Traffic lawyer dvd Videos

The link is for us and I'm going n Scotland

+garycheesman1988 ok , it seems as your the first to have this problem , can i be so rude as to ask where about's you are (country/town ) ? but the producer said there has never been a problem shipping to anywhere so we are slightly confused as to why you have a problem :/

+garycheesman1988 bare with me im just querying the producer now hun i get right back to you when i find out what going on :)

+Miss Understood I'm trying to buy a copy but saying it won't ship to my address

//www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ - on sale now 

//www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ - on sale now

//www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ - on sale now

//www.amazon.com/Traffic-Kuki-Keaton/dp/B00SCD6DMQ - on sale now

You really haven't. You've got a rapidly increasing body count from Karl's misinformation and you keep ignoring the warning signs.

+Doazic I've already explained these issues to you a number of times and you just keep going round and round. I'm done with this conversation

Let's refresh your memory, Karl filed a claim for $300 million against CPS or the men acting as CPS and it was thrown out because they've got immunity. In the case of this caller, no judge is going to give the guy a judgement since he broke a whole bunch of laws, he's got no legitimate claim. Or let's say John Fall, 18 months in jail. If he tried to file a claim, it would go nowhere since the judge and prosecutor also have immunity.

+Doazic What judgements are you talking about? You mean the ones like John and Jessie's, where they offer to forgive all trespasses if property is restored by said date? CPS gives the kids back, and all is forgiven. What is there for the Sheriff to do?

Karl has never claimed to have gotten a sheriff to enforce a judgement, nor had Karl ever obtained a judgement in his favor. Hell how would the caller in this clip even get a judgement in his favor, the notice he's sending in asks for them to provide what laws he's broken. Which is a waste of time, if he's in jail they've already told him what laws he's broken.

+Doazic You're head is stuck up your bum again Doazic

Says the plain historical fact that Karl has never gotten a judgement in his favor.

+Doazic Says Doazic

Which doesn't really help you since you can't get a judgement in your favor.

+Doazic I didn't really cough, I just wrote it a couple times. And the Sheriff's enforce judgements from the courts

You can cough all you want but that's what Karl found out when he filed his claim, it was thrown out because the man acting as whatever has immunity. And as to Nuremberg, they had to win a war against the Nazi's for that to happen. You and Karl are unlikely to go to war with and defeat the United States, so you've got no method of enforcing your claims.

+Doazic cough cough... Nuremberg trials... a man cannot harm another man.

Right, it'd be against the man acting as judge or prosecutor, and he's got immunity.

+Doazic It's a good thing that the claim wouldn't be filed against a Judge or Prosecutor then

Nothing since judges and prosecutors have immunity.

+Doazic What happens when any man ignores a claim?

And what happens when the man ignores that claim.

+Doazic Then you file a claim against the man who refuses to stop pursuing you even after you tried to settle the debt

+Doazic haY THEE ONLY 1 and 2 THINGS THAT'S APPARENT & CLEAR IS WHAT IS NOT SEPARATED! I, Am, Me, The Man am construing that what I mean/meant as, by, as I stated, said; "NOT SEPARATED" to be #Doazic A. Your Head & B. Your Ass! So C. Your Way & Get Out of Here With All Of That BrainShit Logged BushIt! #LMAO@Udoazic

If you wanna separate them that's fine. What happens when they both ignore the letters.

+Doazic Are you saying that the Judge and the Prosecutor are one and the same? I didn't realise that this conversation was on such a high spiritual level

You know who they is, I know who they is. You're not proving anything by continuing to pretend that you don't know.

+Doazic That's why I asked you who is the they. You answered "The magical they that you wrote the letter to". I recommended that you listen to the clip again because Karl gives the answer to that specific question, and now you give a link to where the Judge may possibly reject the notice?

+Craig Lynch Yeah you're right, at 7:00 he says they'll crumple it in a ball and throw it at his head, so what exactly is the point.

+Doazic I suggest re-listening to the clip because Karl talks about that very thing

The magical they that you wrote the letter to.

+Doazic Who is this magical lucky charms unicorn rainbow "THEYYYA" you speak of?

i presume you just recently tuned in to Karl's material?

? 

i require leave of court so that i can give a proper answer. Then i would write that you are an idiot in legalese, you are not a member of the legal society, you're just a man here to settle any debt you have to your fellow man for any harm, damage, or loss you may have caused. Then go back in, and if the Judge doesn't read it out so that it gets on the record, you do it. Never acknowledge them, because they're not speaking to you, theirs is a paper world, so answer them with paper, and rebut the presumptions on record. That's what i would do

+Jon Kreher a platypus too ? 

Dogs give milk as well. All mammalian creatures do.

+VerifiedNewsAnd?

+Doazic Look into the DC code. It states very clearly the integration of English law into the DC code.

+welllsaiddddd you don't have to look up blacks laws or even use it all you have to do is attack a word that to ambiguous for a example if i use the word state like the legal term which means a political system according to blacks laws or the English term that mean being the condition

Share details please of your win over your harmful terrorist action of not wearing a seatbelt. The millions you could've injured. Also, the courts do acknowledge a strawman, but it's when they want to ignore what's said so they will make up something similar to what you said and will rule on that. Like in court you say "the sky is blue". The court will say "your argument the sky is sad and depressed is without merit and frivolous". Classic strawman tactic the courts use.

+Doazic money and power. You start to answer your own question in that question. No man is above another. No man has jurisdiction over another. We are all born equal under God's law.But here you propose there is this thing called government - governing our minds. That this government is above us. Only God is above us and this government is not a god  but it thinks it is. It is but a legal fiction. A legal creation, something that only actually exists on paper. This paper entity you suggest now supposes it is above God. It writes some rules you want to call laws. These laws claim to control us and take away our rights in the name of our safety, the war on terror or some supposed privilege that is ours by right. To control the people would be simple if you could convince them you are above them and have rights and power over them. That they have no rights. You only have rights and power over your property, that which you create and so you create the legal person which you control.. Then you can fine and tax.  If your slave (property) does not follow your rules you can fine it. If it does work you are entitled to whatever slice of that pie you decide. You can licence and bestow privileges for a fee to your slave. You can punish and imprison for whatever rule you care to make up. All as long as you can convince them they are this legal entity you created "for them."At this point you can take all their rights, take their arms, tax their earnings, create as many rules as you like.The man and woman has rights. You cannot take rights away, licence them or tax them. The legal fiction has no rights and is subject to whatever rule you care to make up.Government does not serve the people, it serves the corporations. Government exists not to protect the people and their property but to extract value for the corporation through a system of control.Unless  you can get over the delusion government is here to serve the reason behind the legal fiction and a legislation system of contractual rules does not make sense.

+cabadejoOkay, let's try some thought experiments instead. Why would the government write laws so that they charge a strawman when you commit a crime instead of simply writing laws so that you are the one charged when you commit a crime?

+cabadejo your making too much sense for " some " to comprehend.

+Doazic we are not misreading anything, we are simply finding that which is hidden in plain sight.The minority controls the majority by a slight of hand, by deception. The majority are in a prison the bars of which they fail to see.We are all equal under God's law. No man has jurisdiction over another other than by consent or force. The minority trick the majority into consent, which of course is not true consent and for those who refuse consent they are labelled dissidents and criminals who are then terrorised by the policy men. The legislatiive system is for the slaves. They must be slaves b/c they have no free will to refuse to stand under these rules. Those who are not slaves must have free will to do as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another living soul. 

+cabadejoand trust law is corporate jurisdiction..commerce

+cabadejo here cabadejo.. ftp://www.ilga.gov/jcar/admincode/014/014001800000100R.html ..... "Individual" means a human being or a decedent, in the case of a debtor that is the decedent's estate.

+cabadejoNo, it's written in plain english. You're purposefully misreading it to get the complete opposite meaning out of it. Look, you're letting sources like UCADIA brainwash you. Mr. is simply an honorific, we have the same thing in spanish with Señor, the french use Monsieur. And no, a human being is not a creation of the vatican, that's completely ridiculous.And by the way, UCADIA material has already been used in courts unsuccessfully. to quote: "UCADIA materials are not merely a house built on a foundation of sand, but a house built on the illusion of a foundation of sand. A.N.B. cannot legally purport to ‘opt out’ and ‘deny his consent” via this mechanism." O'collins stuff is pure bullshit. "//www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2014/2014abqb383/2014abqb383.html

+Doazic but the statement was not written in English, it was a form of legalese.A human being is a creation of the Vatican, it is a type of monster, an animal, property, a subhuman.//www.ucadia.com/glossary/glossary_h.htmMr Camoling might be a human being but it is not a man. Mr is derived from Mistery, meaning a trade. The legal person defined through trade. Mrs is in reality Mr's, a female legal entity belonging to a Mr.Miss is a female legal entity so lowly as to be missing title. Mr is a title. No man or woman was named Mr or Mr's, perhaps john, mike, anita, abbie but not Mr or Mrs let alone Ms. The courts refer to the person by title b/c that is the correct address for the person. That is a defining parameter of the person. What is said is very clear to me b/c i have some grounding in this language. 

+cabadejoI'm really astonished how you've managed to read a simple plain english statement stating that there is no "legal fiction" and interpreted it to mean that there is in fact a "legal fiction". The paragraph is talking about the human being Mr. Campling, the guy with two legs, two arms, head. That's the only thing that's ever being addressed by courts, there's is no "legal fiction", I don't know how much more clearer they can say that to you.

+Doazic this is a heavy weight judgement which would have taken one man a considerable time to produce. Who put him up to it?Now let's look at the paragraph you quoted from very carefully. One must look at every word carefully for these criminals stand and fall by these.from [422]Here the judge refers to Mr Camplin - he is talking about the legal entity Mr Camplin. Everything refers back to Mr Camplin. Mr Camplin is a legal fiction. It is one entity and only one entity. It cannot be the strawman and the flesh and blood living soul. It cannot claim to be such. Indeed these administrative courts do not recognise the living soul for they only deal with paper fictions, for that is what they are themselves."Mr. Camplin in the above‑mentioned case seems to have argued, in the same fashion as the respondent, that he had two capacities,.. "[as mentioned Mr C cannot have two capacities]"one which he characterised as being his "private capacity as a "natural person" for my own benefit" and the other as his capacity as "legal representative of the taxpayer".{No, Mr Camplin is only the dead entity}"Here, the respondent..." [the "respondent" is a dead entity, a legal fiction - these courts can only deal with the dead so no respondent can be a living soul. A respondent is a legal status.]"characterises his purported capacities as being (1) as a natural person, and (2) as a taxpayer.{Nope - dead or alive, not both and in this case the respondent is dead}"The deletion of the words "legal representative" from the latter purported capacity does not render this case distinguishable from the one at bar. The whole notion of their being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law. One can describe nothing in any terms one wishes; it still remains nothing."{Exactly, dead or alive. The legal person is the legal person. The (wo)man is the (wo)man. There are never two capacities in one]

+cabadejoYou might want to read the discussion of the "legal person" in Meads v. Meads, starts at paragraph 417 to 446. "The whole notion of there being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law."

The legal person exists. i have seen internal emails from HM Treasury mentioning it. HMRC also speak of the legal person. It is mentioned on one of the videos on the White Rabbit Trust video channel where Simon records a conversation.You might call the legal person the strawman, you might call it the legal fiction or legal entity. Whatever name you give to this entity it is the same thing. We are hoodwinked into believing we are that legal person, we unwittingly act as surety to this dead entity. This deception is the means by which the corporate state can contract with the living and extract the only thing left of value, our labour. They stole the land, all that is on it and under it, a long time ago. 

+Doazicjust continue to post so everyone see's your ignorance..thank you

+Doazic no i was there you werent my ticket was dismissed and you know it all. end of conversation..good bye

+welllsaidddddI guarantee they did not say that to you.

+Doaziccan you read ? i said " the court" even told me i have a corporate person..its called statutory..ucc codes which are contracts im not fully disclosed about .. a drivers license etc... they dont tell you what contract your signing into..you give up your rights as a man.. so now please , just stop replying

+welllsaidddddLook if the government and the courts are all telling you that there's no such thing as a strawman, then where the hell are you getting the idea that you have a strawman. It's a scam racists invented in the 70s and 80s to take advantage of farmers who had massive debts. Go look up Roger Elvick, the guy that invented the strawman scam, a white racist who spent years in jail for scamming people with the strawman crap.

+Doazic bud please.. the irs thing is a joke... and cant you read... please just dont reply with anything ..im not interested in the garbage you got.

+welllsaiddddd//www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html#d0e756 There's no such thing as a strawman. The entire thing is something scam artists in the sovereign movement made up.

+Doazicno straw man huh.. you a kurt fan are you or are you startiing your own club. i was in court and the administrator even verified i have a corporate person so dont try this crap theres no straw man.. ucc codes are just that.

+welllsaidddddYou need to stop getting your info from people like Lentz then, there is no such thing as "the strawman". As to Sandy, no the Crown does not own america and income taxes do not go to the crown. That's fucking ridiculous.

+Doazic they dont represent me, they represent the straw man which i am not

+cabadejo they own title to the corporation but not man..it does not apply to me.. clearly stated in the declaration

+Doazic this is the point you need to get over. You as a living breathing soul are not represented. You are the surety for a slave.A citizen is a legal creation. It is a social security number and an all capitalised name in a database. This is created in DC. Every US citizen is created (born) in DC. The citizen exists (resides) on a computer database in DC. The citizen is not a living breathing soul it is a concept, property of the creator, THE UNITED STATES. All votes by the citizens are cast where they reside and all citizens reside on a database in DC. Every election of real importance is a sham. Who owns the corporation that is THE UNITED STATES? - It is the Crown. So the Crown owns the citizens. The system of government is the system of control of the citizens. The BAR which all lawyers in the US belong belongs to the Crown. The system of legislation is run by the Crown. So of course the Attorney General is beholden to the Crown.All income taxes are paid to the Crown - Ronald Ray gun discovered that not one penny of income tax is spent for the benefit of those who pay it. It is Crown money paid over by their property - the citizens. How on earth do you think American got so fucked up? Why on earth is the US constantly at war? How on earth did that gay man with phony documents. possibly born in Kenya, married to a tranny end up in the Whitehouse. Easy b/c he is president of a corporation not America.It is all a most massive con. Accepted there is a mountain of cognitive dissonance to get over for most people and living on the other side of this is not an easy place to be but that is the truth.

+cabadejoThey explain it in your very link. Originally the idea of having AG's came from english common law where they represented the crown. However in our system of government, they represent the people instead of the crown.

+Doazic America allegedly gained independence in 1776The first attorney general allegedly took office in 1789 under Washington.We have the intervening 13 years to account for but let's ignore that right now.So why would the Crown be mentioned at all in the same breath as the attorney general long after the Red Coats had been chased off?.You should understand how these corporate criminals operate. You should understand the strange language of legalese, where for example must in legalese in ordinary English means may, where to understand means to consent to (to stand under) and so on and so on. In the US, State means DC and states means those territories on the continent of America.A word represents something so when you translate a word you present another word but you do not alter that which it represents. In this instance the thing represented is that corporation which is the City of London. Whether it is called the Crown or translated into the People it is still the same thing. Calling it the People makes the people think all is well, when in reality they are still slaves to the bankers in London.

+cabadejoI think you need to read your own link fully. "Representation of the Crown is translated in our system to representation of the People thus, serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General." It's saying that in England the attorney general does represent the crown but in the States the AG represents the people.

+welllsaiddddd The Crown owns title to America.The Crown is the Corporation of the City of London. "The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown. "//illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.htmlTHE UNITED STATES, the Federal corporation which has usurped the sovereignty of Americans belongs to the Crown. The Crown is the beginning and end of THE UNITED STATES.The Federal Reserve Bank which creates worthless $ out of thin air is the Crown, the IRS which cons the people into paying over taxes, then pays these to the Crown. The Crown has the world franchise of the BAR, the US lawyers swear allegiance to the Crown. The citizens and the US everything is property of the Crown. All legislation are rules of the corporation that is simply part of the Crown.

+welllsaidddddThat really doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed.

+Doazicdoazic.. why reply about global laws is the fact that the U.S,. is making more and more acts  that are inline with the U.N. that is fact.. universal healthcare , social security , gum laws etc.... its all being shuck in under the fence silently day after day 

+cabadejo thats only true if you give corporate America the privilege to do that. i will give notice otherwise

+Doazicexactly.. i could care less what happens in  the uk under the crown.

+welllsaidddddOf course it's illegal in the states.

+welllsaiddddd Well homemade registration plates are illegal in the UK. But the issue i was attempting to cover was if you decide to run your car lawfully with your own number on your own number plate and travel freely and unhindered as per the common law right established in England, the mothership for American common law, the traveller would find the Policy men (POL I CEE - pronounced policy) would be all over that car. These policy men enforce the policies of the corporate state and ensure the people are bled dry of their money.

+cabadejo you talked about a mother being all over a truck with homemade plates.. are you talking england because in the usa it aint illegal

+welllsaiddddd England is mother ship for the Common law used in the US and several others.

+Doazicoh really..lol that must be your opinion i guess

+welllsaidddddOf course not.

+Doazic the intergration of global laws..like the U.N. gun treatys , nafta etc...

+welllsaidddddwhat do you mean?

+Doazic i havent heard that but ok.... i know theres a lot of laws that coincide with canadian and englad laws.. is that part of fundamental change ?

+welllsaidddddOh because Karl has been saying that a Canadian company compiles the US code, which isn't true.

+Doazic yea but how did canadian law and england get into this ?

+welllsaidddddWe're talking about the US code, so no, there's no "crown" involved.

+Doazic its called the "crown"

+Craig Lynch by the way..i won my case on the seatbelt ticket

+cabadejo what country are you talking about , England

+Craig LynchNo they're not written by a Canadian company; it's codified by an office within the house of representatives. I have no idea where Lentz made up that nonsense; probably got confused because he read a copy printed by a canadian publishing company.

+Craig Lynch the policy men on mother ship England would be all over a truck with a homemade plate. It would be towed and crushed (stolen).The issue in these instances is not primarily the licence but in the UK it is more the fact the car is registered as a vehicle with the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority. Although in practice cars are pre-registered from new, the theory is you do not have to register it with the DVLA, so making it a DVLA (government) vehicle. So you are voluntarily the registered keeper of a DVLA vehicle.Everything stems from that.To operate a vehicle you must be a driver so must have a licence.To be a driver you contract to following the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act. DVLA vehicles are only allowed to have duty paid fuel. Vehicle excise duty must be paid and a Ministry of Transport certificate held as well as insurance.If you don't want to follow these rules don't have a DVLA vehicle. You would have to "export" your vehicle to get it de-registered or make one from scratch. You have to cheat the system.The policy men tend not to bother vehicles with foreign plates but homemade plates would attract their attention.There are £billions at stake so the legal system is tough.I don't know of anyone who has openly traveled the highway without being attacked by the highway robbers.

+welllsaidddddThat's right.  Codes are just a drastically shortened version of public laws passed by congress.  They are written by a Canadian company called thompsons.  Just so you know, your probably not going to win in their case against you regarding the seatbelt.  What you should have done right when you got the ticket or the next day was go to the prosecutor's office with a witness and try to return it.  If they don't take it then go to claims court and make a claim against him for making a false claim against you.  You always want to be the moving party.  If you're the defendant in their case you will lose.

+welllsaiddddd The first thing you need to do is change your attitude toward the man in the black robe.  In this case he is not a judge.  He is a civil administrative hearing officer.  He might not even have an oath.  He doesn't need one to administrate your issue.  You breached the contract with the DMV.  I see the man in black as very helpfull from what I've heard.  He's telling you the truth.  You signed to get the license which binds you to those set of rules.  Now, the question is, were you operating under the license at the time of the stop?  Or were you just a man going from a to b?  Were you earning an income from transporting people or cargo at the time?  I can't believe thy are having a jury trial over a traffic ticket.  That's amazing!  I've been traveling around in my truck for almost 3 years now, and the police and parking enforcement leave my property alone.  but it's easier for me because I have no license and I have my own homemade plate on the back of my truck.  I painted it myself.  :)

+Craig Lynchby th way, codes arent lawful.. they are only legal in commerce.. correct ?

+Craig Lynch what i need is the difference between the two.  in my case.. i got a seatbelt violation. that is a code violation clearly stated on the ticket. i went to 5 different appearences before this lame brain fraud of a judge. i pointed out no jurisdiction, he claimed statutory , i said no such thing he ignored me.. told me to do my research. they he held up my license and said this is what puts me in his court by the signature.. sure i know what he means. hes a cocky sun a bitch and when i use this i know he'll try to call me out or side step it.. i have a jury trial monday coming. and need facts about the difference to call him out on.

In this clip Karl's referring to the law book the man in the black robe is looking at.  It shows the code, and then at the bottom it shows what is lawful in common law with regards to that specific code