Search

Courts do not get “jurisdiction over the person” because they say so; they get it, in every serious legal system, through specific legal gateways such as service, presence, consent, and statutory reach and they lose it if those gateways are not properly used BUT ONLY IF those objections are raised at the right time and in the right form.

In this webinar, we unveiled our four-level membership tier and did a brief walk-through of what each level unlocks inside the Fellowship.

A transnational, law review-style essay explaining how the Core Constitutional Standing Record, the HoMF's two foundational affidavits on identity and sincerely held beliefs, function as an orthodox, non-fringe procedural tool to build due process and religious-freedom claims across six common-law countries without pretending to be a magic remedy.

A persistent internet claim holds that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) “governs everything,” that one can “become a secured party,” file a UCC-1 financing statement, or tender some private instrument to “discharge” public debts and fines. That claim fails as a matter of first principles.

In this Webinar, we introduce new Core document templates members are using to establish their due process constitutionally protected rights including freedom of religion. These templates have been created and tailored for use in the U.S.A., the U.K., Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.   

This article explains why, despite the constitutional mantra of “We the People,” individuals are functionally treated as subjects of the legal system rather than owners of it, and how that presumption is locked in through jurisdictional and procedural defaults. It then shows why a litigant must assert legal status and due process rights at the very onset of any matter be it civil, criminal, or administrative, using established doctrine and case law rather than fringe theories.

This Bi-Monthly Webinar is a replay of a live, practical walk-through of how to hold your ground in courtrooms, during police encounters, and when agencies come calling. 

This article was written by both Robert Michael and A.I. to explain how equity actually works in our courts as non-exclusive. 

We're going to be pushing out some updates to the website over the next few weeks. Contact support if you experience any issues.

This article explains how a license and/or privilege does not waive constitutionally protected, substantive, unalienable natural rights merely by accepting them. 

In this replay, Robert Michael puts the “legal person vs. natural rights” debate to bed. He draws a clean line between natural/unalienable rights (pre-political, human-based limits on what others, including the State, may do to you) and legal rights tied to legal personhood (positive-law capacities and benefits created by constitutions, statutes, regulations, contracts, and case law).

This memorandum of law explains the differences between a Natural Person and a Legal Person. Members will find, Natural Persons have legal personhood/personality but are NOT Legal Persons.

This members-only webinar tackles a stubborn myth...that accepting a license or a government benefit means you’ve waived your constitutional rights.

As one of the primary founders of the House of Markus Fellowship, I have made a shift in my philosophy regarding the system and with that, the substance of the HoMF is also changing. 

In this Article, I explain why my AI account is so accurate and effective with court paperwork, research, legal citations; the differences between my AI and others, and how members can create an account that does the same. 

In this replay we’re stripping the varnish off “straw man” and other fringe theories, what’s myth, what (if anything) is true, and why these ideas collapse the moment they meet a courtroom.

In this webinar, we discuss safeguarding biometrics and carbon footprint data for ourselves and our children.

In this webinar, we discuss personal and subject matter jurisdiction and what courts look for to establish it.

In this webinar, we update members on two other members family law cases explaining the entire progression of Gary's case since April 23.