Lentz, Karl

[LightinDarkness]

On his latest marathon of stupidity conference call, it appears Karl has moved back in with mom and dad. Its not clear what happened to the place he was renting, but he was forced to move out.

One thing I cay say though, is Karl seems to be making plenty of money with this sovcit scam. It seems someone is always paying him to come out to them so he can be their personal sovcit mentor (at outrageous rates, I'm sure).

I have never quite figured out how/why there are enough idiots to keep these people in business. If you have enough money to pay some sovcit guru insane amounts of cash (plus travel expenses) to help you lose your case...you have enough money to hire a real lawyer (who might actually help you win your case).

[LightinDarkness]

Also on his most recent call, Karl spends an inordinate amount of time explaining why one of his recent claims was dismissed. Apparently he filed some sovcit gibberish in Alabama, although he doesn't say what about, and the court dismissed it almost immediately. But you see, guys, it wasn't really dismissed because you can't dismiss a Man's Claim. And Karl is a Man, not the "plaintiff" which the court described!

[Jeffrey]

I must have missed an episode because it seems Bali and Karl have kissed and made up.

Assuming Bali is saying the truth, he appears to be digging deeper and deeper holes for himself over in the UK. Look like he now has pending local tax issues combined with National Insurance payment issues, which suggests to me they aren't paying income taxes either and either own a business or are self employed which points to big problems down the line.

[LightinDarkness]

I think Bali is lying, as of Karl's latest propaganda call (5/22) he is still saying Bali screwed him over. It seems to be Bali's main cash grab: put up some sovcit gibberish, slap Karl's name on it, and rake in the dough.

[wserra]

I don't listen to those things - with the occasional exception. When I head that noted interviewer Angela Stark had Rod Class on her Talkshoe show, I was mildly interested. When I heard that Karl Lentz called in - resulting in dueling doofuses - I listened.

Lentz called in at about 1:53:00. Since Karl is always first-and-foremost about Karl, he starts by relating how he allegedly helped Class beat a ticket for having a blue light on his car. Ooh, Clarence Darrow. But the fun starts at about 1:54:40. Karl offer Rod several ways in which he could have beaten the DC weapons charges, Rod insists that they tried all of them. First comes demanding to know who the "plaintiff" was. When they couldn't answer, they would of course have had to dismiss. Rod says they tried that. Karl says, well did you bring a habeas corpus? (Neither groyse chochem bothers to note that a habeas only lies for someone incarcerated, and Class was not.) Why, one sentence would have done it. And Class should have pointed out that, while he may have violated a statute, he did nothing "wrong". That would have ended things too, right there. After all, Class is a "who", the statute is a "what", and "who always trumps what". I thought I was listening to Dr. Seuss.

Lentz is a smug ("It's not my way, it's the rules of the game"), insufferable idiot. It's not easy to make me sympathize with Rod Class. But he has realized something, sort of: the bullshit, right or wrong, doesn't work.

[Jeffrey]

What a disturbing little nexus Stark's show is. Common ground to Lentz, Clifford, Class, and the late Jerry Kane.

[LightinDarkness]

Besides the cash hes making, Karl really seems to enjoy the sovcit conference circuit because he really likes feeling superior. Hes made YET ANOTHER appearance on the "My Private Audio" conference call, on Episode 318:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 904&cmd=tc

We are treated to 3 hours of stories of things like:
(1) A judge told Karl that he was the smartest man he'd ever met.
(2) Karl knew how to get the MMS trial guy out of jail, but he didn't take his advice so that is why he lost.
(3) Karl is able to send judges running out of the court room with just 5 sentence lawsuits.
(4) Karl regales us with tales of his clients who have "won" by being declared in contempt. But that wasn't Karl's fault, you see - his clients talked during court and that stops his magick from working. Because when you talk in court you become a legal person unless you specifically say you are a living man!

I wonder if he actually believes any of the stuff hes saying, or if he knows hes making it up but just enjoys the feeling of being considered a sovcit legal scholar?

[LightinDarkness]

I don't listen to those things - with the occasional exception. When I head that noted interviewer Angela Stark had Rod Class on her Talkshoe show, I was mildly interested. When I heard that Karl Lentz called in - resulting in dueling doofuses - I listened.

Lentz called in at about 1:53:00. Since Karl is always first-and-foremost about Karl, he starts by relating how he allegedly helped Class beat a ticket for having a blue light on his car. Ooh, Clarence Darrow. But the fun starts at about 1:54:40. Karl offer Rod several ways in which he could have beaten the DC weapons charges, Rod insists that they tried all of them. First comes demanding to know who the "plaintiff" was. When they couldn't answer, they would of course have had to dismiss. Rod says they tried that. Karl says, well did you bring a habeas corpus? (Neither groyse chochem bothers to note that a habeas only lies for someone incarcerated, and Class was not.) Why, one sentence would have done it. And Class should have pointed out that, while he may have violated a statute, he did nothing "wrong". That would have ended things too, right there. After all, Class is a "who", the statute is a "what", and "who always trumps what". I thought I was listening to Dr. Seuss.

Lentz is a smug ("It's not my way, it's the rules of the game"), insufferable idiot. It's not easy to make me sympathize with Rod Class. But he has realized something, sort of: the bullshit, right or wrong, doesn't work.

Karl does the same thing on the above link Episode 318 - except now hes arguing with sovcit guru Mark Fishman. Mark runs a "not a citizen" call which I have described as the gold standard for insanity in sovcit gibberish:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 643&cmd=tc

I think what slays me the most about Karl is how much he is into this "I am a MAN" and "I am HONORABLE" schtick when he is, of course, anything but. His entire approach is to play sovcit word games to get out of obligations, but the schtick is popular with macho sovcits that have daddy issues.

[Burnaby49]

Karl shares his wisdom at World Freeman Society.

http://worldfreemansociety.org/forum/th ... l?start=60

We're being poisoned by aluminum in jet fuel?

Another thing Karl and I spoke briefly about was Chemtrails. Karl has linked the Aluminum in Chemtrails to the lead used in gasoline as a lubricant before the 1970s. Karl believes Aluminum in jet fuel allows jet engines to last longer and reduces the cost of commercial air travel. He believes using fuel without a lubricant causes the engine to have a shortened lifespan and increasing the cost of air travel.

Who knew? Well apparently nobody since it isn't a jet fuel additive. However, like all good conspiracy theories, there is at least a connection to the real world. Aluminum is used in rocket fuel, a totally different thing but probably confused in some minds. Saner voices (at least on the WFS scale) commented that jet fuel doesn't need a lubricant since it is not in contact with friction creating engine parts.

An internal combustion engine would benefit from lubricant in fuel, because there are parts of the engine where metal comes in contact with metal. However jet engines have no metal on metal moving parts which are not lubricated with oil. There is no logical reason I am aware of for having any form of lubricant in jet fuel.

Apparently Karl owns the courts;

Karl agrees with any and all manner of fact or fantasy the Cop brought to a court of Fiction. NO IMPEACHMENT of the witness.

Before the Judge passed Sentence Karl instructed the Judge to bring the LAW into the court. The Court was convened by Karl to give Karl the opportunity to clear himself, it’s his court. Lawfully Karl can instruct the Judge to obey the Law.

When Karl had the Judge bring in the Law the court was transformed from Fiction to a court of LAW (Natural Common Law).

The LAW being that Karl caused no harm to man, beast, property, or contract. No thing was harmed. No harm, no conviction.

He can confound them with this cunningly contrived question;

If you want to know if the court is Legal (Fiction) or Lawful (Just); ask the Judge this question:

Can the verdict be appealed? (Yes = Fiction <---> No = Lawful)
If the answer from the Judge is “Yes”; you’re in a Legal Court of Legal Fiction
If the answer from the Judge is “No”, you’re in a Lawful Court of Common Law

The man is full of helpful hints how to win in court!

Karl says himself that he dupes them into saying he broke the law by pretending he's stupid. He lulls the prosecutor and judge into agreeing that he broke the law then springs his trap by showing them he is there because of he did was illegal, not unlawful.
In fact being legal is unlawful, or outside the law.

If they are on their game they would not admit that Karl had broke the law. He tricks them into entering into common law jurisdiction.

Ok i am a little fuzzy on this, but this is how i am seeing it at the moment

.

Fuzzy? Me too brother! Perhaps Dean Clifford should take notes. Following Karl might have saved him a year or so of remand.

But JackieG has the answer for the discussion's topic of the right to travel;

If you have no drivers licence and your car is unregistered,
You can set it up before you appear in court by serving an affidavit on the prosecutor
When there is no response you then show up in court and tell the judge the crown has agreed with you that the charges are not true and correct where to that end the defendant moves the court to dismiss all charges.
The crown is not going to dispute or argue unless they want to be brought up on contempt sanctions.
The prosecution does not want you handing that affidavit over to the judge to be put on the record.
So, the crown will agree to whatever you wish.

Apparently it worked for him;

I haven't had a drivers licence for 15 years.
I got rid of it in 2006 by serving notice on the people who issue drivers licences.

Although the math confounds me. If he got rid of his license in 2006 and hasn't had it for fifteen years wouldn't that make the current year 2021. I like to sleep in late but I would have noticed a six year nap.

However, nitpicking aside, JackieG should contact Rory Hawes and Gregor Jahn here in Vancouver, both of whom are facing possible criminal convictions for driving without a license. His advice might save the day for them. Well, except for the drunk driving charges I believe both are also facing.

[Jeffrey]

Lentz latest shows mention Karl and his co-host are involved directly with the defense of John Joseph Fall in an unclear federal jury trial over charges they don't mention.

From basic searches, possibly the same John was involved in a personal injury lawsuit:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... all_v_Kane

And the case he's involved with may be this one:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circu ... a1/15-1513

Alternatively it may be this John Fall:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/massachus ... -tax-fraud
http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20 ... /309199686

[LightinDarkness]

I really think for Karl, the most important part of being a sovcit guru is fighting with other gurus and acting like he knows more than all of them. On last weeks "My Private Audio," Karl again makes an appearance to argue with the guru of the week:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 904&cmd=tc

[LightinDarkness]

That call is really quality by the way, the other guru is MAD that Karl completely dominates the conversation for hours. He ends up calling him stupid and a tirade ensues around the 3 hours 10 minute mark. Karl manipulates the guy to make him madder and madder...its hilarious/sad.

[Jeffrey]

Don't be a tease, tell us who the Guru is.

[LightinDarkness]

Its a sovcit guru called Merrill Frantz - someone that I've heard before, but appears to be a relatively minor guru struggling for Karl Lentz level fame.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Its a sovcit guru called Merrill Frantz - someone that I've heard before, but appears to be a relatively minor guru struggling for Karl Lentz level fame.

Like the level where there are more than three listeners?

[Jeffrey]

Okay the latest show contained more information that allowed me to identify what the Jonathan Fall they're talking about is and it's this one:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/massachus ... -tax-fraud

So if Karl's client loses on this one, he's looking at up to 5 years in jail, could be the first big public failure of the Karl Lentz method.

Could one of you guys with PACER post the latest filings?

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... all_v_Kane

There's "Notice: Trepass on Case" which is a classic Lentz filing. A fake "ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Prosecution" which might make for good reading.

Edit: Ah now the picture is getting clearer. The Fall v. Kane case is a collateral attack filing that Jonathan filed against the prosecutor of the case John Kane. Looks like it failed and it was dismissed.

[wserra]

The case that Lentz babbles about is United States v. Fall, 13cr135 (DRI). He obviously claims in that video to have been in the courtroom, advising Fall. At one point (around 14:45), he says that the Marshalls wouldn't let him pass Fall notes anymore. Fall was doubtless better off for that, but it was too late.

The video also makes it obvious that Lentz doesn't give a shit about anyone except him. He talks about how "hilarious" - his word - it was to watch Fall say that he was not "John J. Fall", but rather "John Joseph Fall"; to watch Fall insist that he was not there to defend himself, but rather to pursue his "claim" against the prosecutor; and to insist that, if the judge would not let that happen, the judge was liable. I'm sure that Fall agrees that it's hilarious that he was convicted and sentenced to 30 months. Lentz can yuck it up on YouTube while Fall yucks it up in federal prison.

The case itself is nothing extraordinary. Evasion/obstruction. Fall is pro se. He files a whole bunch of gibberish, most right from the Lentz playbook. A claim ("Not a complaint! Not a complaint!") against the prosecutor. A claim ("Not a complaint! Not a complaint!") against the United States. Whining about being threatened by the judge for not following the rules. A whine about, well, everything imaginable. The judge threw him out of the courtroom for refusing to obey just the basic rules - something which, I am sure, endeared him even further to the jury. After the guilty verdict, he repeats the same shit, as though saying, "Now this will work!" Just yesterday he tells the Court that, since he never "received a proper response" to the previous bullshit, he wins. Well, he doesn't.

The other case to which Jeffrey refers (14cv453, DRI) is in fact an attempt to make a "claim" against the AUSA. As Jeffrey days, dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court describes Fall's papers as "a series of non-responsive, incoherent statements". Bye.

Lentz, of course, loses again. Still, I'm sure that, somewhere in deepest secrecy, he actually won.

[Jeffrey]

Ah but now we've got him bragging about one of his PAID clients with a pretty public case that could end in serious jail time. Hubris etc. This is great.

Them's some juicy OPCA documents, love the fingerprints as seals.

Edit: where is the part about 30 months. Does Karl know the guy lost?

[wserra]

It already did end in serious jail time, as I posted above. Thirty months.

[Jeffrey]

Which link contains the 30 months / guilty verdict? I need it for reasons.