Walls in our Minds - MYTHS of COMMON LAW€¦ · Web viewWe just ask your spirit to be with us this night, especially be with my friend Gus, and help us get through this 2 hours

Walls in our Minds - MYTHS of COMMON LAW February 6, 2015

RADIO: (00.55)Welcome to ‘Walls in our Minds’ – This is Terry Dodd. I’ll be joined tonight by my co-host, Red Beckman., who will be with us shortly. Also tonight, we will be joined by… Crusade Radio will be simulcasting with us. Jim Cook will be at the host position, for Crusade. Our guest, Gus Breton is here with us.We’d like to open this show with a prayer and I guess I’ll do those honors, since Red is not here yet.

‘Father in heaven, we just want to thank you so much for all the ways you’ve blessed us, especially by the way you have shown us Truth.You’ve revealed things to us and some of it has been a little scary and some of it seems daunting and, certainly it’s obvious that we are in a huge spiritual battle and, that just brings us back to you because, we know that we need your presence; we need your help, your aid, your protection, your guidance, your wisdom – to stand against the onslaught that’s being laid against us. We just ask your spirit to be with us this night, especially be with my friend Gus, and help us get through this 2 hours and bring forth a message that will be meaningful, and help our listeners to be blessed – to be ‘borak’ by you - is the correct word.We pray all of this in the name of your son – Yeshua Hamashiach, Amen.

Well, welcome back to ‘Walls in our Minds’ Gus.

GUS: (02:45)Thank you Terry. It’s great to be here.I miss hangin’ out with ya.

RADIO: (02:52)You know, you’ve been here a number of times but I don’t know if all of our listeners are really that familiar with you.You might just start out by giving us a little bit of a sample of what you’ve been doing for a little over a year now; extremely heavy study in Common Law; your relationship with Karl Lentz.Give us a little background, so the listeners understand how you came to the level of knowledge you currently have.

GUS: (03:28)Alright.I’ve been looking into this kind of stuff – the law in general, because I went through a divorce in 2004. I had been separated for a couple of years and, it seemed things should have turned out one way and they turned out completely differently. When things like that happen, people tend to start looking for information –‘Why is this happening to me’ – almost like Post Traumatic Stress. It really feels like the whole world’s spinning around and you have no idea what’s going on, so you start studying; you start looking at the Constitution, the Statutes, the Codes. You know…you’re looking for something that makes sense with what you ended up with.‘Why is my life like this?’

Page 1


The journey over the last ten years, I’ve looked into a lot of stuff that didn’t make a whole lot of sense and, I got involved in some things that I shouldn’t have done. It was just paperwork but, that didn’t do me any good and it had a pretty negative effect on me. Through the years I just kept looking.I got involved with the New Hampshire Redress Committee, which was assembled a few years ago and dismantled two years ago.But, it was up and running for a couple of years and I put a petition for ‘redress’ in, because New Hampshire has got an Article 31: Redress prevision – which says that the Legislature has to hear the people; the people have a right to ‘direct access’ to the Legislature.It’s better stated than it is in the US Constitution with the ‘Redress of Grievances’- in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights. In Colorado, I think it’s in Article 22 or 24? I pursued that for awhile.I posted all the stuff I found at New Hampshire Redress.org.

While I was doing that, someone told me about the original 13th Amendment. I spent 6 – 7 months digging that up and finding that and tracking that down; that was a blast. That was a pretty cool experience.

Eventually, I got back on track with trying to figure out what really happens.Why is Traffic Court the way it is?It just seems the Government is encroaching more and more on my life, and why?What can be done about it?

I hooked up with you and some other people and we started the ‘All States Organic Initiative’.Since then - specifically, I met Karl Lentz in April; but before that, I ‘d been listening to him for 3 or 4 months. In Communicating with some of these people who had been studying his material – I mean, as soon as I heard Karl on UK Column in December of 2013, I realised – “Holy cow, this guys’ got what I’m looking for.”

It’s the basic fundamental principles of Law. He explained it ‘crystal clear’. He’s just got a neat teaching style. It struck real well for me. It ‘resounded’ in my spirit.

So, I started studying him and in April, somebody told me he needed a ride back from Canada. So, I went up to Canada, picked up Karl.We hung out for a couple of weeks and he invited me to come back down to the farm in Virginia, where I hung out with him for the entire month of May.Then, another 3 weeks in July. We’ve been talking a lot ever since and I help him do his show sometimes on Saturday evenings and studying the Common Law.

What is it? What is it not?

And tonight, I think you wanted to talk about the ‘myths’ of the Common Law.

Page 2


There is a lot of them and when you don’t know what you’re looking for –

You find out if I write my name - Gus, of the family Breton, or Hyphens, colons, semi-colons and all this stuff you put into your name, that

somehow magically, the Government is going to leave you alone.These are things that have NO BASIS - there is NO BASIS for that stuff.

Putting brackets ( ) around a Zip Cod e… ‘I don’t live in a Federal Zone.’

*** BOTTOM LINE IS …. I’M A MAN. I’M THE CREATOR OF GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU KNOW THAT, YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND WHO YOU ARE.

I’ve seen a lot of good results in Court with people who could carry it.I’ve also seen a lot of people become very disappointed in what they were not able to do.

One of the things Karl says often is – “It’s so simple, it’s scary.”

For a long time I thought – What the heck am I not getting? What am I missing – if it’s that simple?

It took me a long time to keep boiling it down, boiling it down, to get to the fundamental principles upon which

All the Statutes - all the Codes Everything exists and it’s ALL based on Common Law . That’s where it gets it’s roots.

RADIO: (09:25)When you first really started getting into this, you and I were communicating, and some of the others - Steve Hansen, a number of others, Ed, etc…We all started getting a handle on this about the same time.It was rather interesting to me that it seemed like –

The greater difficulty was understanding the game that was being played by the Barr Attorneys The Court System The Judiciary System

It was more difficult to grasp what they were trying to suck people into, and then to determine how you could avoid that.In other words it was a function of

‘I can’t do this or this or this because, if I do, then I’m falling into ‘their’ traps.

Then Karl making the comment of – “It’s so simple, it’s scary” ; was telling, because, when you’re doing the right things, it is SIMPLE.

The problem is most people aren’t doing the right things.

Page 3


That’s the reason why I wanted to talk a little about the ‘Myths of Common Law’; because there’s all these gurus out there and people coming up with ‘Silver Bullets’ and ‘magic’ ways of changing jurisdiction and this kind of stuff and basically,

the vast majority of it, will just get you hung or in jail.I mean, it’s going to crucify you when you go in there and try to use most of this stuff.

So, I felt – you know, we’ve done 2 shows before – The Basics of Common Law The Basics of Common Law – Round 2

(which are in our Archive – which people can go and listen to)

So I thought tonight, let’s start out talking about some of the things people have done that has really just blown up in their faces – and they should have known better but, they listened to all the wrong people.I want to give you an opportunity to talk about some of that stuff, some of the stupid things that people have done or some of the things that would be stupid if they were to try it at this point – that might be something that is ‘promoted’ out there.There’s a lot of stuff.

We’ve got to be so discerning, in order to be ‘simple’.

So, I’m going to give you the floor and maybe you can talk about some of these things that you’ve discussed with Karl, or some of the things you’ve witnessed yourself.

GUS: (12:10)I haven’t had too much experience with things like that because

When I start listening to people I realize – ‘this is way too complex for me.’ If it’s complex – I’ve come to realize - at first I thought it was because I was French/

Canadian and I just didn’t understand the language but, what it really comes down to is - it’s too complex.

I’ve learnt electronics, electrical.I can do electrical work and ‘dry wall’ and roofing and I’ve learn how to do plumbing and all this stuff; and these guys start talking to me and they lose me immediately.

“If it’s too complex – that’s a really good sign you’re on the wrong track.”

My personal experience which I kind of alluded to is – in the end of 2003, going into 2004; I used the UCC process to put ‘liens’ on people, because I hadn’t seen 2 of my 4 daughters in a year and a half, at that time.I was pretty upset at the Court for promoting this kind of behavior. There was absolutely nothing going on, that warranted any of that stuff and I just I just wanted to see my kids. I wanted the Courts out of my life.

Where’s your authority to do this to a ‘man’,Who’s not even accused of something? It’s just insane.

Page 4


So, I did the UCC stuff. I put ‘liens’ on.There was a 7 – 8 page contract that I had taken out of a book called

‘Cracking the Code’ – 3rd editionI had some friends that were studying that. I got involved with that; and we’re still friends.I don’t blame them at all for the stuff that I got into.I was ready to go forward and they were still studying, and so on March 17, 2004; A judge looked at me and said - “If you don’t remove that lien off that Attorneys property, I’m putting you in jail next Monday.”I had already lost pretty much lost my whole life already, so I decided – I’m going to ‘stand my ground’ – I’m going to stand up to what I believe in – I don’t believe I’m doing anything wrong – it’s only paperwork.I’m not physically threatening anybody. I put a lien on somebody’s’ house: a cloud.A cloud on somebody’s property; big deal. What are they going to do to me?

Well, the following Monday, there was a ‘Show Cause’ Hearing, why I should not be incarcerated, and he wanted to know that I had removed the liens. I walked in and told him –

I reserve my answer for a jury. You can’t tell me what to do. It’s my property. I have a right to use the system the way it’s built and so on.

Basically, I spent the next 2 years in jail. It’s just a really bad idea. And if you want to know how bad it is, you can go to the New Hampshire Bar Journal (2005 small edition) and the entire quarterly is about what I did and , what a dumb idea it was. So, that’s my foundation for not following people.It’s also my foundation for listening to Karl.

One of the things I did was – I was hooked up with another group that was doing something a couple of years ago, which is how I met Stephen and Hans.I wanted to check these guys out and I drove out to Indiana; I picked up somebody on the way in Pennsylvania. I wanted to meet these guys, see them face to face, hang out with them for a few days and find out what kind of people they were. The guy in Indiana was great, real nice guy, but the guy I picked up in Pennsylvania – he was off his rocker. I couldn’t believe the stuff that I believed – I fell for it but it didn’t take too long to snap out of it and I walked away from that and decided - before I listen to anybody else, I need to meet these people.And, I need to be sure that what they’re talking about really is what it is.One of the neat things about Karl is; in the things that he teachers,

He (Karl) teachers the fundamental principles of law; and if it’s not self evident the minute you hear it, it’s probably not true.

When Karl talks about things, it ‘rings true’ almost immediately and it continues to ring true every time.

You can try to break it down into something else and you can try to take it apart but, it stands on it’s own, every time.

It’s really not complicated; it’s extremely simple. That is what LAW is.

Page 5


One of the things that I learned when I was in jail was Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 31 – 36 approximately, he talks about -

No longer shall you have a heart of stone I will give you a heart of flesh My law will be known to you No longer will a man have to teach his neighbors; The law will be written on your heart. You’re going to know it’s true; What’s right, what’s wrong.

That’s how simple LAW IS suppose to be.It’s not suppose to be complex.

When they say, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ – That’s because the law is real simple. There is NO excuse for ignorance of the law. The law is written on your heart. Everyman is suppose to know what is right and what is wrong. You learn that stuff – THAT’S THE COMMON LAW.

Leave your sister alone – don’t kick the dog – you can’t have any cookies till after dinner.There’s a way things are; there’s a process to life.

Regardless of where you grow up in the world, The essence of law The foundations of law is the same It’s all based on ‘conscience’

Things change slightly.In some parts of the country of the world, you have Sharia law – that’s their Common Law.Over here we have the Judeo-Christian society – this is our Common Law. We’re taught right from wrong and there’s a way that things are handled and, we have our beliefs and, that law – there is no excuse for ignorance of ‘that’ law.

However, the 8,000 pages of code that New Hampshire has in Statutes – it’s all electronic – I don’t’ know how much there actually is, but you got

Statutes at large, Public Laws, General Statutes of the States, Ordinances – that every city passes. You go from town to town, across the State Line through a few more towns and, you’re susceptible to being accused of violating everything under the sun –

ignorance of ‘that’ law IS an excuse. Because - That is written in ‘legalese’.

Page 6


If you go to ETYMOLOGY ONLINE, you’ll see that Legalese is an actual language.

If you go to ETYMOLOGY ONLINE, you’ll see that - ‘LEGALESE’ is an actual language. It was coined in 1914. It is the language of legal documents. It’s the language that Attorney’s go to school for. It’s copied righted through Black’s Law Dictionary. This is ‘private’ code. This is ‘private’ law. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS – I HAVE TO KNOW ‘THAT’ STUFF. It changes year, after year, after year. It changes on a weekly basis.

For example – if there’s a planning board meeting tonight in my town and they pass something, all of a sudden, I can no longer have a fire in my yard because I’m within city limits. Things like that change very quickly – I can get arrested for cooking hotdogs tonight and last night it was ok.One day, you go to jail for having an ounce of pot and the next thing you know, it’s something you make money with, if you’re in the right part of the country. It’s an actual business. Things like that change – and – THAT’S NOT LAW.

LAW IS WHAT IS GOD’S LAW. IT’S WHAT’S PUT ON YOUR HEART. IT’S WHAT’S RIGHT – WHAT’S WRONG.

The word ‘Law’ is synonymous with ‘opinion’ – it’s an opinion.You have Ecclesiastical law, Sharia Law, Statute Law, Code Law – these are ALL opinions.One of them is a legislature opinion; the other one is the Catholic opinion, the Methodist opinion.

*** The only one a man is accountable to is GOD and GOD’S LAW.

Everything else – Unless you’re going to compensate me to study the ‘code’, then

it’s involuntary servitude to force me to know that stuff, which you are accusing me of.

I’m not being compensated and there’s no reason for me to ‘have to know it.’

I guess that wasn’t the short answer, huh?

Page 7


RADIO: (22:00)I just want to let Red Beckman and Jim Cook both know that; you have live mics gentlemen. Gus is not wanting to have a monologue tonight.He’s wanting us to interact with him and to ask questions.We’ve got a bunch of people on our switchboard. A lot of people have not signed in, but are listed as guests on our chat tonight.I just want you to know that if you’re calling our Call In number, the 347 838 9176 – you can listen on that number, but you can also hit a ‘1’ – and raise your hand.And Gus is certainly inviting people tonight to call in.He very much enjoys responding to questions or dilemmas –

if you’ve got a situation that you’re struggling with, and you’d like some feedback or some ideas, this is a great night to pick up the phone and call us up and hit a ‘1’, raise your hand.

We’ll get you in.I’m watching that switchboard and if you have to wait a few minutes, my apologies for that but, we will get to you before the shows over. So, call us tonight – 347 838 9176 – with your questions.Red; Jim; – Would you each like to say hello to our listeners tonight?

RED: (23:27)Well, I’ll say hello. I don’t have much voice. This is RED; but I got my ears open and I’m listening. I’m a lot better listener than talker I’m sure tonight because, my voice is not good at all.I think this forum; this topic is something that we really need to work on.We have been at such a disadvantage in this nation, because of all of the propaganda, the intentional mis-education; we’ve been exposed to so much ‘air’ and - like me of course, I’ve been around quite awhile and I’ve been exposed to a lot more in my 86 years, than somebody that’s 40 years old.And, you have to work at it, to neutralize all of that bad information that’s out there.I think about some of the things that I did in the past, in ’76.

In 1976, I filed my first Federal Case – and I knew I was right. There was no question. I asked for a ‘jury trial’, and the Justice Department – they put in the ‘motion’ (I

guess it was a motion), for the Judge to formerly throw me out of court. A Summary Judgment, where I didn’t even get a ‘hearing.’ I appealed that to the 9th Circuit – and the 9th Circuit sat on that case for 28 months. They knew I was right. When I filed my ‘appeal’ with the 9th Circuit; it was very short

and very much to the point. I brought out at that time, that these judges; Their making decisions where there’s

taxes involved, and they are benefices of the tax laws. They really have NO authority was so ever because, they have a conflict of interest. I wasn’t smart enough to stick with that argument. I put it on the back shelf and didn’t pursue it. I filed 3 more cases and of course the same thing happened in each one (IRS). 4 times that Federal District Court Judge summarily threw my case out.- they had

their mickey mouse excuses.

Page 8


I thought about it a great deal and then in ’93 (those 4 cases took 10 years at least or better before they were all processed) – I went to the 9th Circuit with every one of them.The 1st one of course was the longest – 28 months before they ruled against me.

But, I did my own thinking; – I listened to a lot of discussion amongst a lot of people out there that, tried to get everybody to think they were correct and that they could do these things in the courts and it was over a long enough period to where I was seeing there was some results, on a lot of this stuff that was being taught.

So, when I filed an ‘action’ in Federal Court - Title 42; in 1993, against that Judge that had dismissed those 4 cases – all 4 cases I had demanded a ‘Jury Trial.’For the judge to do what he did, he was violating Title 18; 241, 242. He was violating my Constitutionally secured rights. So when I sued the judge I sued him, for dealing with those 4 cases.He was breaking the law – that’s all there was to it. It was just simple.I made the law suit very simple and on the cover sheet I wrote –‘All facts to be tried by 7 th Amendment Common law Jury. ’

4 months after that case was docketed with the US Supreme Court, * (I’m one of the few freedom fighters I hear, that have ever had a case docketed with the US Supreme Court)4 months after it was docketed with the Supreme Court in August of ’96, the Solicitor General, who defends the Government in all cases before the Supreme Court - if the Government is a party to the ‘Action’; and he noticed all the parties to the ‘Action’ that he was not going oppose me because I was correct, in what I was saying. In other words, he bluntly said that he was not going to interfere, because I was correct. And, he was not going to do something to violate the law; like I had charged Judge Batten with - violating Title 18: Section 241, 242. I had a couple of other cases too, a couple of other Statutes too.But I knew I was right. There was NO QUESTION. I KNEW I WAS 100% CORRECT.

Of course, it put the Supreme Court in an awful predicament because, here they are;9 Big Shot Judges, all Lawyers, all been Judges for a long time most of them, and here I am de-horning them – I’m taking them off of the case you might say because, they all had a ‘conflict of interest’.‘THEY’RE ALL BENEFICIARIES OF THE TAX LAW’; SO THEY HAD A ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST.’As a result, that case is still docketed with the US Supreme Court.

Here it is, all these years (that was ’96) and of course, they’re not going to rule on it because, if they rule in my favor, it really upsets their apple cart.So they’ve just come to the conclusion, they’re better off just leaving it sit there on the shelf some place.You can’t find it, even on the computers. It’s not there where you can access it. They don’t want people to know about it. This is the game that we’re up against.WE’RE UP AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE DISHONEST. And, they’ve got so much power.

Page 9


RADIO: (32:15)Red, Gus has recently had some experience with some IRS issues. I’d kind a like to hear him tell us a little bit about those and some of the mistakes that have been made that he’s seen people make lately, that have resulted – had not good results for them – Gus?

GUS: (32:36)Yeah. I spent a couple of weeks in a Federal Court in Rhode Island, with a man who was being prosecuted by the Department of Justice. One of the problems is that, people complicate things way too much.“IT’S VERY HARD TO TAKE A SIMPLE IDEA AND STAND ON IT AND TO NOT LET IT GO.”

For instance, my labor is my property – that’s the foundation. To stand on that and to be in Court and to face – for instance, I believe this guy had somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000 documents in ‘discovery.’He estimated that if he read one sheet of paper every 4 minutes, it would take him 22 years to read it; or 11 years – it was a ridiculous number.People look at this ridiculous amount of ‘discovery’ – and they think they have to defend themselves against that whole thing.Now, I don’t know what’s right for any particular man or woman but for me, I can’t get into the complexity of all that stuff. For me it has to be simple. My labor is my property.It’s my time, my energy, my creativity. It doesn’t belong to somebody else.

If I have some other property – for instance, let’s say I have a lawn mower and I trade it for somebody else’s lawn mower – a different one. You know, we just don’t like the one we got; we decide to swap; it’s an even swap, or we trade for something else: I trade a lawn mower for a computer. But the swap is equal – we agree that it’s equal. There’s no profit there. It’s an even exchange.Likewise when I work. When I put effort into something that’s my labor. And I get in return; just compensation for my time, for my labor, for whatever I put into it.So, how is that somebody else’s property?

If I trade something that I own for something else – an equal exchange; how does that become somebody else’s property?

So to stand in Court and face these guys with ‘that’ simple of an understanding, and to make known to the court that – If another man has a claim that I owe them some money – then let that man come forward.But

the IRS doesn’t have any 1st hand knowledge of anything.

They come at you with a bunch of paperwork and a bunch of stuff.

There’s NO ‘MAN’ making a ‘CLAIM’ . As a ‘MAN’ you have a ‘RIGHT’ to ‘FACE YOUR ACCUSER.’

Page 10


Here’s another foundational principle: “I’m a ‘man’; I have a right to face my accuser.” Let the ‘man’ who says that I owe the debt come forward; tell me EXACTLY how much I owe; so that I can settle this account and move on with my life. That man has a right to just compensation for any damages, for any

debt that I may owe; let that man come forward. I have a right to face my accuser; I have a right to seek forgiveness; I have a right to settle privately; I have a duty, an obligation to answer for myself if I am accused.

That goes back to the ‘Book of Acts’: - if you look through the chapters 23, 24 and 25. You’ll see throughout there – all sorts of Common Law Principles;that have to do with a man who’s accused.

These are the foundational principles; and when you’re facing 3 or 4 prosecutors with a stack of 80,000 documents that they’re threatening to put into a Court Case against you:

It becomes very difficult to stand on such a ‘simple’ thing.

RADIO: (36:50)The folks in Rhode Island – were they successful?

GUS: (36:55)No - he was not. John is a really nice guy but unfortunately, he was not able to keep things simple.We had many discussions about this. He was so convinced that they were going to find him guilty no matter what.He wrote letters to Congress. He was very loud in exposing the IRS and their tactics to Congress. You know, his dad was an editor for the John Birch Society, so this is a guy that was a target. His theory was – ‘I’m going to put all the stuff that I need into the ‘Record’, so that when they find me guilty anyway; I’m going to have all this stuff on the ‘docket’ and I’ll be able to able to pull it right off the computer and use it for my appeal.’

It just didn’t go well.The very 1st day he was in Court and the Judge announced that the United States was moving a case against John Fall.Then looked at the Prosecutors and said – “is the the United States ready to proceed?”They said “Yes”Then, looked at John and said – “Is the defense ready?”John looked at the Judge and said – “I notice you’re directing your voice at me; I am not Mr.Fall.”

Page 11


JUDGE: Mr. Fall, are you ready to proceed?JOHN: I am not Mr. Fall. I am not that person. My name is John Joseph Fall; and

I am here to prosecute ‘my’ case against ‘that’ man (pointed to the prosecutor) for ‘barratry.’

For bringing a case into the public; a fictitious case ; there is no case. There is no sworn Affidavit of any wrong doing whatsoever. The indictment – all the names were (stricken) ; even the foreman. (There was no sworn ‘true’ bill against him)

He was trying to get all of this ‘on the ‘Record’, and the Judge told him that he needed to behave and be a good defendant - you know, not quite in those words.John continued to assert his rights and the Judge basically, after 3 times had him escorted out of the Court Room, where he was brought down to another Court Room down the hall and –

He spent the next 2 weeks sitting in that room, watching the trial; because he was not going to sit there quietly and let these people attack him that way without making his voice known.

So, a few days into it, he kept asking me – “How come they keep treating me as a ‘person’?

(Karl says, ‘be a man, do this’) – How come they’re not recognizing me as a ‘man’? I said, “I don’t know but - “ I know that when we walk into Federal Court every day, they want

your LICENSE.” Here you are – your bringing your license in. Your putting ‘that’, as your identification You’re showing them that the ‘person’ is in the Court House. Maybe – that’s it.

So, we talked about that and he decided he wasn’t going to use his license anymore.

So, he walked in one day and told the guys at the front door – “I left my wallet in the car. I’m not coming in as a ‘person’ today. TODAY I’M COMING IN AS A ‘man’.

The guy said – “I’m going to have to have something from you to give – like an Affidavit; some kind of paper that says who you are, so I can keep it on ‘record.’”

So, John wrote ‘i, John Joseph Fall, a man, enter this Court House not as a person, but

as a man; as a Prosecutor, to prosecute my claim against John Cane .’ (The guy who was prosecuting the case against him)He wrote this real short little ‘notice’ – and then we walked into the Court House and,

Page 12


as soon as the proceedings started - The Judge announced John’s ‘notice’ – ‘on the record’ then Entered his ‘notice’ as evidence: exhibit A.

AND I THOUGHT – ‘WOW – THAT’S STRANGE; That’s the last thing I expected.’

When John saw this, he decided – WOW ‘This is how I can get my information before the jury.’ I can put ‘notices’ in when I walk in – (they don’t know he’s not in the

Court room – they don’t even know why he’s missing )

So, he started writing these lengthy, complicated things.He’s being accused of -

Setting up multiple corporations Creating things that are very difficult to understand ; Moving money from one place to another and doing all this stuff.

And, he’s a really intelligent guy so, is it possible?I guess. I don’t know.

But, he started putting in these ‘complex’ notices and I told him; Look, you’re putting in complex notices which the jury is going to see. You’re not showing them that you’re just a regular guy. You’re showing them that – you’re this ‘complex’ guy. You’re almost proving the case to the jury that you have the capacity to do what

these guys are claiming you did.I can’t imagine anybody having the capacity to set up 7 or 8 Corporations, and move the money all over the country to save $8,000 in taxes.

The claims are ridiculous but to stand in court and say –

“I’m a man and I have a right to face my accuser and I’m here to settle the account” – and SAY NO MORE.

TO STAND THERE AND DO THAT IS VERY, VERY DIFFICUT.

That’s one of the things I see with Common Law; is that people have a real hard time believing it’s really that simple.

Unfortunately, the Jury did find him guilty. There were 4 accounts.

At the end, after the jury had been removed, the Judge asked the Prosecutor if he had any problems with John staying out ‘on bail’, pending the sentencing hearing in April – and the Prosecutor wanted him ‘held.’

Page 13


Because John was not in the Court room – right at the very beginning, the Judge had appointed a full time Councilor.So, the ‘stand by’ Council was brought forward as the full time Council and at that time, for the whole 2 weeks of the trial, his public defender spoke on his behalf. However, it was against Johns’ Will and Over his ‘objection’; but he did continue to do so.

So, his public defender, when the Judge asked if he had anything to say about John staying out during the next 2 – 3 months pending the sentencing hearing; he simply said –

“I object; I don’t think there’s any reason for it.”

That was it. He didn’t go on.The judge said – “well, I don’t see any reason for it either. Mr. Fall has appeared every time we’ve called him in. As far as we know, he’s abided by all the bail conditions and I don’t see any reason why he should be held – so long as he agrees to appear on April 28th. ”JUDGE: Mr. Fall, do you agree to appear on April 28th and continue to abide by the bail conditions? JOHN: “I’m not Mr. Fall.”

So, they got into this ‘pissing contest’ – and basically the judge told him flat out:JUDGE: “Look, all I need you to do is tell me you’re going to be here on April, 28th and that you’re going to continue to abide by the bail conditions.”But, he kept calling him – ‘Mr. Fall.’ And John refused to answer to that. And so, now he’s incarcerated. And he’s going to be there until he changes his mind because I believe he still has the option to come out. But, he’s working on his appeal.

But – again – when it comes to Common Law: being willing to stand on such a simple concept as –

I’m a man and I have a right to face my accuser. When will the plaintiff appear? When will I be allowed to answer for myself.

*** And that is supposed to take place before a jury. *** THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

RADIO: (46:30)I’m sure you’ve discussed this with Karl and others.What’s the consensus that would have been the approach that would have worked?

GUS: (46:43) That real simple thing -

I’m a man. I’m here to face my accuser Where is the plaintiff? Bring the plaintiff forward.

Page 14


When a Prosecutor talks – The Prosecutor is representing a ‘Corporation.’ They’re representing something that doesn’t even exist. You have an ‘apparition’ – a ghost which is over there. If you acknowledge that part If you object If you speak to them If you have ‘ANYTHING’ to do with them ‘YOU’- are acknowledging that ‘they’ exist. ‘YOU’ - are bringing ‘life’ to the other side. IF YOU’RE ‘IN’ THEIR COURT - ‘YOU’ - PUT THINGS ‘IN WRITING’

IF YOU’RE IN ‘THEIR’ COURT YOU PUT THINGS IN WRITING i am a man. I am here to face my accuser. to answer for myself. to settle the account. to settle whatever matter is before the court. where is the plaintiff?

Put that - ON PAPER. HAND IT IN. NOW IT’S ON THE ‘RECORD’. THERE’S NOT A THING THEY CAN SAY. ‘YOU’ – DON’T OPEN YOUR MOUTH. IF YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH IN COURT, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE ON THE ‘RECORD’ TO EVEN SHOW

THAT YOU WERE THERE? THEY’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ‘PAPER’ THAT

‘YOU’ PUT IN AND THEY CAN’T FORCE ‘YOUR’ HAND TO WRITE SOMETHING

SO ‘YOU’ - TAKE THE TIME AND WRITE IT OUT.

Page 15


One of the things Karl says – he specifically said about John; “Why was he in such a hurry?”

They cannot rush you to judgment: “Why didn’t he just sit down and write down what he wanted to say?”

RADIO: (48:20)Jim Cook is on line with us and, I know he’s got a situation working himself.Jim – do you want to talk to Gus about that a little bit? ..............Jim, you got an open Mic on my end but I’m not hearing you …………I’m still not hearing you Jim …………Gus, you can hear me, right?

GUS: (48:55)Yes I do.

RADIO: (49:00)Well, I’m not sure why we’re not hearing Jim because he does have an open mic on the switchboard. Is that you Jim?Well, I guess we’ll move along but, I know he’s got a situation where he just got sited for ‘driving without a license.’He put it in writing and basically told them that they didn’t have any jurisdiction over him.

GUS: (49:40)Was that a ‘judicial’ notice or just a ‘plain’ notice?

RADIO: (49:45)I’m not certain; that the reason I was hoping he’d be able to speak here.I know he’s on the switch board, so ….not sure why we’re not able to hear him.Let’s move off of that for the moment and talk about some of the things that you and Karl had visited about that were Myths of Common Law.

GUS: (50:11)Well, one of them is this thing here with the ‘notice’.A lot of people believe they have to put in a ‘judicial notice’.

A ‘Judicial Notice’ is legal notice. It’s giving ‘notice’ to the Judge; to the Court.

Page 16


If you put in a ‘notice’ – just a simple ‘notice’ And it’s ‘verified’ – “I verify that all herein be true and will verify in

open Court”. What you’re saying – you’re making a ‘declaration’ – not an affidavit. A ‘man’ will ‘declare’ – (like the ‘declaration’ of independence) A ‘man’ will ‘declare’ what is true ; and Will ‘verify’ in open Court.

When you give ‘Judicial Notice’; you’re doing something in ‘legalese’ you’re acting as a ‘person’

Whereas if you give ‘notice’ – you’re giving ‘notice’ to the world, and all ‘man’.

*** When a man gives ‘notice’ to the world in open court, he’s notifying everyone, not just the court, and the ‘man’ ACTING as a judge, has to take notice as a ‘man’, not as a

judge;

The JUDGE: In his ‘PERSONAL’ capacity, he has to ‘take notice’ and one of those ‘methods’ is ‘Judicial’ notices.

People don’t realize –As a ‘man’, you have a right to be compensated for

damages a loss an injury

But you can’t go around saying – do this or I’ll sue you. Leave me alone or I’ll sue you. When you act that way YOU – are communicating a threat.

Page 17


No different when you say – when you’re being accused, like with me:They were holding some 20 something years over my head and told me that if I pled out, they would give me 15 years.

That was extortion.

You can’t tell somebody – If you don’t do this, we’re going to make things harder, We’re going to break your legs. THAT’S EXTORTION.

So, in like manner, you can’t be – if you’re dealing with a building inspector – You can’t say - “stop what you’re doing or I’ll sue you”, because that’s NO different – YOU – are communicating a threat.

These are some of the things that we’ve talked about where you’ve got to be careful.You’ve got to learn your words.

For instance – the word ‘argue’ We are giving that word negative connotations but in reality,

*** To ‘argue’ means – Make clear to whoever you’re talking about, what it is that your point of

view is. The root of it is to ‘polish the glass’, so you can see through it clearly. WHEN YOU’RE IN COURT – YOU ARE THERE TO ‘ARGUE’

For some reason people – if the judge says – “Are you arguing with me?”Your response: “Yes! I’m arguing with you. Of Course I’m arguing with you.”

If you say “NO” – then YOU’VE JUST GIVEN UP YOUR CASE.

Child ‘abuse’ – the word ‘abuse’ is another word that gets really misused.*** To ‘abuse’ something means –

To change it so much from its original form that it is no longer recognizable

So, if I had committed child abuse – you wouldn’t be able to recognize my child as being a human being

And, whose kid is it? “It’s mine.”It’s not the States property. That’s my kid. That’s my property.And there’s the Doctrine of ‘Parents Patriae’ - which is the ‘father of the Country that comes from the Monarchy.

Page 18


They try to use that here; the State has an ‘obligation’; the ‘social contract’; and all this of stuff.There’s all these things that we have to unlearn.

We have to ‘boil down’ to the common denominator which ALL LAW IS CREATED FROM.

ALL THESE STATUTES AND CODES COME ‘FROM THE COMMON LAW.’

For instance – ARTICLE 38 in New Hampshire; is an article that used to be up until 1966 it was the last word in the New Hampshire Constitution – Well, in the New Hampshire BILL OF RIGHTS. The last words were – …. ‘necessary for the good administration of Government.’

So, the authority of the judiciary to ‘enforce’ and the legislature to ‘form’ law, was that it had to be ‘necessary for the good administration of

Government.’

We, the people - Support this Government We created this Government We want it to be effective We want it to be efficient We don’t want it to waste our resources

So, these Statutes, these Codes are created – for the good administration of Government.It’s plainly written in our Constitution.

So, when they try to afflict you with Driving without a license You didn’t have insurance You didn’t do this You didn’t do that

*** I’m a ‘man’ and I am using my ‘property’ to go from point A to point B.*** Who are you, to tell me, a ‘man’; to tell me what to do with my ‘property’?Are you ‘acting’ in some capacity as a Government ‘person’?And, if you are – the law you’re trying to enforce – at least here in New Hampshire is a law which is created for the good administration of Government.

Page 19


So, that applies to YOU – as a Government employee but how does that apply to me?

I’m a ‘man’ and I’m using my ‘property’.

YOU’RE the one that’s got a ‘VEHICLE’.YOU’RE the one that’s upon the ‘WAYS OF THE STATE’.

THAT’S NOT ME – I’m a ‘man’ and I’m using the ‘rightaways’.I’m just going from point A to point B – where they trimmed the trees down so I can get through.

RADIO: (56:25)Well, I’d like to reiterate to all those that are on our switchboard; if you’ve got a question you need to hit a ‘1’, in order to ask a question or to make a comment.If you hit a ‘1’, it raises your hand for me to give you a ‘live mic’, otherwise you don’t have a ‘live mic’.Were there some other things that you and Karl discussed about things that were miss out there?

GUS: (57:00)Yeah. We talk about stuff all the time.It’s tuff to get down to the ‘nitty-gritty’ on it because it’s so basic and the more you look at it, the more everything comes down to the same ingredients.

For instance, I’ve helped people with foreclosures – reversing foreclosures that are

already 2 years old. Working on these kinds of things –Helping grandma’s get their grandchildren / kids back and so on and

it always comes down to the ‘words’.

‘child’ ; ‘parent’ ; ‘person’ = these are ALL statutory ‘words’

*** When you go to Court, for instance – the Judge will announce the parties. “Bob is here represented by his Attorney and Shirley is appearing “Prose’.”

*** What the judge just announced is the law of ‘this’ particular case.

The way I’m going to apply this law is

Page 20


According to a man who’s represented by an Attorney and A woman who is appearing Prose’ – she’s got a day license to ‘act’ as an

Attorney on her own behalf. She’s representing herself

So, if you’re in court representing yourself, you might as well be in there representing a chimpanzee or some other entity.

YOU ARE NOT THERE AS YOURSELF.

So, if you’re going to stand in court as A ‘man’, a ‘woman’ You have to make very clear – ‘ON THE RECORD’ That you are a ‘man’ – without representation You stand before the Court and you Stand ‘ON YOUR CLAIM’ – ON YOUR PAPERWORK AND YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY

You put your ‘notices’ in You put your ‘story’ down AND THAT’S IT. The ONLY reason you’re there is to ‘clarify’ any portion of the ‘notice’

that is not clear to the Court. You’re not there Prose’. You’re not there to listen to somebody ‘proffer’ – to give offers of ‘proof’

of some story. You ‘require’ everything to be ‘verified’. You ‘verify’ your ‘notices’.

I stand in Court on my paperwork as a ‘man’ I am NOT here Prose’ “I verify before all that my paperwork is true, complete.”

If I say the sky is orange; and nobody comes forward to say otherwise then today, in this case, that is the truth.

THERE IS NO ATTORNEY THAT CAN STAND AGAINST THAT.

Page 21


That Attorney- Has NO ‘firsthand’ knowledge They are NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY

One of the things people don’t realize – When a Attorney speaks in Court, that’s not testimony.

When a decision is made based on what an Attorney said - they were ‘offering’ proof but NO PROOF WAS GIVEN

If you don’t ‘rebut’ that If you don’t put your paperwork in

THEN There’s NOTHING on the RECORD The RECORD is NOT PRESSED and You’re not going to be real happy with the decision.

RADIO: (1:00:30)We have a couple of hands up.You want to take a call?

GUS: (1:00:35)Absolutely.

RADIO: (1:00:38)I know who this is; this is one of our good friends from Alaska.Area code 907; you have an open mic.

MARIA: (1:00:45)Hey Guys; this is Maria.Thanks for having this show. This is my very favourite topic; Common Law.Hopefully some of the people that I’ve invited to come on the call are listening.I have a couple of friends that are retirement age – they were in their house for 30 years.Red Beckmann was up here and they heard him loud and clear, many years ago and they love him.

They have been fighting the system and finally, a couple of years ago – after living in their house 30 years; the IRS came and took their home.They’ve been fighting ‘Prose’ and the ‘Code’ system.So, my question really is just – after you’ve been killing yourself and loosing in a situation like that and they’ve taken your home;

Page 22


Is there a simple approach that you might take to ‘reset’ this?

GUS: (1:02:00)Well, the IRS typically, i don’t know this for a ‘fact’ but from what I’ve seen; My experience is that they will acquire ‘property’ through some kind of a Court decision.I know they can levy your Checking Account and pull money out of an Account, but as far as land and a home that is registered, I’m pretty sure they have to go through the courts for that.But, either way, it’s a man’s property.A ‘claim’ needs to be made to reverse a Court decision.And if there wasn’t any Court decision, thenFiling a ‘claim’ for - theft of property; is probably the only way to go.If the IRS took my property; whether is a lawn mower, basket ball or my home;it’s still my property. In order to get it back I would file a ‘claim’ – with my County Court*** ( I wouldn’t go to Federal Court) I would go to my County Court and I would have them ‘served’ and brought into County Court.

It’s my ‘property’ and it’s been stolen. Where’s the proof of claim? Where’s the Debt? Supposedly, they’re coming after you for some kind of a debt. Has that debt been ‘verified’? What is the EXACT amount that is owed? That is TRUE, DUE and OWING? The only way to get something that is TRUE, DUE and OWING is in OPEN

COURT. A ‘man’ has to TAKE THE STAND; A ‘man’ has to ‘VERIFY’ that debt; If there is an ACTUAL debt, then why are you taking my home? Why can’t I pay that debt off? The Government doesn’t exist to cause harm to a man.

The ‘Declaration of Independence’ talks about things that are self evident. All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.

To ‘secure’ these rights – Governments are instituted among men

Page 23


That is the primary reason that Government exists.

primary (adj.) (from : QE - ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY)

early 15c., "of the first order," from Latin primarius "of the first rank, chief, principal, excellent," from primus "first" (see prime (adj.)). Meaning "first in order" is from 1802.

1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc. 3. first in time; earliest; primitive.

The IRS being a sub-contractor for the Department of the Treasury.

You know, whatever they do; they’re no different to Coke-a-Cola.Coke-a-Cola – through some sub – secretary of State, probably in Maryland ; Tylenol for instance – remember when somebody had put some nasty stuff in the Tylenol and they pulled everything off the shelves?They didn’t have to, but if any man was harmed, they would have ‘owned’ Tylenol.It would have been willful negligence to continue to do – to leave that stuff on the shelf.

Government – and everything that comes from Government IRS, Coke-a-Cola, Kleenex, Tylenol, I don’t care whatever Corporation there is – They ALL exist for the benefit of man – to secure and protect the rights and the property of man.The IRS has NO different obligation or a duty. So, if I own a home and they want to take it away; they’re causing harm to man.So, in a Court;

you have to openly ‘present’ to the Court that you are a ‘man’; that they are causing you ‘harm’. That you ‘require’ the judgment to be reversed. That you’re willing to pay the debt as soon as it’s ‘verified’ WHO CAN FORCE A MAN TO PAY A DEBT THAT IS YET TO BE ‘VERIFIED’? And if he’s willing to pay the debt; let’s say he made offers of payment

of $100 a month,WHY – would they NOT accept that?MARIA: (1:06:15)Right.Just one clarification – if you were to write a ‘claim’

Would you name the IRS or who would you name?

GUS: (1:06:30)

Page 24

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prime&allowed_in_frame=0

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=primary&allowed_in_frame=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=primary


Who took possession of the property?Was it Bob or Frank?You know, some man was ‘acting’ in a capacity.I’m not sure who took the property – but some man did it: it wasn’t just a piece of paper that showed up, knocked on the door and said – “get out”. There was some man.

MARIA: (1:07:00)There were 3 people actually. The story I heard was that one of them was a TSA person from the Airport that’s nearby.So, if they had those people’s names; that’s who they’d file the claim against for theft of property – that way?

GUS: (1;07:20)What authority did these people have?Did they show up with the Sheriff and have him removed from the property?

MARIA: (1:07:30)We have NO Sheriff here; and I don’t have all the details.My question is who they can name and we can work through this as we go.We’re starting a group up here that’s going to get together and call in and listen and ask questions more on Wednesdays and Saturdays with you guys so, we’ll just work through that as we go.

GUS: (1:08:08)What it ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO is –

There’s a man or a woman who’s responsible for what happened. Things don’t happen all by themselves. The Government of Alaska is nothing but a ‘paper fiction’. There are people that fill those offices that have “Oaths of Offices’; and

they got Bonds, etc…. The Government itself is set –up and it’s PEOPLE who carry out - it’s a

‘man’ or a ‘woman’ – that carries these things out. So, WHOEVER caused the man to be put out – to have that loss of

property, is whoever you would file a ‘claim’ against.

MARIA: (1:08:50)Ok. Alright. Thank you.

GUS: (1:08:52)Your welcome.

RADIO: (1:08:53)Well Maria hang in here.

Page 25


I’m going to leave your mic open so if you want to mute yourself, but I’m going to go to another caller – but we’ll come back to you Maria, ok?

MARIA: (1:09:03)Alright. Thank you.

RADIO: (1:09:05)Area Code 310 – I believe that’s California. You have an live mic; Introduce yourself.

BILL: (1:09:15)Hey. How you doin’?This is Bill from California.I wanted (Gus) to expand a little bit more about how the

ATTORNEYS do NOT have the right to SPEAK in a COMMON LAW Court.

He was speaking about it before that last question –And I just wanted him to expand on how to actually knock the Attorney out, meaning it has to come through

‘Oath’ or ‘Affirmation’ With 1st hand knowledge (and they don’t have it) I was hoping you would expand on that a little bit more.

GUS: (1:09:50)Well depending on whether you’re in a

Statutory Court or a Common Law Court; would determine which way to handle that.

If you are a ‘man’ and you’re standing in a Statutory Court and there is an Attorney, you have to give ‘notice’ to the Court that there’s a ‘man’ in Court…you do realize there is a man here ; I evoke my right to Common Law. You can’t just assume that they are going to treat you properly.

You have to let them know that you ‘require’ the Common Law to be applied to

this case and that, everything has to be verified under Oath or Affirmation. Unless the Attorney has 1st hand knowledge, why are they speaking? I ‘require’ everything to be ‘verified’

Page 26


If you’ve got something you want to get on the Record, put a man or a woman on the stand.

It’s a very tough balance to strike, in putting everything in writing.It’s time consuming.You actually have the patience to actually do it.A lot of times when you’re going to court; if you go to court and you hang out and you see what happens in court, you’ll see that they have the same questions, the same statements are made over and over again – whether it’s traffic Court; Divorce Court; it’s always the same stuff that comes on – so you can prepare things in writing before you get to court and have them ready.It is a tough balance.

But regardless of whether you’re in Common law court or Statutory Court, it doesn’t matter what court you’re in.

If you’re evoking common law then EVERYTHING has to be ‘verified’ on the ‘record.’

BILL: (1:11:45)Right.That’s what I wanted to hear.It’s the 1st time I’ve been on this call, so I wanted to hear that out loud again.I love hearing that.When you can walk into Court; and even if you’re in Statutory, you can still ‘notice’ and let them know that you’re a ‘man’; you’re evoking the Common Law rights and you get to face your accuser –And if this person does not have 1st hand knowledge, then they don’t get to speak.And that happens in Statutory as well as Common Law – Correct?

GUS: (1:12:25)Well you have the right to ‘require’ of the Court to do so, and what the Courts’ going to respond to you is that the Attorney is presumed to be under Oath as an Officer of the Court.And, that’s fine; they’re presumed to be under Oath :

Who’s going to ‘assume’ responsibility if that man lies? Are you going to ‘assume’ responsibility or is he going to be held for

perjury?= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = perjury (n.)

the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Page 27

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=perjury&allowed_in_frame=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perjury


Are we talking about the same thing? i’m a man and I don’t understand Legalese. i don’t understand the customs of the legal society. This Attorney is using words that have to do with the language of

documents, legal documents. He’s using a language i don’t understand and he’s communicating to a

Judge who is also part of that community – part of the legal Association .

So, these guys are having a conversation in Chinese and I’m standing here wondering what the heck’s going on – so

by ‘evoking’ common Law and ‘requiring’ everything to be ‘verified’ ON the Stand.

i ‘believe’ only a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ can take the Stand. If the Attorney wants to testify, the Attorney has to take the stand as a

‘man’ or a ‘woman’.

If they are in court as a court officer, they are still giving “OFFERS OF PROOF” they are NOT TESTIFYING AS A ‘MAN’ OR A ‘WOMAN’ – subject to the

penalties of perjury.

BILL: (1:14:00)Right. I remember hearing you guys awhile back talking about, when you first walk in you would nip that in the bud, you would just say – “Your Honour, before we get started, I wish to be sworn in – and i wish the other side to be sworn in as well.”

GUS: (1:14:20)In most cases, if you’re before a Judge – that judge will swear you in anyway; so you don’t have to go there.

If you’re a ‘man’ NOT represented in Court; The judge is going to want to put you ‘under oath’.

Page 28


If you’re ‘Prose’, he may or he may not; but it’s been my experience that when you walk

into Court, if you’re not an Officer of the Court they’re going to swear you in - before they allow the Court to proceed.

The 1 st step that I’ve seen them do, is announce the parties.

Then, when the Judges announces the parties, he says -“On the left side we have an Orangutan - on the right side we have a Chimpanzee.And, so

what he’s saying is – Today, we are using the ‘law’ which applies to cases which have

chimpanzees and Orang-utans.”

And, so if you say you’re a ‘man’ – now he has to announce that he’s using –

That’s what he’s doing when he’s announcing the parties ; He’s making sure that – he understands as a ‘judicial referee’ that he’s applying the CORRECT LAW.

So, if you - CORRECT YOUR STATIS BEFORE THE COURT ; that the ‘JUDICIAL REFEREE’ WILL CORRECT THE LAW THAT IS BEING

APPLIED.

So, there’s a lot of these little things that really add up to a lot in the long run because

***** it’s the LAW OF THE CASE.

You can’t expect the judge to treat you - The man acting as a judge / or the woman acting as a magistrate –

You can’t expect them to treat you as a ‘man’ ; if you’re going in there Prose; or as an Orangutan, or as a Chimpanzee.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE VERY CLEAR WHO YOU ARE AND –

Page 29


“I AM HERE TO PRESENT MY CASE TO THE COURT.”

YOU ARE NOT THERE TO ARGUE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE ‘BELIEVES’.

The other side for instance in a Traffic Case ; They’ll put the cop on the stand and they’ll ask the cop all these questions.There’s a man who’s verifying something in open court and these are ‘his’ beliefs.If he believes that I was doing 70 miles an hour down a highway and a UFO landed on my car and that what he says –

I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE. THAT’S HIS BELIEF. HE’S INTITLED TO HAVE HIS BELIEF.

i ‘believe’ that : i am a ‘man’ i have ‘property’ and i was going from point A to point B ; and i wasn’t

aware that there was a UFO on my car.

Thanks for letting me know.WHO CARES ?

Is there a ‘man’ here ‘claiming’ a harm? Are you ‘claiming’ a ‘harm’ sir? Are you ‘claiming’ an ‘injury’? Some kind of a ‘loss’ ?

NO? WELL – I HAVEN’T BROKEN THE LAW! The Statutes are for the good administration of Government. You’re mis-applying the law . I’m a ‘man’.

RADIO: (1:17:25)Did that answer your question?

BILL: (1:17:32)Absolutely.I just love hearing it from Gus. Thank you.

Page 30


BILL: (1:17:37)No ; he does. He puts it down real nice and plain and there’s so much to this.I know it’s simple but – it’s simple when you understand it; you know what i mean?It takes a little practise but when i hear it over and over and over.I love hearing the way Gus, Karl, Mike – they all explain it so simple.

You know, you were talking earlier, there’s a Wednesday and Saturday Show?Well, there’s also a Monday show on Talkshoe – CalmInLaw shoe.And, that’s the same pretty much as the other 2.I mean these guys – they make it so simple and so easy.

I’m doing it now, trust me. I’m in the heat of the battle now.And, I’m just writing nice letters. That’s it.I’m assuming that I’m going to be in front of a jury at one point and they’re going to read my letters.And so, these people are sending all kinds of threats from every angle you can think of, and i just keep writing them – ‘I believe that was in error because i was writing so and so and he hasn’t answered my question. This is the stuff they talk about – getting the kids back – that is just incredible- that people can get their kids back.You know, I was in foster care when I was young and boy, if Karl’s stuff was around back then – I’d have been home in a week; but that didn’t happen for a little while.I did get home but it took a little battle.So, what these guys are doing – is just beautiful.

And the more we know, the more we talk about it – the more people talk about it – I love talking about it, soI kind of already knew the answers to the questions.I wanted to hear it again in Gus’ simple formula.Karl likes to expand – a lot.But, Gus keeps it super, duper simple.

Like Verifiable vs. Certified. The Attorneys can ONLY CERTIFY. ‘man’ CAN ONLY VERIFY. you ask for a ‘verifiable’ anything – it’s got to be a ‘man’.

So, Notary Certifications Complaints

Page 31


These things don’t even apply ( to a ‘man’)

And when you apply the Common Law in writing on paper –

And take the time to put it on paper – because if you never said anything or if the person doing the transcript died in the middle of it; at least your paperwork would be able to speak for you.

RADIO: (1:20:40)That’s where a lot of people drop the ball.They think they can go in and proclaim themselves to be a ‘freeman’ or a ‘Sovereign’ or something like that and they rely on an ‘oral’ argument.And that is where the vast majority of them get crucified.

They do NOT enter their case in writing. They are not offering a remedy. Their making it too complicated.

Anybody that walks into the Court Room relying on a ‘oral’ argument; Gus I’ll let you respond to that.What happens to people when they walk into the Court, relying on an ‘oral’ argument?

GUS: (1:21:25)If they are walking into a Statutory Court; if you speak in a Statutory Court, you are going to be treated as a ‘Prose’ litigant.Because the Court can only hear the voice of Court People; Court Officers.

So as a ‘Prose’ if you appear in Court; ‘APPEAR’ is APPARITION ; your seen asYou’re NOT the ‘man’ Bob in Court; You’re an Apportion of a lawyer; of an Attorney.If your in Court and you are speaking, you can only been seen ‘Prose’.YOUR NOT A ‘man’

ONLY in Common Law can a ‘man’ speak.

So, in Common Law in a Common Law Court; when the venue has been changed; when you ‘flip’ the Court over to Common Law - For instance, when you’re dealing with a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ in a black robe ‘acting’ as a hearings Officer, you’re communicating with an Attorney; a lawyer.

Page 32


Someone with a Duty and Responsibility to the Barr Association and their affiliations throughout that whole industry.

On the other hand, if you walk in and say –“Hi”- You can call me Bob and I see that your name is Jim Rental and when I speak to you ‘man’ to ‘man’, is it ok if I refer to you as ‘YOUR HONOR’ – or would you prefer I speak to you as Jim or refer to you as Jim?The Judge will say – ‘Your Honour’ is fine. Please refer to me as ‘Your Honour’.

“Ok. Thank you Your Honour. And ‘for the Record’ when I speak to you ‘man’ to ‘man’, I’m going to

speak to you and refer to you as ‘Your Honour’’.

What you have established there is you are not communicating with a Judicial Officer; you’re communicating with a ‘man’ who can later be held accountable for whatever actions that that ‘man’ takes in that Court Room.

So, there’s a lot of this stuff.There’s a lot of ways that you convert the court to Common Law.Even if you’re in their Court – but you have to do it and you have to establish it.It’s just not safe to do that for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.

If there an Attorney involved; they know how to ‘flip’ it back to a Statutory Court right away. All you’ve got to do is acknowledge that they exist and you’ve just lost

your standing in Common Law.You’re back to being ‘Prose’ and it can flip flop back and forth.

I got a Court decision in September where a lady was in Court and she was moving a ‘counter – claim’ against an Attorney; it was some kind of a Debt Collection and when the judgment came out, the Judge ‘declared’ that they had both failed to ‘move’ their claim. Oh I lost my point; I was going somewhere with that.She wanted to be in Court only as a woman ‘moving’ a claim; and the Judge would NOT allow that because she wanted a jury trial and this was a district court where they did not have jury trials; ‘trials by Jury’, sorry.He had told her to move it off – “Do you want to go down the street? Do you want to go to Superior Court where you can have a Jury trial, or would you like to put this in as a Counter Claim - did you mean to do this as a Counter Claim?”I totally got off track.

Basically, what it comes down to is- Unless you’re establishing the Court right from the beginning, there’s a

very good likely hood you’re going to get sucked right back into Statutory Court, even if you flip it.

Page 33


As much studying as I’ve done, I’ve now picked up on some of the ways to flip the Court but, I don’t think I could hold it yet...I don’t think I could go through the entire hearing without ending up on the wrong side of the court.You can study that – you can do a google search for :

‘Wrong’ side of the Court’ ; or ‘Right’ side of the Court

Oh, I remember where I was going with that...The Judge in his ‘order’ wrote that ... you know what, I’m going to pull it up and just read it.When a Judge wrote this order, one of the lines he wrote...I think it was a Credit Card company...the line says –‘Without basic evidence of contract documents, the claim is essentially equitable in nature and beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.The plaintiff has not met the burden of proof and judgement for the defendant is entered. With regards to the defendants’ counter-claim, the court finds that the burden of proof has not been met and judgement for the plaintiff is entered.’

So, the jurisdiction of the Court was not at hand because neither one of them were able to prove their claim. So the Court was not able to lay judgement; but if the evidence of the contract did meet the burden of proof - then – it would NOT have been ‘equitable’ in nature, it would have been under ‘Contract’ law ; which is a form of Common Law: IT’S THE HIGHEST FORM OF LAW.

When a ‘man’ makes a Contract with another ‘man’, who’s the Government to come in and say - You can’t do it that way or you can’t do it on Tuesday and in the same breath, who’s the Government to say- Gus, Bob’s coming over to paint your house and you’re going to have to give him $300; that you have to contract and they can’t tell you that you can’t contract – that’s between man and another man.

So, this Court Case ended up being based in ‘Equity’, because neither one was able prove there was a contract in existence.

BILL: (1:28:47)Was that because it was a Counter- claim?

Page 34


GUS: (1:28:55)Nope. The case had begun as a ‘Contract’ case – as a ‘Breach of Contract’.However, the ‘burden of proof’ was not met to keep it as a Contract dispute; so therefore it was switched over to ‘equity’.The Judge went from Contract Law to Equity Law – right there in the ‘hearing’.So the jurisdiction of the Court changed because of the type of evidence that was NOT offered.

BILL: (1:29:26)Right; and that’s my question...You’re saying it’s a Counter-claim; so when it was, at the point when he filed a Counter-claim or a ‘claim’ ...because a ‘claim’ would give him jurisdiction, is what I’m saying.So, he did not win in court because he did not file a ‘claim’ – he filed a ‘Counter-Claim’ which gave the other guy jurisdiction.

GUS: (1:29:52)Exactly.The ‘claim’ was NOT accepted in the Court because the claim included a requirement for a ‘trial by jury’ – and the Hearings Officer – the man ‘acting’ as a Hearings Officer; let the woman know that the Court was NOT a Court with that type of Jurisdiction to do a ‘Trial by Jury’; that she had to take that down the street.However, if she meant to put in a ‘Counter-Claim’ – then he could hear that claim.

BILL: (1:30:26)Right; That’s where you ‘flipped’ the jurisdiction; right there.That, in Court is how they flipped it because, if she agrees to do the ‘Counter-Claim’- she’s giving up jurisdiction ; she’s following somebody else’s’ case. If she said “NO” and

files her own case her own ‘claim’ (is that correct) SHE NOW HAS JURISDICTION.

This is what I’m saying. She should have never filed a ‘Counter-claim’ like he offered.

GUS: (1:30:59)That’s true if you wanted to go with a ‘claim’.However, he wasn’t going to hear her ‘claim’ no matter what; he wasn’t going to hear it that day.

BILL: (1:31:10)Gus, what I’m saying is... he offered her another Court which had a ‘Trial by Jury’; or you could file a ‘Counter-Claim’. So he’s giving her an ‘offer’ – you can take this to another Court to get a ‘Trial by Jury’, which will give her the ‘Court of Record’ ... or...you can file a ‘Counter-Claim’.

Page 35


And to me, that’s verbally how they switch jurisdiction because, if a person doesn’t know that filing the ‘Counter-Claim’ - their only following someone else’s case, rather than saying “yes, take me to where I can file my own claim – and come in as a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ with my own jurisdiction.”Am i reading this right?

GUS: (1:31:53)He did not prevent her from moving her Claim.That Court did not have jurisdiction to hear her ‘Trial by Jury’; there was no Jury available.They don’t do Trials by Jury in that Court.

BILL: (1:32:10)But, he offered her to go to another Court, correct?

GUS: (1:32:13)No. He didn’t offer her to go to another Court; he offered her the opportunity to convert her claim to a Counter-Claim, so that he could hear it.

RADIO: (1:32:25)Was this a ‘Court of Record’?

GUS: (1:32:31)No. This was not a Court of Record.

RADIO: (1:32:33)Well, therein lies your problem.

BILL: (1:32:35)Yeah. I thought that you even said earlier that he had offered her to move it to a Superior Court where she could have a trial by jury, or have...

RADIO: (1:32:50)Hold up...Hold up...Hold up.If it’s NOT a Court of Record, how do you bring Common Law into it?

GUS: (1:33:00)When she accepted the offer to ‘Counter-Claim’ rather than ‘Claim’, she ...well...Here’s the problem...I don’t understand these kinds of Courts.I don’t do legal stuff...I do LAW, and I study LAW and I study the Common Law.What I saw happen in this Court is the Judge offered her to move a Claim through his Court, and then to be heard as a ‘claimant’ ...or a Counter – complainant or whatever...I don’t know what notes he put on his paper – because when she agreed, he wrote down something on his paper, in his notes...and she proceeded. What I did see, is that when the Attorney was done, the Judge looked at her and said –“Now it’s your turn to move your claim and, so, why don’t you come up here, take the stand and you lay your claim on the Court.”

Page 36


He didn’t use those specific words but he was telling her – “Go ahead – you’re under Oath and present your claim to the Court...So as a woman, she did present her claim to the Court; however it was in the form of a Counter-Claim.

And, it’s really weird – I mean he walked her through; she had no idea what to do and he said “this is what you do now, and here’s an option for you.”Every now and then she’d stop and be staring into space and the Judge would look at her and say “you ok?”And she’d say – “yep. I’m just thinking.”He didn’t rush her; he gave her all the time she needed to do what she needed to do and, she actually did really, really well... and the decision reflects that; even though she didn’t...

You know, she was looking for $2,000 from this Attorney for moving a case against her, which had no foundation.And he failed to prove his case – however, she wasn’t ready to prosecute that Attorney for moving that false claim.She put the paperwork in and, what she failed to do was study the elements of ‘Barratry’; so, she failed to understand how to prosecute the case.You know – you can put the paper in, but if you can’t carry that paper ALL THE WAY TO THE END ZONE...you’re not going to get a decision in your favour.

RADIO: (1:35:35)Isn’t she in the wrong venue?Isn’t she in the wrong place to do that?Didn’t she need to go to a ‘Court of Record’ to move her claim?

GUS: (1:35:42)She was definitely in the wrong venue to move a Common Law Claim.However, she turned around and looked at me and I said “yeah...go for it.”So, she told the Judge – “ok. I’ll do a Counter-Claim.”I told her afterwards and she said – “Why did I do that?”

BILL: (1:36:03)That’s exactly where she lost jurisdiction. I really believe that.

GUS: (1:36:10)Well, of course she lost...she didn’t lose jurisdiction.She decided...she wasn’t sure which way to go, and what this did was this gave her an opportunity to get some experience and to practice and put a claim before the Court; and to speak her mind and to see how she was going to do. And in doing so, this does not prevent her from going down the street and filing a ‘claim’ as a woman ‘in’ Common Law seeking a ‘trial by jury’.It doesn’t prevent her from doing anything.

RADIO: (1:36:45)

Page 37


It was dismissed without prejudice.

GUS: (1:36:50)Yeah; Absolutely.

RADIO: (1:35:55)We got another caller; you want to take that now Gus?

GUS: (1:36:58)Sure.

RADIO: (1:37:00)Area Code 505, I’m giving you...you’ve got a live mic 505 from New Mexico?

...###...SOUND TROUBLE...###...

RADIO: (1:38:14)So, we got about 20 minutes here Gus. I know there were some other things that you wanted to cover as far as myths or mistakes that people are making, or something that the so called guru’s out there are trying to convince people they need to do.Have you got anything else specifically, that you’d like to cover in that vein?

GUS: (1:38:38) I’m sure there is...I don’t have something all written out.But...anything that’s outside the simplicity which is

I’m a man I’m in court I’m here to settle an account Bring the man forward that ‘s accusing me of something so that I may

settle up with him So that i may seek forgiveness

Anything outside of that is ... no good.It’s taken me a long time to ‘unlearn’ all that stuff.All that statutory stuff.

When you move a Common Law Claim – you’re a ‘man’ moving a claim.

You would be in Court saying, that Frank did come over and do donuts on my front law with his

Corvette...and i did fix the damage ...see exhibit A:

Page 38


That’s the bill and I require payment of that amount.

You would give a written ‘order’ to the Court (an Attorney would propose an order to the court;

WHERE – as a ‘man’ – you give the ‘order’ to the Court That you ‘wish’ for the Magistrate to ‘witness’

So, if my claim is true the Magistrate will Witness the ‘order’ pass it off to the ‘clerk’ who will put the ‘seal’ of the Court on the order and pass it off to the sheriff for execution.

I don’t know what they would do in Alaska – who enforces, but it’s the simplicity.So, if you’re not talking about stuff that is ‘that’ simple, then it’s probably not real; because THAT IS THE COMMON LAW.

The Common Law is simply a ‘man’ making a claim for compensation – and that’s it.It’s no more than that.

And if you’re a ‘man’ and there is no other ‘man’ making a claim against you, then

the plaintiff is a ‘fiction’ and that plaintiff cannot extract from you anything because you’re a

‘man’

*** They exist for your benefit. How is it to ‘my’ benefit to give you my house? It’s not. If there’s a debt, I’ll pay the debt. If you can ‘verify’ the debt, I’ll make a deal with you and I’ll pay the debt

and pay it off in a way that will not harm me because You exist for my benefit – to secure my property, not to take it away.

Anything outside of that, as far as I’m concerned, it falls into the category of things that are NOT Common Law.

RADIO: (1:41:37)Someone in chat put in a comment, that

Page 39


Common Law Claim has NO Statute of Limitation; it can be brought up at ANY point in the future.

Would you agree with that Gus?

GUS: (1:41:53)Absolutely.

A ‘man’ has NO latches. The ‘statute of Limitation’; IS a latch; it’s a restriction.

If a ‘man’ has a claim, That claim can be brought forth by his grand children.

One of the elements in a Common Law Court; one of the elements of proof that needs to be met is

Somebody has to ‘verify’ the claim; and To ‘verify’ the claim there has to be an eye-witness. There has to be 1st hand knowledge An impartial ‘witness’

It’s very difficult to have somebody to ‘verify’ the claim; to say that it’s true and then to have an impartial witness.

Likewise, if somebody comes forward and brings a ‘claim’ against YOU; You have the right to answer for yourself, and the ‘claim brought against you must be supported by an impartial

witness.So, these are the elements of Common Law.

Now, is there a ‘Statute of Limitations’ on when you can bring a claim forward? Well, the longer you wait, the less likely it is that you’re going to have an impartial witness to support your claim.But, that’s the only restriction – as long as you’ve got that impartial witness and you’re able to verify your claim in open Court – if it’s 25 years down the road, then so be it.

RADIO: (1:43:25)Maria, you had a comment.

MARIA: (1:43:30)Yeah; this place Alaska is kinda difficult. It’s kinda like the Wild West. It’s kinda a lawless territory, and we have an ‘overactive’ department of Child Services.

Page 40


A lot of people are having their children taken by the State, for one reason or another.

There’s a group on my ‘Facebook’ Community that is grandparents trying to help their children get their children back.I was studying this case that you’ve got on ‘Redress 4 Dummies’ – the Alabama Case and there’s a lot of paperwork in there.

So I’m just curious; some of it is setting the ‘Rules of Court’; some of it is the initial claim.I’m just kinda wondering on the timing – when those pieces of paper end up going in :-

Are they filed initially WITH the claim? ; or Are they filed some time throughout the course of the case of you moving your claim?

GUS: (1:44:44)OkI filed a Common Law Case.It started ‘in’ Common Law; It was not a conversion; In a Court; And,

the case was opened one day and we got a ‘Claim Number’ that day Over the course of the next 2 weeks, I put in ‘notices’ into that Case. ‘notice’ of character ‘notice’ of the nature

For instance – The ‘nature’ of the Prosecutor is that of a ‘man’ One of the characters of that ‘man’ is that of a ‘prosecutor’

So these are the different ‘notices’ that you see on Karl’s website - http://www.broadmind.org/

And if you click on the tap that says – documents – that’s where you see that Alabama Case. http://www.broadmind.org/Documents.html

There’s actually 45 filings in that case; and that is a ‘sample’ case that Karl put up.He told people - “Look; I’m going to start a case; I’m going to show you some of the paperwork; put it in there so you see it and, so that was the example I followed.

I put in the ‘notices’ and after 2 weeks I gave ‘notice’ to the clerk that I was ready to ‘serve’ the other party with the Case So, ‘seal’ the case; the case is now complete and Ready to serve on the ‘other’ side.

Page 41

http://www.broadmind.org/Documents.html

http://www.broadmind.org/


I had a bit of a headache with the Summons because I wanted to use my own Summons; and what we ended up doing was modifying the official Court Summons; to correct some of the language and make it a little bit more of what I wanted to see.

But when it comes to ‘filing a Case’ or ‘filing a Claim’ – in Common Law or using the paperwork – you can simply put on the paperwork...‘This form is being used for the ease of filing purposes only.’

You can say – this form went on the ‘Summons’ ‘This form is being used for the ease of Service of Process. ‘

AND MAKE THAT STATEMENT RIGHT ON THE ‘FACE’ OF THE DOCUMENT ‘You’re not using their forms because you agree with their stuff; their

rules; their procedures;YOU’RE using it because

you want things to be easy and you want to follow a format that works for everybody.

The Summons was served, and then we got notification that the ‘wrong’ party was served.So, we haven’t followed up on that - that was about a month ago; probably 2 months ago now.

I’ve got to get back together with that lady, but that was the process.

First there was the Claim; then the ‘notices’ went in; and once we were pretty convinced that we were all set to serve the whole thing, it was ‘sealed’ by the Summons and served on the other side.

MARIA: (1:48:00)I was just curious – Do you get a Court date once that happens, or...I’m just trying to get my head around the process or how i can.....

GUS: (1:48:20)I think the process is very much like it is in Statutory Courts;

You put in a claim You fill out the paperwork They serve the Summons on the other side.

Page 42


The other side – depending on your location; they have 20 – 21 days to answer (whatever that time limit is)

And if they do not answer ; typically people will run down to the Court looking for a “Summary Judgement’ –

However,

In Common Law – you have a right to a FINAL JUDGEMENT. A ‘man’ has a right to a final judgement. A ‘summary’ judgement can be reversed at any time, simply

by going to the Court and saying – “Hey, i didn’t receive proper ‘notice’.

There are all sorts of reasons to bring a case back up.

So, for a ‘man’ who wants to have a final decision on a particular matter, that man would go to Court and say –

Look, Bob had a chance to get back to me he’s had 21 days to answer I have proof that he’s been served And he has failed to get a hold of me so we can settle this privately I guess he wants an hearing, so drag him in here to give answer for

himself because He has a right to answer and confront me I’m his accuser. So go get him-Here’s the location where he’s working right now I’ll just sit here until he shows up And then, after he answers, we can decide when to set the trail date.

RADIO: (1:49:55)Does it matter whether it’s a private Process Server?

GUS: (1:50:00)It does matter...what you want is the ‘man’ to be ‘served’.You’re looking for a Process Server – For instance, if I was the process server – ‘i a man, Gus Breton, did serve Frank Smith today – the ‘man’, Frank Smith – so,

THE LANGUAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SHOW THAT A ‘MAN’ WAS SERVED AND NOT THE CEO OF A

CORPORATION.

Page 43


If anyone is interested in knowing more about this stuff; I’ve got a website that I set up with some rally basic information – and that website is - http://redress4dummies.org

It’s a lot of real basic stuff ; just to give people an idea of what my thoughts are; what my beliefs are on the Common Law; and how to get in touch with each other – that’s www.redress4dummies.org

The short link is – www.r4d.info

We have Talkshoes 3 times a week where we get together. I help Karl out sometimes on his Talkshoe which is on Saturday Nights. The Talkshoe Phone number to call is – 724 444 7444 Then, you have to enter a PIN number – Karl’s Pin is – 127469 My PIN number is – 134084 Karl does his Talkshoes on Saturdays I do my Talkshoes on Wednesday Nights at 7pm, Eastern Time And then Mike Miller does the same thing – very knowledgeable – he

has his calls on Monday Nights at 7 pm Eastern. Mikes Caller Id is 133802 Karl’s call is titled - Unkommon Law by Karl Mike call is – CalmInLaw Mine is – Common Law Word Nerdz

These are 3 different calls you can get on to get more information and We also have Skype Groups Mike’s SKYPE group is – CalmInLaw Mine is - Gus.Breton

And, if you skype either one of us; what we’ll do is we’ll put you into a skype group with other people; 30 – 40 people.

Some of the groups are specific in nature, to deal with specific types of issues and sometimes those issues are personal, so whoever wants to have their own

Page 44

http://www.r4d.info/

http://www.redress4dummies.org/

http://redress4dummies.org/


particular group to work with – but it’s a great place to meet people of like mind; and to share information. It’s available 24 hours a day – there’s people in the skype rooms that are from New Zealand, Australia, from England, from Canada; You have people from all different time zones.

Australia is kind of neat - because at 9 pm at night, it ‘s midday for them.And we can get a lot done.

So, if it’s 3 in the morning for you; where you’re at and you put a question into the SKYPE ROOM; you might get an answer from somebody where it’s 3 in the afternoon for them : and they’ll answer your question.

So, it’s 24 hours support... It’s really neat.

RADIO: (1:54: 15)I got muted. I don’t know how I got muted but I was muted.I put the websites and Talkshoe on our chat, so that people could see that.Area code 510 – you have an open mic.

(1:54:50)Can you hear me ok?I would like to revisit the case with John – the tax case with Gus.I was wondering –

he came into the Court with a written notice that he was a man, and that the Judge put that into the record

I was wondering why that didn’t ‘flip’ the case into the Common Law?

GUS: (1:55:19)There’s a lot of stuff that happened; and he was in the other room.It very well may have ‘flipped’ the Court into Common Law.However, the Judge allowed the Hearings Officer, the ‘man’ acting as Judge, did allow the Prosecutor to continue, and ... I’m not sure ; there was so much stuff going on. It’s very difficult to get a grasp on – like I said, I don’t understand Legalese.I don’t understand anything legal.I don’t deal with that stuff so, I have a very limited understanding as to what actually happens in the Court Room in those situations. But – he did put ‘notice’ in. One of the issues with speaking in Court is you’re there and

you are in a Court that speaks a different language –‘legalese’.

Page 45


So if you’re in a Court and their speaking Chinese, you don’t understand what‘s going on, then you would not be participating.

And in this case, as a ‘man’ – who is NOT knowledgeable in ‘LEGALESE or the CUSTOMS OF THE

LEGAL SOCIETY; and when they are moving a ‘Case’ and using ‘WHAT SOUNDS LIKE

ENGLISH’; if you respond to them with your mouth, you have shown them that you understand what’s going on.

So for instance, if the Judge were to look at you and say “Would you like a cup of Coffee before we get started?”....and you say “Yes, I’d like to have that with cream and sugar please;

You’ve just acknowledge that you understand what’s going on in that Court room.

On the other hand – if he says “Would you like a cup of Coffee before we get started?”And, you

take a piece of paper and you write down on that piece of paper – ‘ i require 17 basketballs to be present during the trail.’

Now, you are proving ‘ON THE RECORD’ that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND’ what’s going on.

As silly as that sounds, that’s the kinda stuff that was going on in John’s Hearing; in John’s trial.

John was doing things Common Law – however it was complex - the stuff he was putting in was way more complex than anything I would do – and so I don’t know where he ended up at the end of the day.

I’m still waiting to see how this is all going to turn out because this was only a couple of weeks ago.

(1:527:51)Well perhaps when he insisted on the Judge not calling him ‘Mr.’ –he indicated that he understood something that the Judge was saying and he might have been better not to answer at all, and just to ask for ‘leave of Court’ and a pen and paper and do everything in writing.

Page 46


That’s my thought. I have another question about that case – and it would be generally speaking – Now if he does not prevail here, could he not go into a County Court and file a ‘claim’ of his own, with regard to this case?And say that he was denied ‘DUE PROCESS’ because there was no ‘man’ or ‘woman’ – there was NO proper ‘claim’ before the Court and was therefore basically a paper case; he had done no one harm?

RADIO: (1:58:50)Gentleman and Lady – I have to inform you that we are out of time.I really appreciate you coming on tonight Gus. Had a lot of action here tonight.Thank you guests for coming and listening and joining in this conversation.We will see you next week with ‘Walls in our Minds’.

http://my.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2015/02/06/walls-in-our-minds

This one is dedicated to Karl’s dad, who bravely took his boat head on into Hurricane Sandy.Making it through one of the deadliest and most destructive Hurricanes in United States History, he passed away days later by exhaustion. He was 70 years young.

He is remembered – ‘Captain, my Captain’

Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history.

Page 47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

http://my.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2015/02/06/walls-in-our-minds