How they trick you - Quick No-Contract Example

Dissecting a MUNICIPAL Court Document - Sharing Only - Not Legal Advice

---

From within our minds, we have a sort of naïve-arrogance. This is speaking from experience. We read the words in a legal-document and we think we know what they mean. Or… we are told to get a lawyer to read it for us and let us know if we are protected. These days, AI can dissect a legal document and provide feedback on possible “got you” areas. These are based on preloaded examples and language models that compare general phraseology and not true contracts. The programming and available sources limits the “intelligence”.

Fox in the Hen House

How about we get two foxes together and we ask them to guard the henhouse? While the foxes [“lawyers”] stand in front of the diminished man or woman [“diminished by being a plaintiff or defendant”] the foxes reassure said man or woman that they [“the lawyer”] will do a great job guarding the hen house. When you leave, the foxes conspire to steal everything you have. The raccoon, in the form of a judge, later shows up and winks at the foxes. He knows he will get his cut of the chickens as well. Why? Because you let them speak on your behalf.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

LEGAL. 1. Conforming to the law; according to law ; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts ; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice.

LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law ; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law.

The principal distinction between the terms "lawful and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.

John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition 1856 [“Law of the land”]

LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law. Id omne licitum est, quod non est legibus prohibitum, quamobrem, quod, lege permittente, fit, poenam non meretur. To be valid a contract must be lawful.

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

The Babble

Below is a quick Parse Syntax breakdown of the front-page of the court-document from Sasha Latypova’s Substack where the plaintiff is presumed by all of us to be a woman and for the defendants to be a combination of the presumed-people and entities. This was a very quick review and may not be perfect. It is illustrative only.

However; the reality is that ALL the names are in the form of a CAPITALIZATION STYLE. This means that all of those named are presumed by the court to be of fictitious-entities. It is also a MUNICIPAL-court.

How can you tell?

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR THE COURT NAME.

A man cannot sue a corporation as much as a corporation could sue a man. How is a corporation going to take the stand to testify to harm? It is fake!

Below are the rules again [“related to a previous article”] for grammar as a response to the court clerk and addressed to the judge and clerk. Default would be against the district attorney [“and clerk or prothonotary or judge as applicable - depending on trespass”] as they are responsible for the court documents, rules, and local procedures. The front page above is all babble when broken down based on the sentence structure and the word combinations. The document does not use proper prepositional phrases related to a subject in the form of another prepositional phrase or noun standing alone.

Ultimately, a default notice can be sent to the district attorney as part of the response if not receiving a reply in 21 days correcting ALL errors and perfecting the paperwork for a man or a woman. The fundamental issue is allowing to be diminished to a fictitious entity and not holding an actual man or woman accountable for harm. As such, in the example above, she has already lost. If not by judgement, dismissal, or other, but the allowance to be diminished to a chattel [“ALL CAPS NAME”] that is not capable or responsible to be accountable for themselves.

The presumption is that she must be represented by a lawyer; which by extension, presumes her to be incompetent and incapacitated. She becomes, in the eyes of the cabal, Goyim.

If the district attorney, judge, clerk, or court administrators perform the simple act of responding to this evaluation to try to correct any of the errors, that proves the lies.

The only way to hold people accountable in law is to actually press claim against the man or woman who does harm as a man or woman. Playing in a fictitious-entity-court as a fictitious-entity, and not a man or woman, allows the court players to make up any rules as they go. That is because it is based on arguments and complaints. It is not based on facts, evidence, and conclusions of law. So, all this effort to break down and argue all their statutes over the last 160 years since the civil war is fruitless. They are almost all color-of-law statutes. They deal with entities. They are open to interpretation. Look at J6. The jurisdiction is MUNICIPAL. The act of allowing yourself to be a US Citizen or citizen in their courts sets you up for immediate failure with limited or no recourse… if the puppet masters so chose.

Remember:

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p 93.

The Response - Example Only - Not Legal Advice

:For the following is for your information. This is simply sharing, not advice.

---

For this information is containing the example for the evidence-of-errors in the document that is for the return-service of no such-“PERSON” here... [“the best course of action for when this is received in the mail is to mark on the mail or on the document; “Return Service - No UCC Contract Trust, No Territorial or Municipal address” - then break down their babble - there is also a signature method, but that is a whole additional explanation most people in the so-called “sovereign movement” do not understand - it is about the evidence and agreements - people think it is pointless, but it has a purpose in developing and proving evidence of standing”].

---

Disclaimer:

[“i, give credit to many sources for the education. It takes discipline to take a step back, and read a document for what it is, and what it actually communicates. Much of the evaluation below comes from reading other sources, practicing, and applying the knowledge for actual cases where i, was impacted. There are a number of law websites/sources that cover this content in various forms. This is not knowledge from one, but instead, many sources. But, this example is ultimately applying in circumstances i, have had to address as one of mankind. So, for those that see the similarities of other sources, i, give those sources credit. i, seek no enrichment in this sharing. However; this is a compilation of much research. This is not simple because the matrix has been created over a long period of time.”]

---

Body of a possible Rebuttal

["forensic analysis for the claim-no-contract and use of fictitious conveyance-of-language per the18-USC-1001" and use of frauds-and-swindles per the usc-18-1342 and use of fictitious-names per the usc-18-1341]

["FOR SYNTAX AND PARSE KEY"]

[":POSITIONAL-LODIAL-FACT-PHRASE FOR THE CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-CLAIMS."]

["0 = CONJUNCTION = AND=COMMAND, DUTY, OR=OPTION, CHOICE"]

["1 = ADVERB=modification= no-contract=FICTION"]

["2 = VERB =action-thinking = IS=SINGULAR, ARE=PLURAL "WHEN THE FACT IS MODIFIED INTO THE VERB-FRAUD=CRIMINAL-VOLITION=CRIME"]

["3 = ADJECTIVE = MODIFIER=FRAUD-no-contract =:color of the fact."]

["4 = PRONOUN =pro=no, no=no, un=no, NO-FACT. FOR A FACT THAT STANDS ALONE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE NO-CONTRACT-FACT."]

["5 = POSITION =ABC-SPELLING, TERMS, MEANING, rules, vote, METHODS, POSITION-LODIAL-FACT=KNOWN"]

["6 = LODIAL = OWNERSHIP, LO=LOCATION, DI=ORIGINAL, AL=CONTRACT - CORRECTION = LODIAL = OWNERSHIP FROM THE BEGINNING, ORIGINAL-VENUE."]

["7 = NOUN= no-no, correction" "FACT" = KNOWN (WITH A LINE OVER THE "OW". =LODIAL"]

["8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE = FICTION-TIME"]

["9 = FUTURE-TIME-TENSE = FICTION-TIME"]

["8 & 9 SAME SENTENCE = NO LAW, NO FACT, IN COURT"]

["____ = NO = NEGATIVE PREPOSITION = NO CONTRACT WORD = NO FACT = NO CONTRACT = NO CONTRACT IN SYNTAX MEANING, PARSE APPLIES TO VERB ADVERB NO LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION"]

[""TO": FUTURE-TIME-TENSE =VOID-AUTHORITY-JURISDICTION OF THE NOW-TENSE-DAMAGE"]

[""FROM": FOR THE PAST-TIME-TENSE AGAINST THE AUTHORITY-JURISDICTION OF THE NOW-TIME-TENSE-DAMAGE."]

["No definitions given for contract language separate guide given"]

["BOXING-LINES-PARENTHESIS-ARBITRARY-SEPARATION - FICTITIOUS - UNDEFINED - VOID"]

["i, am writing in common English to explain why the “COMPLAINT - (JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)”- document is not a contract. For a contract to be clear there are basic rules of grammar. For the agreement validity it is necessary to eliminate controversy and provide remedy. There may be no more than one idea written in each sentence. Each sentence must be a complete sentence based on international grammar rules. For the paperwork makes for the court.

Example of fictitious conveyance of language: Look closely at the phrase “No Law Or Fact Shall Be Tried In Court”.

The word “No” is an adverb [“1”] that modifies the word that follows, being “law” to be a verb [“2”].

“Or” is a neutral word (an option) [“0”], so the word “Fact” is also a verb [“2”], since you can swap the order of the words, ”Fact or Law”, “Law or Fact”.

“Shall” becomes a pronoun, in the future tense [“4.9”].

“Be” connects to a pronoun in front of it [“1”], and modifies “Tried” to be a past-time verb [“2.8”], and

“In” is an adverb [“1”], making “Court” a verb [“2”].

According to the “New Webster Dictionary of The English Language” 1969, “A simple sentence is the expression of a single thought. It may also be defined as an independent clause.”

Every clause consists of a SUBJECT, (the thing being talked about) a VERB, (which makes a statement about the subject). And when the verb is not complete, an OBJECT or a PREDICATE NOUN or ADJECTIVE (with a linking verb).

The remaining words in the clause are MODIFIERS of one of those elements. It is possible, then, to account for the use of every word in any sentence.

PARSE = To analyze or describe grammatically; to show the several parts of speech composing (a sentence) and their relation to each other by government or agreement.

SYNTAX = Arrangement, disposition, from SYN = “with” and TAXIS = “order”, from TASSO, to put in order; the construction of sentences; the due arrangement of words or members of sentences in their mutual relations according to established usage.

Whether you are reading in America, Canada, or Turkey, the English language has the same rules. So that anyone who can read English will receive the same message that you are reading right now.

There are international standards for the Use of English, acknowledged all around the world. These rules enable commerce to run smoothly between companies, nations, businesses and individuals, worldwide. That’s how it’s possible to buy stuff from a retailer from England, Brazil, USA or any-where else around the world while using trade names in commerce. With one idea in each sentence. If there’s more than one idea or varying times/tenses between the past and future, or more than one verb, in each sentence, then those sentences have broken international rules of grammar. This rule breaking creates non-facts, color-of-the-fact, and incomplete sentences that create interpretation – “For that sentence is not of a fact.”

Every letter in the English alphabet is a noun. Have a look in a large dictionary. Look up the first entry of each letter of the alphabet. For instance, look up the letter A. g, A n. 1. The first letter of the English alphabet. Then look up the letter M. All are nouns.

A noun followed by another noun in a sentence, changes the first noun into an adjective describing the second noun word. It “colors” (colours) the word that follows.

Example:

BLUE SHIRT.

BLUE is a noun.

SHIRT is a noun.

BLUE SHIRT, the word BLUE describes the word SHIRT, meaning that “BLUE” is now an adjective. Adjectives are determined by asking “which one”, “what kind”, “how many”. Which leads to the question about “BLUE SHIRT”. Is it my “BLUE SHIRT”, or is it your “BLUE SHIRT”, or does it belong to someone else? Or is it a “BLUE SHIRT” sitting on a table? Is it truly BLUE, or PRUSSIAN, or ROBBINS-EGG? There may be many opinions on the color depending who you ask.

The words "My ", "Your ", "The ", give context to the SHIRT. They give the SHIRT a position, a location. Hence those words are called PRE-POSITIONS.

BUT

When you have two words together, and the first word modifies (or changes) the meaning of the second word, that first word is called an ADVERB. This is verified by asking “who”, “what”, “where”, “why”, “when”, or “how”. Since the first word is an ADVERB, then it cannot modify the second word to be a NOUN, it can only modify an adjective, or a VERB. Which means that BLUE SHIRT, BLUE = Adverb, making SHIRT a verb. This again is opinion or without fact. It is also an action.

So, you may ask: How could SHIRT be a verb? Standing alone the word SHIRT is not a verb. It is a noun. There is no such thing as the verb “SHIRT” as an object. However, “TO SHIRT” something is a slang meaning “to pull off” or “to pull over” (usually the act of pulling off a shirt); and it is in the future by using “to” - you are going “to” do something.

So, how do we make SHIRT a noun? In English, we use a prepositional phrase.

What is a prepositional phrase? A prepositional phrase is made up of a “preposition” plus an “article” plus a “noun”.

Then: What is an “article”?

An article is a particular object or substance. In terms of grammar, an article is defined as “One of a class of auxiliary words placed before a noun to modify it in some way.” Ex: “for the shirt”

“Where is this shirt?”

WHERE = adverb – an adverb is a modifier, and modification = change. So, the adverb “WHERE” changes “IS” to a verb. “THIS” lacks a preposition, and since we have “THIS” being an Article that lacks a preposition, “THIS” becomes a modifier (adverb) to change the word “SHIRT” into a verb.

When we say “For the shirt…”

For = preposition; The = Article; modifies the following word “SHIRT” to become a noun. The proper sentence would be “For the shirt is blue.”; as a note, however, if BLUE is not defined with full disclosure, it can still be an opinion.

Every time you make a presumption, you open the door to being tricked and trapped by your own volition. (“Volition” means you “volunteer”, you make that decision yourself.)

Have another look at the following sentence: “No Law or Fact Shall Be Tried In Court”, contains four verbs: Law, Fact, Tried, Court.

And this sentence is written as a negative. You can’t perform a negative condition-of-state. This is why anywhere “NO” is in a sentence it should be underlined to point out the negative state assumed to be performed. Performance is what moves things. Performance is the result of thinking, which means that “thinking” is the verb. DE and RE are prefixes that are negatives and create a negative state, and as mentioned previously, you cannot perform a negative condition-of-state. It is important to note all negative prefixes such as RE, DE, UN, NON, etc…

The provided document breaks all international grammar rules. Look closely and you’ll see that it lacks any nouns. For this document is full of negative-words. It uses “articles” as “adverbs”; and a noun followed by a noun changes the first noun into an adjective.

So, when you read this typical legal document written by law-makers or lawyers, you’ll see it “appears” to be mathematically engineered to say nothing. “For this document is of the babble” (sounds kind of weird when written correctly – but legal documents are even more weird; and people cannot make sense of them – because they are not real sentences!).

The document does not mean anything when broken down by proper grammar rules. It’s a bit like a “vegetarian meatball” or "sovereign citizen". They are oxymorons. It does not make sense. One thing does not go with the other thing. It is a modification into an opinion or contradiction.

In the case of the the vegetarian meatball, it is made with vegetables and looks like a beef meatball. In some instances, it may even “taste” like a meatball. But just because it looks like a meatball, smells like a meatball, and tastes like a meatball, doesn’t mean it is a meatball. Placing the word “vegetarian” in front of “meatball” in theory makes “vegetarian” an adjective and “meatball” a pronoun. The same condition is true for “sovereign citizen”. However, it is actually an adverb/verb phrase by grammar rules. By the way, the media loves to throw that phrase around. Notice they say “sovereign citizen movement”. We sub-consciously know that it is an adverb-verb combination when standing alone. If the phrase is placed with “the” in front it (the sovereign citizen movement) the use of the “the” makes it an adverb-adjective-adjective-pronoun combination. This combination “colors” the fact of sovereign. Notice by making that phrase an adjective-pronoun combination, it is coloring the word citizen. This modification is an opinion. An opinion is not admissible at court… unless you accept by volition [“consciously volunteering”]. Hence, “arguments” and “complaints”… they tell you what they are doing.

If you fully comprehend the rules of grammar and how to construct words and sentences, you’ll discover that just because every document provided by a lawyer looks like a contract, it doesn’t mean it is a contract.

The agreement or contract must have each sentence readable front-to-back and back-to-front. Each sentence must mean the same thing if read forward or backward. There can be NO new made-up words without international definition.

An example of a made-up word is the word "transferor" that lacks international definition. The word "Transferor" is used as a verb in legal contracts that changes a man doing an action (if used in a proper sentence) into the man being a verb. Ex: i, a man, who at times does transfer. This is a proper sentence. It has two prepositional phrases and an adverb-verb combination at the end.

However; an action (or verb) with the article "the " being an adverb, based on grammar rules, makes “the Transferor” an adverb-verb phrase. This subtle change makes everything in the document an action (verb) and then can be an argument. The lawyers can argue about what it means, and then initiates motions (verb) against those “actions” with no facts or "lodial" (location-original -contract)/ownership.

In any contract, boxing [“by way of parenthesis or line separations”] is either a reference, hidden meaning, rule, or procedure that prevents all of mankind from having the same understanding of the meaning. This makes boxing void in a contract. Looking at each instance, you see the use of boxing is for an incomplete sentence with no meaning; it is a reference, an attempt to clarify, or undefined separation that creates assumption as to the meaning. This act of boxing is performed with no reference to an international definition. This makes boxing void.

Each county has its own set of rules and procedures to submit legal documents. This is intentional. Court is perfected by the paperwork. Court is the paperwork. If the paperwork cannot be understood, then there is no contract and no court. But, you need to call out the errors. If you do not, it is presumed there is a contract by acquiescence.

Memorandum of Law for reference to boxing [“Ex: those silly cover pages with line separations for legal filing submissions”] as it relates to local rules and practices:

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24: “The assertion of federal rights [Bill of Rights], when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”;

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”;

Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, 1803: “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”;

Here is an example of an actual contract in practice: You walk into a shop. For the shop sells coffee. You order a single latte (espresso mixed with hot or steamed milk – international definition of latte) from the man behind the counter. Then the man makes the single latte. Then the man serves the single latte. You accept the single latte. You pay for the latte. Then the man accepts the correct payment [“the payment is a certain species of money or currency that is defined and accepted”]. You leave from the shop with your coffee. For this contract is completed.

• For a contract is a mutual benefit.

• An exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value.

• It is current and present-tense until the contract is complete.

• For a true-contract does not have adhesion-contract-language.

• For a true-contract does not have weird non-sentences requiring a legal-interpreter who you think you trust for full-disclosure.

Capitalization style is a fictitious name that presumes slavery with no rights. Look at the words "NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA". It is a fictitious entity in capital letters. It belongs to others of mankind. For this fact is obvious when understanding the context. This is also obvious as it is a made-up name.

A man can charter his fictitious entity corporation with another fictitious entity corporation owned by a man. However, converting a man or woman name into all capital letters, without their consent, presumes that man or woman is now an entity and has no rights, or is deceased.

For capitalization is the presumption of being enslaved to another. This is verified by the definition of capitus diminutio in Black's Law Dictionary and more specifically capitus diminutio maxima. This is obviously known as the body of the court document has the names in upper and lower case admitting capitus diminutio minima. But, the court documents boxing area [“upper left”] which creates a “defendant” has an entirely different styling!? Accident?

So, this is an unlawful conversion right in front of your eyes. Also, the capital letter names are to the left showing a diminishment. If the names were on the right [“right hand of God”], you are a sovereign or above the thing shown on the left. In this example, the “CIVIL ACTION” has authority over the left of the boxing. It is all symbols.

If this court document was sent via postal mail or any transmission for legal purposes with volition, this would be in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 1342 by unlawful conveyance. If you are a federal citizen, you are by volition agreeing to be held to the administrative legal codes, acts, rules, and statutes of the federal government. The U.S. Government has recently increased the penalty for mail fraud, 18 USC 1341, and for misuse-of-Fictitious-names, 18 USC 1342; the potential fine per occurrence has increased from $250,000 to $1,000,000, and the jail time possible has increased from a maximum of ten-years to a maximum of thirty-years.

These fines change semi-regularly and may have changed again more recently. When using the capitalization style of the fictitious name, no such “PERSON” truly exists, and this is fraudulently used in the document. It is also a good idea to provide the court and the lawyers a fee schedule which includes the fee for the unlawful use of trade-names if used without permission.

If fictitious-names are mailed in any form by the post office or if accepted unlawfully, this qualifies as misuse-of-Fictitious-names and mail-fraud; this US code is for U.S. and those under-the-jurisdiction of the territorial-or-municipal-government of the U.S.; Clarification of the definitions are in the USC 26 CFR (tax code). This 26 CFR code fully defines the terms of "citizen", " State ", “resident”, etc… as used by the federal government. All prior mailed documents from the District Attorney’s Office would be in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 1342 code and should not be accepted. This is one of the many reasons why it is important to change your status from US (U.S. citizen) so as to not be part of their private business, and subsequently, not bound to the federal rules, codes, acts, and statutes; unless you volunteer to accept them.

That way you are not mistaken to be a franchise, an unincorporated business, or incorporated business.

You own the trade name [“in this case”] “BRENDA HORSLEY” if you re-claim them and do the proper paperwork to have the evidence of standing. If you look at one of your credit cards, it is typically written in capital letters. This is a trade name you give permission to use for commercial transactions. It becomes property. Property is the highest right a man has (Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd edition). The trade name allows the crossover into the jurisdiction of commerce without giving up your rights as a man. Without your agreement to use the trade name, no commerce can occur because commerce is between two entities. Hence, the trade name is an entity that you give permission to use for commerce.

From the international grammar rules are the necessary rules for the understanding of the document. Without the rules of grammar, the document is open for interpretation and argument.

Summary

We need to understand their games and stop letting the foxes guard the hen house.

Brenda Horsley might be better served to file a claim and create court [“see the definition of claim in Black’s Law Dictionary and Bouvier’s”] against the actual trespassers of mankind who caused her harm. Possibly, she could visit https://thesovereignsway.com/ and start to get the basics on trespass and how to give notice, document evidence of trespass, and file a claim. There is a difference between mankind and entities. There is a difference between injury and harm. There is a difference between equity and trespass.