So let's start with Lentz' experience in his own stuff. After all, if you don't win at home, why should anyone expect you to win on the road? Lentz' own description of the matter:
So Lentz lost his kid just because s/he was disabled. Once he got rid of the useless lawyers and "learn(ed) Law for himself", he kicked ass. How much of this is true?Karl Lentz’s child was taken away by the state for having Down’s syndrome. He paid a fortune on lawyers and lived in a shipping container to divert all his money to legal costs. After nearly 6 years, he decided to learn Law for himself as clearly the lawyers couldn’t help. He learnt how to get a court of record and moving the court. He realised his child was classed as property and the legal & lawful meaning of over 50words. He will talk about his 2 carefully constructed sentences, he said at the court office. He didn’t even get to the next hearing and the court instructed the state to return his son back within 24 hours.
I'm sure the reader will be shocked to learn that the answer is "very fuckin' little". Why don't we start with the reason why CPS took Lentz' child - was it because of Down's, as Lentz says? Not exactly. According to the CPS documents - before anyone gets excited, Lentz himself filed these in one of the cases I discuss below - the child was removed for his own safety "due to domestic violence between mother and father". Lentz was only permitted to see his child in supervised visits "due to history of domestic violence". He was directed to attend "anger management / domestic violence prevention class".
Sounds like Down's Syndrome was the reason, right?
So let's begin our examination of Lentz' pro se excursion into something that should be of some importance to him, the custody of his son. He brought four cases in the Middle District of Alabama and one in the Northern. The first (06cv626, ALMD) was in the name of his mother, one "Patricia Garner-Russo, SUI JURIS". If anyone can figure out what the suit is about from the complaint, please enlighten me. One thing that's clear - she not only wants custody, she wants $10M per year. Hey, raising kids is expensive. Dismissed with prejudice, including as against defendants who had not even been served.
Lentz then tries on his own. 07cv641, ALMD. Forty-six pages of garbage in the complaint. Dismissed sua sponte.
Not to be deterred, Lentz waits a couple of years and tries again, again his own name - "a man, Karl Rudolph Lentz, the aggrieved party, prosecutor". 12cv1014, ALMD. The complaint amounts to a lengthy whine. He throws in this gobbledygook and this nonsense. Moreover, he submitted these fake orders - which he considerately pre-signed - for the Court's signature. Dismissed sua sponte. The complaint is so bad that the Court can't tell whether is has to be dismissed on Younger (abstention based on pending state proceedings) or Rooker/Feldman (federal courts are not state appeals courts) grounds.
Lentz then tries again, quickly. 13cv387, ALMD. The complaint is once again less than a model of clarity - except that he is clear that he is due $371,520,000.00. Glad it's all about the kids. This time he fires both barrels. Man, look at that docket: Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, Notice, NOTICE. Well, the Court noticed: dismissed with prejudice.
Oh, and then there was the case that was dismissed because Lentz refused to pay the filing fee - 07cv75, ALND.
Now, I can't know what happened subsequently in the Alabama state courts. Perhaps Lentz got his kids back. If he and his wife are good parents, I hope they did. But, if so, it doesn't seem to have happened because of any "2 carefully constructed sentences".