Esoteric Awakening

I recently had a reader here at the site leave a comment on the lecture by Frank O’Collins about Roman Western law. I won’t do too much of an intro other than to tell the readers here we are 100% free speech and full transparency and will always remain so. I decided to publish the entire conversation because it is an important topic and conversation in my opinion for numerous reasons and something for me to throw into the News section now and again in the future perhaps. You will either get a good education on the law or a good look at the tactics of bad faith actors or both, the readers here can decide for themselves.

---

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.

---

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:
https://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.

---

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

---

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 …. 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 man’s 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 O’Collins is as legit as it gets. I don’t agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I don’t agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I don’t 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 “law.” 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 don’t 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 O’Collins 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 wasn’t 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 “outdated” 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 were suspended some time ago 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 wacky delusions at times. I do a little debunking myself every now again.

12,000 Blessings,
Bodhi

---

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 paste it to this website when I am finished.

YOUR COMMENT: 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 …. 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 man’s patience over time, I hope you understand.

MY RESPONSE: There is no need for you to apologize. I have been exposing hoaxes for a while. I go straight to the websites of the people who need my information the 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 blow 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.

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 much like yourself. 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.

YOUR COMMENT: 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…

MY RESPONSE: The other 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.

YOUR COMMENT: But I do know Frank O’Collins is as legit as it gets.

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 amateur 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.

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 served their intended purpose of inciting hatred upon being believed. They serve no purpose thereafter because they do not work.

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.

Frank O’Collins is admittedly an expert in amateur legal theories and he is a good enough charlatan and demagogue to dupe those with no knowledge of the law and a hatred fro elected government. But, Frank 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: I don’t agree with 100% of his suggestions, but I don’t agree with any source I have here 100% except articles I have written myself and I don’t 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.

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.

YOUR COMMENT: 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 “law.” 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.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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 don’t 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: 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.

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.

YOUR COMMENT: I have to reiterate however, Frank O’Collins 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 wasn’t 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 “outdated” 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. law. But, the law in Australia is much the same as to the “big picture.”

YOUR COMMENT: Once again thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment.

MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind words.

YOUR COMMENT: I feel like your username is familiar have we met on social media before like Facebook or twitter?

MY RESPONSE: No. I do not use Facebook or Twitter for security reasons. 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 :).

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.

Feel free to contact me anytime at my email address. I am always glad to help.

All My Best,

Snoop

---

Ok I read your response and I can see you are a whole lotta hot air and no facts. Since it is going to take me a few hours to respond to this and proofread it, I am going to publish me ripping me you apart for my readers to learn how to spot shills and the tactics they use.

YOUR COMMENT: There is no need for you to apologize. I have been exposing hoaxes for a while. I go straight to the websites of the people who need my information the 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 blow 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.

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 much like yourself. 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.

MY RESPONSE: Ok I appreciate you spending hours of your time cruising the web looking for people who “need your help the most,” but I am doing just fine mate. I find it hard to believe someone spends hours of their time just cruising around websites to concern troll with nothing in it for them, especially a lawyer. I have never met a lawyer in my life that did anything for free, especially not type out hours long responses in comments on websites with their “expert advice” to avoid “frauds” according to you, most of the time it is the lawyers committing the fraud in my experience. So far you haven’t revealed any “truth” you have just made vague comments telling me I don’t know what I am talking about. I don’t “believe” anything friend, beLIEf is for fools, I know what I can prove however and also what I can’t prove, and being an adult of sound mind and above average intelligence know the difference between the two.

I see you keep repeating this word “amateur.” Frank is no amateur and no legal theorist and neither am I. Frank was a researcher and writer with impeccable credentials, whom, as I have repeated numerous times I have vetted myself. I can only assume you are using “amateur” to refer to BAR certification which gave me a hardy chuckle. Law was never a profession friend in a free land, in fact esquire is a foreign title which is why lawyers were barred from being politicians by the Constitution before our government became a corporation. Your oath is to the Crown Temple, your allegiance is to the BAR which is a foreign agency. I see you think this gives you some kind of authority with your claims when in fact it does just the opposite.

Let’s assume for a minute I believe you to be acting in good faith, even if this was the case your “title” holds no weight here.  As an academic with impeccable credentials myself, I do not say this lightly. I went to one of the best schools in the country that I received a generous scholarship to, and graduated cum laude and went on to teach computer science as a professor so I value a good education from a good institution. All things being equal, I will always give credit where credit is due to people who show they have earned their knowledge, and I will defer to them on matters I perceive them to be qualified as an expert on. Now the caveat, all things are rarely equal, especially in the realm of esoteric knowledge. I know they teach a lot of bogus nonsense in schools that I hardily debunk beyond question here at this website. I also know medicine, physics, and law are three of the most quack fields there are when it comes to being brainwashed with a lot of horseshit. They don’t teach law in Universities anymore, they teach commerce statues and codes, being a lawyer you should know the difference between statues and codes and laws. Statutes and codes are for citizens not sovereigns. I am one of the people of these United States not a 14^th amendment citizen, statues and codes don’t apply to me unless I consent to them and here is the case law to prove it.

---

“A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.

“The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.

“A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that, the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.” Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972).

“A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.]” Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App.2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.” Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. Mcdonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907).

“The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal.” Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920).

“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Williamson v. Berry, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action.” Melo v. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026.

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S., 474 2D 215.

“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F.Supp. 150.

“The law provides that, once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980).

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 910.

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So.2d. 368 (Fla.2nd DCA 1985).

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca.2d 751. 211 P.2d 389.

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980).

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

“A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void.” Overby v. Overby, 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970), Volume 20; Corpus Juris, Sec. § 1785.

“Challenge to court’s jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss.” Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So.2d. 22 (Fla.1st DCA 1984).

“Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings.” Re. Cavitt, 254, P.599

“Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187, P.27.

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid concept.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S. – Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)

“D.” = Decennial Digest

Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89

10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;

37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

California Government Code Sections 11120 and 54950 contain strong statements about the sovereignty of the people.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 11120 et seq.

11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.

In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 54950 et seq.

54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

54950.5. This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SOVEREIGNTY

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition

The power to do everything in a state without accountability,–to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story, Const. Sec 207

Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in teh state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is “sovereignty.” By “sovereignty in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of “sovereignty” is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986.

STATE

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition

A People permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201, 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130.

California Government Code

Deering’s

241. Citizens

The citizens of the State are:

(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.

(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.

CONSTITUTIONAL PREAMBLES

Constitution for the United States of America: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1849 California Constitution: WE the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution–

1879 State of California Constitution: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

In all three constitutions (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative word is “establish.” The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People “establish” a constitution, there is nothing in the word “establish” that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (see Republic vs. Democracy; also see conditions of admission of California to the union). Also, see the legislated notice from the People to the government written in the California Government Codes 11120 and 54950 quoted above.

To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity (see Const. for the U.S.A., XIV Amendment, for the definition of a citizen of the United States.)

14 C.J.S. 426, 430

The particular meaning of the word “citizen” is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].

One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].

[25] Cal.–Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.

[26] Cal.–Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.

La.–Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584

N.Y.–Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454

[27] U.S.–The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322

–Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208

Md.–Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82

Mass.–Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531

R.I.–Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com’rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212

[28] Mass.–Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568

MISCELLANEOUS

“The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

“‘Sovereignty’ means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree.” Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: “Even if the Tribe’s power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe’s power to exclude them, which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian’s conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe’s role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe; Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 131, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1981)

State Sovereignty vs. Popular Sovereignty A general discussion of two types of sovereignty, and the relative positions of each.

United States and State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant within its own sphere. Redding v Los Angeles (1947) 81 CA2d 888, 185 P2d 430, app dismd 334 US 825, 92 L Ed 1754, 68 S Ct 1338

As independent sovereignty, it is State’s province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens. Roberts v Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 …. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a “natural person.” Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p 1300

The terms “citizen” and “citizenship” are distinguishable from “resident” or “inhabitant.” Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A.Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from “domicile,” Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S.W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C.S.C., 59 F.2d 35j0, 351. The words “citizen” and citizenship,” however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F.Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous. Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C.Pa., 59 F.Supp. 799, 800. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 310

Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 311

The Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States.1 The preamble contemplates the body of electors composing the states, the terms “people” and “citizens” being synonymous. Negroes, whether free or slaves, were not included in the term “people of the United States at that time.2 *1 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 [1819]. See also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470 [1793]; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 93 [1795]; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 324 [1816]; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247 [1833]. *2 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 404 [1857].

The words “sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

Government: Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388

Bond v. U.S. SCOTUS recognizes personal sovereignty, June 16, 2011

---

Now that we have that out of the way, again, case law is not a belief system. If you can’t read and understand case law because of your “education” (indoctrination) it is you trying to defend your belief system here, not me.

YOUR COMMENT: The other 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.

MY RESPONSE: I have already said numerous times I do not know who those people are and don’t really care. If they are frauds as you say, I am glad you are debunking them as you claim to be doing. If they are passing on what Frank lectured and taught then once again I have to disagree with you. I have listened to many hours of Frank’s lectures, there is nothing delusional in any of it and if you keep using appeal to authority fallacies and ad hominem attacks you will only drive home my original suspicion that you are a shill even more. If they are delusional then you should have no problem going through what they teach point by point and debunking them as I welcomed you to do. As of now you are still yet to do so however, choosing instead to use character attacks, appeals to authority and poisoning the well. I would think lawyers would be trained better than this on how to prove their case with the facts instead of attempting to use logical fallacies to try to confuse the issue. Of course when they don’t have a case they can win with the facts this is exactly what they are trained to do, no?

YOUR COMMENT: 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 amateur 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.

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 served their intended purpose of inciting hatred upon being believed. They serve no purpose thereafter because they do not work.

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.

Frank O’Collins is admittedly an expert in amateur legal theories and he is a good enough charlatan and demagogue to dupe those with no knowledge of the law and a hatred for elected government. But, Frank 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!

MY RESPONSE: I have already established your appeals to authority about your JD hold no weight here (if it is even true, which remains to be seen). If I want to know about statutes, codes and commerce I will be glad to accept your “authority” on the matter, however in actual law, Common Law, your JD means next to nothing other than you know how to file papers with the clerk in the correct format. I ordered the Jurisdictionary course advertised in the banner at the top of my website my friend, from an attorney with 34 years experience to teach me those things already. I am certain I would have no problems with my cases. You appear to be trying to convince me of your superior legal mind because you have a JD. My degree is in information science friend, one of the most difficult degrees to obtain and the most difficult information to learn in any University. Law was like child’s play for me to learn; I mean seriously, what part of learning procedure and reading law books do you think was difficult for me? I will wager I could pass the BAR without ever setting foot in a law classroom any time I feel like it and I wouldn’t be the first person to do it.

I don’t know why you keep mentioning “amateur legal theories” it is getting me rather annoyed. This is Common Law, the law England has been under since the Magna Carta of 1215 and the law the United States was founded under (and all other anglo colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada etc). This is the supreme law of the land and highest jurisdiction, the Superior Courts Of Record. The “law” you practice is for the 14^th amendment serfs, not the sovereigns, and I already posted the case law to prove it so it is no longer up for debate.

Once again you name numerous people I do not know and have no care to concern myself with. If what you say is true about them, fine, great, doesn’t interest me. As far your claims about Karl and Bill, “bro trust me” isn’t going to cut it here. Even if your claims were true (which I highly doubt) it makes no difference, it changes nothing as I do not look at the finger when it is pointing at the moon.

Yah see when you use statements like this “hatred for elected government” you really sound like a COINTELPRO federal agent to me friend. Your strawman and neuro linguistic programming isn’t gonna work here. Neither me nor my readers “hate” anyone. We do dislike liars and tyrants however and we will make sure they follow the rules of the court and Constitution through lawful means. Also when you say “REAL law” when you are talking about statues and codes and UCC commerce or what is also known as corpus juris, I can’t take you seriously. What we are talking about is real law, what you are talking about is some boogidy bullshit. Legal and lawful are not the same thing, you should be aware of this, what you are talking about is legality what I am talking about is the LAW.

If those people are losing cases, perhaps they need to work more on studying, but the sources I use win cases. I have the cases friend, you can look up the case files for yourself, as can my readers. Most of the paperwork is on 1215.org already however for anyone to look at and Bill Thornton goes over it all in detail in his lectures that I have in my video archive and can be found other places on the web (for now). Also you said “the type used by the entire rest of the world.” I already explained that only anglo nations have Common Law as their foundation, so saying “the type used by the entire rest of the world.” again, is highly suspect. You either don’t understand the actual law system of anglo nations or you are full of bs my guy. This is not my first rodeo; I don’t shoot from the hip or try to pretend I know things I don’t. I have studied this material for many years and obviously my knowledge is far above your own. Even with your degree you don’t seem to understand even the basics apparently.

YOUR COMMENT: 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.

MY RESPONSE: Au contraire, the devil is always in the details, a lawyer should never say something so amateurish and childish. There are entire courses (by JD’s) on attacking single words to win cases on technicalities. You don’t seem very knowledgeable about your own profession, what are some of your cases? I would very much like to look them up. I think I will just stop here, I believe I have spent enough time reading and responding to you. I gave you a platform to give me your best criticism and I pretty much annihilated your “criticism”. You are more than welcome to respond again however, in fact respond as much as you like anywhere on the site. If you ever have valid criticism in the future we may get an opportunity to correspond again. I am going to publish this conversation because of how much work I put into responding to you and if you choose to respond again, do so in the comments of this page if you want to add more to the record and I may respond in the future if you actually make some arguments I haven’t already debunked. I thank you for being such a vigilant good Samaritan that you spend hours of your time making comments at websites like this “debunking” people out of the kindness of your heart.

I will tell you, there are lower realms to this reality and karma is a real bitch. We will answer for our sins on the day of transformation. Personally, I want to move up lokas not down, you are free to do whatever you choose, but there is a cost just so you know. That is my good Samaritan advice. So once again thanks for stopping by and leaving comments. Hare Krishna

---

In summation to this Q&A I will state precisely what is being done. What they are doing/have done is setting up a two tier legal system, one for serfs and one for sovereigns. They are putting the people back into a neo-feudal system. By withholding knowledge of how the Common Law system works from the serfs they keep it so only they can operate from within it as sovereigns while the masses are subjected to the Corpus Juris “laws” on their corporate plantation feudal farms. They have developed an exploit to bring communism in through the back door under the Common Law system by using contracts with foreign corporations to get people to consent to signing away their rights as a sovereign in order to “work” for the corporations putting them into a different jurisdiction. It is quite ingenious to be honest. What they count on is the people being too ignorant to understand how it all works through the systematic dumbing down of the population and use of Rune Magic, ie changing the words and definitions of things to where the serfs and sovereigns are literally speaking two different languages while using the exact same words and spelling. It is a grammar counterfeit con.

I suggest watching Romley Stewart’s new video he just published to get a bit of a glimpse into the mechanics of how they are doing it. I also have numerous articles here I have written on this as well. This one being particularly succinct and to the point The Occult History Of Communism.

EDIT 5/1/2020: My Dad reads all of my articles here at the site and sent me an email saying you have to have a PHD to be considered a full professor so I should clarify that I was an adjunct professor. He also said he doesn’t think I should have said I could pass the BAR without going to law school but on this I will have to disagree Dad, that stays in, if Frank Abagnale could do it I am certain I can. :-).

---