MarcStevens.net Forum

Full Version: Marc Stevens and Karl Lentz
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I was gratified to hear Marc speaking to Karl and observing that Marc will listen to the TalkShoe where Jessica got her property (4 kids) back from the 'state'.

IMHO Marc is doing great within the Administrative system, but Karl is doing even better using his one page Complaint in a Common Law Court action.

I heard Jessica's complete story on Karl's TalkShoe and I suggest that everyone listen and learn.

Once Marc gets a copy of the actual proceedings (not second hand), I predict that he will be convinced to shift gears.

I listened live on the phone and I cannot locate a recording.

(Karl is one available?)

I owe Marc a debt, because if it wasn't for Marcstevens.net I would have never have found Karl.
Quote:Karl is doing even better using his one page Complaint in a Common Law Court action.

Karl has not produced any evidence to support his claims anywhere on this site. Listening to TalkShoe recordings is not going to give the empirical evidence we are looking for to verify Karl's claims.

Marc has a ton of evidence readily available, be it through the call of shame, success stories, forum, ect... I don't see Marc shifting from questioning evidence that they are required to prove and that we know doesn't exist, to Karl's interpretive common law court. We have documented several success stories, and Karl? He no likey submitting evidence of his claims.
(04-28-2013 10:30 PM)Calvin Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Karl is doing even better using his one page Complaint in a Common Law Court action.

Karl has not produced any evidence to support his claims anywhere on this site. Listening to TalkShoe recordings is not going to give the empirical evidence we are looking for to verify Karl's claims.

Marc has a ton of evidence readily available, be it through the call of shame, success stories, forum, ect... I don't see Marc shifting from questioning evidence that they are required to prove and that we know doesn't exist, to Karl's interpretive common law court. We have documented several success stories, and Karl? He no likey submitting evidence of his claims.


"I don't see Marc shifting from questioning evidence that they are required to prove and that we know doesn't exist"

He is asking the right questions to the right people who will never answer under oath.

Only in Common Law Court will they be forced to answer the same questions.

Have you listened to the links provided?

Marc is smart and so are you.

It is a question of words and which definition you use.

Example: I, a man named Joe Everyman have been trespassed by agency ZYX, my property has been taken, and I Claim recovery damages AT court. (note NOT in court).


AFAIK This is an acceptable Claim.

Simple enough, no telephone calls.
well, not exactly, Stu

You are seeking remedy in a Federal Court ..

Are you willing to become a Citizen thru such Pleadings ..?
(05-01-2013 09:22 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote: [ -> ]well, not exactly, Stu

You are seeking remedy in a Federal Court ..

Are you willing to become a Citizen thru such Pleadings ..?

Listen to Karl.

Citizen, uppercase, pro se. legalese, etc. is not part of a Common Law Claim.

I, a man, Claim....

Not: I, a citizen, Claim...

You have to get used the language used by Karl.
(05-02-2013 05:57 AM)boyntonstu Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-01-2013 09:22 AM)Bruce Sloane Wrote: [ -> ]well, not exactly, Stu

You are seeking remedy in a Federal Court ..

Are you willing to become a Citizen thru such Pleadings ..?

Listen to Karl.

Citizen, uppercase, pro se. legalese, etc. is not part of a Common Law Claim.

I, a man, Claim....

Not: I, a citizen, Claim...

You have to get used the language used by Karl.

Karl this, Karl that... "You have to get used the language used by Karl."

Oh really, do I have to? I don't think so.

The cult of Karl?
(05-02-2013 07:20 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 06:55 AM)Andy Wrote: [ -> ]The cult of Karl?

Definitely.
[Image: Carl-s-Jr-carls-jr-3781357-75-75.jpg]

If you spell it right.


I will delete this thread shred in a few days... Or not.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Factually, what has KL done in Common Law Court that was incorrect?
(05-02-2013 12:30 PM)boyntonstu Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 07:20 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 06:55 AM)Andy Wrote: [ -> ]The cult of Karl?

Definitely.
[Image: Carl-s-Jr-carls-jr-3781357-75-75.jpg]

If you spell it right.


I will delete this thread shred in a few days... Or not.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Factually, what has KL done in Common Law Court that was incorrect?

Aw see, now you're spoiling the fun! We don't need no steenkin' FACTZ! Big Grin

- NonE
(05-03-2013 06:27 AM)NonEntity Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 12:30 PM)boyntonstu Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 07:20 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2013 06:55 AM)Andy Wrote: [ -> ]The cult of Karl?

Definitely.
[Image: Carl-s-Jr-carls-jr-3781357-75-75.jpg]

If you spell it right.


I will delete this thread shred in a few days... Or not.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Factually, what has KL done in Common Law Court that was incorrect?

Aw see, now you're spoiling the fun! We don't need no steenkin' FACTZ! Big Grin

- NonE

Be serious and show "us" the facts one way or the other -- correct or incorrect.

--NonNon

(04-28-2013 10:30 PM)Calvin Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Karl is doing even better using his one page Complaint in a Common Law Court action.

Karl has not produced any evidence to support his claims anywhere on this site. Listening to TalkShoe recordings is not going to give the empirical evidence we are looking for to verify Karl's claims.

Marc has a ton of evidence readily available, be it through the call of shame, success stories, forum, ect... I don't see Marc shifting from questioning evidence that they are required to prove and that we know doesn't exist, to Karl's interpretive common law court. We have documented several success stories, and Karl? He no likey submitting evidence of his claims.

The Cult of Karl needs no stinkin evidence.
The case which was dropped which has nothing to do with the return of property/children was not the case which got the property back. THERE WAS NO CASE. So these fools are asking for something that does not exist and cannot and will not exist in order for them to have evidence of the property/children standing in their own driveway with the parents.

Once Jessie filed her claim the province/men acting in a role, dropped the case and agreed to give back the property in order to avoid a trial in which men and women would be held accountable.

Now if you Marctards cannot provide evidence of the Easter Bunny then that is evidence he has never won a case.

I lost me wallet and since i cannot show it to you i never had one.

Boxer

(11-17-2014 08:43 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]The case which was dropped which has nothing to do with the return of property/children was not the case which got the property back. THERE WAS NO CASE. So these fools are asking for something that does not exist and cannot and will not exist in order for them to have evidence of the property/children standing in their own driveway with the parents.

Once Jessie filed her claim the province/men acting in a role, dropped the case and agreed to give back the property in order to avoid a trial in which men and women would be held accountable.

Now if you Marctards cannot provide evidence of the Easter Bunny then that is evidence he has never won a case.

I lost me wallet and since i cannot show it to you i never had one.

Quote:"Marctards"

Would you please specify who, exactly, are "Marctards" and what you intend to convey when you say that? A definition would be nice.
(11-17-2014 08:43 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]Now if you Marctards cannot provide evidence of the Easter Bunny then that is evidence he has never won a case.

So after not coming on the show you come back to post another personal attack? [Image: 13860640971943316603.GIF]

We get it, we're all retards. If you post another personal attack I'm gonna ban the account.
(05-02-2013 12:30 PM)boyntonstu Wrote: [ -> ]You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Factually, what has KL done in Common Law Court that was incorrect?

If YOU provided empirical evidence of ALL the court material that documents what Karl has been involved in, YOU could present exactly WHAT Karl HAS done and not just simply expect people to believe in magical things. Still your choice.

You are sounding somewhat silly at this point.Facepalm
Can we get a link to the show?
Reference URL's