Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 30, 2023 - Blood Money

01:34:27

Blood Money Episode 57 w/ Katherine Hine - Lawyer of 40 years discusses the evil roots of legal

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I have a very special guest, Kathryn Hines, who is a family and criminal law attorney with over 40 years of experience and has worked in the state of Oklahoma and the state of Ohio.
	At the whole legal world from a very unique point of view, which is she's recognized that our legal world is essentially a for-profit corporation that doesn't necessarily work for what is good for people.
	It is a for-profit corporation that has a lot of issues.
	So Catherine, first let me ask you, how are you doing today?
	I'm okay. Are you?
	And thanks for having me on.
	I want the viewer to know that I highly respect Catherine just from interviewing a lot of people that are involved in this world, involved in this world of detaching yourself from the corporate system that really feeds on people's suffering.
	And out of all the people I've spoken with, I think Catherine has a very unique point of view And an experience point of view because she's been playing in this, you know, bargain for over 40 years.
	So she knows what really is going on there.
	So Catherine, let's first talk about your 40 years experience and what you realized having worked within the corporate system.
	About, you know, what's really happening here, about, you know, how these cases are adjudicated upon, you know, the honesty, dishonesty, just give us a whole download on what you learned from your experiences.
	Well, I wanted to establish, first of all, I'm not currently an attorney.
	I resigned as an attorney, so-called, in their system on July 4, 2019.
	And I think my resignation letter is kind of self-explanatory.
	It's found somewhere on the web.
	It gets periodically taken down, but it's there.
	And so I don't consider myself part of that operation.
	I don't consider, and they actually have agreed that they don't consider what they're running to be a true court system.
	If you look at their definition of a court in their Black's Law Dictionary, it's It does not fit.
	It cannot be something that's operated by a private-for-profit corporation, which is what they all are.
	And you all can verify that for yourselves by taking any so-called court or what you think is a court, and this includes the so-called federal courts.
	Look them up. Down in Bradstreet or on one of the Edgar sites, which posts Identifier numbers, corporate identifiers for those who trade publicly.
	These are private-for-profit corporations.
	They're businesses.
	They're not courts.
	And when we serve legal notices on them and invite them to dispute that fact, they never do.
	Even though we tell them the consequences of that are going to be that we're going to We'll have an agreement from you.
	This is how they enter into agreements.
	They send notices out. And three notices, and this is biblically based also, establish and they're verified notices, they're signed under oath.
	They establish that when they're unrebutted in their world, as well as biblically, an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce, and it stands as truth otherwise.
	Especially when they've refused to rebut What the facts and the statements are in our notices three times.
	So you're literally sending them notices saying that, hey, you guys are a bunch of frauds.
	This whole system is nothing but a for-profit corporation.
	It's not law.
	And at that point, they have the responsibility to respond to you and say, hey, you know, you're wrong about those things because of X, Y, and Z. But their non-response basically affirms that everything you are saying is true.
	Right, right. Look, you have an opportunity.
	We give them about somewhere between 10 and about 28 days to respond, depending on the urgency of the situation.
	They don't take that opportunity.
	We give them a second opportunity and a third opportunity.
	They never do. Every once in a while, we get somebody who makes some sort of an attempt, but it's not real.
	It's just something like Well, the most recent one we said was, well, you didn't file this in our system.
	Yeah, no kidding.
	We don't file in your system.
	That has nothing to do with what the facts are and whether you're able to rebut them or not.
	And since you haven't, we presume you can't.
	You can't, yeah. We'll give you one more chance sometimes to do that.
	And they don't take the chance then that they're offered.
	Wow, wow.
	So, okay, so could you briefly, like bullet points, because I know you've seen 40 years of horrors within these courts that have, I'm sure repugnant is a word that comes to mind.
	Could you tell us about some of the things that you saw that just made you so disgusted that on July 4, 2019, a very appropriate date, by the way, you decided to hand in your resignation letter?
	Well, let me just say that it wasn't so much that things got worse and worse and worse and worse and suddenly I decided to resign.
	It was that I saw a way out and I saw that it was a fraud.
	At first, back in early 90s, I knew that it's not just me, there's something wrong here.
	And I thought it was corruption.
	I thought it was just, you know, boss hog type corruption.
	And it was a matter of, first of all, I thought, well, we'll have to educate them.
	And I've worked with some feminists and we developed a seminar for so-called judges to learn how they hurt children.
	And I found out some of the ones that I knew had attended.
	Because I asked them.
	And I asked them after they had inflicted some kind of a horrible so-called judgment against one of the children.
	So apparently that made no impression.
	In fact... It's turned out that psychological experiments done, I think, in Minnesota kind of established that the more you try and rehabilitate a psychopath, the worse they get because it teaches them how to groom their victims better.
	And I think that's what they were learning how to do.
	So anyway, so I knew that wasn't working in the 90s and I just kept plugging along, you know, case by case by case and did a lot of family law and not so much CPS stuff because they usually targeted the poor and then they would assign attorneys to them.
	And after I was assigned one time, They didn't want my opinions about what should happen with this child.
	I wasn't getting CPS appointments, but every now and then somebody would hire me.
	Oftentimes we could work something out.
	That's basically a lot of what I did was let's make a deal.
	I consider I was more of a glorified social worker in many ways.
	But, you know, then I started doing other things.
	I got involved in, you know, what was happening to the people as a whole in our town.
	They were being afflicted with these traffic surveillance cameras.
	And, you know, every time they do the cabal, this...
	It's a conglomerate of corporate entities masquerading as our government.
	Every time they do something that they tell us is for our own good, they do something bad to us, they tell us it's for our own good, or that we agreed to it, we deserve it, it's this, it's that.
	And we were somehow able to fight them within the system.
	We invoked a provision in the Ohio Constitution called an initiative process.
	And we had to jump through a lot of hoops and they fought us every step of the way just to get the matter on the ballot.
	Because they had gone around the people in city council and they had voted basically in closed door to bring in this foreign traffic camera surveillance system.
	Foreign meaning like from overseas?
	Yes, it was from Australia actually.
	So they brought them in to put direct traffic cameras and at the same time they were Shortening the yellow light at those intersections.
	We had an engineer who discovered that for us.
	So that you would be in a quandary as to, should I speed up to get through the light a little bit?
	Or should I slow down?
	It puts you in a quandary as to what to do.
	We found out at these camera intersections there were more accidents there than at the non-camera intersections because people were so worried.
	They were worried about the camera.
	What's the camera going to do? Yeah.
	Surveillance is literally causing more accidents, probably more fatalities.
	Right. So not really helping much.
	But they kept parroting, it's for your own good.
	It's for public safety.
	Public safety, public safety, public safety.
	What are some of the things, if you could paraphrase, that you put into your resignation letter?
	It sounds like quite a fiery resignation letter.
	That was mostly directed toward what I was saying as the normalization, attempts to normalize pedophilia.
	And again, I'm going to try and pull that up.
	And so you were seeing that, I mean, obviously you worked in the family courts, you saw some of the stuff that CPS was doing.
	What were you seeing there that you felt like there was an agenda of pedophilia?
	It wasn't so much in, because I wasn't in CPS court, so-called, very much.
	It was mostly, I was doing divorces and post-divorce custody matters, which is another lucrative racket that they have going because you get divorced and then after the divorce, it's never really over.
	It just goes on and on and on.
	And it's all in the best interest of the child, you know.
	Yeah, yeah, which is the biggest bullshit on the planet.
	They literally destroy children's lives.
	They would hand children to drug addicts, pedophiles.
	I mean, the stories are literally endless.
	We won't get into every single tragedy, but everybody knows these family courts are a complete sham and they could care less about the children as long as they print money and make you go bankrupt.
	That's their goal. Yeah, there was a There's a woman, Liz Richards, that had an organization.
	I forget the name of the organization.
	It's out of Virginia. And she said the reason they do this is because it generates controversy.
	Also known as Champerdy, where you have a couple of people who otherwise might agree, but they are encouraged to litigate.
	And then When you have an abuser litigating custody with his victim, and if it's clear cut, you know, the victim is not really She's interested in much in the way of property in a divorce.
	She's interested in getting the children.
	She often gives up a lot in the divorce.
	I'm just using she as a substitute for the victim because it usually is the female who is the caregiver and who gets the brunt of the male abuser, at least in Most, if not all of the divorces that I did, because I did represent men who were treated badly in divorce as well.
	And, you know, when you're willing to give up property to get safety, then you don't really take into account that later things are going to get bad and you'll be back in court again, but you won't have the property.
	But your enemy will, you know.
	And the enemy can leverage that to fight you with.
	And so there's even a book out there, In the Worst Interest of the Child.
	And that's a conscious decision.
	There's no question in my mind.
	No judge ever told me that.
	But I could tell that the more controversy there was, the more filings, the more strenuously the other side would fight.
	And when there's a lot of fighting, there's more billable hours for attorneys and there's more Income coming into the so-called court through the CRIS system, court registry investment system.
	And that goes through a complicated series of transactions through the federal so-called clerk's office and then onto the Federal Reserve Bank and then out of the country.
	Wow. So, like, literally, these court systems are being used to destroy lives, going from the court to the Federal Reserve and then foreign, so it's not even staying in the United States.
	Right, right. I mean, that just sounds like tremendous globalist evil when you understand how much destruction happens within these courts.
	Absolutely, absolutely.
	I mean, are these judges taught to essentially throw morals and law out the door and really try to milk these cash cows, these victims, human beings, women, children,
	and men? I've never been to their seminars, but I saw a video of one of their seminars where Someone was instructing them on how to maximize the receipts through the Title IV D program.
	So they're not judges.
	They're basically at that point when they're maximizing profits.
	They're not judges. They're like salespeople and con artists, more or less.
	Yeah. Wow.
	Wow. That's your traditional system, folks.
	So all right. So you realize that this whole system, I mean, it sounds like you go through your own personal journey there where you try to do what most of us try to do is let's start a nonprofit.
	Let's teach these judges.
	Right. We're naive almost because we think that this is being done unintentionally.
	But you realize that this is being done intentionally, that this is how this corrupt fraudulent game works, and you realize that there is a way of getting out of this system, getting out of the U.S. court.
	Could you talk to us about that and with the relevance of why that is important?
	What really turned the tide for me was going to the Dun& Bradstreet site I was told this by a common law activist.
	Could I mention one thing real quick there?
	For those that don't know, Dun& Brant Street is essentially, how would you describe them?
	They're a company that holds all the names of the corporations out there?
	It's like a database.
	Database, okay. And credit reporting agency is really designed for Corporations to look at the...
	It's like a social credit score and financial scores for other corporations that they do business with.
	Because, I mean, as maybe a lot of people don't really realize and should about corporate law, first of all, a corporation is just a legal fiction.
	It's not real.
	It's just a mental construct.
	In fact, in their case law, they will even say repeatedly that a corporation has no brain, no hands, no mouth.
	It can do no thing.
	It cannot act.
	It can only act through people.
	And the distinction is very large between the term people and the term persons.
	And that's why when they enact their corporate policies that they call statutes and codes, they are not law, but they apply to persons.
	And sometimes they apply to citizens, residents, plaintiffs, defendants, various names, nationals, Whenever they're assigning you a name in one of their corporate statutes, you know that you don't want to accept that name.
	You do not want to play ball with that name.
	So when they call you people, that's a good thing.
	When they call you person, citizen, resident, respondent, national, etc., these are essentially fictitious names created in order to essentially create a slave state.
	Yes. They don't use the term man or woman or people.
	Occasionally you might find people, but they don't use that term in the courtroom.
	I also don't like to talk about the Constitution, any of them.
	We've had a number of them.
	That's so insane that there's supposed to be judges in the United States of America where you are told that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, yet when you talk about the Constitution, they get pissed off and sometimes they hold people in contempt, I've heard.
	I think I've heard that too.
	I wouldn't be surprised because they are not, I mean, when they say, you know, we don't observe the Constitution in this court.
	Well, of course, it's not a court.
	They're quite correct.
	They're an administrative tribunal.
	They're administering the assets of the person and they presume that the living man or woman who shows up is a surety for that person.
	But they're not dealing directly with that surety unless it's time to Levy against the...
	What's a surety?
	A guarantee. A guarantee.
	Okay, got it. So it's almost this fictitious entity, not you as a real human, or humans even the wrong word, you as a real man, woman, and or people, right?
	Right, right.
	So, yeah, but so that was sort of the tide that The turning of the tide for me was when I saw that my local court calling itself the Ross County Court of Common Pleas sounds very people friendly, but when you go to look it up, or when I did, the Dun& Bradstreet listings changed constantly.
	But at the time I looked it up, it was being administered, just a small county court, It was being administered by no less than six separate corporations with their own Dun& Bradstreet numbers.
	Wow. And sometimes the clerk's office will have its own entity.
	I'm noticing, as I do Dun& Bradstreet lookups through the years, they seem to be consolidating.
	And I don't know just why that is.
	Are they getting short staff, perhaps?
	But they're definitely consolidating.
	So what we're having is, I mean, Ohio, for example, has 88 counties and each one has its own so-called court.
	Not every county in Ohio is a corporation, by the way.
	But any, most of them are.
	But the so-called courts are being administered from Columbus.
	There's like one entity, and I don't remember the name that it calls itself, that administers all of these courts, so-called, these tribunals masquerading as courts.
	Got you. And it used to be not that way at all.
	There used to be a bunch of corporations.
	And there's still plenty of subsidiary corporations.
	CPS is a corporation.
	There's something like, or there were at one time, about 150,000 such corporations all masquerading as parts of your government.
	Wow, 150,000.
	Yes, that's it.
	If I could point out where this happened, for people in the know, and correct me if I'm wrong here, Kathryn, it was multiple steps that got us to this point of tyranny and fraud, right?
	It started with 1871, I believe there was some kind of act that happened there.
	Then there was the creation of the Federal Reserve.
	Federal Reserve, if you realize, is the end point of a lot of these crimes against people, where, you know, as Catherine was saying, the money from these courts go to the Federal Reserve and then they're shipped out from elitists overseas.
	Doesn't sound very American, sounds actually Quite an act of tyranny.
	So you realize all this stuff's happening and your next step is to figure out how to get yourself out of the system, help people get themselves out of the system.
	Right. And I was educated by others, non-attorneys.
	About how we got ourselves into this to begin with.
	And there's many, many, many, many ways that we do that.
	But there are more important ways than others.
	And it starts with our birth.
	And a lot of people have done lots of videos on this already.
	I won't try and go over old ground.
	But to say that the birth registration documents that they create for you create the artificial entity that they designate with the all capital name.
	For example, I was born July 15th.
	Um, 1949, if anybody is interested.
	Uh, but my all capital name was created July 18th.
	I don't know that they were using the all capital name at that time.
	Um, but they, cause it's not on my birth certificate that way, but, uh, yeah.
	So the, um, They created the all capital name on a different date than your parents created you as your infant self.
	Legally speaking, the minute that all capital name is created, where this second weird birth happens, birth of this corporate entity, you basically stop in the eyes of their system being the woman that you were prior to the creation of this fake entity.
	I think they still know that the people are living beings and they know that many of us are claimed by God and they know that God has greater authority over their satanic activities.
	Not that he doesn't allow a lot of this to happen for purposes That he tells us about in the Bible.
	But... And the Bible, why the Bible is so important is people might not know this, but it is the root of all law.
	The law of the purest form comes from the Bible before it was corrupted by these for-profit entities that essentially punished people for victimless crimes.
	There's been generations of men put in jail for, you know, just, you know, Victimless crimes, basically, is the best way to describe it.
	All which is for profit.
	All which is profit for the prisons, profit for the courts.
	Starting with Genesis 126, where God granted us dominion over his creation.
	He wanted us to be in charge of his creation on earth.
	And I believe he was also well aware that we would partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
	But I think he also wanted us to be free and that runs through the entire Old and New Testaments.
	He didn't want to create a bunch of robots.
	He wanted us to love him in a pure, free way, not because we're programmed to do so.
	But yeah, if y'all look at Genesis 126, it gives us dominion and stewardship over the planet.
	But what have we done?
	We've wanted to turn that over to, you know, to psychopaths and pedophiles.
	Yeah, yeah. And I mean, let's talk quickly.
	I want to actually mention the book, Fruits from a Poisonous Tree, because it's such a great analogy that God creates this tree, this world that we can live, you know, through, that we can eat, we could thrive.
	And then these, you know, Catherine, you're saying satanic, but, you know, some people might look at that and say, wait, that's a harsh word, but think about it, right?
	God creates a tree where you could eat your food and sustain yourself, and the man, woman, creates a tree, a poisonous tree that is used to destroy the creation of God.
	And how...
	You can't see those two things as polar opposites, hence, good and evil.
	You know, good and evil. That's why that book, Fruits from a Poisonous Tree, is almost the most perfect title for a book that describes the fraud of the bar, the fraud of the legal system, and how this has all been set up really just to profit from our suffering.
	So you realize this stuff, Catherine, and then, you know, what happens next?
	Well, to get back to another highly significant part of the Bible for me, certainly, and that is 1 Samuel chapter 7, in which Samuel was, I guess, their unofficial or maybe official leader.
	And he was getting old, and the people were talking about who would be their leader after he passed.
	And, yeah, actually, 1 Samuel chapter 8, and they all gathered together, and the people of Israel, I think.
	So, give us a king to judge us.
	And... And the Lord wanted them to just, why don't you just have me as your authority and you live as you have been, you know, peaceably among yourself.
	And then he instructed Samuel to instruct the people, if you have a king, what's a king going to do for you?
	He's going to appoint for himself captains over thousands and captains over fifties and will set them to plow his ground and reap His harvest and make his instruments of war.
	And he will take your daughters and he will take your sons and he will take your fields and your vineyards and he will take the tenth of your seed and so on.
	And Samuel told them all that.
	And they still said, we want a king.
	We want to be like other nations.
	We want to have a king.
	And God finally acquiesced, okay, give them their king.
	Like a good father, he wanted us to learn what would happen when we indulge that earthly desire.
	Like abdicating our own freedom, basically.
	Yes, yes. And we've been doing it ever since.
	So for the viewer, I'm just going to summarize a few things.
	The way things like this legal system that they've created works, it's very interesting because in a way, they are putting in a slave system, right?
	But they're telling you they're doing it.
	Which is very interesting because, you know, for people that are religious, you look at, you know, quote-unquote, you know, demonic individuals, Satanists, that sort of thing, and telling you the fraud that they're about to commit is a part of it.
	But what it also shows is that these people, because they want control, they're very much for having some kind of system where it's not like they're knocking you over the head.
	But, through your ignorant, I guess, what would be the word?
	Ignorant, you know, I'm sorry, I'm like blanking.
	Yeah, like you're not knowing what you're doing, but also the fact that you're allowing them to do it in a way.
	And the way that happens is that through your birth certificate, when you're born, they create a fictitious entity.
	And now that fictitious entity is under their statutes and their laws.
	Then you have your driver's license.
	What other documents exist?
	Oh, Social Security, right?
	Right. Right. These days, that's created almost immediately upon birth.
	And oftentimes, the parents are instructed, you have to do this.
	You have to do this. It's the law.
	You can't live without a social security number.
	But once you agree to that, and you get your social security number, there's no implications to that.
	But also, as far as in the family...
	In the court context, there's all the marriage license documents, registration and applications that both parties sign because they want to be married under the authority of the state.
	And the minister administering the vows has to be licensed by the state.
	What's a license? It's a permission slip to do something which otherwise would be illegal.
	Or unlawful. So what you do is, and you're told, well, you know, you won't be legally married, you know, if you don't do this.
	And so, you know, it's not necessarily...
	That's a fraud unto itself, right?
	Because the government doesn't have the right to dictate what a marriage is.
	Marriage comes from a pact with God, right?
	Right. And that's why we, in common law, we use the term...
	You know, a covenant of matrimony as opposed to a contract of marriage, which can look like the same thing, but they're not.
	In a contract of marriage, under the authority so-called that you've delegated to the corporate state, the corporate state becomes a third party, a bigamous third party.
	Use the word bigamist there because that on its own shows that this is a fraudulent contract because bigamy is illegal but nonetheless when you get married it's you you know in my case my wife and then there's the government which now it's the pie split into 33 thirds as opposed to halves.
	Yeah, the corporate state then takes on for itself, with your permission, because you signed those marriage license applications, right?
	So you gave them permission to do this.
	They operate always under presumption.
	And the presumption is supported by signatures.
	Signatures are powerful things.
	It's interesting. You know what's fascinating here?
	It's interesting because it's kind of like the COVID vaccine.
	They tell you that, oh, we didn't force you to do it.
	But nonetheless, they really did force people to do it at the threat of really losing their jobs, losing their livelihoods.
	And it's really the same thing.
	They tell you the only way to get married is through a marriage license.
	And if you do get married without a marriage license, then it's illegal.
	But then that's really not the truth, is it?
	It might be illegal, but it's not unlawful.
	And what they do is unlawful, but it may be legal.
	And so I made a choice.
	I'd rather be lawful than legal.
	Lawful than legal. Okay.
	Tell us about, so you do all these, you know, without even knowing it, most people are involved in these contracts.
	Like we said, Social Security, driver's license, birth certificate, passport, all these are contracts that you're putting your signature.
	Whenever you sign something, you are signing a contract.
	Now the trick becomes, and this is Catherine's specialty, is how to get out of those contracts.
	Now, let's talk a little bit about that, of the process of getting out of these contracts that we essentially sign without even knowing that we're signing contracts.
	Okay. I wanted to just, before I do that, just jump back into the idea of a presumption, which our signatures support.
	And in the case of the marriage license application, when you sign that, it gives the corporate state the ability to operate under the presumption that they have authority to administer all property of that marriage.
	And that includes biological property.
	Children, yep. Yes.
	As probably most people have noticed, they put on a show of the taking of evidence, although they do that less and less all the time.
	But they basically operate on presumption.
	And there's all kinds of presumptions that you don't know anything about when you walk in the courtroom or They don't even have people walking in the courtroom much.
	It's all done through Zoom calls and I don't know what all else.
	But when you have your unrebutted signatures all over the place, ostensibly giving them authority over you, then you're seen as a thing, a corporate asset.
	That they are to administer.
	And so they do.
	So in order to extract yourself from those presumptions and get out of the system, there's any number of notices you can do to rebut the effects of any signatures you may have had.
	There's a blanket Rebuttal that people do, and it's a good idea to put at the end of all your notices, and that is that you don't consent to the creation of any presumption that's created by some signature you may have created way back that you can't even remember anymore.
	That if you were not fully disclosed all material facts, including the fact that we're going to use this to support a presumption against you, you weren't told that, then what's the effect of your signature?
	Is it a legitimate signature?
	Is it lawful?
	No, it's not. It's like...
	Y'all remember the part in Godfather II where one gal is asking Michael Corleone, how did your father get this man to sign that contract with him?
	And he said, well, he made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
	Well, what did he do?
	He told him, in two minutes, either your signature or your brains will appear on that contract.
	And that's the kind of offer you can't refuse that we're getting when we want to drive the roadways and not be assaulted and battered by their code enforcers that call themselves police that aren't.
	That's how we...
	That's how we get caught up in that.
	Yeah. And one thing I just want to make something clear for the viewer, because for the viewer that's actually heard these kind of topics before, you might have heard about the state national process.
	And what I want to make clear here is that what Catherine does is actually not the state national process.
	There's very similar things in the fact that this process of getting yourself out of the corporation, out of this fraud that they've created, involves sending out notices.
	It involves seeing similar things in these notices, like saying, for example, you know, there was a contract made when I was born.
	I was zero years old.
	I wasn't capable of making a contract.
	Hence, and therefore, that contract is null and void.
	I mean, I'm just, you know, ballparking here.
	The general gist of it is the same.
	The end result, though, there's a disagreement between, you know, the state national folks and what Catherine does, because as Catherine astutely points out, state national is just another title, just like people, just like person, just like citizen, and without even knowing it, if you use... That state national title, you're just going under their umbrella again.
	And what Catherine therefore does is a little bit different in that she makes sure that these are just notices of basically, hey, I'm no longer a part of it.
	But apologies for interrupting.
	I just wanted to explain that, Catherine.
	And if you could, you know, tell us a little bit about that entire process and what goes into these notices.
	Well, at some point, A group of us decided that there are quite a few notices out there, quite a few signatures we've made, but there are three important ones that we thought everybody who wants to be free should execute.
	And those are the notice of the rebutting the presumptions created by the birth certificate, Rescission of voter registration, and there's a lot of reasons for that.
	If you sign voter registration documents, you're basically helping them collateralize loans and other transactions.
	It's like a slave list.
	There are lists of registered voters, and you're on it.
	Your signature's there.
	You're part of it and you're presumed to be one of their slaves.
	And there's also a question that they ask you, are you a U.S. citizen?
	Well, it's probably impossible to be, but they will presume that you are anyway.
	The United States, the entity that does business as United States or United States of America is many corporations.
	And you can't really be a citizen.
	How can you be a citizen of a mental construct, a piece of paper that describes a legal fiction that can do nothing?
	No. And it's located in Washington, D.C. It's not really United States Corp.
	It's not representative of the entire landmass.
	It's just a tiny sliver of Washington, D.C. Right, right, right.
	Yeah, it claims that territory.
	But, you know, United States, the corporation does not own the land your house sits on, more than likely.
	It may own some armories and, you know, some property here and there.
	And, of course, it's wanting to lay claim to a lot of property.
	And there's a huge land grab going on now that it's just horrifying to see.
	But those land grabs also are fraudulent and they can be undone.
	But the third, okay, I mentioned the three really important status correction documents, notices that we insist on for people to be a member of our court are the rebuttal of the presumptions created by the birth certificate, the rescission of voter registration.
	Now, one word on rescinding your voter registration, do not use their forms to do it.
	Yeah. Do not use their forms to do anything.
	Which, by the way, for the viewer, we're going to have quite a lengthy description on the bottom of this video, but we're also going to have links to some of these forms.
	We're going to put on generic versions of it so you can actually read it, because I think in just reading these forms, when you go paragraph by paragraph, you're like, oh, that was the presumption created.
	Oh, that's another presumption that was created.
	So you understand what you've Essentially, without knowing, you've basically condoned and allowed it to happen to you, and it unwinds that.
	Just the education of reading those documents really tells you where the fraud is happening.
	Right. The third big one, and that is the repudiation of corporate United States citizenship.
	Mel Stamper, in his book, You Know, Fruits from a Poisonous Tree, I think it's a little bit too long and wordy.
	And it seems to me like there's...
	Remember, he was writing in 2006 or so, 2007.
	And there's a little bit of a feeling that he's somehow renouncing his country when he does that.
	Yeah, yeah. No, no.
	Not at all. The United States, the corporation, is not the country.
	Yeah, yeah. If anything you're doing by renouncing Washington, sorry, U.S. Corp, you're really talking about that little sliver of Washington.
	And frankly, I renounce that part because they're all scumbags over there, you know?
	Right, right, right.
	And it's impossible to be a corporate citizen anyway.
	But it is possible to agree to act as if you were And if you act as if you were, then the presumptions come back.
	So when you participate by contracting back in, by filing there, by filling out their forms, by accepting their designations for you, there's a number of ways you can contract back in.
	Now, many of us do still have a driver's license, for example.
	But if you possibly can, you can sign that under duress.
	They probably won't let you sign it that way, but you can sign it VC, and that usually goes unnoticed.
	How about copyrights all rights reserved without prejudice?
	All rights reserved is another thing that you can put in there.
	They don't like that either.
	And they may refuse to grant you their permission slip, their license, which you don't need anyway.
	They've admitted in all their case law, the so-called case law, that the right to travel, not in commerce, and I suggest in commerce too, they don't control the roadways, the public roadways were bought and paid for by us, the people.
	They don't control those.
	Their U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the U.S. Supreme Court, of course, is not probably the one that is described in the Constitution.
	But they have admitted many times over that there is no obligation on our part to get a permission slip in order to travel from point A to point B. Yeah, there's legal precedent to all this, by the way, and the point that I'd like to make is, you know, you guys are going to go down here, look at the descriptions, I'm sure, see these three forms.
	It's not just about sending these three forms.
	It's almost like you're Your whole life you've been educated a certain way into this slave mentality without even knowing it, right?
	Every single day we learn things, we're like, oh, we gotta apply for this, we gotta apply for permission to do this, and that's really not freedom.
	That's called slavery, right?
	We don't notice it because it seems so normalized in our life.
	Now you have to go back and literally relearn everything you've learned.
	And so if you think that's like, hey, I get a few of these forms and I send them out and I'm gonna be okay, You're going to get into trouble, most likely, right?
	You're going to get into trouble. You need to learn this like it's a lifestyle.
	It is. I spent a year nonstop learning this stuff, and I'm barely getting to the point where I feel confident that, hey, if somebody comes to me and says, you sent this notice, or they want to drag me into court...
	I'm reaching that point of confidence now where I feel I'll be able to say the right things and unwind their fraud.
	Like, for example, my mind works a little bit differently now a year later where I hear words like citizen, respondent, resident.
	And whereas normally if the judge, I was in court and he'd say, you know, sir, are you the respondent?
	Or sir, are you a person or a citizen?
	I would probably just nod my head and essentially give them jurisdiction to do whatever the hell they want with me.
	Now I'm very sensitive to those words.
	Right? And I don't let those words pass before stopping the person and saying, hey, you know, judge, you just said I was a citizen.
	Could you explain what that means?
	Right? And you have them explain this stuff, like literally have a Black's Law Dictionary and a Webster's Dictionary in your hand and literally go through the definitions and have them explain this stuff.
	The entire House of Cards falls apart at that point, right?
	I tell people not to go into their tribunals.
	Don't go to the court. That's another trick you got to learn.
	Yeah, and that's a very scary thing now.
	Working with a gal that has been, well, she was locked up for a time for not making a so-called court appearance.
	She hadn't done any of her status document corrections.
	She hadn't sent them notices.
	We started serving notices.
	By the second notice, they set her loose.
	They had her sign something.
	She doesn't know what it was, and they refused to give her a copy of it.
	But they're not quite done yet because you can think that you've made some headway.
	Because once you start showing up in their system, they want to keep testing and testing and testing.
	Can we rope her back in?
	Can we rope him back in?
	I think actually Mel Stamper does concede this in his book, that even making a special appearance in one of their so-called courts For the limited purposes of contesting jurisdiction, that sounds innocuous enough, no.
	You don't go in there, you will never win an argument with them.
	You're basically going into a rigged game, allowing them that jurisdiction, passing the bar, getting in there to basically give them jurisdiction is a bad idea if you could avoid it.
	Yes. Yes.
	And it's scary because you'll get all kinds of notices accompanied by threats.
	We'll come get you.
	We'll come lock you up. We'll come beat your door down.
	We'll kill your dog.
	We'll do this. We'll do all these things that they'll do if you don't show up.
	And, you know, you have to let them know that's an extortionate threat that they have no authority to make.
	It's extortion in their world and it's extortion in ours.
	They're attempting to get an economic advantage by threatening your personal safety.
	I want to clarify a few things for the viewers because I'm always worried about people taking bits and pieces of information and running off and doing crazy things.
	People always do that.
	People always do that, and we don't want people getting in trouble.
	So what you need to understand here, there's steps to this, right?
	Right now we're at the stage where Catherine just described sending the notices in.
	That basically notifies the government agencies that, you know, when I was born, I was not capable of agreeing to a contract.
	And I was zero years old.
	And other elements such as that, that basically get you out of the birth certificate, get you out of the contractual obligations of citizenship, driver's license, voter registration, that sort of thing.
	Now those notices are sent out, right?
	And getting back to the- Sometimes they're personally served.
	They're delivered. They're served.
	They're delivered. They're not filed.
	They're not filed.
	Yes, exactly. They're served.
	And now, you know, we get to the example of the court says, hey, you know, Catherine, come into court because, I don't know, you're speeding and stuff.
	And you know that going into their monopoly game is dangerous.
	It's a rigged game. At that point, what do you do, Catherine?
	You start serving notices on the people involved in this extortion racket that's being committed against you.
	And those people typically consist of the so-called judge, maybe the so-called prosecutor or whoever runs that office, because when he serves a principal, Of a corporation, you're serving the agents.
	When you serve the agent, you're serving the principals.
	So you don't need to serve a zillion people.
	But you want to serve enough.
	You want to serve anyone who might come to your home dressed in a costume and sporting a shiny badge and who's armed, ready to beat your door down and take you away.
	You need to serve notice on whoever's running that office that calls itself the sheriff's office or the police department.
	You find out, you look up who they really are.
	Okay, Joe Blow, you're an agent or a contractor or employee of the XYZ Corporation doing business as the Anytown USA Police Department.
	So you're naming the person, like you're speaking to the man, you're letting that man and or woman know on an individual level, hey, Mr.
	Jones, who sometimes plays a role as officer, whatever, Jones, police officer.
	And so you're essentially letting them know that you're the one that's committing extortion and fraud.
	And regardless of what your corporation tells you, I'm coming after you if you keep this illegal nonsense happening.
	Right. And you let them know that their principle, this imaginary friend that they have, this corporation, does not have any authority over living people.
	Mm-hmm. But that you're not naming them in their corporate or legal fiction capacities.
	When they're on the job, they're on the job as Joe Blow, all caps name.
	And Joe Blow, the man, thinks, oh, I'm immune from that.
	I'm sheltered from that.
	My boss told me so.
	Well, you're not.
	You're not. And the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal kind of resolved that.
	If you're committing crimes and harming people, committing torts against people, even though you've got a corporate authority, you think, to do so, does that make it lawful?
	No. No.
	It isn't. And you're still Personally liable.
	You don't have any immunity because you work for some imaginary creation.
	That gives you no immunity.
	Will you give us, you know, in terms of other than the notices that we talk about, the initial notices you send to get out of the birth certificate, voter registration and all that, is there notices that you would give us as samples as let's say, you know, the courts coming after you?
	What does that look like in terms of how you notice them?
	That's typically, you're either going to be playing offense or defense.
	And if you're, we don't want to be on defense.
	That's not a good place to be.
	We want to stand up as competent adult men and women.
	We want to bring them onto our turf, the turf of living people, rather than us acting as if we were their robots to administer and go onto their turf.
	So, in our notices, we let them know, I'm not serving you, Joe Blow, as all caps, Joe Blow.
	I'm serving you as the man.
	And so, I'm bringing you on to our turf, which you've always been on anyway.
	You can't get help, but you're a living man.
	So, I'm sorry, I lost track of the question.
	Oh, yeah, playing offense and defense.
	So, without their presumptions, and actually even with their presumptions, truth be told, as some of their own Case law has admitted.
	They don't have what's called subject matter jurisdiction over you.
	In their world, there's two kinds of jurisdictions, basically.
	Personal jurisdiction, which is easy to give up your objection to personal jurisdiction.
	You show up, you've given up your right to object to personal jurisdiction.
	Subject matter jurisdiction is, do you have authority, is this entity calling itself a court, does it have authority over this dispute?
	And how can a private-for-profit corporation have authority to act as if it were a court and resolve a dispute?
	It doesn't. And their case law admits that.
	Clearview decision and others.
	So you're listing in your document that you're sending to the court saying, you know, firstly, you're not giving them personal jurisdiction because you're not showing up.
	But you don't, you know, then you're basically sending the court documents saying that, hey, like, how could you guys even be adjudicated upon this topic when you're just a for-profit corporation?
	Hence, everything's a fraud.
	And here is the court cases that show it's a fraud.
	And hence, I'm not going to show up.
	Thank you very much. Well, the status correction documents that we talked about before are something to have That will serve you in any kind of situation you find yourself in.
	Those you send to the man or woman occupying the position of voter, voter registrar, and the registrar of the birth documents, registrar of marriage licenses, if you want to do that, and the secretary of state for, in the case of repudiating corporate, the presumption of corporate citizenship.
	So you're basically sending them a big pile of documents.
	You're noticed that, you know, hey, you have no jurisdiction like we just said.
	Those three, the status corrections are like in a different category.
	Those are documents.
	And you keep your originals at all times.
	You only serve them with copies.
	And those are important documents to have.
	On hand at all times in any situation.
	Now, if there's a specific situation, you're being dragged into court, so-called court, for a traffic citation and you're being threatened, whatever.
	You want to do a notice of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
	This has gone by other names.
	You don't file that.
	You don't file that anywhere.
	None of this stuff gets filed.
	I have a template for that.
	You serve it on the people who are trying to drag you into their fake tribunal, which would be the man or woman acting as if they were a judge.
	Whoever is actually running the corporation that's doing business is that courthouse.
	The so-called sheriff, the so-called police chief, anybody who may attack you because their job is to enforce this illegal, unlawful racket.
	That is being run under the auspices of being a part of the government, part of the court system.
	So you serve the people and you tell them you have no authority.
	And I don't even cite their case law to them anymore.
	I used to do that. But if they want to contest it, I don't want to do their legal research for them.
	I don't claim authority.
	I don't claim authority from their case law.
	All the case law does is admit what we already know, and it doesn't give me any rights at all.
	It's just confessions, basically.
	If the enemy confesses something, you don't have to prove it then.
	Which is a lot of the problem people have.
	Well, I have to ask them for this and I have to ask them for that so I can prove this and prove that.
	Well, if you have what you think is pretty good proof and you know it's true and you're willing to stand behind it and sign an affidavit to that effect, then serve it upon them.
	And if you're wrong, they'll tell you.
	You invite them to tell you the same way you serve them with the notice to begin with.
	You serve a verified, under oath notice.
	And they better rebut it the same way.
	They never do. They don't like to go under oath.
	They don't like to even affirm under penalty of perjury.
	Because they know they're basically lying and that's going to eventually bite them in the ass.
	So what do they do at that point?
	You send your notices in, hey, you know, you have no jurisdiction, all the things you said.
	What happens at that point?
	Well, you do the first and the second and the third notice, and then the notice is more than just a notice that you don't have authority.
	It's also an invitation or an offer to enter into a contract, a new contract, resolving all matters and controversy, including whatever they're trying to drag you in for.
	And so you send So that's part of your notice is an offer to contract.
	So when they default by admitting the statements made in the notice and offer, you've also said, and here's how you accept our offer.
	You accept our offer by A. Is this what's called a conditional acceptance?
	No. I'm glad you brought up conditional acceptance because I believe that's one of their concepts and it's a problem.
	It's recognized apparently in the uniform commercial code that runs the commercial world.
	The basic common law rule is if you conditionally accept, you have rejected.
	You have rejected. Oh, got it, got it.
	Yeah. So how are you phrasing this in terms of you give them a contractual offer?
	So let's say they're saying, hey, come into court, you know, you're driving, you know, you're speeding, you need to see the whatever judge.
	Mm-hmm. Then you serve them with a notice of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
	And, you know, there's many levels you can go at.
	A lot of people like to dive right into, well, you know, you can't require me that I have a driver's license.
	You know, you can't do this, you can't do that.
	But if that were an issue, you people wouldn't be the ones to resolve it anyway.
	Yeah. That's the subject matter jurisdiction part.
	But you can throw everything you have at it, but I wouldn't get too carried away because you're not arguing with them.
	You're just giving them notice and inviting them to join your contract.
	What's that contract?
	I'm still unclear as to what joining the contract means.
	Yeah, joining the contract that you're notice and offer has created is a contract that resolves all matters between you and the people you've named as respondents, their agents and their principals.
	So there's no more dispute.
	And part of that dispute is, you owe me X number of dollars for every day you've inconvenienced me because a man is worthy of his hire.
	And it took me time to prepare this notice and to Address your threats.
	And all the things that you want to have in a contract with them, To compensate you for how they've harmed you so far.
	So you're basically telling the judge that this is a whole load of nonsense.
	I've already noticed you about why it's nonsense.
	You're wasting a lot of my time.
	I charge X amount per hour.
	This is taking 25 hours of my time.
	And here's an invoice?
	Or are you at that level where you're basically invoicing the person that's wasting your time?
	We do include a fee schedule in with the notices for the notice of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
	Or the other big one is the notice of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction is where they or somebody is trying to drag you into their fake jurisdiction.
	It doesn't exist.
	Now, suppose that someone has harmed you and there's no fake tribunal involved at all.
	You certainly don't want to invoke one.
	That's not a good idea.
	But you don't want to give up your claim, so the other way is where you are on offense, and that's where you can actually not just...
	Defend yourself, but you can establish a contract.
	That also is an invitation to accept your offer to enter into a new contract resolving all matters and controversies.
	Let's say that, you know, your neighbor...
	So, by the way, this is a completely different example than the one where you're trying to avoid going to court and not allowing them to have jurisdiction.
	This is more like something happens between you and your neighbor and you're trying to resolve it, correct?
	This is a totally different example.
	It can also be used to resolve any dispute between any man and woman or any two women or two men or whatever, including them.
	And actually, I tend to, some people just split it up.
	And I often will combine the notice of claim with the notice of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
	Because I've gotten so confident they're going to default that there's no reason to delay anymore.
	Instead of sending these notices out six times, I'd rather send them out three times.
	And so the notice of claim tells them, you know, what your claim is, that you harm me by doing, you know, all these things.
	And these are the facts.
	And if I'm mistaken, then you have X number of days to rebut those claims, and they never do.
	Mm-hmm. And oftentimes, you know, you'll get a check around the time that you serve the second notice.
	And sometimes they play games with you.
	I had a fellow recently got a check after he served the first notice, but the check bounced.
	So I say, well, proceed with your second notice.
	And so...
	So that's what you do.
	Now, you get to the third notice, and that's the notice of default, and you give them one more chance, but if they refuse to respond as defined as a proper response in your notice, if they refuse to respond, then they're in default and there are no more chances.
	So then you have a binding contract that resolves all matters in dispute.
	Now, for those who don't have a legitimate common law court, and I don't know of any except ours in Ohio, there's nowhere that you can take that agreed to contract and have it become a court order.
	They do this sort of thing all the time.
	People are always getting divorces or whatever, and then they resolve the matter.
	You hear people settle the case.
	Well, they'll usually have a settlement agreement, and that's a binding contract between two people that's lawful, but then they're not satisfied with that.
	They want to get it rubber-stamped by a de facto member of the cabal.
	We're wearing a black robe.
	So then it becomes a so-called court order.
	Well, what we are doing is we're making those a real court order.
	People who come and file a petition to our common law court have already done their three notice process, their three notices of claim.
	And they are asking for a judgment.
	And in our court, we give them one more chance, you know, and so it's really a fourth chance.
	And when they default and issue a summons, and then when they don't come, you know, they don't respond, then we grant judgment.
	We got our file stamp and our court seal and then people oftentimes will carry that judgment, a certified copy of their judgment around with them as some kind of protection.
	Now, I know that there are people who are selling, I think, Various things that look like a license plate, stuff like that.
	I think that draws attention to the fact that you're not one of their good little slaves.
	It may draw unwelcome attention from their code enforcers who call themselves cops.
	So let's say there's no common law court.
	In Ohio, there is one.
	So it seems as though those notices...
	There wasn't one.
	We created it.
	And how can we do that?
	Well, we can do that because we're the people.
	We are the authority for all law on Earth.
	Not the Constitution, the people.
	I don't have a common law court and yes, I'm going to try to set one up with the people, but what do I do with these notices?
	Is there a way through their system or how do you get...
	There's no way in their system.
	Okay. There's no way in their system.
	They wouldn't honor it.
	They wouldn't honor the fact that you've done the three notices and that you should get some kind of...
	They will stop bothering you.
	They don't want to talk about it anymore.
	They still don't want to acknowledge your authority.
	But their behavior says it all.
	So they leave you alone in the court, for example, usually after you do your notices.
	I'm sorry. I missed that.
	They leave you alone in the court example.
	They just leave you alone.
	He wants you to do your notices.
	But what about in the example that we gave where your neighbor does something bad.
	He owes you a bunch of money.
	You send him your three notices.
	He doesn't rebut it. At that point, what do you do in terms of getting remedy from your neighbor?
	Well, then you can...
	Then you have a contract with them and you can...
	You could take that contract into one of their cabal tribunals.
	You could, but I don't know what the results would be, frankly.
	I would prefer to take it to a common law court and get judgment there.
	Then what we've done to execute on that judgment We're just starting that process.
	And contrary to popular belief, it is no more difficult to execute on a common law judgment than on one of their fake so-called judgments that are rendered without subject matter jurisdiction.
	This is the part where someone needs to understand this, and this is what Catherine was trying to say, where these courts, just like they set up their own courts, these BS courts, these corporate courts, we the people have the power to set up our own common law courts, which is exactly what Catherine has done, but it's funny that a lot of people don't do that, but it is within our power, and it is within our power not only to set up these common law courts, but to get common law court judgments that should be enforceable by law.
	Yes. Well, that's the question.
	The people are the source of all law.
	In order to make more headway than what we have already done, we need to have more structures in place.
	For example, we need an investigative body and we don't have that yet.
	That would be because All we're granting at this point in our common law courts are monetary judgments.
	Now, we have authority to render other judgments, criminal judgments, but that has not come up yet, and I believe that anybody who's accused is entitled to have a grand jury The grand juries are not just for issuing true bills.
	They're also there for issuing no bills.
	And what we're seeing with the corporate grand juries are a bunch of registered voter citizen slaves who are just doing what the prosecutor tells them to do.
	The prosecutor has no business in the room with a true grand jury.
	And a true grand jury would be made of people who have freed themselves, I would say, at least in those three important ways we talked about from the system.
	You don't want a grand jury comprised of corporate slaves.
	Interesting. Wow.
	The grand jury is an Anglo-American concept that has done investigations in one form or another For some 800 years in all the Anglo-American countries.
	There's also one of their decisions that was rendered in 1992 by a U.S. versus Williams, I believe the name of it is, and that admits that he goes off on a long Explanation in the history of the grand jury and the vast powers that a grand jury has.
	You can hardly get people to even talk about being part of a grand jury.
	But typically a grand jury at the time that they were being formed in the 13th century, they were comprised of 25 people.
	They were landowners and they were men.
	Does that mean we have to do it that way today?
	No. But I kind of like the idea of 25 grand jurors.
	And of course, you want to have a few extra for alternates in case somebody gets sick.
	But for some reason, their corporate so-called grand juries The grand jury is comprised of lapdogs for the local prosecutor.
	Those never have 25 members.
	I don't know why, but they never do.
	Just like their statutes who never talk about men and women.
	Maybe they know it's about turf.
	They don't want to be on the wrong turf.
	And so they don't.
	They've got their own. So I don't...
	Could we have a common law people's grand jury of less than 25?
	Maybe. I don't want to experiment with that, though.
	I'd rather have the full 25.
	Because no corporate grand jury so-called has that.
	And that's the way it was always done.
	Wow, wow.
	It's interesting. It's almost like they've gamed and rigged the system and even the purest things like grand juries seem to have been corrupted in one form or another.
	On this topic of common law courts, I really want to press upon people that they can set up their own common law courts in their own state.
	Could we talk a little bit about what that process looks like?
	Yes, yes. Actually, you can go to our website at www.occr2021.com Yes.
	For the viewers, real quick, that's actually their common law court in Ohio, which I guess would be a really good sample of what's possible in the rest of the country.
	Absolutely. Now, and I'm not saying that, you know, everybody should do it the same way that we did it exactly, but get some ideas.
	I mean, the different...
	Originally, every state was its own sovereign republic.
	And I don't know that that situation has really ever changed.
	And now, state of Ohio is a corporation, for example, but there's still the Ohio Republic that lives on in the hearts and minds of the people.
	And that has...
	Okay, I lost my train of thought here.
	We're talking about Common law courts, yes.
	Setting up common law courts. The way to set it up, you give, I mean, first of all, understand that they admit and God has given us through Genesis the authority to do this because we're the source of all law.
	They've admitted it in their own case law.
	God has ordained it.
	There's no question we have the authority to do it.
	So we also want to observe Everything, you know, reasonable about their system.
	You know, we don't want to spit in their eyes.
	You know, we come in peace.
	So we want to observe, you know, the basics of due process of law.
	We want to give notice as reasonably as we can.
	And you'll see that on our website if you go to that.
	I think it's It's either about us or court formation.
	And you'll see the notice just as a one and a half pager.
	So in the process of forming courts, you still have to send notices?
	I don't know if you have to, but in the exercise of caution, I think it's a good idea to.
	And we also serve that notice on Some of the key players in the Ohio cabal that present themselves as being the authorities.
	And we got not one word of objection from anybody.
	So basically, you're notifying the authorities that, hey, we're setting up this common law court, and they're not rebutting that notice.
	No, we're not inviting a rebuttal either, you know, because they don't have any authority to rebutt anything.
	We're just, as a matter of courtesy, we're informing them of that, and we're informing the people of Ohio.
	We posted in a newspaper, and I think they're changing how they're doing business now.
	It's being run by a fellow by the name of Rex Eldon called a prima facie newspaper, and it's...
	On Facebook, and I don't know if he operates outside of that too, but he was decent enough to post that for us.
	Because the internet, there are other sites online where you can publicly post your common law notices these days.
	And the internet way of posting a notice is far likelier to reach more people, many more people, than anything that you could do Sending it to your local legal news.
	So you're notifying them.
	What elements do you need to actually start a court in terms of people?
	I mean, do you need to judge?
	What are the individual elements?
	We, the members of the court, serve as the justices of the court.
	And you don't have to be a lawyer to do that?
	Who would tell us that we have to do that?
	Who would have authority to tell us that?
	And to be a lawyer or to be an attorney would mean you're governed by the rules of the European Bar Guild, which is a foreign corporation.
	And none of these bar members, I know I wasn't, ever registered as a foreign agent, but you're taking your marching orders from a foreign corporation, the European Bar Guild, or the European Bar Association.
	Which is insane.
	That alone is tyranny, but would our courts have the courage to uphold that?
	We don't need their approval or their upholding anything.
	Yeah, yeah. That's the thing.
	Once you understand that, you wrap your brain around it, we don't need your permission.
	You need ours, but we don't need yours.
	Because we are the authorities, and they admitted that, and I think the name of the case is Chisholm v.
	Georgia 1793.
	They admitted the people are the source of all law.
	Yeah, yeah, wow.
	And for people in other countries, that's still true.
	That's still true because of Genesis 128.
	In other countries, you said?
	In other countries.
	Like where? Anywhere.
	Anywhere there's living people.
	Oh, the fact that you could seize your rights under biblical law is a possibility.
	Yes, yes.
	And your authority as living people operating under God's law, which the United States and not every country has acknowledged that God's law is supreme.
	Some have, some have not.
	We don't need their approval.
	We don't need the devil to tell us that God's in charge.
	He knows. But, you know, it's just icing on the cake to have that, that we have on the American continent.
	Yeah. So, Catherine, for this episode, I wanted to do kind of a more broad strokes introductory.
	We're definitely going to do follow-up episodes because there's so many things to do a deeper dive on.
	And in fact, from experience, I could tell the viewer that the more you watch this stuff, the more you get used to the lingo, the more you hear it in repetition.
	That's the only way you're going to get this stuff.
	Otherwise... Slavery.
	Have a good time.
	If you don't invest in this, no pain, no gain.
	You've got to put the time into this stuff.
	Hear it over and over again.
	I highly suggest that you show up to future episodes and also listen to some of our other episodes on this particular topic of detaching yourself from the system.
	Catherine, is there anything for this introductory episode that we forgot to mention?
	As far as learning, I would add, and this was a tip I heard from a physician in learning how to do a surgical procedure, but it applies across the board to learning how to do anything.
	And this is more than just Watching a bunch of videos and thinking you've assimilated.
	I mean, that's part of it. Yeah, it is.
	But it's also having the ability to create your own documents.
	And a lot of us are severely deficient in our English skills.
	And the whole purpose of language, which they have co-opted in many important ways, is to communicate.
	If you're not communicating because you don't You know, you weren't there in ninth grade English class.
	Get yourself to where you're spelling correctly and you're putting together sentences that make sense.
	And you don't have to There's a lot of things you don't have to do that you will learn as you do them, as you create your documents that will convey what you want to convey and will be understood by those who receive it.
	And a lot of people, they think they're just going to blow the ape all over the place of what they learned and they're not really communicating anything.
	So you have to That's a learning curve.
	Back to the physician example, you have to see one, so watch the videos, read the books, study the Bible, and see one, do one, Do it.
	There's nothing like learning by doing.
	Are you going to make mistakes?
	Yes, of course you will. Learn by doing.
	See one, do one, and then teach one.
	Then it's yours.
	Yep. Very important knowledge to have.
	And this takes a lot of work.
	It's like, you know, again, I say the gym analogy, no pain, no gain.
	If you do not invest the time into it, if you think you're going to listen to this one episode and then download these documents, fill in the blanks, and it's all going to be good, you're in for a world of trouble.
	And I highly suggest you don't do that.
	Frankly, if I could just be blunt, if you're too lazy to take a Deep dive into this stuff.
	It's just like working out. You're not going to get that six pack overnight.
	It's going to take six months of very hard work to get that six pack.
	Now, if you don't think you're ready for that, just enjoy your slave state.
	Don't even try this stuff because it's not going to be a good outcome if you're not willing to learn this stuff and really make it part of your lifestyle, you know?
	Catherine, you're an amazing person.
	Thank you very much. There's not many lawyers that went through 40 years of being a bar-appointed attorney that came out the other end with this brutal level of honesty.
	So thank you so much for the work that you've been doing in really trying to prevent us from cross-country slavery here.
	Well, thanks for having me.
	Thanks for exposing this.
	Yeah, thank you.
	There's a lot of disinformation out there, and we'll be doing, some of my people and I are going to be doing a broadcast ourselves about common law and how it can be useful to us in these horrible times that we're in right now.
	Yeah. And we'll make a YouTube channel and then probably back it up with a Rumble channel because everybody knows YouTube sensors like crazy, but you can use it to gain, you know, a following and then you get to the meat of it, you know, on your Rumble channel or some other, or substat some of the other ones.
	Yeah. Yeah, sorry.
	And for the viewer, I just want to mention that.
	Feel free to post questions here down on the message board.
	Catherine and I will be looking at them.
	I know Catherine loves answering some of these questions.
	So, you know, feel free to post questions.
	We're going to have, you know, question and answers for this episode, future episodes.
	And yeah, thank you again, Catherine, for showing up for Blood Money.
	For the viewer out there, please check out AmericaHappens.com where we're posting episodes on a daily basis.
	AmericaHappens.com and this episode of Blood Money will be there as well.
	I will see you all soon.

▲