to have 12 C1 knowledge of what you're doing. Subject matter jurisdiction over the definition of your case, the responsibility of your flag, the responsibility of the words of your case. Otherwise you're disqualified. That's why I'm so insistent on you guys getting with the definition. Using the least common denominator. Having the proper definitions.

Because to go in and nail down a case under an 83 without establishing knowledge, you're going to be disqualified. Like all the cases from 1905 to 1995, there were only 8 cases accepted and those were by concession. Every judge for 90 years was walked free because nobody, no lawyer, and the judges knew, the high judges knew, the Supreme Court knew, but no federal judge, state judge, or attorney knew that you had to establish the knowledge before you could initiate an injury. And that's why they never wrote the cases up that way. So any questions? You know, they're going to be giving you all kinds of little tricks along the way, little landmines.

And these are stories of the landmines that take place. Now another one, another set of scenarios that took place was with Mr. Leipzigal up in Wisconsin. He went and he served a Title 42 on a clerk and the clerk filed a complaint saying it had disrupted her ability to do her job. So a sheriff, third party now, not involved with the original action, files a complaint against Richard for obstruction of justice. Title 18, 15, 12. He's a third party, not even involved with the action. He can't do that.

But under admiralty, he can. So under admiralty, they bring him into court. And the judge calls for appearances, and we immediately capture the flag under common law. I go on with Rich and I give, he identifies the flag, gives his name, I identify the flag, give my name and he tells me to leave and Rich says, wait a minute, I got a right to my right to counsel. I'm just a common law court and he stays. I'm an Article 4 citizen and I have jurisdiction over Article 3 common law court. I have a right to my counsel. The judge says, you're right. Mr. Miller stayed. So the next word out of the defense's mouth was, we want $5,000 bonds.

The judge says, Mr. Laskow, what do you say? I refuse that statement for fraud. I have not been charged with anything. This is common law venue. I have only been accused. I am innocent until proven guilty. Bond is squashed. No bond. He says, well, I want a signature. No, he went to five thousand bail. Then it was a signature bond. And again, Rich has come back and said, I refuse that statement for fraud. I have only been accused. I am innocent until proven guilty. You can't ask for anything on an accused. He says, no bond. He says, but I want fingerprints and a picture. He says, are you a fourth amendment, are you a judge of oath and affirmation? The judge says, well no, I'm a reserved judge. He says, well, can you give me a fourth amendment warrant for my property? Judge goes, you got a half an hour to give it to me in writing. Why I can't order you to pay to give me your fingerprints and a picture and take your property. So we went out in the hallway there and Rich blew out our quick Fourth Amendment warrant. I mean Fourth Amendment Title 42, notice of refusal for fraud on the judge and we went back in there and served a fine and he goes, plus the DA left already today, he's got to come back tomorrow morning.

