I was just cautioned by one of my readers to research something before "proceeding" with this legal course.

I thought it was kind of interesting. Thing is, I've already gone down that particular hole of research. And the concept doesn't stand up.

Challenging "Jurisdiction"

The reader was telling me I should learn how to challenge "jurisdiction of the court" before I do anything else. The reader even linked to a fancy .pdf explaining.

I eat .pdf's for breakfast.

And when you do as much research as I do -- I can tell you pretty graphics, incomplete citations, and out-of-context quotes become plentiful -- but ultimately don't mean much.

Challenging "jurisdiction" is a concept usually purported by various groups who align themselves with "freedom movements" or worse "sovereign citizens."

Before I go any further, you have to understand, I don't necessarily believe that all "freedom movements" are bad -- OK? And there's some levels of truth to what you'll find in bits and pieces of research or resources provided by different groups.

But that's really where the simplicity ends and the holes begin.

Does it really stick?

For all of the people out there who are caught up in one of these movements or groups whom I've observed, researched, followed (and then unfollowed), or chatted with -- I haven't yet met one single person who's made these approaches to the legal system stick.

Not really.

Challenging jurisdiction, filing and recording various fancy-schmancy language filled affidavits with the courts and or the local recording offices, doesn't make the real problems go away.

It doesn't.

The person who says they were successful at getting out of court that one time, never comes back and shows anyone how they eliminated the "administrative" threats on the back end that are still most likely happening.

You know, things like:

  • more warrants for their arrest,
  • seizures of home and bank accounts,
  • threats of levies, etc.

I've never met anyone who can conclusively prove they were able to go through these things with the methods they purport and suddenly they can just live their lives in peace from all of that.

Unless, they don't want to work, use federal reserve notes, have a bank account, not get arrested or ticketed for "traveling" while driving a car, keep living in the country, not have a rental agreement or mortgage, not keep visitation with their kids if they're divorced, and not be able to provide for their families.

If you're still having "threats" from various agencies come against you, the courts, having warrants issued for your arrest, and filing a crap-ton of back and forth paperwork in order to stop them -- you didn't solve anything.

These methods didn't stick. They didn't make any of it go away.

That's the biggest "hole" I've found in all the arguments about challenging jurisdiction, etc.

No actual sticking power.

The legal course this attorney wrote cuts through all of that and teaches you how to force the court (in its current form and practice) to play by its own rules.


That way you're not endangering your livelihood, your family status or relationships, or your ability to have some sort of a happy future.

I know that common law is incredibly, incredibly simple. OK? I get it.

Right or wrong -- doesn't matter what side of the issue you're on, that's not how the courts "play" today.

You can learn how make the courts do the right thing -- today -- with today's structure and today's rules.

You just have to get the course and start learning.

Get the keys to justice: http://www.keystojustice.com