Great video as always! Thank you kindly my friend š …Sharing.
Are you familiar with Jordan Maxwell ? He is very good at addressing all these subjects as well…
Btw I’d like to send you a few links for some things I believe could be of interest to you. But my normie email acct where I had your email address locked me out permanently. Could you please send me an email so I’ll have a place where I can reach you? š kabukiklaudia@protonmail.com š Tyvm . Hope things are going well.
Hi! Yah Jordan Maxwell does some good work I had a couple of his videos on my old channel that got shoah’d. I have a presentation of some of his work from his website here at the site called Deceptive Language and hidden meanings, pretty good stuff. My email is bodhi.karma98@gmail.com. Things are going pretty well ty hope things are going well for you also <3. Miss you too nerdess š
I have no idea who those people are but I do know Frank O’Collins does know what he is talking about and you don’t my friend and I have the case law and case files to prove it. I will approve this comment however because I don’t publish bs here, I have personally vetted or personally written everything on this website and will let people decide for themselves. That being said I agree there are a lot of frauds who don’t really know what they are talking about and I mention this fact in this article: http://esotericawakening.com/the-magic-power-of-words
Where I also warn the readers to be careful about who they trust and offer them other sources I have personally vetted. I would be more than happy to go through any objections you have to any information presented anywhere on this website point by point if you want to accuse me or my sources as being incorrect, otherwise I will simply label you a kook, troll or shill. which there is never a short supply of in occult/conspiracy circles. I doubt I will ever hear from you again but my offer stands to all comers as long as this website exists and as long as you are commenting in good faith I am happy to hear from you here and discuss any topics you would like to make comments about.
Respectfully, I am many things, but a liar is not one of them.
If you actually read my work, you would understand.
Just so that you know, the other fake legal experts in my comment above include some of the U.S. affiliates of Frank O’Collins who peddled his claims here in the United States in support of their own delusional claims about the law and the legal system..
These other fake legal experts are no more knowledgeable or credible than Frank O’Collins is.
And yes, I agree with you that there are some real charlatans and posers out there on the web.
Deborah Tavares, for example, is the single-most prolific hoaxer on Earth.
That is why I listed her first in my list of other fake legal experts.
Her hoaxes are simply unbelievable!
Read a few.
Six of the sixteen hoaxes of Deborah Tavares that I have exposed so far are legal hoaxes of the type peddled by Frank O’Collins.
Listen, if you ever need U.S. legal research done of need a copy of a particular U.S. law (case law or statute), please feel free to contact me.
Well first let me apologize. When dealing in this kind of information, I am sure you know there are many hucksters and shills from alphabet agencies and other ā¦. places. They have been trolling/threatening/gaslighting me for many years so sometimes I may react a little too aggressively to honest criticism. I love to hear honest opinions and interact with honest truth seekers so I hope you didnāt take my first response personally, it was more of a knee jerk reaction to see if you would follow up with your comment and engage me in good faith rather then do a hit and run comment trash talking information or a source here like so many on the web tend to do. Often times they are shills pushing disinfo but as I said the first time many times they can be nutters as well and still other times people that just donāt know what they are talking about but have some overwhelming desire to try and convince people that they do. All 3 combine to wear down a manās patience over time, I hope you understand.
Now, that being said, thank for you visiting the website and commenting. As I said in the original comment I have no idea who the people you listed are, but I do know Frank OāCollins is as legit as it gets. I donāt agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I donāt agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I donāt agree 100% with anyone I have ever met in any walk of life while we are on the topic.
I could go into great detail about the very minor details I disagree with Frank on, but as I just stated they are very minor and inconsequential big picture wise. Frank is lecturing on big picture not procedure; I have other sources for that which I listed at the bottom of the page I linked in my last comment, Bill Thornton 1215.org being my highest recommendation. I also have his lectures in my video archive. I have seen the actual court documents and know by my own reasoning and research, which I have every confidence in, that what he teaches is true as it is simply Common law as opposed to civil ālawā. Bill just lectures on procedure and concepts, there are plenty of books available to read about Common law to fact check him and what he is teaching, and case law to verify it. I also have some videos by Karl Lentz and Robert Conforth. These are the only people I will vouch for, and only the specific videos I have from them in my archive, nothing outside of that unless specifically stated by me, and I only vouch for things I have personally vetted after years of research.
I am more than happy to publicly debate anyone that wants to question anything I have on this website but I require them to be specific and go point by point just like rebutting an affidavit not just making broad, vague comments about their opinions on topics they donāt understand. This is to keep the conversation level at a high standard compared to other places on the Internet where there are 50 people in a conversation shit flinging their opinions and insults back and forth and only 2 or 3 people in that conversation actually know what they are talking about. I have been checking out your website and based on the kinds of things you cover I am sure you understand what I am talking about.
I will read some of your work, link me to what you have you feel like I should read and maybe I will republish here as well if it is good and you are interested. I have to reiterate however, Frank OāCollins is no fraud, his work is top notch except for a few minor details as I mentioned like having to create an ecclesiastical deed poll to be heard by the court as a living man, which is fine the man wasnāt a lawyer he was just doing research on how it used to be done. His concept was correct but his procedure was just a little āoutdatedā for lack of a better description. If you want to write an article on what you disagree with I would be more than happy to read it and possibly publish it as I mentioned, or perhaps I would rebut it if I find errors and publish the entire conversation. I imagine it would be good reading for the people here interested in these kinds of things.
Once again thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment. I feel like your username is familiar have we met on social media before like Facebook or twitter? My accounts have been suspended so forgive me if we have and I forgot, and again, please forgive my original reply. I look forward to hearing back from you and checking out your work. I will say if you enjoy exposing hucksters check out Anna Von Reitz she is on some seriously whack delusions :).
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with such a detailed response. Based on the length and content of your response, it is clear to me that you are passionate about the law. So am I. That makes us kindred spirits of sorts. This is true even though we reach different conclusions about the claims of amateur legal theorist, Frank O’Collins.
Just so that you know, I have twice been to this website and keyed in my reply. But, both times when I was almost finished, I lost wi-fi and my work was lost to cyber space. That is why my response was untimely. This time, I am doing my work off line and I will cut and pasteĀ it to this website when I am finished.Ā Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Well first let me apologize. When dealing in this kind of information, I am sure you know there are many hucksters and shills from alphabet agencies and other ā¦. places. They have been trolling/threatening/gaslighting me for many years so sometimes I may react a little too aggressively to honest criticism. I love to hear honest opinions and interact with honest truth seekers so I hope you didnāt take my first response personally, it was more of a knee jerk reaction to see if you would follow up with your comment and engage me in good faith rather then do a hit and run comment trash talking information or a source here like so many on the web tend to do. Often times they are shills pushing disinfo but as I said the first time many times they can be nutters as well and still other times people that just donāt know what they are talking about but have some overwhelming desire to try and convince people that they do. All 3 combine to wear down a manās patience over time, I hope you understand.
MY RESPONSE: There is noĀ need for you to apologize. I have been exposing hoaxes for a while. I go straight to the websites of theĀ people who need my information theĀ most, people like you, who actually believe the claims of amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins. Because the truth that I reveal is inconsistent with the claims of amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins, I am accustomed to some blowĀ back. People are people and they vigorously defend their belief system when they perceive that it is under attack. But, once these people realize that I am actually telling the truth and genuinely trying to help them, things take a turn for the better.Ā
So, I took no offense to your response. I have seen it all before. Indeed, my closest allies in my quest to debunk such hoaxes started off as my opponents muchĀ like yourself.Ā I am sorry to hear that you have suffered abuse from others. I can certainly understand how such abuse would would color your first impression of me and would trigger such a response. But again, their is no need to apologize. I have seen it all before. But, thank you for your kind words anyway. Those kind words speak well of you and your character as a human being.Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Now, that being said, thank for you visiting the website and commenting. As I said in the original comment I have no idea who the people you listed are…Ā
MY RESPONSE: The otherĀ people named in my first comment (above) are other amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins. Deborah Tavares and her partner in legal hoaxes, Al Whitney (real name, “Anita Laurin”) are American affiliates of Frank O’Collins. These people peddle the claims of Frank O’Collins here in the United States in support of their own delusional claims about the law. Many of their amateur legal theories are identical to those of Frank O’Collins. That is the reason I provided you with links to their hoaxes.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: But I do know Frank OāCollins is as legit as it gets.Ā
MY RESPONSE: Very respectfully, this is simply not so. I have a Juris Doctorate Degree in Law and 30 years experience as a practicing attorney. So, I actually know what I am talking about. I do not get my information about the law from amateurĀ legal theorists who have no formal education, much less no formal education in law. Instead, I get my information about the law from the law itself. I can assure you on my word of honor that Frank O’Collins is utterly delusional. His claims are insane. They are lies.Ā
Amateur legal theories are an imaginary alternative to REAL law of the type used by law enforcement agencies, courts and governments and the entire rest of the world (except by amateur legal theorists). Amateur legal theories are carefully-crafted lies created solely for the purpose of inciting hatred of government in general and the courts, judges and attorneys in particular.
Amateur legal theories are not intended to work and they do not work because they are fake. They have servedĀ their intended purpose of inciting hatred upon being believed. They serve no purpose thereafter because they do not work.Ā
I named the following amateur legal theorists in my first comment above. Rod Class, Anthony Williams and Carl Miller (real name “Richard Champion”) have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court because they mistakenly believed that amateur legal theories were real and they attempted to use amateur legal theories in court. But, amateur legal theories are not real. They are fake. Anthony Williams has LOST approximately 94 cases in a row. Rod Class has LOST approximately 77 cases in a row. Carl Miller has LOST approximately 26 cases in a row.Ā
Frank O’Collins is admittedly an expertĀ in amateur legal theories and he is a good enough charlatan and demagogueĀ to dupe those with no knowledge of theĀ law and a hatred fro elected government. But, FrankĀ O’Collins knows nothing of the REAL law of the type used by the entire rest of the world (except for amateur legal theorists). ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
YOUR COMMENT:Ā I donāt agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I donāt agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I donāt agree 100% with anyone I have ever met in any walk of life while we are on the topic.Ā I could go into great detail about the very minor details I disagree with Frank on, but as I just stated they are very minor and inconsequential big picture wise.
MY RESPONSE: Very respectfully, this has nothing to do with minor details. It is the “big picture” itself that Frank O’Collins is lying about. He has created and he peddles an entire alternative universe. The details are irrelevant.Ā Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Frank is lecturing on big picture not procedure; I have other sources for that which I listed at the bottom of the page I linked in my last comment, Bill Thornton 1215.org being my highest recommendation. I also have his lectures in my video archive. I have seen the actual court documents and know by my own reasoning and research, which I have every confidence in, that what he teaches is true as it is simply Common law as opposed to civil ālawā. Bill just lectures on procedure and concepts, there are plenty of books available to read about Common law to fact check him and what he is teaching, and case law to verify it.Ā
MY RESPONSE: I am familiar with the claims of amateur legal theorist, Bill Thornton. He is just as clueless and delusional as Frank O’Collins is. Contrary to what all amateur legal theorists believe, “common law” is merely case law. It is still the single most used form of law used in the legal system. Common law is both civil and criminal.Ā YOUR COMMENT: I also have some videos by Karl Lentz and Robert Conforth. These are the only people I will vouch for, and only the specific videos I have from them in my archive, nothing outside of that unless specifically stated by me, and I only vouch for things I have personally vetted after years of research.
MY RESPONSE I am very familiar with the delusional claims of amateur legal theorist,Ā Karl Rudolph Lentz. Did you know that Karl Lentz also has a 100% failure rate in the courts (despite a number of attempts)? Did you know that that the courts have declared Karl Lentz to be a “fraud”, in writing? Did you know that the courts have ordered Karl Lentz to undergo regularly scheduled psychiatric care for being mentally ill?Ā
Indeed, mental illness seems to be a common thread among amateur legal theorists. Rod Class suffers from mental illness and has been involuntarily institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals more than once and has undergone a number of court-ordered psychiatric examinations. Anthony Williams has undergone court-ordered psychiatric examinations and will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. Carl Miller (real name. “Richard Champion”) has been declared to be mentally ill and was discharged from military service for that reason. He was also TWICE involuntarily incarcerated in a Michigan mental institution, each time for more than 6 months each. Lyle Hartford Van Dyke was convicted of manufacturing and uttering fake currency allegedly drawn on imaginary “accounts” at the U.S. Treasury and he spent almost a decade in a federal prison mental institution.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: I am more than happy to publicly debate anyone that wants to question anything I have on this website but I require them to be specific and go point by point just like rebutting an affidavit not just making broad, vague comments about their opinions on topics they donāt understand. This is to keep the conversation level at a high standard compared to other places on the Internet where there are 50 people in a conversation shit flinging their opinions and insults back and forth and only 2 or 3 people in that conversation actually know what they are talking about. I have been checking out your website and based on the kinds of things you cover I am sure you understand what I am talking about.
MY RESPONSE: OK. What do you regard as the single most important claim of Frank O’Collins?
YOUR COMMENT:Ā I will read some of your work, link me to what you have you feel like I should read and maybe I will republish here as well if it is good and you are interested.Ā
MY RESPONSE: I have already provided you to the links you need to have in my first comment above. I have also placed them in order of importance for you.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: I have to reiterate however, Frank OāCollins is no fraud, his work is top notch except for a few minor details as I mentioned like having to create an ecclesiastical deed poll to be heard by the court as a living man, which is fine the man wasnāt a lawyer he was just doing research on how it used to be done. His concept was correct but his procedure was just a little āoutdatedā for lack of a better description. If you want to write an article on what you disagree with I would be more than happy to read it and possibly publish it as I mentioned, or perhaps I would rebut it if I find errors and publish the entire conversation. I imagine it would be good reading for the people here interested in these kinds of things.
MY RESPONSE: Again, very respectfully, Frank O’Collins is a charlatan, poser and a demagogue. He is utterly delusional. His claims are insane. As to his claims, please make a list of Frank O’Collins’ propositions in order of importance (as you perceive them to be). I will individually respond to each claim with proof when I have the time. Be advised that I only have access to U.S.Ā law. But, the law in Australia is much the same as to theĀ “big picture”.Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Once again thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment.Ā
MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind words.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: IĀ feel like your username is familiar have we met on social media before like Facebook or twitter?Ā
MY RESPONSE: No. I do not use Facebook or Twitter for security reasons.Ā YOUR COMMENT: I look forward to hearing back from you and checking out your work. I will say if you enjoy exposing hucksters check out Anna Von Reitz she is on some seriously whack delusions :).
MY RESPONSE: I am very familiar with the claims of fake “Judge” Anna Von Reitz. But, respectfully, she is no more a charlatan and hoaxer than Frank O’Collins is. All amateur legal theorists are completely delusional.Ā
Feel free to contact me anytime at my email address.Ā I am always glad to help.
”
CORRECTEDā
Debunking Snoop ā
Recently snoop4truth sent out a mass email
accusing Deborah Tavares of spreading hoaxes.
Snoop4truth is an anonymous troll.He presents his incorrect positions and
accusations as fact. And of course he
is wrong.One thing for sure he is no legal expert.
”
…
”
Snoop4truth is likely a paid disinformation agent. We should ignore
all his anonymous messages . . .where ever they appear.
Perhaps Deborah should feel good about the fact that she is getting
her message out so far and wide that our common enemy now has
to pay people to try and discredit her.
Best,
AL Whitney, Editor of AntiCorruptionSociety.com
Host of In Defense of Humanity on RBN, Saturdays at 8 pm ET
”
10 Comments
Gaia Blue
(October 8, 2018 - 7:16 pm)Great video as always! Thank you kindly my friend š …Sharing.
Are you familiar with Jordan Maxwell ? He is very good at addressing all these subjects as well…
Btw I’d like to send you a few links for some things I believe could be of interest to you. But my normie email acct where I had your email address locked me out permanently. Could you please send me an email so I’ll have a place where I can reach you? š kabukiklaudia@protonmail.com š Tyvm . Hope things are going well.
We miss you Nerd š <3
Bodhi Mantra
(October 10, 2018 - 7:25 am)Hi! Yah Jordan Maxwell does some good work I had a couple of his videos on my old channel that got shoah’d. I have a presentation of some of his work from his website here at the site called Deceptive Language and hidden meanings, pretty good stuff. My email is bodhi.karma98@gmail.com. Things are going pretty well ty hope things are going well for you also <3. Miss you too nerdess š
snoop4truth
(April 23, 2020 - 11:15 pm)Dear Esoteric Awakening,
I have a Juris Docorate degree in Law and 30 years experience as an attorney. Suffice it to say that I actually know what I’m talking about.
Look, I love a good scandal or conspiracy as much as the next guy.
But, the reality is that the claims of Frank O’Collins are not only false, they are utterly delusional.
Do not be fooled by this amateur poser.
He knows nothing of the law. NOTHING!
I thought that you should know.
Best Regards,
Snoop
OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES, click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS, click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt…-Troy-Williams)
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show…70#post1174970
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER, click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt…161#post229161
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show…y-sheriff-hoax
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES, click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt…352#post230352;
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show…bra-Jones-Hoax.
Bodhi Mantra
(April 24, 2020 - 3:00 am)I have no idea who those people are but I do know Frank O’Collins does know what he is talking about and you don’t my friend and I have the case law and case files to prove it. I will approve this comment however because I don’t publish bs here, I have personally vetted or personally written everything on this website and will let people decide for themselves. That being said I agree there are a lot of frauds who don’t really know what they are talking about and I mention this fact in this article:
http://esotericawakening.com/the-magic-power-of-words
Where I also warn the readers to be careful about who they trust and offer them other sources I have personally vetted. I would be more than happy to go through any objections you have to any information presented anywhere on this website point by point if you want to accuse me or my sources as being incorrect, otherwise I will simply label you a kook, troll or shill. which there is never a short supply of in occult/conspiracy circles. I doubt I will ever hear from you again but my offer stands to all comers as long as this website exists and as long as you are commenting in good faith I am happy to hear from you here and discuss any topics you would like to make comments about.
snoop4truth
(April 24, 2020 - 10:19 pm)Dear Bodhi Mantra,
Thank you for your timely reply.
Respectfully, I am many things, but a liar is not one of them.
If you actually read my work, you would understand.
Just so that you know, the other fake legal experts in my comment above include some of the U.S. affiliates of Frank O’Collins who peddled his claims here in the United States in support of their own delusional claims about the law and the legal system..
These other fake legal experts are no more knowledgeable or credible than Frank O’Collins is.
And yes, I agree with you that there are some real charlatans and posers out there on the web.
Deborah Tavares, for example, is the single-most prolific hoaxer on Earth.
That is why I listed her first in my list of other fake legal experts.
Her hoaxes are simply unbelievable!
Read a few.
Six of the sixteen hoaxes of Deborah Tavares that I have exposed so far are legal hoaxes of the type peddled by Frank O’Collins.
Listen, if you ever need U.S. legal research done of need a copy of a particular U.S. law (case law or statute), please feel free to contact me.
I am always happy to help.
All My Very Best,
Snoop
Bodhi Mantra
(April 26, 2020 - 9:51 am)Well first let me apologize. When dealing in this kind of information, I am sure you know there are many hucksters and shills from alphabet agencies and other ā¦. places. They have been trolling/threatening/gaslighting me for many years so sometimes I may react a little too aggressively to honest criticism. I love to hear honest opinions and interact with honest truth seekers so I hope you didnāt take my first response personally, it was more of a knee jerk reaction to see if you would follow up with your comment and engage me in good faith rather then do a hit and run comment trash talking information or a source here like so many on the web tend to do. Often times they are shills pushing disinfo but as I said the first time many times they can be nutters as well and still other times people that just donāt know what they are talking about but have some overwhelming desire to try and convince people that they do. All 3 combine to wear down a manās patience over time, I hope you understand.
Now, that being said, thank for you visiting the website and commenting. As I said in the original comment I have no idea who the people you listed are, but I do know Frank OāCollins is as legit as it gets. I donāt agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I donāt agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I donāt agree 100% with anyone I have ever met in any walk of life while we are on the topic.
I could go into great detail about the very minor details I disagree with Frank on, but as I just stated they are very minor and inconsequential big picture wise. Frank is lecturing on big picture not procedure; I have other sources for that which I listed at the bottom of the page I linked in my last comment, Bill Thornton 1215.org being my highest recommendation. I also have his lectures in my video archive. I have seen the actual court documents and know by my own reasoning and research, which I have every confidence in, that what he teaches is true as it is simply Common law as opposed to civil ālawā. Bill just lectures on procedure and concepts, there are plenty of books available to read about Common law to fact check him and what he is teaching, and case law to verify it. I also have some videos by Karl Lentz and Robert Conforth. These are the only people I will vouch for, and only the specific videos I have from them in my archive, nothing outside of that unless specifically stated by me, and I only vouch for things I have personally vetted after years of research.
I am more than happy to publicly debate anyone that wants to question anything I have on this website but I require them to be specific and go point by point just like rebutting an affidavit not just making broad, vague comments about their opinions on topics they donāt understand. This is to keep the conversation level at a high standard compared to other places on the Internet where there are 50 people in a conversation shit flinging their opinions and insults back and forth and only 2 or 3 people in that conversation actually know what they are talking about. I have been checking out your website and based on the kinds of things you cover I am sure you understand what I am talking about.
I will read some of your work, link me to what you have you feel like I should read and maybe I will republish here as well if it is good and you are interested. I have to reiterate however, Frank OāCollins is no fraud, his work is top notch except for a few minor details as I mentioned like having to create an ecclesiastical deed poll to be heard by the court as a living man, which is fine the man wasnāt a lawyer he was just doing research on how it used to be done. His concept was correct but his procedure was just a little āoutdatedā for lack of a better description. If you want to write an article on what you disagree with I would be more than happy to read it and possibly publish it as I mentioned, or perhaps I would rebut it if I find errors and publish the entire conversation. I imagine it would be good reading for the people here interested in these kinds of things.
Once again thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment. I feel like your username is familiar have we met on social media before like Facebook or twitter? My accounts have been suspended so forgive me if we have and I forgot, and again, please forgive my original reply. I look forward to hearing back from you and checking out your work. I will say if you enjoy exposing hucksters check out Anna Von Reitz she is on some seriously whack delusions :).
12,000 Blessings,
Bodhi
snoop4truth
(April 27, 2020 - 9:34 pm)Hello Bodhi Mantra,
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with such a detailed response. Based on the length and content of your response, it is clear to me that you are passionate about the law. So am I. That makes us kindred spirits of sorts. This is true even though we reach different conclusions about the claims of amateur legal theorist, Frank O’Collins.
Just so that you know, I have twice been to this website and keyed in my reply. But, both times when I was almost finished, I lost wi-fi and my work was lost to cyber space. That is why my response was untimely. This time, I am doing my work off line and I will cut and pasteĀ it to this website when I am finished.Ā Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Well first let me apologize. When dealing in this kind of information, I am sure you know there are many hucksters and shills from alphabet agencies and other ā¦. places. They have been trolling/threatening/gaslighting me for many years so sometimes I may react a little too aggressively to honest criticism. I love to hear honest opinions and interact with honest truth seekers so I hope you didnāt take my first response personally, it was more of a knee jerk reaction to see if you would follow up with your comment and engage me in good faith rather then do a hit and run comment trash talking information or a source here like so many on the web tend to do. Often times they are shills pushing disinfo but as I said the first time many times they can be nutters as well and still other times people that just donāt know what they are talking about but have some overwhelming desire to try and convince people that they do. All 3 combine to wear down a manās patience over time, I hope you understand.
MY RESPONSE: There is noĀ need for you to apologize. I have been exposing hoaxes for a while. I go straight to the websites of theĀ people who need my information theĀ most, people like you, who actually believe the claims of amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins. Because the truth that I reveal is inconsistent with the claims of amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins, I am accustomed to some blowĀ back. People are people and they vigorously defend their belief system when they perceive that it is under attack. But, once these people realize that I am actually telling the truth and genuinely trying to help them, things take a turn for the better.Ā
So, I took no offense to your response. I have seen it all before. Indeed, my closest allies in my quest to debunk such hoaxes started off as my opponents muchĀ like yourself.Ā I am sorry to hear that you have suffered abuse from others. I can certainly understand how such abuse would would color your first impression of me and would trigger such a response. But again, their is no need to apologize. I have seen it all before. But, thank you for your kind words anyway. Those kind words speak well of you and your character as a human being.Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Now, that being said, thank for you visiting the website and commenting. As I said in the original comment I have no idea who the people you listed are…Ā
MY RESPONSE: The otherĀ people named in my first comment (above) are other amateur legal theorists like Frank O’Collins. Deborah Tavares and her partner in legal hoaxes, Al Whitney (real name, “Anita Laurin”) are American affiliates of Frank O’Collins. These people peddle the claims of Frank O’Collins here in the United States in support of their own delusional claims about the law. Many of their amateur legal theories are identical to those of Frank O’Collins. That is the reason I provided you with links to their hoaxes.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: But I do know Frank OāCollins is as legit as it gets.Ā
MY RESPONSE: Very respectfully, this is simply not so. I have a Juris Doctorate Degree in Law and 30 years experience as a practicing attorney. So, I actually know what I am talking about. I do not get my information about the law from amateurĀ legal theorists who have no formal education, much less no formal education in law. Instead, I get my information about the law from the law itself. I can assure you on my word of honor that Frank O’Collins is utterly delusional. His claims are insane. They are lies.Ā
Amateur legal theories are an imaginary alternative to REAL law of the type used by law enforcement agencies, courts and governments and the entire rest of the world (except by amateur legal theorists). Amateur legal theories are carefully-crafted lies created solely for the purpose of inciting hatred of government in general and the courts, judges and attorneys in particular.
Amateur legal theories are not intended to work and they do not work because they are fake. They have servedĀ their intended purpose of inciting hatred upon being believed. They serve no purpose thereafter because they do not work.Ā
I named the following amateur legal theorists in my first comment above. Rod Class, Anthony Williams and Carl Miller (real name “Richard Champion”) have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court because they mistakenly believed that amateur legal theories were real and they attempted to use amateur legal theories in court. But, amateur legal theories are not real. They are fake. Anthony Williams has LOST approximately 94 cases in a row. Rod Class has LOST approximately 77 cases in a row. Carl Miller has LOST approximately 26 cases in a row.Ā
Frank O’Collins is admittedly an expertĀ in amateur legal theories and he is a good enough charlatan and demagogueĀ to dupe those with no knowledge of theĀ law and a hatred fro elected government. But, FrankĀ O’Collins knows nothing of the REAL law of the type used by the entire rest of the world (except for amateur legal theorists). ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
YOUR COMMENT:Ā I donāt agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I donāt agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I donāt agree 100% with anyone I have ever met in any walk of life while we are on the topic.Ā I could go into great detail about the very minor details I disagree with Frank on, but as I just stated they are very minor and inconsequential big picture wise.
MY RESPONSE: Very respectfully, this has nothing to do with minor details. It is the “big picture” itself that Frank O’Collins is lying about. He has created and he peddles an entire alternative universe. The details are irrelevant.Ā Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Frank is lecturing on big picture not procedure; I have other sources for that which I listed at the bottom of the page I linked in my last comment, Bill Thornton 1215.org being my highest recommendation. I also have his lectures in my video archive. I have seen the actual court documents and know by my own reasoning and research, which I have every confidence in, that what he teaches is true as it is simply Common law as opposed to civil ālawā. Bill just lectures on procedure and concepts, there are plenty of books available to read about Common law to fact check him and what he is teaching, and case law to verify it.Ā
MY RESPONSE: I am familiar with the claims of amateur legal theorist, Bill Thornton. He is just as clueless and delusional as Frank O’Collins is. Contrary to what all amateur legal theorists believe, “common law” is merely case law. It is still the single most used form of law used in the legal system. Common law is both civil and criminal.Ā YOUR COMMENT: I also have some videos by Karl Lentz and Robert Conforth. These are the only people I will vouch for, and only the specific videos I have from them in my archive, nothing outside of that unless specifically stated by me, and I only vouch for things I have personally vetted after years of research.
MY RESPONSE I am very familiar with the delusional claims of amateur legal theorist,Ā Karl Rudolph Lentz. Did you know that Karl Lentz also has a 100% failure rate in the courts (despite a number of attempts)? Did you know that that the courts have declared Karl Lentz to be a “fraud”, in writing? Did you know that the courts have ordered Karl Lentz to undergo regularly scheduled psychiatric care for being mentally ill?Ā
Indeed, mental illness seems to be a common thread among amateur legal theorists. Rod Class suffers from mental illness and has been involuntarily institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals more than once and has undergone a number of court-ordered psychiatric examinations. Anthony Williams has undergone court-ordered psychiatric examinations and will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. Carl Miller (real name. “Richard Champion”) has been declared to be mentally ill and was discharged from military service for that reason. He was also TWICE involuntarily incarcerated in a Michigan mental institution, each time for more than 6 months each. Lyle Hartford Van Dyke was convicted of manufacturing and uttering fake currency allegedly drawn on imaginary “accounts” at the U.S. Treasury and he spent almost a decade in a federal prison mental institution.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: I am more than happy to publicly debate anyone that wants to question anything I have on this website but I require them to be specific and go point by point just like rebutting an affidavit not just making broad, vague comments about their opinions on topics they donāt understand. This is to keep the conversation level at a high standard compared to other places on the Internet where there are 50 people in a conversation shit flinging their opinions and insults back and forth and only 2 or 3 people in that conversation actually know what they are talking about. I have been checking out your website and based on the kinds of things you cover I am sure you understand what I am talking about.
MY RESPONSE: OK. What do you regard as the single most important claim of Frank O’Collins?
YOUR COMMENT:Ā I will read some of your work, link me to what you have you feel like I should read and maybe I will republish here as well if it is good and you are interested.Ā
MY RESPONSE: I have already provided you to the links you need to have in my first comment above. I have also placed them in order of importance for you.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: I have to reiterate however, Frank OāCollins is no fraud, his work is top notch except for a few minor details as I mentioned like having to create an ecclesiastical deed poll to be heard by the court as a living man, which is fine the man wasnāt a lawyer he was just doing research on how it used to be done. His concept was correct but his procedure was just a little āoutdatedā for lack of a better description. If you want to write an article on what you disagree with I would be more than happy to read it and possibly publish it as I mentioned, or perhaps I would rebut it if I find errors and publish the entire conversation. I imagine it would be good reading for the people here interested in these kinds of things.
MY RESPONSE: Again, very respectfully, Frank O’Collins is a charlatan, poser and a demagogue. He is utterly delusional. His claims are insane. As to his claims, please make a list of Frank O’Collins’ propositions in order of importance (as you perceive them to be). I will individually respond to each claim with proof when I have the time. Be advised that I only have access to U.S.Ā law. But, the law in Australia is much the same as to theĀ “big picture”.Ā
YOUR COMMENT:Ā Once again thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment.Ā
MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind words.Ā
YOUR COMMENT: IĀ feel like your username is familiar have we met on social media before like Facebook or twitter?Ā
MY RESPONSE: No. I do not use Facebook or Twitter for security reasons.Ā YOUR COMMENT: I look forward to hearing back from you and checking out your work. I will say if you enjoy exposing hucksters check out Anna Von Reitz she is on some seriously whack delusions :).
MY RESPONSE: I am very familiar with the claims of fake “Judge” Anna Von Reitz. But, respectfully, she is no more a charlatan and hoaxer than Frank O’Collins is. All amateur legal theorists are completely delusional.Ā
Feel free to contact me anytime at my email address.Ā I am always glad to help.
All My Best,Ā
Snoop
Bodhi Mantra
(April 28, 2020 - 1:14 am)I have responded to your comment, you can find it here š
http://esotericawakening.com/critique-and-inspection-qa
AnonymousEngineer
(May 19, 2020 - 8:50 pm)Hi Bodhi. š
Re “snoop4truth”:
”
CORRECTEDā
Debunking Snoop ā
Recently snoop4truth sent out a mass email
accusing Deborah Tavares of spreading hoaxes.
Snoop4truth is an anonymous troll.He presents his incorrect positions and
accusations as fact. And of course he
is wrong.One thing for sure he is no legal expert.
”
…
”
Snoop4truth is likely a paid disinformation agent. We should ignore
all his anonymous messages . . .where ever they appear.
Perhaps Deborah should feel good about the fact that she is getting
her message out so far and wide that our common enemy now has
to pay people to try and discredit her.
Best,
AL Whitney, Editor of AntiCorruptionSociety.com
Host of In Defense of Humanity on RBN, Saturdays at 8 pm ET
”
Found here:
http://stopthecrime.net/wp/2018/03/26/kill-cities-by-rothschild-and-rockefeller-gone-main-stream/
Thanks for your interesting website, Bodhi. š
Bodhi Mantra
(May 19, 2020 - 8:54 pm)Oh wow never saw this website before thanks Anon and ty for the kind words and comment.