Truth About Courts

How To Make American Great Again?

Tell the truth about what hiring an attorney means.
Tell the truth about the courts and your rights!

Most are Article I ADMINISTRATIVE Tribunals and as such, are not Constitutional, and the Constitution DOES NOT EXIST IN THESE COURTS.

Pay attention to the cases of:
@RealAlexJones
@RudyGiuliani
@RealPNavarro
@realDonaldTrump
Steve Bannon

These cases are in Article I courts and the cases are administered by Article I judges.

As per the Bill of Rights, claims made against you offer you a 7th Amendment right to a common law jury.

None of the movie star attorneys for these folks ever demanded an Article III common law jury.

Let me explain.

If a statute states that it's illegal for "the person of" (they all say that) to eat jellybeans on Sunday, and you get caught sitting on a park bench eating jellybeans on Sunday, and arrested and charged....

If you don't demand your 7th Amendment right to an Article III Common Law jury, you will be agreeing to the offer to contract with the Article I court, judge, and jury.

What's the difference in the juries?

An Article I court, the judge can "color the law" as he/she fits.

Look at all the above cases.

Were any people harmed by the above "defendants"?
A statutory term.

Were Bannon and Navarro obligated to speak to the J6 unselect unlawful committee?

No they're not as living men.
But the papers list a fictitious LEGAL ENTITY name.

They hire lawyers, who never challenged jurisdiction, and walked them into contract with the indictment against the LEGAL ENTITY.

Rudy's case, well I didn't pay close attention but I sure saw the videos of the two ladies bringing in suitcases, thumb drives, and bragging on social where they got ballots stashed.

Trump, well the bank testified he paid the loan in full with interest.

Back to the jellybean story.

In an Article I court, the judge will tell the jury that if a statute exists, and it's been proven that you ate the jellybeans, WELL THEN YOU WILL BE FOUND GUILTY!

But if you're in an Article III court, the jury weighs the facts only.

The statute doe not matter as it's an Article III court.

Was anyone HARMED by you eating the jellybeans on the park bench?

No.

Would the common man find you guilty?
Not likely.
Not 12 of them at least.

In an Article III court, only the parties speak.
Not through attorneys.
Only as living men.

There are no circumstances in which we would ever hire an attorney. None.

We teach you the 8 parts of a lawful contract and how to exercise your rights under the common law.

The common law IS NOT COMPLICATED.
It's obvious.

I always have SCOTUS rulings that back up what I say.

The Supreme Court in Jarkesy reaffirmed that actions involving private rights, such as common-law fraud, must be heard by an Article III court: "Congress cannot 'conjure away the Seventh Amendment by mandating that traditional legal claims be... taken to an administrative tribunal." SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. (2024)

Follow us to freedom!
Join https://Inalienable.University