The state cannot take your kids without proper adjudication and a court order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWB3KTttCo
Karl: The attorney said that yes the state has the right to take the child into custody but there are certain obligations that the state must do, once the child gets into custody. The Attorney General for the state says, “No, the State of Alabama has no right to take any child within its borders into custody. the only children that we have authority to control are the ones that have been adjudicated into our care.” So I was thinking ‘holy cow.’ I had shown this to law professors and asked if the state had the right to take your child into custody and they said ‘yes.’
Karl: I hear so many people say that you have a birth certificate (BC). The BC means the state has the right to take the child into custody. No. if you actually want it, I think it is question 54 or 53 of my lawsuit. The state can only take a child if it has already been adjudged that the child is under the state’s control. For years it was everyone ‘logic’ that the state could come in and take your child. No they can’t; they can only take the child if it has been adjudged before a court. Everyone keeps grabbing people’s children and the question is, ‘do you have a court order to grab my child?’ They say no, we won’t let her come home from school. Yes, I see that, but do you have a court order? They say, ”No we have a complaint.” That is not what I want to hear; where is the order? That’s exactly what I said to the hospital; where is the order? The hospital responded that they just know who social services is and they told us to take the child into custody.
Karl: I said, ‘holy cow, you have no idea what you are doing.’ You can’t just take people’s children. They said they do it all the time. So here is the answer from them, the exact answer from the state on question and Nashman was the AG in 1997 and then it changed to Hornsby after that: “The State of Alabama, Department of Human Resources denies responsibility for minors within its borders but accepts responsibility for children in its custody and care.” So they are saying they are not responsible for minors within its borders and they only accept responsibility for children in its care or custody. Then he went on to explain: “Further, the child had to be judged to be in their custody and care.” They cannot just say that the child is in their custody and care. Custody means security. It means somebody put up security and they put up the child as security so they perform the terms and conditions of a contract.
Karl: when I read that I showed it to all kinds of lawyers and law professors and they all thought the state had the right to just take the children. No they don’t have the right; they are only responsible for children that are already in their care. So, they have no right to tell you what to do with a kid. Everyone always asks me the question of how I am going to get this in front of a jury and get the judge out of the picture and I gave that to you awhile back. It’s in Blackstone’s Commentaries Volume 3, chapter 23, section 378, of the trial by jury. You never say ‘jury trial’ you say trial by jury. “But in both these instances the jury may if they think proper take upon themselves to determine at their own hazard, the complicated question of fact in law and without either special verdict or special case may find a verdict absolutely either for the plaintiff or the defendant.”
Karl: so you say, look, I just want a common law court of record trial. The common law is the law of this land and there is no ‘high law’ in this land. If you google the word ‘land’ you will find that land means people. And the common law court is the court of the people. So the land and the people, if you remember the movie, “Excalibur”, with King Arthur, the king and the land are one. That’s true, the king and the people are equal and are equal sovereigns. It’s never been outlawed so anytime anybody gives me any guff, any kind of lawyer or judge, that we don’t do it like that any more I just say to them ‘can you show me where you wrote down in the land where it is outlawed, that a common law court of record has been outlawed?’
Karl: I stylize my summons different from their summons because their summons are for the United States District Court. I am not summonsing them to appear so if you use everything they give you with copy, cut and paste, to move your case to the court, the people are going to show up in the United States District court. I don’t want them to show up in the United States District Court. I want them to show up in the Federal District court. We went down to the clerk of the court yesterday. There was a lady there and a man named Tim. I asked them what a court of record was. They said, “oh that is where we keep the records.’ So I asked them if they knew under Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) in volume 25, section 344 what it says” Federal district courts are courts of record.” I said there you go, it’s pretty simple.
Karl: so then I asked them what a court of record was. And again they said that is where we keep the records. I asked them if there was any other way they wanted to describe it other than just ‘we keep the records.’ This was the man who was the supervisor. I asked him if it was true that court of record has the power to fine or imprison for contempt. It proceeds under the common law and it is not under a statute or a code. He was just looking at me, so I asked him if the tribunal was independent of the magistrate. He said yes. I said that those were the 4 elements of a court of record. Sometimes the court of record has a seal and sometimes it doesn’t. I got that from Bill Thornton. So I said to the man, “You don’t really know what a court of record is, do you? It moves under the common law. have you ever seen a caption stylized like this?” If you read my caption it says, Karl Rudolph Lentz [versus] Robert Benton. But, the versus is missing. Why did I take the versus out? Because he is not a defendant. What is he? He is a wrongdoer. So it just says, “A man called Karl Rudolph Lentz, the aggrieve party, prosecutor.” Then there is a black line between my name and his name. And it just says, “Robert Benton, chief Magistrate, Chairman of the DHR, a governor, a public servant, a human, a wrongdoer.”
Karl: so what I am saying is I am not fighting this man, I am not fighting the governor. I am stating a claim that I have been done wrong. And, I want compensation. Now, if this man wants to come to court and say that I am filing a false claim, I am not fighting this man. I am not bringing a controversy into this court. I am not bringing a controversy into the public. I am saying that I want compensation because I believe that I have been done wrong by these people. Now if they want to come and answer and say that Karl is wrong that they never did anything to him and I have no idea what he is talking about then let them come forward. But, it’s not plaintiff versus defendant.
Karl: No, its just prosecutor versus wrongdoer. I am just prosecuting which means that I am the one who is moving my claim. I am the one pursing this matter. Like I said, I just use wrongdoer instead of defendant. I just don’t want to make it seem like I’m fighting anyone. I honestly hope they don’t answer. If they don’t answer then I am just going to get a nihil dicit judgment because they failed to tell their attorney what to do. So you can’t come back and say that under the rules default judgment says that no testimony was taken in open court and they can come back again and I could appeal. By that time all the money I have is spent. So, I don’t want to do a default judgment with these people. I just want to do a nihil dicit judgment against these people and get on with my day.
Karl: I don’t do any of this judicial notice nonsense. I just put “Notice.” I don’t Notice court, judicial notice….get rid of all the adjectives and all the adverbs. You just make it a simple, one word, “Notice.” So they may say, “Are you a free man?” My answer is, “No.” I’m just a man. My mother said I am a man and I believe her. Any other definition of that word and I have no clue where you are sourcing it from and I am not going to stand here for eleven more years to figure out what you mean by free man or sovereign man/ You are not going to diminish my capacity as a man. As far as I know the law of this land is that man created the government. The government answers to the man. Man does not answer to the government.
Karl: are you a citizen? I’m not even going down that path. What does me being a citizen have to say with me picking up my baby? Did you or did you not deny my baby?
Are you a citizen? The prosecutor says, “I am the one moving this court. I am the one asking the questions here. Do you have a claim against me? No. Well then, you are moving under my rules. This is where everyone always gets into trouble too. Everybody always plays ‘defendant.’ If you are a defendant you have to move under their rules. So, what I say to people is that a case is a ‘casing’ like a sausage and you put all the meat and ingredients into the a sausage casing. So you are the one that determines what is best for your case: let’s put a little baloney, pepperoni, provolone, let’s make a nice case. And you say, well for this sausage to taste really good you have to bake it at 350 degrees for 20 minutes. That is the rules. This is how it’s going to play and this is how I want to do it. So when people come into the court as a defendant you are just a piece of their case. When you try to say you want to do it ‘this way’ they are like, “No that is not the ingredients and that is not the rules of how this is going to taste good. No”
Karl: what you are going to have to do people, is you are going to have to stop coming in as the defendant because you have to play under their rules. so what you have to do is find out some things that they are missing, Something like, “Is there a verified claim against me? No?” So now I am going to make a claim against you. You are saying a crime was committed or a wrong was done but you are not b ringing the injured party before the court. To move the court you have to have a plaintiff; that is an ancient rule. I don’t know what it is off the top of my head, but the plaintiff must show up. The defendant doesn’t have to show up, but the plaintiff must show up. The attorney can be there, but the plaintiff must be standing next to his attorney. The defendant could just have his attorney show up; the defendant does not have to appear. It’s an ancient rule: the plaintiff must show up because if you are claiming something it’s an old Bible thing. Bearing false witness on your brother and all of a sudden you are the moving party. And then you don’t show up? Wait a second. You wanted us to ‘chop his head off.’ You filed a false claim so whatever you wished upon your brother is going to come back on you. The plaintiff has to appear. If we find you filed a false claim whatever you wanted executed on your brother, what ever you demanded from your brother, we are going to demand it from you and we might triple it. we might quadruple it.
Karl: So you had better not be filing a false claim here. So that is what I tell people—never come in as a defendant. No matter who charges you with something, unless it is a man. I never help people if they have injured someone. If you injured your neighbor, a flesh and blood man or woman, I say, good luck and you compensate him with whatever he wants to do. If you haven’t got money then tell him you will come over and rake his leaves and mow his lawn or wash his windows. You have to compensate him some how because you have done him wrong. But, when it is the government, the county, a speeding ticket, I’ll file a counter claim against you (government, county, speeding ticket). Why? Because you (government, county, speeding ticket, are not going to bring any injured party before the court. And since you (government, county, speeding ticket) say that somebody has been done wrong to, then you better bring the Plaintiff. If there is no Plaintiff you are filing a false claim. I’ll compensate the Plaintiff now if you show me who the Plaintiff is. But that Plaintiff has to put his hand on the Bible and say that I injured him. Or the STATE had better put their hand on the bible and verify it.
Karl Lentz
Angela’s talkshoe 39904
Episode 187 – 46:25
· Nihil dicit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_dicit - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
Nihil dicit is Latin for "he says nothing"; a judgment for want of a plea. The name of a judgment which a judge may render against a defendant who failed to plead ...
· Nihil dicit - Merriam-Webster Online
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihil%20dicit - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight
a refusal or neglect by the defendant to plead or answer. 2. : a judgment rendered against a defendant charged with nihil dicit...