Published Jan. 20, 2026, 9 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike - Mike Bambas will be talking about the citizen's rights and process of holding to the law. We will be taking the Trading with the Enemy Act, as well as, other lawful practices not followed by our government including a lawful path to convict political criminals of concrete violations of acts leading to treason X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNlnXgVPGw Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1199899308995674 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v74l2x4-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1202026-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike.html https://rumble.com/v74l2z2-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1202026-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2026-01-20-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike:9 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Mike Bambas
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's the twentieth day of January twenty twenty six and welcome to our show today. John Tater at nine and Pro Se Mike at ten. We're going to be talking about lawful processes and morning, John. How are you doing? I'm doing well. How about yourself? My behind is dragging today. I had to tell you, I didn't get up. I didn't get my coffee this morning, you know, quick enough, but I went to the barn about, I got to the barn early this morning and decided to get things moving a little bit. We have a staff turnover. And so it, it, uh, it's, uh, we're still trying to get back into the groove of things again. So I got there and started shoveling manure and feeding horses quite early and ran back here to be on the show. But so it's time for coffee. That's what time it is. So we had a really good discussion before we got online just for a few minutes because we had a few minutes. about school and about learning things. But I wanted to start out this morning showing everybody this because I found this this morning and I think this is just cool. Check this out. So NASA has technology to put fires fires out using like a low frequency sound wave. Check this out. These NASA engineers found a way to put out fires using sound waves. So it seems fires aren't a fan of a filthy baseline as the method used here to literally shake the fire apart the sound waves officially called infrasound pressure waves knock oxygen molecules out of the way before the fire has a chance to use them for combustion they can extinguish fires from up to ten feet away and even prevent fires from starting in the first place they do require a special kind of speaker at the high pressure required to affect fire. So don't try just blasting some drum and bass if you start a fire at home. They're now developing ways of deploying the sound waves through ducts in buildings to prevent apartment fires, for example, or even attaching them on drones or to trees to prevent wildfires. Putting out fires like this can save resources, reduce damage, and the cleanup as no water or chemicals are needed. Tap like if you're a fan of this solution and follow along for more. Isn't that cool? Yeah, when will they start implementing this? I don't know, but I thought it was really cool. And there's so much that we can do with the wave technologies, no matter the radio frequencies and such. It's really fascinating to me just because I like the frequencies that they can produce. put through the earth to affect changes and that's how they communicate with their submarines too and it's very interesting, the extra low frequency stuff. So anyhow, I thought that was cool. We got also talking about school. I hated school. I absolutely hated it. And I know you were a teacher. I wish you would have been one of my teachers because I was bored out of my mind. And I had a couple of good teachers. My sixth grade teacher was wonderful. But by and large, there was a disconnect between real life applications and what we were learning. So I remember sitting there going. How is this ever applicable to anything? And I did pretty well in school, actually. But when I really started learning was when I homeschooled my kids. And then everything started to click and make sense. When you really want to learn a subject, go teach it and you'll learn it. Well, that's true. That's true. You really have to sharpen your skills in order to stay ahead of the students because the students – come up with questions you better have answers for, or at least be able to say, hey, I'll have you the answer tomorrow. But be sharp enough that you could stay ahead of the students. Otherwise, they lose respect for you. And then then the game is over, so to speak. Did you read some really good teachers, I assume? I had a few good that I still remember their names. I still remember the subject matter. I had a speech teacher, Manello, his name was. He was excellent. I learned a lot from public speaking. This was in middle school where most people wouldn't, maybe it was high school, I don't remember, where people would be afraid to get up in front of a crowd. I enjoyed that actually, getting in front of the crowd and coming up with a speech to, and then later on in college, I took it in college again with, costello was the was the instructor he was another really good instructor for public speaking and i learned a lot from him so yeah there were some classes and i had a math class with mrs bell and i i swear she was way over the hill but boy she really knew how to do algebra and teach it very well and i learned a lot on on the math schedule So there were some teachers that were really outstanding. I had a couple English teachers that were pretty good. But in the course of, what, twelve years? And that's twenty four because they were divided in half. Twenty four different instructors for any one subject matter may have ran across one or two in that twenty four teachers that were that were probably worth anything. The rest of them, the problem wasn't that I didn't think they knew the subject matter. The problem was their delivery. You could have a, I have a college professor teaching American history and he'd prop one, he'd stand on one foot and the other foot would be sitting on the table. I don't know how he got it up there, but we may have to do that today. And he would sit there for an hour talking about history. And he and I don't know if he ever had notes in front of him. He was good. Some of these teachers were outstanding. They knew their subject matter and they knew how to deliver it. And it stuck with me. You know, this is a subject that I really enjoy. I enjoy going to these classes. And then I had other instructors that weren't worth a nickel. They were they were just terrible. But it was their delivery, I think, more than they had the knowledge. They just didn't know how to partake or deliver that knowledge to the public. And that's the biggest problem that we have in the public school system. Right now, you know, I was talking about yesterday, how you can see the trend of people thinking that the more they know about the current events, they they think that that's a security, but it's not just knowing things doesn't mean that it's a security at all. It just means that you're an informed victim at that point in time. You have to take things and be able to put it into practical applications. And I think that that's, that's the thing that I was saw missing is that, you know, I, I'm pretty good at creating my own. I'm internally driven. I'm not externally driven. Thank God. But, but the one thing that I see is if you can't inspire people to have a belief in in doing something or you get to that spark in them of the talents that God's given them, as a teacher, you've lost them because there's no connection. So years ago, when I was homeschooling my kids, there was a teacher of the DeVos kids that I became acquainted with. Nice gal. And they said they were homeschooling, but they actually had a professional teacher that was teaching them at home, which was kind of interesting. And And she was having a hard time with the kids and didn't know what to do. And I said, well, what are they interested in? And build the curriculum around it. So I gave her some ideas. I said, well, first of all, trash the books for a little while. And so they stopped being bored with everything. And then let's just say you go out and start making food or something. Go out and pick some strawberries, teach them fractions, teach them... how to double recipes with it, have them look into how to market this so that they're an active participant in the process, not just acquiring information, but putting it to practical use. And I think that that's where we lose a lot of students is that they, like you taught building and trades, fantastic. Kids and people have to have their hands on things to experience it. The majority of people, I mean, some people can read a book and they've got it all built in their heads, but the majority of people have to have their hands on things to experience them, to really understand the subject matter, like building and the traits. Well, yeah, I agree with you. And some people handle learning by doing better than learning by thinking or learning by reading. And sometimes you need visualization Sometimes you need voice or whatever to speak, and sometimes you need just to get out there and do it. So there's different ways of learning. The problem that I think we have in the high school system, number one, I think we were headed in the wrong direction for a long time by the woke agenda. A republic cannot survive with an ignorant society. The society has to be intelligent and has to be able to think, critical think. And I remember when I was in high school, we had staff meetings and we were talking how to get kids to critically think. Why would we have to teach that? Because kids should be able to critically think. But we were... Delta or talked about subject matters that we're talking about in the school that we would supposedly as teachers have to do when we got in the classroom that really should have been second nature the the delivery of the instructor was the critical part uh how to how to get that information across and I gotta say I stumbled and walked and fell down a few times in my days too because it's it's a learning process and i didn't learn it in high i didn't learn it in college how to con how to teach a class because that wasn't part of the curriculum when i got into the military on the other hand and i started teaching to soldiers out in the field uh i remember the one guy says you you have one week to come in and learn your subject matter because we had subject matters that we may never had seen before and so we had to teach this subject matter to the students and we'd have a week to do it we'd learn and study and practice for a week and then we instruct it for a week but in the interim in between the two weeks The middle part, we'd have to pitch that to the staff. And the staff would then say, you know, this is good. That's no good. This is how you're supposed to look. This is how you're supposed to dress. This is what you're supposed to say or how you're supposed to say it. Or you're, excuse me, the language here, damn boring. And if you were bad by the middle week, they'd send you home. We don't need you here. You can't do your job. We'll put somebody else in your place. So that part was important. that we learned how to pitch. And that's what the instructors would teach me when I walked in the door the very first time. They say, you pitch, you pitch, you pitch. Once you get your subject matter down, which takes a couple of days, then you pitch it to the mirror, whatever, three, four, five, six, ten times. We didn't have recorders back then. That would have probably really aided us to see how we were speaking. uh and how we were pitching but that was that was the that was the real essence of being an instructor being a teacher getting out there and pitching the course and some of those in uh army instructors were outstanding and then there were a few that that just barely made made the bar uh but what made them outstanding pardon What made them? What was it that made them outstanding? The ability to pitch it, the ability to actually live that part, act like it was part of their life and this is the information I have to partake to you because this is why. Of course, they brought reality into it. I taught a lot of different subjects. Map reading was one of my favorites. I loved map reading and how to find my way in any condition in the middle of a forest. If you had a map and a compass, you knew where you were. And so I had to teach that to the other soldiers. And later on, I taught writing skills. And I was not a really good writer at the very beginning, but I sharpened my skills real well, I'll tell you. And I was pretty good at it. And then I became an... an instructor to teach it, and I became a tutor, actually, because some of these majors and captains of majors, those that were trying to get to colonel and stuff, couldn't write. They just couldn't write. You know, you went through high school, you did all of that, and it wasn't that they're... grammar was necessarily bad or their spelling was necessarily bad or punctuation. It was that they just couldn't form the thoughts on paper. They just couldn't say what should have been said on the paper situation. And so it was part of reality. Here's what you have to do in order to. But they were motivated because those people that wanted to move up in rank had to do it. They had to pass that. critical or what was it called? Critical writing or something. I don't remember. It was a long time ago what the skill was. But even back in high school and back when I was teaching home construction, that again was a situation where I would get generally the kids that couldn't read, that couldn't write, couldn't sit still in a class. They were just not You know, if you wanted to call them ADD or ADHD or whatever you wanted to title them, you could for a lot of the kids that they were that way. But they weren't that they couldn't sit in class. It's that they didn't have the desire to sit in class and do it, but got them out on the job site, gave them a blueprint and gave them a calculator and they could do math and they could read. And they could decipher what the Florence said and make it into a house because they had to do that process. That was part of the way life was all. That was what life was all about. That's what we miss in school systems. We have teachers that get up there. Well, I know my English and I can teach and I'm on a let's diagram a sentence and they write it on the board and you start learning the parts of the sentence. Where does this apply to what I'm trying to do here? There's a misapplication, and that's where I think a lot of the students get waylaid or go off on a different tangent. And we have kids, as kids, had other things on our mind. Teaching wasn't one of them, or learning wasn't one of them. Cars, girls as a boy, or boys as a girl, you know, that kind of stuff. That's what was important. So you have to bring the education to that area. And a lot of teachers just didn't have it in them to do it. Just couldn't do it. Now, we were talking about writing lawsuits and writing cases. And basically, that's all about what you just said with the writing part of it. How did you get those soldiers over their writer's block to formulate the content or the thought that they needed to put down on paper when they were writing? It was depending upon the individual students. Some of the students I could just mark it as in red pen or whatever, which I was told when you were teaching middle school, you don't do that with middle school students. You don't wreck their psyche by marking them in red. But no, you had to do that. How else would they know? I remember getting things marked up in red. Yeah, I know. When I was in grade school, you know? That was what I was being taught in college. You don't do that because then you wreck their psyche or you got out, you know, this is when, before we had social promotions, but that they wanted to socially promote these kids because they didn't want to wreck their psyche as, you know, back, I don't know, this was in sixty-something or other, sixty... Well, no, seventies and the early seventies. And so the process was we were heading in a different process. And I don't know. I believe it was part of the deep state nonsense that they wanted the kids to be less intelligent, less. You know, everything you did is okay. Everybody gets a first place trophy. Everybody is taught that they're a winner. No, we have winners and losers. That's what makes competition important. that you get out there and you do your best and if you win you win if you don't well try next time that's a really good point it's like if we don't know how to do something then that's exactly what we should study or learn not the things that are easy for us but we really grow when we jump off uh we jump off into the unknown a little bit and learn something and we're going to fail a few times but that's where we strive and we learn we grow you know whether it's athletic ability or mental ability or writing or, or being a good soldier, whatever it is, you know, we should always strive to improve ourselves. True. I think I know I started my kids out on algebra in first grade as, and they, it's an easy, it actually is easier to teach when somebody is in first grade than somebody who's in high school. Because what I did is you, you, you, I used to like a balance or a, I used like a, a scale and I had them balance out the equation with pawns and dice. And it was really kind of interesting. So it became a game for them to balance out equations and that sort of thing. So once we got into actual algebra, it was very easy because they understood the legal moves. So I thought it was kind of interesting. Anyhow, kind of kind of fun. So school can be really fun if we want to make it if we want to make it that way. And there's a lot of good teachers out there. I think the system in general is rigged against good teachers, though. And, you know, so it's it's hard. It's hard to say. But the whole thing probably should be. looked into being redone. So anyhow, let's go ahead and look at those cases. We were going to talk about, we got off on the rabbit trail there, which that's half the fun of being on, being on, never knowing quite where it's going to go. Last week, we talked about sure versus roads, but we were kind of at the end of the program. So we didn't cover some of the more important points of it, or actually we did cover the most important point of it. But there are other important points and I told you it'll go to the three star. Acting either outside the scope of his respective office or if within the scope, acted in a arbitrary manner, grossly abusing the lawful powers of office. So you get a judge like Judge Nugent from Ohio that lies on the record, lies on the record. He doesn't only lie, he lies and puts it in writing. And he thinks that because he's in this office as a judge and he wears a black robe, he can get away with this. He can abuse the power of his office. And this says, no, you can't do that. You can't do that at all. You want to know what these yahoos in Byron Township have done now? You know, not only did they flush three billion gallons of water out of our water table, neighbors are now getting notices that says that we are going to be charged a fee because of our proximity to the Knight's Drain to fix the Knight's Drain, which they wrecked while they were doing this sewer improvement. So now they wrecked it, they did damage, and it was an unlawful process, quite honestly. No bid contracts, pumped the groundwater out, ruined twenty-five wells, and now they had the audacity to tell the residents in that area that they are going to pay for the improvements to the Knight's Drain. It is so much crap. This is such a land grab. It's unbelievable. What is the public of Byron doing? Well, other than me, pretty much nothing, just sitting there complaining and bitching about things. And, you know, I hate to say it, but I've tried to get people involved in this a little bit. And there's a good handful of them. Lev is on listening this morning. She's one of the good guys that will step up and take responsibility. So there's a handful of people that will stand up and do things. But by and large, they're just steamrolling it. And quite honestly, the other people in the area don't, seem to care because it doesn't affect them directly. And I've had people say that if this affected me in my land, boy, would I be fighting? It's like, yeah, no, at this point in time, I don't believe that they would be because they aren't, they aren't smart enough to see that the threat is real to the entire area. Well, it's coming your way. What's that? It's coming your way. It is. You heard the story about, um, the Germans, um, The Nazis grabbed the Jews and the person said, well, I'm not Jewish and therefore it doesn't affect me. And then went after the people that were complaining. Well, I'm not complaining and therefore it doesn't affect me. And then finally they come after you, but you have nobody there to help. because you didn't help them. Same kind of nonsense going on with your water grab. It's going to happen to you eventually. What are you waiting? Are you waiting for it to happen before it starts? Or are you going to do something prior to that happening? Yeah, I just got to say, love's first name is Lynn. And I just got to say, I just love you to pieces. And I'm glad that you have stepped up and as well as a handful of other people that are smart enough to see what's coming and that this is just patently wrong. Everything they've done is wrong. You know, when you look at the budget or the, not the budget, the expenses, we need to have an audit here because they were buying things that the contractors were, the township was reimbursing, people for hotel rooms and and flowers from a florist and all this sort of thing and i'm like man do we need an audit here this is in a deep deep audit on what they have spent because they were so far over budget with their no bid contractor that came in it's just it's just unbelievable eagle issue permits on false information and so the whole thing is just a total disaster but there you go so back to Sher versus Rhodes. They act outside of the scope of their office and they did it in commerce because they were making, it's not just toward, it's also on just enrichment. That's right. Here in this particular case, if you scroll down just a little bit, to the next red underlining. It says, and we're talking about a complaint being filed in a court and the judge in that court is supposed to look at it in a specific way, not just either gloss over it or pass it by or whatever. It says the defendants were being sued in their official and representative capacity and that the actions were therefore in effect against the state of Ohio. In my particular case, the state is not being brought into this case because they're being sued individually. So this doesn't apply to that. But then it goes on to say the primary question presented is whether the district court acting prematurely and hence in errorously in dismissing the complaint on the stated grounds, thus precluding any opportunity for the plaintiff by subsequent proof to establish a claim. In other words, in my particular case, the judge says, oh, they have absolute immunity, so we don't care what your claim is. We don't care what you've complained about. We don't care about what the complaint specifically says. We're not looking at that because they have absolute immunity, which is crap. And the judge knows it, but he's using that and is expecting me to go away. So you go down a little further and it says, indeed, it may appear on the face of the proceedings that the recovery is very remote and unlikely, but that is not the test to decide whether my claim is good or proper. My claim, my allegations, as it says in the last sentence there, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorable to the petitioner, to the pleader, to me. In other words, if I made the claim, then the court should say, well, he made the claim, and now you as the defendant need to defend yourself. But my defendants, the defendants in my particular case, the judges, we're talking about Yonker, Cole, and Nugent, those three judges uh are not being looked at as that they could have possibly committed the the offense i said they committed and then the uh allegations are dismissed based on some form of dismissal and in this particular case they say they have absolute immunity So that whole thing, Judge Berg, who is in charge of my case, is not following Scher versus Rhodes. And if you go down a little further, it talks about, however, since Ex Parte Young, and we talked about Ex Parte Young, however, Ex Parte Young has been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he has been depriving another of a federal right under the color of state law. And we're talking about state, but federal law also applies here. teaches that when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner, volatile of the federal constitution, he And then this is exactly the wording out of Ex parte Young, comes into conflict with the superior authority of the Constitution. And he is in that case stripped of his official and representative character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. And it goes under the state or the federal government has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. Now, if they're talking about state officials here or state public functionaries not having. the authority to immune somebody from their responsibility. And this is the federal constitution. It also applies to the federal government, to the federal U.S. District Court judges who think they are immune. We have absolute immunity. They have no immunity. Oh, they say it all the time. It's like we have immunity. We can do whatever we want. Well, if nobody acts against them, they kind of like buffalo their way through to that one. But they don't. That's right. And I guess if we scroll down several times, you'll see another three stars. We'll look at that one just briefly. Keep going right there, right there. That one policy consideration seems to prevail. that prevailed the analysis, but public interest requires decisions and actions to enforce laws for the protection of the public, not the judges. Protection of the public. That's what they're there for. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what they're to protect comes out of the Declaration of Independence, not public officials or public functionaries. Public officials, whether governors, mayors, or police, legislature, or judges, who fail to make decisions when they are needed or do not act to implement decisions when they are made, do not fully and faithfully perform the duties of their office. This is like really critical right here. If you're not performing your duty and you're not making the correct decisions, like Berg saying that they have absolute immunity, which he knows they don't because I've given him tons of court cases that say they do not. And he is not performing his duty faithfully. or is not implementing decisions when he's told to do so, is not faithfully performing his duty of his office. So he's stepped outside of his jurisdiction, basically, and he can be held liable. Well, it's good that this is something that everybody really needs to learn, that just because they're in public office, they don't get to just do whatever they want. There's a job description. There's a job, the rails that they have to stay on, and none of them are doing it. It's like right now, I'm just kind of ready for a clean sweep of government because it's so far from what we should be looking at right now. And the real sad thing is that nobody knows how far the country has fallen into communism. I mean, they like to point out the boogeyman of China, but our country is doing the exact same thing. Yeah, and, you know, we can call it communism, socialism, capitalism, and all the isms out there. But what it really boils down to is a dictatorship. We are forming a form of government that is a oligarchy, a dictatorship to try to enslave the public. And we are being, you know, there's a lot of people that are enslaved. There's a lot of people out there that can't think for themselves, that have to get the government assistance, that have to be told when to get up and go to work or have to be told when to get up. Or they are told who to vote for. On the told who to vote for. Yeah. Why? We have a lot of problems with the people that call themselves delegates because they're told who to vote for or they vote for somebody. Oh, because he's cute. Oh, because he can speak well. Oh, because he's this. Oh, because he's that. Not because of what he stands, what he really is all about. And we have delegates that that's the big problem. The delegates are ignorant and the delegates follow along and they put these people in position to run for office. And then we have a selection of two morons running against each other. Well, it's really, it functions like a cult. The political parties function like a cult where not occult, but a cult. When, when you look at it, they, they, they function the same way that say like the Mason's, function. They'll let people in and then they kind of vet them, but they won't let them get past a certain point unless they know that they will be a party person, that they can be controlled and that they will vote for the ones that the party who is getting money, dark money and big funding from people like, all you got to do is look at the oligarchs in Michigan. There's a very defined group of people who are basically buying and paying for elections in the Republican party. And you can see it just by looking at the donations that are made. So anybody underneath them, they're there because even the people that say that they're grassroots, I don't think a lot of these people actually are. I think they like to wear the label, but they're just going along to get along, not, you know... So much of this stuff is just, okay, I got the label, I got the title. Now everybody believe in what I have to say. No, that's not critical thinking. That is just being a sheep and being programmed. And we have a lot of that. Oh my gosh. Now the last paragraph we already read last week, but I'll do it again. John, you should have gotten in as governor. That would have been great. Yeah, well, I had the deck stacked against me, highly stacked against me. Go down to kind of like the second page from the end there. So it's close to the end of the, I don't know. On the margin, you'll see the word great on the left margin. It's scrolling down quite a bit, several pages. Left margin, right? Yeah, left margin. No, that's not it. Yeah, there we go. There you go. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the most critical part of this case, because it basically says that you can't be dismissed by a motion to dismiss just because, like Judge Berg does, Judge Berg dismissed my case, because, because they have immunity. And we've already said that they don't have immunity. But This says further proceedings either by way of summary judgment. And do you understand what summary judgment means? Summary judgment means that there are no issues of material fact and dispute. That both parties agree that the facts are correct. So summary judgment. You can either dismiss it by summary judgment or by trial on the merits are required. So either both parties agree or you have a trial on the merits. Those are the two requirements necessary in order to dismiss a complaint. The complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than is possible on a motion to dismiss a complaint. like Judge Berg and a dozen other judges, Judge Parker and Judge Nugent and Yonker and all of those criminal judges in the federal district court were dismissing my complaints based on a motion to dismiss on form. Berg dismissed my last complaint because I was a day late filing it. even though it took him eighty six days to answer my complaint with a motion because I was one day late. He dismissed my claim. That's on for had nothing to do with the merits of the claim of the of the case. We did not have a trial and we didn't. And there were material issues of fact and dispute. So summary judgment couldn't have been used. So he just dismissed it saying, oh, they have absolute immunity. And you didn't file it in a timely manner. You took twenty nine days to file it instead of twenty eight days. But I could take this whole the whole injustice system is just crap. It's all legal maneuvering. It has not and revenue raising. It has nothing to do with justice at all. Zero. That's correct. It's just it's really a shame. What a shame. And, you know, I think that all of it needs to be abolished. That's not following the Constitution and the precedent set there. I mean, or the rules set there. It's just it's just a shame. And they're destroying people's lives. I mean, people that are part of the bar, they should be ashamed of themselves. They should absolutely be ashamed of themselves, including the judges. But someday they're going to have to look God in the face. And I don't think it's going to be a good day because they literally have the power to destroy people's lives. It's a shame. True. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen in this real world that we live in. As quickly as we'd like it to happen. But I think it's going to happen eventually. You know, what really needs to happen is people need to go sit in a courtroom and watch the faces and the souls of people coming in there. Look at the duress and the pain that these people. The last time I was in there, there was a mom and her son in there. And the absolute, just this mother's, the anguish this mother had on her face over what happened. And her son was acquitted from whatever it was. But the anguish that goes on in a courtroom is just soul crushing. Unbelievable. sure because the the fear of showing up in a courtroom is what brings people to that to their knees it's not the fact that there's actually anything that can really go wrong in a courtroom or bad in a courtroom that is uh one hundred percent uh permanent and it's gonna continue on court is just I don't know how to put it. It's just like a hearing. You hear and then if they rule against you, you can continue to fight. You can continue to go on to battle throughout. This battle that I've been fighting has been going on since two thousand twelve. But you've got to be willing to stick with it and not give up because the courts know, especially the district court levels, know that if you lose in district court, you're just going to Go run away with your tail between your legs and that's the end of it. So they rule against you ninety nine point nine percent of the time because they're going to collect their fee. And then whatever happens to you after that is your business. But most people quit after that. They don't go on to fight the battle any further. They don't know the law. They don't care to learn the Constitution. They don't care to learn the court cases that are necessary. They don't really understand what the republic is all about and what the purpose of the courtroom is all about. And I've seen an attorney run the judge. When I was in there the last time, they did a summary disposition with prejudice. And I turned around and I said, I'm assuming this is without prejudice. And she said, yeah, we'll do it without prejudice. The other attorney stood up and started yelling at the judge. Hold on a minute. This has to be with prejudice. And he starts getting really, really obnoxious. and she literally backed down and said oh oh yeah uh okay we'll just do it without with with prejudice you can file another case blah blah blah but it was literally watching that attorney run christina mims in that courtroom by bullying her i was really shocked and so you know you go in and you see that sort of thing you really you really see what's going on there and it is it is just a clown show the whole thing the whole thing So if you were the defendant in that case and they ruled against you and they did prejudice, what would you do? Well, at this point in time, I got an attorney to help me with it because I was way out of my league in this and being able to argue in a courtroom when I didn't have any practice with it. And so I decided to hire an attorney to help with this one because I know I can't argue it. And it would take me some time to argue it and stick with the case because she let him present a case, never asked him any questions about it. And then when I presented the exact same case, she's like, well, where'd you get it? What court is this in? Blah, blah, blah. And she starts grilling me. And I'm like, Uh, and I just said it. And then she just, she accepted everything he said, but anything I said, I was just like, fine, I'm done. You know, we, we've got to find a different way to do it because she, there were, there was definitely a prejudice toward him. the attorney and a slap down the pro se litigant. I mean, that's exactly what happened there. And there was, there was no, there was no two ways about it is that they, instead of helping by law, the pro se litigant, it was a smack down of the pro se litigant. And I was like, fine, we're going to have to do something different here. It's not that I'm going to run away, but it's going to be the plan had to change. And I think I think that's what they count on. I think they count on intimidation and doing things. doing bully tactics against the pro se litigants because we don't have the years and the multitudes of attorneys to go through. We're sitting up there by ourselves. That doesn't mean that you stop. It means get in there, fall on your face a few times, get up and figure it out and go on and just get better. I think that's what it's all about is that you're going to make mistakes. But that doesn't mean you stop. That means you get a better plan and you learn. You know what I would do? What's that? I would say, okay, you dismissed it with prejudice and I'd go back home and I'd write a new lawsuit. Well, she said I could do that. And I'd put the judge on the lawsuit and I'd put the attorney on the lawsuit as defendants and I'd sue the two of them. Because now you have time to go home. Now you have time to go home and you think about what they did and you find out, is it lawful or non-lawful? And then you write a lawsuit against the two of them. They never looked at the evidence or did I have a chance to present the evidence of the case? So that's unlawful right there. Yeah, it's perfect that you would. But now you have a time to go home. You're not under the gun. You're not being pressured by the system itself. You're not being frightened or in fear of the system itself. You have a chance to sit down and say, now, what did this judge do wrong? And then file a lawsuit against the judge. And that's exactly what I did. I filed a lawsuit against Nugent, against Yonker and Cole. And pretty soon Berg is going to be joining that lawsuit and the clerk is going to be joining that lawsuit. if this doesn't fix this with this last reconsideration. And I'm not going to go to the district court. I'm taking it to the Supreme Court now on a different issue. Same defendants, but just filing it in a different argument, different way of fighting it. So what you do is... I can see why people would walk away from it. And I'm not saying that's the right thing to say, because it is one of those things that, you know, I'm not a person who runs away from a fight. I'll walk away and go, okay, I got my butt handed to me in this round, but I'll be back. And the next time I'll be more prepared than I was the last time. And I think that that's how it is with everything in life. You've got to be resilient. If you really believe in something, you're not going to walk away with your tail between your legs. You're going to walk away. As you're walking away, you're going to be sharpening your weapon so that the next time you come back, and I don't mean grab your torches and pitchforks. I mean, you're going to be sharpening your knowledge and your approach to it and you'll get it figured out. The only way we lose is when we quit. That's right. That's right. And of course, the district court is expecting you to do that. And they put on a theatrical performance to make it look like You are, you know, the lower spectrum of life and that they have the power over you. That's why attorneys are called esquires, because esquires are a step above the rest of us, supposedly. They're not. Well, then did I tell you what the township people did? Scott Toburgan on the township walked past somebody and said, we should probably sue Brandenburg for a frivolous lawsuit. Frivolous might ever live in behind. They drained three billion gallons of water out of the area, ruined twenty five wells. And now they're going to charge us. What are you going to frivolous lawsuit? Give it your best shot, because I'll bring so stinking many lawyers to this that the pummeling will be unbelievable. You know, it's not going to end. They're not going to do that because they know they're not going to win. They're not going to win. So they're not going to do that. It was just a threat. Well, that's just it. This is the problem is that the people in Byron Township, the board and the people there are literally threatening the residents. They have been threatening and coercing and everything. And, you know, the people that aren't interacting or directly involved with it, they're like, well, it's not really affecting me. It's going to these people in office are threatening the people in Byron Township. And it's like, I know they're doing it all over the state and the country. The mold is there. The pattern's there. It's a shame. So you have to argue, you have to regroup, and you have to do battle again in a different direction. I tell you, the courts have less power over you as a pro se litigant than they have over attorneys. They can't tell you what to do or how to do it or when to do it, but they can tell attorneys when and how. And I don't want to go down that road because I've seen that happen in court where I had an attorney years and years ago, and the attorney was going to bring up fraud because we had a fraud case against the banking system and against the courts. And the judge looked at the attorney and says, you don't want to go there, counselor. And the attorney sat down. He wasn't going to go there. Well, I tell you what, if this keeps up, I think I'm going to go for disbarment of those that are involved in this because they absolutely have done the wrong thing. And I think it needs to go in front of somebody to look at what they've done because there is no justice here. And in the mistakes that they made, even in the courtroom, I mean, if people if the judges and the attorneys are doing the wrong thing, we're going to have to start really making sure that they're following the law. And that goes with disbarment. You know, I think I think that that's Dana Nesson should be disbarred. Jocelyn Benson should be disbarred. They should be sued for millions of dollars. What's that? They should be sued for millions of dollars. They absolutely should. Let them keep their bar license. They might need it to pay your millions of dollars. All right. We're running out of time, and we only did one case today. It's an important case. There we go. It is an important case. It's not going to bode well to us getting this thing done. Let's take a look at Marbury versus Madison real quick, and then we can come back and revisit it next week. Okay. We are way behind our eight ball here. and this one's on page twenty actually this one has pages i shouldn't put pages on all of them but i didn't so if you got marbury versus madison go to page twenty okay let's see if i can get down that quick oh i think you passed it did you i don't know no there's twenty okay there's twenty um this is important to understand because when you get in front of a judge and the judge rules against you and that's why i'm sure burke won't let me in his off won't let me in the courtroom uh it is emphatic The providence and duty of the judicial department is to say what the law is. So you get in front of a judge, and the judge starts spewing something from their mind. OK, judge, chapter and verse of the law. Tell me what it is. Tell me where to find it in the law books. That's what you need to do. That's your job. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. In other words, they can't just tell you what it is. They've got to tell you what it says and what it means. If two laws conflict with each other, the court must decide on the operation of each. So if the law be opposed to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformity to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformity to the Constitution, disregarding the law. The court must determine which of these conflicts rules govern the case. And this is, of course, very essential of the judicial duty. In other words, the judge can't just say, well, the speed limit is such and such because I say it's so. No, you must show me in the law where it says that, and then you must be able to tell me where the conflict is between that and the Constitution. That and the right to travel, for example. That's a weak example, but that's basically what I'm trying to say is that the judge has to tell you what the law is in regards to. So in your particular case on the water rights, tell me what the law is that allows this government this body or this eagle, whoever they are, to siphon the water off. Show me the law where it says that, that they have the authority to do that. It was Byron Township and their contractors that did it. And they did it complicit with Eagle because Eagle issued a permit based on VK Civil's information. It's not the law. It's like the whole thing is just criminal. That's right. It's not the law. Yeah, it's not the law. It's an agreement between the township and the and the contractors. It's an agreement. It's not a law. Where's the law that allows that siphoning off of that water? Where's the law that allows that? Where have you as a council came up with that law? And you can't just six votes of the council versus seven votes of the council. To do that does not make it a law. The law, in order for a law of such nature to happen where it affects the public, they have to bring it to the public realm, to the consciousness of the public. Oh, they won't listen to us. You go talk to them, and they literally will turn their backs on you. I understand. It's crazy. This is what the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court says. This is the law of the land, not what they're doing in Byron. This is the law of the land. And that's how it has to be portrayed and pointed out. But you can't just make up stuff as it goes along. You have to follow procedure. That's why you're in that office. That's why you've been elected to that office, is you follow a procedure. that brings a new law or rule or regulation to Byron. You can't just make it up the six of you or seven of you. They just take the money and fund it. I mean, it's a microchasm of what's going on in the United States. They just do whatever they want. And they don't listen to anybody. And they damage people's properties. They don't care because they're betting that nobody's going to fight them. They don't care. I understand. It's horrible, but You know, I'm agreeing with you. I really I'm totally agreeing with you, you know, but they don't they don't pay attention to the law. They don't care about the law. They just roll through and expect nobody's going to say anything or do anything. I mean, look at Minnesota with the money that they that they've siphoned out of the people there. for these daycares and such. They know what they're doing. And there's people behind the daycares that enabled this. It wasn't just the Somali daycares up there. You know, there's all the people behind it that enable it. They know what was going on. I understand, but that can be changed and that can be fixed. But the problem is we have to know the laws and the rules and the regulations of how these public functionaries are supposed to behave. And most of us don't understand that. they the council says this and then they now they threaten you with filing a lawsuit against you please bring it on please bring it on uh when when do you want to file this because i'm going to write an answer to you i'm ready for you yeah i'm not i'm not scared of it it's just like it's just annoying they're just annoying because they're not following the law Because they have the time and the energy and the money to annoy you. And you don't because you have to work for a living. And then you have to turn around and pay a freaking lying attorney to defend you. And that doesn't work out either very well. Yeah, we'll see. I think that we got a problem here. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Good morning, everybody. What a wonderful day it is. I don't know what you guys are going to think about today. Really, it's a wonderful day in the neighborhood. We got the U.S. Supreme Court about to make a ruling on tariffs. I don't know if you guys thought about this or not. And this is a discussion we've had already this morning, is that let's say the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Trump, that he has no authority to issue tariffs. Do you realize what trickle-down effect that has? If the president of the United States, the top dog of the executive branch, can't do a revenue raising through tariffs in political negotiations, that means right down to your local municipality, they can do absolutely nothing regarding revenue raising. No tickets can ever be issued again. The courts cannot charge you a fee for filing your court case. It all stops immediately. So I wonder which way the Supreme Court is going to rule. So it's a good day to be alive. Things are happening. We know how they're going to rule. They're not going to rule against Trump in this case. Right. Whether it has a trickle down effect or not. Tariffs have been used in the past, so history and tradition allows it, and it has been lawfully used in the past by other presidents. I just don't think they realize the trickle-down effect, the immediate trickle-down effect that has. if they were to go the other way. So, I mean, they would actually help us because it would stop their administrative BS of milking us with taxes, i.e. fees and tickets and whatnot. I mean, that's all taxation. It's all taxation. So all of that would have to cease and desist immediately because the executive branch now cannot do anything revenue raise. The judicial branch can't do revenue raise. So all of them stop. That's what happens when you take their money away from them. They lose their power. Yeah. It's all about the money. By the way, if you're out there listening, you definitely want to take notes because I got something that's going to impact everybody, not just in the state of Michigan, but throughout the entire country. Awesome. So, John, tell everybody how to find you. You're going to be at Nicholas tomorrow night, aren't you? We'll be at Nicholas on this Wednesday. Yes, we will. That'll be in Southfield on Telegraph, north of Ten Mile, and we'll be there between five and nine. So show up and get to know us and see if This is something that you want to restore the Republic or do you want to live in this democracy or attempted democracy? Let's put it that way because we're not there yet. They're trying, but we're not there yet. So this is an opportunity for you to get involved and make a difference in your life because that's what it's all about. It's your life that you're trying to improve. Now we got to learn. So it's a great place to go and learn, everybody. So I'm going to take a real quick break right now. I'm still trying to caffeine up this morning and be back in exactly fifty seven seconds. And we'll we'll start this thing all over again with Mike. Pro say Mike. So thanks for being here, John. You're welcome. Thanks. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day. See you next Tuesday. See you, John. Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and I'm here with Mike. So you got lots to talk about today, Mike. Oh, a bunch of stuff to talk about. And before I get dive into what I'm going to do, and I sent you a copy of this in Telegram, private message in Telegram, so you can pull it up and put it on the screen. Those who want to follow along in the read, they can watch and go along with it. Okay, I'm going to take me a minute because I've got to find it. So some of the things that have now come out recently is I am now in possession of a document that demonizes we the people, labeling us as sovereign citizens per the FBI report that I've talked about before. where when you challenge their authority, whether it be your public functionary, the courts, police, when you challenge their authority, you are considered an extremist and a terrorist. The document, and this really goes towards solidifying what I have been saying about the Bar Association being a domestic terrorist organization. The document was printed and put out there by the Michigan Supreme Court. The administrative office of the Michigan Supreme Court published and has put this out there to demonize we the people. So this really goes a long way to show that the Bar Association who controls the courts who controls the municipalities is an extreme threat to our way of life. And they need to be shut down, okay? They need to be eradicated. So over the last couple of weeks, I've gotten quite a few phone calls from people who, oh, I got a ticket and I got this going on and I got court and what do I do? Okay, you know what? I decided to sit down and put together a court brief that if you get a ticket, I don't care what the ticket is, I don't care what state you get this ticket in, what you're gonna do is you're going to fill this brief out and you're gonna submit it to the prosecutor and the court within three days. of after once you get the ticket within three days, you fill this out and you send it to the prosecutor and you send it to the court. And what it is, is, um, now some of the things we've tried in the past is the, you have a right to send me to our rescission on a contract and all this kind of stuff. There's some other things. And basically the prosecutor, the courts just totally ignore it. So I decided that, you know what, we need to get their attention on this. We need to push them to respond. Well, that's why what I put together is a motion for dismissal. So the ticket that you receive, you're gonna file this motion for dismissal. So basically it's a pretty easy format. All you're going to do is, fill out whatever pertains to you. So this one's set up for the state of Michigan, but if you're in a different state, Texas, Florida, Iowa, it doesn't matter. You just change the information to your state. So here, start with the cover page. State of Michigan is the plaintiff. You put your all caps name in there as the defendant slash estate. Make sure you put the prosecutor's information on the left-hand side and your information on the right-hand side. And I use John James Family of Doe as my example here, a, seventeen seventy-six Liberty Lane somewhere, Michigan Republics. So you're going to put all your information on the right. Now, the reason for that is because the courts attempt to make us the debtors in all these cases. So we don't want to be the debtor. We want to be the creditor. That's what we're supposed to be under the nineteen thirty three Bankruptcy Act. So you put the prosecutor on the left, that's the debtors column, and you put your information on the right hand side, that is the creditors column. So we move down, we have motion for dismissal. Now comes I, a man or woman, depending on the case. John James, and you put in parentheses with quotes, John-J to abbreviate it. A private American, Michiganian, state citizen and national, as beneficiary and agent for the estate known as, the all caps name, John James Doe. in parentheses, the estate, do hereby file this motion for dismissal before this district court. Now, this brief goes along the line of shutting down them financially and otherwise. And a large part of this brief right now is currently before the federal courts in Detroit. And the opposition has until next Monday to respond to this. So you're going to get a preview of what is coming. Part one plaintiff's complaint fails to comply. with MCR, two point one one six C eight. I am and John James, private American, Michigan State citizen, national beneficiary for the estate known as the all caps, John James Doe, the estate request that this case be dismissed upon the following facts. I, John Jay, am not the stated defendant in this case as stated in plaintiff's initial complaint where the defendant is the all caps name, John James Doe, the estate. Plaintiff is attempting to bring this complaint against the estate of which I, John Jay, is the beneficiary, and thus the complaint now lacks standing to do so. The estate did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff. There was never any breach of any duty of care, nor has plaintiff suffered any injuries as a result of any breach of duty because the existence of any duty never existed at any time. And the plaintiff did fail to prove the existence of the duty or that it ever existed in the first place. The name of I, John Jay, does not appear anywhere within the plaintiff's complaint as a defendant in this matter. Therefore plaintiff did fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to MCR, two point one one six C eight. For I, John Jay, am not a defendant in this matter. And the plaintiff did fail to produce an affidavit that states a harm or deprivation of rights caused by the estate. What this does is it separates you from the estate and it shows that they have the obligation, they're required to make sure that they're identifying the correct party in their case. By doing this and showing that you are a living man or woman and not the estate, they are filing against the wrong entity. If they're trying to come after you, they have to show and recognize you as a man or a woman. And when they do that, they lose their jurisdiction. The court doesn't have jurisdiction over us living. Part two, false and misleading statements. Plaintiff did make numerous statements regarding the all caps name, John James Doe, that is clearly false, misleading and unfounded in fact, that has now placed the estate in false light. The plaintiff did fail to state by way of affidavit the existence of any element of a crime committed by the estate. Therefore, the plaintiff's complaint lacks any factual contentions that would have evidentiary support even after discovery. Therefore, making the plaintiff's complaint frivolous and the plaintiff and their attorneys of record is subject to sanctions by this court and this case is to be dismissed with prejudice. So it's all about the facts. They have the burden. They're the plaintiff. They have the burden of proof here. And they have to be very specific and show where the elements of a crime exist, where the elements, someone who was physically injured, was their property damaged, or was someone's rights deprived. If one of those, if none of those exist, there is no crime. You can't have a victimless crime. There is no crime. Part three. additional false and misleading statements. Now we're getting into the good stuff. It has come to the attention of I, John Jay, that the man, David J. Reeder, David J. Reeder used to be a judge in Livingston County, and then he went to prosecutor, who sometimes acts as prosecuting attorney for the Livingston County Courts, in the Highlander way, Howell in the Republic, is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law according to the United States Supreme Court, whereas a corporation cannot practice law, a corporation cannot interpret a contract, a corporation cannot make legal decisions, a corporation cannot deny a claim based on legal reasoning, a corporation cannot give legal conclusions. And a corporation cannot hire an attorney to practice law on its behalf. That is the ruling in People v. California Protective Corporation before the California Appellate, Furthermore, when a corporation denies coverage, it is making a legal interpretation of the contract and is acting as if it is a lawyer. But a corporation is an artificial entity with no mind, no personal knowledge, and no natural rights. So when a corporation issues a denial of coverage, the denial is a legal act which the corporation has no authority to perform, which means that the denial is void from the very beginning, for it has no legal force. The state of Michigan, as the plaintiff in this matter, by its own admission, is a corporation identified by its tax identification number. The EIN number is three eight dash six zero zero zero one three four. The prosecutor cannot defend a void act in court. Nor can the prosecutor revive a void act. And no judge can breathe life into a void act. For the United States Supreme Court has stated that even the highest court cannot give legal effect to something that is void. For there is nothing lawful for any attorney to represent because the attorney cannot testify for lack of personal knowledge. The attorney cannot speak for the corporation because the corporation committed an unlawful act, and the attorney cannot defend a void decision because a void act cannot stand. The plaintiff's complaint is void on its face, and this case should be dismissed with prejudice by this court. In any attempt by plaintiff to the contrary is the unauthorized practice of law supported by false and misleading statements by the plaintiff. So you see the county is a corporation. The court is a corporation. They're all corporations. So this is the unauthorized practice of law by these corporations and these attorneys. Now we're getting to something I really enjoy. Part four, unlicensed attorneys. I, John Jay, state that this court should take additional judicial notice regarding the following rulings of the United States Supreme Court as it pertains to the facts in this matter. I, John Jay, state that the United States Constitution is the law of the land and no other man-made code, statute, rule, ordinance, guideline, or executive order given or created by any branch of government has the authority to change, alter, modify, appeal, or amend the Constitution of these United States of America. For in the language of Justice Cooley in Downs v. Bidwell, The constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances. It may be amended according to its own permission, but while it stands, it is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times under all circumstances. Its principles cannot, therefore, be set aside in order to meet the supposed necessities of great crisis. Now, no doctrine involving more pernicious consequences ever invented by the wit of man than any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Emphasis added. Excuse me. I, John Jay, state that the prosecuting attorney does not have a license to practice law issued by any department or agency of the executive branch of the state of Michigan. In the Republic, specifically, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. I, John Jay, state that the prosecuting attorney is a member of an integrated bar association known as the State Bar of Michigan. a public body corporate operating on the soil of the state of Michigan in the Republic, which is responsible for regulating attorneys, providing resources, networking opportunities, and enforcing ethical standards upon its members within the state. Except it doesn't enforce ethical standards. Right. That would be nice if it did, but it's nothing more than a country club group of useful idiots that want to tear down the republic by their fake pretended laws and legislation. Yes. I digress, but go ahead. That's okay. I, John Jay, state that for any bar attorney to state and claim that they are a licensed attorney of the state of Michigan in the Republic, that attorney is knowingly making a false and misleading statement, for the practice of law is a common right that cannot be turned into a privilege for the state to charge a fee thereof. Sholesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. I, John Jay, state that according to the Michigan Constitution of nineteen sixty three, Article six judicial branch, that the language contained therein never grants any delegated authority to the Michigan Supreme Court to be able to create a public body corporate, issue licenses, create taxes or other forms of revenue streams, or to create any other forms of quasi branches of government. for such acts by the Michigan Supreme Court is a usurpation of authority, a violation of the separation of power between the three branches, and is repugnant to both the Michigan Constitution and the Constitution of these United States of America in the republics. I, John Jay, state that the Michigan Supreme Court did lack the delegated authority in in to create a public body corporate known as the Michigan Bar Association pursuant to the Michigan Constitution of nineteen oh eight and still continues today pursuant to the Michigan Constitution of sixty three. I, John Jay, state that the Michigan legislator delegated legislative authority to the Michigan Supreme Court that allows for the proclamation of rules with the force of law. And in addition, the legislative branch also delegated executive branch authority to the Michigan Supreme Court in order to create a public body corporate, i.e., the Michigan Bar Association. all of which is not only repugnant to the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, these acts violate the separation of powers, Article III, Section II, and is in violation of the United States Supreme Court ruling in ALA, Shoyster Poultry Court, V.U.S., that, quote, Congress is not permitted to abrogate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. I, John Jay, state that the Michigan Bar Association did self delegate itself the authority to declare that the bar card is a license. And if this is true, then the bar has set a precedent that now allows all companies to self-license pursuant to the Tenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause in Article I, Section II of the Michigan Constitution. I, John Jay, state that the bar's self-delegation to self-license is in controversy with the United States Supreme Court, for the practice of law is an occupation of common right, Sims v. Earns, and the practice of law cannot be licensed by any state, Schuwer v. Board of Examiners . I, John Jay, state that all members, attorneys of the bar, is a public functionary and is required to act de jure at all times. I, John Jay, state that the creation of the bar by the Michigan Supreme Court is an act of usurpation, making all bar members usurpers acting outside the rule of law pursuant to Norton v. Shelby County, an office of government is not contained in the united states constitution and or state constitution and or local charter that de facto office is a usurpation of authority by the public functionary that attempted to create it such office never existed to begin with and the public functionaries or agents of that office are usurpers with no delegated authority whatsoever at best that office is only advisory and has no force of law on the people Public functionaries who are usurpers are acting outside the rule of law and do not exist. I, John Jay, did state above that the U.S. Constitution has life and power, and as such, the Michigan Supreme Court cannot create an office de facto, for said act is unconstitutional pursuant to Norm v. Shelby County, An unconstitutional act confers no rights and imposes no duties and affords no protections to any public functionaries who have acted as usurpers and violated the United States Constitution and or their state constitution and or local charter and can be removed from office having committed such acts. In addition, there is no immunity. for any public functionary who does not act as jury is such public functionary by acts of commission or admission can be held liable for money damages and removed from office because of their violation to his or her oath of office. Hold on a second. I got lost here. I clicked in the wrong place. Oh, there we go. Got it. Okay. Yep. I John Jay state that the creation of the bar as an office de facto raises further controversy. For according to the Michigan Constitution, Article VI, Section XIX, which states, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court, the Probate Court, and other courts designated as such by the legislator shall be courts of record, and each shall have a common seal. Justices and judges of courts of record must be persons who are licensed to practice law in this state. I, John Jay, state that the mandated requirement for all justices and justices to have a license to practice law when no such license exists is in itself a false and misleading statement, thus creating an impropriety that grants the automatic disqualification of every justice and judge in the state of Michigan, pursuant to U.S. Code, in conjunction with the rulings of the Seventh Circuit in the case of Taylor v. O'Grady, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in . I love that case. I've disqualified thirteen judges using that case. I, John Jay, question the intent of the Michigan Supreme Court to create the BAR, which is an office de facto, and allow the BAR to self-license and then declare self-immunity for committing said act, which in itself is a quasi branch of government being able to detach itself from any liability for its actions, and contrary to the oath of office to the Supreme Authority of the United States. I, John Jay, state that if this is the intent of the Michigan Supreme Court, then the justices should take judicial notice of ex parte young, which states, The attempt of a state officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of and does not affect the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity and is an illegal act. And the officer is stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. I, John Jay, state that this court should take additional judicial notice to the United States v. Trump, where federal judge Eileen M. Cannon did rule that the Office of Special Prosecutor, held by Jack Smith, is an office de facto, having no authority to prosecute pursuant to Norm V. Shelby County of eighteen eighty six, and therefore the case is dismissed. That was so huge. I think all of us that were following that and realizing the power of Norton versus Shelby County was brought forward there. And I remember that when this ruling came out, I mean, all of us were doing the happy dance, I think. Yes, yes. Now part five, conspiracy to deprive unalienable rights. I, John Jay, do hereby state that for the allegation of conspiracy to deprive unalienable rights to have any validity, the burden of proof is upon I, John Jay. I, John Jay, do hereby state that in addition to exculpatory evidence to conspire that whether intent also exists along with the established pattern of behavior that continues beyond the accused being given notice that said behavior is to cease and desist, for said act is a usurpation of authority and a violation of oath to the Constitution of these United States of America. I, John Jay, do hereby state that this court, along with the court clerks, bailiffs, officer involved, and the officer's department is involved in the act to conspire to deprive the unalienable rights of I, John Jay, based upon the following that is in accordance with the USCS rules of civil procedure, as well as rule seventeen and rule twenty of the United States Supreme Court. The Constitution of the United States has the overreaching requirements that every state must follow. States cannot enact their own alternative legislation submitted for the guarantee of the Constitution. Substituted. Oh, I'm sorry. Substituted for the, I was scrolling. Substituted for the guarantee of the Constitution of the United States. That would mean that the state laws are more powerful than the Constitution, and that is unlawful. Clause one of amendment five states, quote, no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment or indictment by a grand jury. However, the state of Michigan has enacted its own alternative legislation that permits prosecuting attorneys and police officers to charge by way of information as opposed to indictment. That is unconstitutional. Before I continue, did you know that under the nineteen oh eight Constitution, the Office of Prosecutor County Prosecutor did not exist? That office did not exist until nineteen sixty three Constitution. Well, the nineteen sixty three Constitution needs to be questioned because it was only installed by one tenth of one percent of the voters. And so when we look even at the nineteen sixty three Constitution, it is absolutely null and void on its face because of how they did that. And people, people, I don't know if everybody's got their arms around how far our state and our nation has fallen from the Republic. And into the I'm going to call it the democracy because it's dumb. You know, when people say, you know, the democratic process, that's mob rule. They're not even educated enough to know that. So a lot of questions have to be asked. And I tell you what, we're going to have to go to nullification of so much. It's not what are we it's not what are we going to get rid of? It's what are we going to keep? Well, you got to go back to basics. Exactly. Exactly. That's the only way to do it. Let's go back to basics. I agree. The emolument violation. I'm sorry? An emolument violation. Yeah, is when you pay a public official to break the law. The Constitution has two areas that enforce this. First, Article I, Section X says, quote, no state shall create any law that shall impair the obligation of contracts. Police officers, prosecutors, judges are all under a contract, which is a contract to perform based on the oath or affirmation they took to support and defend the Constitution. Contract parameters are defined within the Constitution of the United States, and when a state enacts an inferior law that directs their agents to disobey the Constitution of the United States, that is a violation of Article I, Section X. Next, the Fourteenth Amendment is the other place that you'll find the reinforcement of this issue, and that is where it states that, quote, no state shall create or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States citizens. The privilege and immunities of the United States citizens are at a minimum those enumerated within the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments Unfortunately, the state of Michigan has enacted a law in its inferior constitution that permits public officials, judges, law enforcement officers, paid by we the people, to violate the Constitution of the United States. As a result, there is an inordinate amount of people currently imprisoned in the state of Michigan illegally and unconstitutionally. I, John J, hereby state that it is true that a portion of this county's budget contributes to the operation of the very courts participating in the unlawful acts without due process of law, without a trial by jury, and without preponderance of the evidence. When government officials, including judges, attorneys, the clerk of court, law enforcement, and other county-funded agencies, knowingly or negligently deprive men and women of their rights that are secured and protected by the Constitution, that is a federal crime under Eighteen U.S.C. . And when two or more agents operate under the color of law to deprive children and families of their rights, that becomes a criminal conspiracy under Eighteen U.S.C. . When state actors deprive men and women of rights in exchange for federal financial gain, such conduct constitutes an unlawful enrollment under Article I, Section X, and this is also a pattern of right-based exploitation, which in many cases includes kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and sometimes murder, otherwise known as RICO. Under Title XVIII, USC, Section IV, misprism of felony. Whoever is made aware of a federal crime and fails to report it to the proper authorities is committing a separate felony. Ignoring this is not an option because the law requires action. And as elected officials, you are sworn, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. This court and the County Commission allocate funds that enables this court and the state actors to operate. Continuing to fund these unconstitutional practices after receiving notice places the court and the commission at risk of being implicated in the ongoing violations. I, John Jay, demand that you immediately cease and desist using any court-level funding that supports or enables these actions until compliance with the Constitution is restored. The prosecutor, judge, clerk of court, and bailiff is all part of the same administration, and as such, for the prosecutor, judge, or any other officer or employee to move forward with litigation against I. John Jay, whether it be directly or indirectly, that act is the practice of law prohibited pursuant to Twenty-Eight U.S.C. Section Six-O-Seven, which states, An officer or employee of the administration office shall not engage directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States. I, John Jay, do hereby state that at no time did the prosecutor present an affidavit of injured party as required pursuant to twenty eight U.S. Code Section seventeen forty six, which states. Whenever under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidence established or approved by the sworn, declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit in writing of the person making the same. other than a deposition or an oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a special official other than a notary. Such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, and established or approved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement in writing of such person which is subscribed by him as true under penalty of perjury, dated, and subsequently the following form. So when you get charged with a victimless crime, where's the affidavit? There is none. The prosecution has an obligation to provide you an affidavit from the injured party. State of Michigan can't be the injured party. What rights were deprived? What damage was done? How were they harmed? Can't be. Who is the injured party? There has to be an affidavit. There is none. Very important. Because you have a right to cross-examine your accuser. The cop is just a witness. Unless he's claiming to be the injured party. Which he can't. Which he can't. I, John Jay, do hereby state that the prosecutor and all other state actors associated with this account number, and that would be your case number. An account number is a case number. When they open up and they assign your case number, that is actually an account number. It has bonds attached to it. It's financial. Is engaged in revenue raising and is therefore in violation of the Michigan Constitution for only the legislative branch retains the delegated authority to revenue raise, not the executive branch or the judicial branch. I, John Jay, do hereby state that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, Section II, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministries and councils, and in those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Let me repeat that. In which the state shall be a party. When you get a ticket, when you're dragged into court on that speeding ticket, who's the plaintiff? The state of Michigan. You're in the wrong court. The US Supreme Court is supposed to be hearing this case, not some state district court, not a circuit court, no state court. The state of Michigan is the plaintiff. That has to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the wrong jurisdiction. Those guys are going to be pretty busy, aren't they? Yes, they are. Or they're going to shut it down. Oh. Oh, there's a thought, isn't it? Maybe this should just be shut down. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such expectations and under the regulations as the Congress shall make. I, John Jay, do hereby state that the prosecution's own admission stated on the court record that the state of Michigan is the plaintiff in this matter. And as such, the U.S. Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction in this matter, not the inferior county court. For as long as the U.S. Constitution has life and power, no law, code, statute, rule, guideline has the authority to change, modify, negate, or amend the content or enforceability of its existence. I, John Jay, do hereby state on and for the record that I, John Jay, do not waive any political rights or constitutional protections as a non-citizen national in any event and bases that position on the following case law, which herein brought as a mandatory judicial notice to this court and all official governmental officials and or foreign agents involved in any way in this particular case or controversy to wit. A statute is not a law. Fornoy, I don't know if I'm saying that right, the First National Bank of Shriverport, in nineteen forty-one. A code is not a law. In Ryself v. Ray, in nineteen sixty-three. A concurrent or joint resolution of legislation is not law. Cohen v. Flynn, , Ward v. State, , and State v. Yelly . The U.S. Supreme Court decision The common law is the real law, the supreme law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy, and statutes are not the law. Self V. Ray, , emphasis added. US Supreme Court decision. All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human creators in accordance with God's law, all codes rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process rodriguez v ray donovan that is so important um that that getting our arms around that that we are free and they are under the rules that it doesn't apply to us is is uh probably one of the most important um concepts that people really need to understand because that gives us our rights. Yes. There, every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any instruments formed by his fellow men without his consent. Cruden v. Neal, There have not been any judges in America since. There have only been administrators. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also warned, quote, because of what appears to be lawful commands, statutory rules, regulations, and codes, ordinances and restrictions, On the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance, deceptive practices, constructive fraud, binary legal plunder, conversion, malice, protection of inferior administrative state courts. That was under United States v. Minker, That happens so often that the people of the state of Michigan are under coercion, duress and threat all the time. Yeah. And everybody, you know, you trust the judge, you trust an attorney because you didn't. That's how you were taught. You were taught to respect and trust the judge that he's going to give you justice. You trust an attorney when you hire him. Corpus Juris Subcundum, Volume Seven, Section Four. The first obligation of any and all bar attorneys is not the client. It's the court. So they have a financial vested interest in the outcome. How is that not biased? Well, and they take eight percent of all money judgments and it goes into their Benny's package. You know, on top of it, I mean that you couldn't have a more perfect crime or criminal enterprise in the court system in the United States. Yep. I, John Jay, do hereby state that the allegations made against the estate or by assumption and presumption on the part of the prosecutor in this court against I, a man, John Jay, like any merit or authority that would or could grant this court any subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. And any attempt to move forward on this matter is a direct deprivation of the court inherent unalienable rights of I. John Jay that can only be addressed before the People's Court, the U.S. Supreme Court. And this court and its state actors can then explain as to where they acquire the delegated authority to usurp the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution of these United States of America. I, John Jay, do hereby state that should this court and all of the state actors involved cause I, John Jay, a harm, then a counterclaim will be filed in the federal jurisdiction against each and every state actor in their personal persona for their actions as a quasi branch of government, which is a violation of their oath to the law of the land, the Constitution of these United States of America. I want to back up here a little bit where I stated in here that for the court to move forward on this matter is direct deprivation of the core inherent unalienable rights. Those words have specific meaning, okay? Can a dead man inherit something? No, only living men and women can inherit something. We are the inheritors of our forefathers and what they created. We inherit that which our parents created or give us. So it is important that some of these words be in there to show a distinction that we are not a dead entity. We are a living man or woman because only then can we inherit something. And we are the inheritors of our forefathers and what they created in the original contents and intent. So that's very important to put out there. Conclusion. Wherefore, I, John Jay, state that the plaintiff did fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's complaint lacks any factual contentions that would have evidentiary support even after discovery. Plaintiff is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law supported by false and misleading statements by the plaintiff. The prosecuting attorney does not have a license to practice law in the state of Michigan, which amplifies further the false and misleading statements placed on and for the record by these public functionaries. Furthermore, Since I, John Jay, possess the right of self-determination and has determined as a man that I, John Jay, is not a citizen of the United States and therefore not a person or any other legal entity by statutory definition, but is an American state national, a true Michiganian being born inside the boundaries of the Republic of Michigan State as a non-resident alien, which means without the United States, and since the plaintiff have no proof of claim that I, John Jay, is a US citizen, because the proof being required does not exist according to the state statutes at large, then I, John Jay, cannot be bound by the state statutes charged by the plaintiff, nor am I, John Jay, willing to enter into any commercial contracts with the court. Further, I, John Jay, do not consent to these proceedings as the offer made is not accepted and therefore will not consent to being a surety for this case and these proceedings and demands that the bonds be immediately brought forward so that I, John Jay, can see who will indemnify I, John Jay, if damaged in any way as a result of this case being brought into this court. If the bonds have already been issued by the clerk and sold abroad, then I, John Jay, as the principal and beneficiary, will send separate instructions to the clerk of the court as a trustee on how the bonds are to be discharged and this case settled. The wish of I, John Jay, as a man without any suretyship, duties, or responsibilities whatsoever is that these charges be dismissed with prejudice to the same. So again, I said earlier, when they open the case, there are bonds attached to it, okay? Some people might get confused on all this stuff. What they're operating as is a corporation. And as a corporation, under the codes and statutes, okay, the United States has a different meaning than a lot of people think it is. Twenty-eight USC three zero zero two subsection fifteen A, the United States is defined as a federal corporation. So I am not. part of that corporation. I am not contracted by any way to the terms and conditions of that corporation. I'm not bound by their rules and regulations. I'm not an employee of that corporation. Therefore, I am not a US citizen by that code and statute definition. I hope that clarifies that a little bit better. So there's multiple meanings to these words that they have integrated into the codes and statutes to confuse us. When you fill out an application for something and says, are you a US citizen? Careful, that could be a trick. We are all born as a national. We become a citizen upon the issuance of the birth certificate. There's no such thing as a U.S. citizen unless you're a citizen of D.C. Right. That's it. The rest of us are citizens of our states. Am I correct? Correct. Yes. So it's a word salad. Yeah, they've tricked us in national elections to admit that we're U.S. citizens. Yes. It's all a word salad. It's true. And you really have to take the time to pick it apart, dissect it to understand it. And it takes time. It's it's hard for a lot of people to understand that. You know, my dad still doesn't get it. And, you know, he's eighty eight years old and he's like, what do you mean? I'm not a person. He goes, what? Well, you're not a person because if you look up person under black law, you're a corporation, association, you're a dead entity. You're a fictitious. That's what definition of person is. So am I a person? No, I don't want to be a person. Not by their definition. So you got to be careful with the word salad. That's all I'm trying to say. So. Well, they've been playing that game for a long time. Yes, they have. They've been really good at deception, and unfortunately, that's what our injustice system has devolved into. There's nothing there other than just trickery. Yeah. So to finalize this out, the request for relief, I, a man, John Jay, beneficiary of the estate, respectfully request that this honorable court order the following relief. One. Order that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice based upon all of the facts so stated and referenced within this motion for dismissal. Two, if no immediate dismissal is granted, order a stay pending final determination by a tax court of competent jurisdiction regarding the account which is your case number, in conjunction with a forensic audit by the Internal Revenue Service via a W-N-I request and the IRS Forms-Eighty-Three-Hundred and Fourteen-O-Thirty-Nine, which is referencing identity theft on all taxable issues. I like that. Well, that's what they're doing. It's identity theft. There's no POA. There's no power of attorney granting them the ability to open this account in your name and issuing bonds as such. So on all taxable issues and known ambiguous tax discrepancies associated with the case that were initialed by way of summons from the clerk of the court, who is believed to be a constitutional officer of the county within the republic. If the stay is not granted for any reason whatsoever, then as an American state national appearing as a beneficiary without any representation whatsoever, I, John Jay, require you as an officer of the court and a treasury slash banking administrator acting as a fiduciary trustee over this case slash account to sua sponte, cease and desist, and settle the above referenced account immediately. What you're doing there is you're appointing the judge as trustee in this matter. See, they're trying to make you the debtor. They're trying to make you the trustee. What you're doing now is saying, no, no, no, I'm the creditor, so I'm appointing you, judge, as trustee. I guarantee you do that, that judge's head will explode. I've seen it. I've done it. And they'll try and balk it, say, no, I'm giving you your fiduciary letter of instructions or I'm going to put the instructions on for the record right now. And you make sure that they fully understand what you want them to do, because once you appoint them as trustee and give them their fiduciary instructions, they're bound by it. They have to do it. So this is just a rough draft of this brief. We're gonna be tweaking it probably some more. And then once we have the final version, we're going to make it available for people to get ahold of so that I don't care what state you're in, I don't care what your ticket is, This is your response. You are going to file within three days of getting that ticket. You're going to file this motion to dismiss. That forces the prosecutor to address all of these issues. They have to respond. If they don't respond, guess what? They're in default. Case dismissed. There you go. I have a comment here from someone. What do we put down instead of U.S. citizen? You can put down national citizen. Again, when you were born, you're a national. You don't become the citizen until the birth certificate is issued. So by right, under Cruden v. Neal, we have the right to declare who and what we are, where our allegiance lies. And so you just put national. There you go. There's your answer. So this is really brilliant. I love this. I'm glad we went through the whole thing. So this is a, I get, you know, it's like, you know, I get people as I get a ticket, what do I do? And I'm sending them all these different things. It's like, you know what? I gotta, I gotta make this easy. I gotta streamline this. So that's why I, I did this over the weekend. I put this thing together and I just gotta go through and tweak it a little bit more. I got a couple other people proofreading it and, and checking things for me. Um, so we'll have a final version pretty soon. And then, uh, That way we can get it out there. People who get a ticket, here you go. This is what you do. This is how you handle it. And this really shuts them down because we know they can't prove that they have a license to practice law. What if they try to pull rank on you in the court when you file this? I mean, will you even get in front of a judge at this point in time, or are they going to try to get you out of there as quick as possible? They'll probably get you out of there as quick as possible. I mean, once you file this within three days, you're not even before a judge yet. They're probably still putting the paperwork together for a summons. And the prosecutor is going to look at this and go, oh, crap. I don't want to deal with this. You know what? We're dismissing it. Okay. Because they sure as hell don't want, on and for the record, that fact that they don't have a license to practice law. They don't want it on the record that they're practicing unauthorized practice of law. They don't want on the record any of this stuff. They don't want any of this stuff. It's fraud. And because they knowingly are committing fraud if they're holding a bar card and saying that it's a license to practice law. How is the prosecutor going to be able to respond to this brief and show and prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that the judge under Article VI, Section XIX has a license to practice law? If he doesn't have a license to practice law, he's not supposed to be sitting the bench. What does that do to every court case? They're done. They're dismissed. Yes. Every single one of them. Every one of them. Because there's no jurisdiction. Now... Remember, some time ago, I filed a lawsuit against Judge Bain in Livingston County. And the federal judge ruled that judges have absolute immunity, even in criminal activity, except when they don't have jurisdiction. Well, if you don't have a license to practice law, you have no jurisdiction. Game over. You have no immunity. So here's the question. Should all of these judges be prosecuted? Yes. Okay. I would say yes. You need to be brought in before a grand jury of the people and it'd be decided what the charges shall be. They've committed treason. Flat out, they've committed treason. At a minimum, fraud. This is pretty far-reaching. The whole system is corrupt. It's systemic corruption, and it's for self-enrichment. Now, we have a case right now in the federal court, Detroit. where a lot of this is before the court right now. The opposition on this, the plaintiff in this case, it isn't us, it's someone else. And it's actually a bank. and their attorneys, and they now must prove the existence of a license. They must prove that the bar is legitimate under the Constitution. They have to prove that the Michigan Supreme Court had the authority to create the Bar Association. They have to prove that they're not in the unauthorized practice of law. They have to prove all this stuff. They have to answer by Monday next week. So by Monday at the latest, we should have an answer to their response on this motion. That's going to be kind of fun to see because how can they, they can't answer it. No, they can't. At a minimum, they should just dismiss the case at a minimum. I'm really curious. I think they're going to be. boneheaded enough to try and respond to this. And that's what I'm looking forward to, to seeing how and what they're going to do. I'd like to see what they say. Yeah. So I may have that answer next Tuesday. Oh, that's brilliant. I love it. I'm glad we went through the whole thing. You love writing cases, don't you? You know, it doesn't... I get into a groove. I know some people like to use the AI systems, grok or chat or whatever. I don't, I don't use those systems to, to write my briefs, uh, because I'll spend a day or two formulating the brief in my mind. So I'll know pretty much what, where I'm going and what I'm going to say before I sit down before in front of the computer and actually write it. So I formulate everything in my head. Then I sit down and I write it. Then I go through and start tweaking things. Then I do some more research on things. And then I find things and I was like, oh, yeah, I like that, too. So I'll throw that in there. And it just kind of, you know, develops on its own from there. So, like I said, this is just a rough draft. The highlighted sections are basically where someone would have to change and put their information in there. So I'm trying to make this very easy for someone to navigate through. And, yeah, this is. This is what needs to be done. I mean, this cuts to the heart of the issue that the courts aren't courts. The prosecutor has no authority. This is all bogus. It's all a scam. And this cuts right to that core issue and exposes it for what it is. It's a fraud. The whole thing. So how many cases, motions, and briefs have you written over the years? I'm kind of curious. Well... I had one case where we were, I was writing a brief and we were in a head of hearing every single week for probably six months. Wow. That's a lot. Yeah. I was very well known. I mean, it was like, I had my own private parking space, uh, Valley parking. I mean, yeah, it was, uh, and you know, the judges, I think they, uh, based on some of the comments I would get from some of the judges, they actually looked forward to what I was going to do or right next. And they would make comments to that effect on some of it. So, um, some of them got, would get very upset with me. Uh, you know, it was like, come on, you know, you can't, and we've, I mean, I've had yelling matches in the courtroom with judges and, uh, oh yeah. Yeah. So it's never a dull moment. That's for sure. And, yeah, we, you know, I'm accused of having way too much fun in the courtroom because I just, you know, I get them and they get so frustrated with me sometimes. But they know I'm right because I can tell that you can tell by their body language. It's like, damn it, you got me and I can't let you know that you got me. And so they try to, you know, twist and turn and manipulate. And it's like, no, no, we're not doing that. And I don't budge. And that frustrates the hell out of them. If you were going to play a game of, let's just call it a game of chess, but it's not chess, with getting rid of everything in the judicial system that is completely off the rails, what would you do? What would be the moves you would make? Well, what I'm trying to do right now is I want to see the bar completely abolished. Because without the bar, your public functionaries don't know what to do because they weren't educated. They rely on the attorney to tell them what to do. What's the move to get rid of the bar? This is it. This is it right now. This brief. So what's before the federal court right now, if they cannot prove that the bar is legitimate, that the Supreme Court had the delegated authority to create it in nineteen thirty five. If they can't show and prove that the actual existence of a license, where does the judicial branch have the authority to license? Where does the judicial branch have the authority to revenue rates? It doesn't. So again, it can never be delegated to that authority. It cannot be delegated to them. So there's nothing they can do. They're screwed. What do you think about filing a criminal complaint against the Bar Association? That may come in time. That may come in time. But right now, Let's kneecap them where it's going to hurt the most without their bar thugs enforcing their BS. What are they going to do now? Now, Mr. Congressman, hey, Mr. Mayor, hey, Mr. Police Officer, you've now got to appear in court and defend yourself. That bar attorney isn't going to help you now. This is very well written. And, you know, your decades of study in this is really shining. I love it. This is fun. So, yeah, this is what I hope that everybody can now use to shut them down. Now, what happens when they start losing all these cases, that they can't enforce these BS tickets? Uh-oh, their revenue stream starts to dry up, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I love it. This is absolutely spectacular. So, well, I look forward to talking to you about it next week, Tuesday, and we'll see exactly where this goes on Monday because this is going to be really interesting. Yes, it is. Yes, this is the fun. This is the fun part. Too fun. Anything else you want to cover today? No, I put this together over the weekend, so I really wasn't concentrating on too many other things at the moment. Well, that's fun. How's your dad doing? He's doing good. He's doing good. He's finally enjoying retirement. He got his retirement. I still like to talk to him one of these days. So I think what an extraordinary life you guys are living right now and the effort you put in this and all the people that you're working together to really take back the Republic. I just love it. So, well, you know, it's, I'm not going to stop. I mean, that's not my nature. So, and, and they know it. I mean, that's what the, one of the things that they, that frustrates them the most is that I just don't go away. Yeah. Well, that's the only way you win. I mean, if, if you're, you gotta be in it and you've got to, the only time we lose is when we stop and it's not going to be easy. It's never, it's never easy. But that doesn't mean we stop. I mean, you got to keep going. And so, so hi, I'm going to say hi to everybody. Hi, One Leg Patriot and everybody else, all my friends out there. I thank you for tuning in today and Leb and Charlotte and, and Elk and everybody else. This is kind of great. So, well, let's, let's go on to our day today. I'm still trying to get myself motivated, moving, moving forward. There's so much going on. It's just amazing. So, but it feels good. A lot going on. Like I said, when, you know, this year we're going on the offensive and there's going to be a lot going on. There's going to be a lot of, a lot of outcomes in our, in our direction coming. Love it. Absolutely love it. Well, let's say a prayer and we'll give it to our day. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Mike and John and all the wonderful things that they're doing. And I ask your favor to rest mightily upon them and all the people they know that they're working with and all those whom they love. We thank you so much for giving us yet another day and all the blessings that have... that you've just showered upon us here, even though we're seeing some things that don't need, that shouldn't be there, that are criminal. You're giving us a chance to see them, to know the difference and to make good choices. I ask that you would guide every single person out there into repentance, into moving away from the things that we shouldn't be doing, but that we would always follow you, that we would listen to your voice and that we would do the right thing. And listen to those nudges that you give us to do the right thing. Thank you so much for loving us and for the people around us that we love. We ask that you help us to be full of grace and mercy. And also, when it's necessary to hold that line, never back down. and to never stop this fight going forward because evil only prevails when we just sit there and let it. So we thank you for that opportunity to be involved with this whole process. And we thank you for liberating us from this global evil that has been running roughshod over everything and everyone for so long. And we love you so very much. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. So any last words here, Mike? Just, you know, stay the course. Stay the course and get out there, get active, get involved. It doesn't matter at what level. You don't have to, you know, try and take them on at the same level I do. Sometimes just starting with FOIAs, exposing them through FOIAs is sometimes the easiest way to do it. And in the time it takes to watch the halftime show of a football game, you can put a FOIA together, put a stamp on it, mail it. So it's not hard to do. It's easy and it's contributing to the fight. Do anything. Just don't sit there and complain about it, but you got to do things. Having all the knowledge and doing nothing is accomplishing nothing. It's a waste of knowledge. If you don't apply what you have learned, then it's a waste. Well, I've been on this bent lately. It's like a lot of people want to be informed, but if you're just informed and you're not doing anything, you've just become an informed victim. You have to do things rather than just sitting there and thinking that your knowledge is going to save you. And I honestly think that it says in the Bible, lean out on your own understanding, but in all your ways, acknowledge him and he will make your path straight. A path insinuates that there's a journey going on. It doesn't mean you sit and spend with the knowledge you have. You've got to act on that. And so I think this is amazing. The question is Mike zoom going to be on Thursday night again. Yes. Okay. So there's the answer. So awesome. Well, boys and girls, it's that part of the show. We're going to go to ding, ding, ding, ding, go to Brenda for governor.com because I'm the best non-conceiver who has ever not conceded in history of the United States of America. And I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, president Donald Trump, Trump and cowboy boots. I wear them better because I wear them every day. We fix things, we go on, it's going to be fantastic. And, uh, continue to continue to do the real work of patriots like what Mike is doing. This is amazing that you took the time to write this down, not only for yourself, but to take the time to educate others. And what I find is extraordinary when, when people come on being on, when I really start listening to them is when they don't, ask or beg for money, and they're willing to share things without return. It's non-transactional, and that's what I see you doing. And you do it over and over and over again. The pattern is there. Mike just wants the right thing to be done. He wants the law to be followed, which is the Constitution, and he wants the freedoms that we were guaranteed. by the Constitution, by the founding documents, and I really appreciate that. There's no self-enrichment going on here. This is a true patriot, and I truly would encourage every single person out there to listen to people who are not making money or begging for money all the time or whatever else it may be because it's going on all over the place. I'm really sick of it. I'm so tired of of listening to people tell you all their knowledge, and then the next thing you know, their hands are out. Hey, contribute to this. It's gotten to the point of being absolutely ridiculous, but I really do. You do my soul good to talk to you, honestly, and the people that you stand with because of your selfless commitment and doing the work that needs to be done, and I just want to thank you so much for that. Thank you. At any rate, well, you can get on Telegram and find Mike's information there. And it's called American, what is it? American Equity Group. American Equity Group. You can find it on Telegram and all of their information and finding there. their, their Zooms. You'll find all the information there and the things you need to know. Plus there's a lot of videos and that sort of thing. So it's fantastic. So boys and girls, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Have a great day today. And I'm going to, I, do you want me to publish this right now? This is just a rough draft. We still got to do some tweaking on it. So I don't want it to, I don't want everything out there just yet. So. Well, you know what? People can go back and re-listen to the video and stop and pause and get the finer points on it so that you understand the concepts as this gets smoothed out and put in final form. So have a great day, and I'll see you guys all tomorrow. I should be on with Karen, Ralph, and hopefully Greg. That'll be a great day. Stand in line, Mike, and we'll talk while I shut it down. Have a great day, guys.