updated: October 22, 2020
1st hour and a half - Regarding Grand Jury Indictment then Karl
2 1/2 hours into the call
Karl's Uncommon Law Conference Call
Saturdays on Talkshoe | Call ID 127469
Commonlaw Copyright © 2010 - 2015 My Private Audio - All Natural Rights Reserved
MISC Links Karl Has Mentioned
Misc Transcripts from Audios and E-mails
Karl's New Common Law e-Group
To Subscribe :
To Post Message :
To Unsubscribe :
Your donations of any amount are very much appreciated. They help keep me going and make this web site and our calls possible. Thank you in advance, for your support and letting me know that you like our calls and web site.
Karl in the UK 2014 (Click on image to see the whole picture)
- Listen to Karls latest success of parents getting their offspring back
Episode 145, Oct 5th 2014
Other Calls pertaining to Karl's Common Law Teaching
To the judge: Is it not true that for any statement to be deemed admissible evidence, it has to be under oath or affirmation?
The judge will answer: yes.
To the Judge continue with:
Therefore, before we proceed, it is my wish to be sworn in through affirmation so there can be admissible evidence pressed upon the record in the event of and for appellate review if it is necessary. And it is my wish that the other side do the same.
Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647, "Statements of counsel are not facts before the Court," see FRCPA Rule 52(a) and United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. [emphasis mine]