Published July 22, 2025, 9:01 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 Bambas - AxMiTax Truth! 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/1LyGBWnYRaaJN Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/603120275862796 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6wioj4-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-7222025-lawful-defense-and-mike-bambas-pro-se.html https://rumble.com/v6wioly-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-7222025-lawful-defense-and-mike-bambas-pro-se.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-07-22-lawful-defense-and-mike-bambas-pro-se:f BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Mike Bambas
Good morning. Welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It's the twenty-second day of July. Welcome to the show today. We're going to start out with John Tatar with Lawful Defense at nine o'clock here and at ten o'clock, Mike Bambus with Pro Se. We're going to continue to educate people on the Constitution and Pro Se processes, which is the law behind it. Morning, John. How are you doing? I'm doing well. Good. You're so blurry. We got it on before we started, and you're a little soft today. So sorry, everybody, if it's a little soft. Don't know why, except for I believe somebody is screwing with our feed. But we're going to keep going anyway. Endeavor to persevere. Absolutely. I have a funny story for you. I went to our township meeting. I had a meeting on Monday to help people get involved a little bit more in local politics. And so I went to the township meeting last night. Clearly, they're a little bit behind the eight ball on actually knowing the law. And I put the chairman of the zoning board, I asked him, he was very disrespectful to a guy in the audience, just being a complete a complete jerk to him. And I went up to him afterwards and I said, you know what? I said, I know. And I, and I told him and publicly, I said, you know, you guys are employees to us and you're not officials, you're functionaries. That means you have a job to do. And so after he decided to be a smart aleck to another guy in the audience, I went up to him afterwards and I'm like, I really want to, you know, congratulate you for actually listening to the, the, the, uh, residents who made their comments known because before that I told them that they were completely disenfranchising the entire community. I've heard it over and over again. So I went up to him and I said, I think you owe this gentleman an apology because you don't get to tell him what he could talk about or what he can and what he can't talk about. He said, well, he said, he told me I was rubber stamping things. I said, well, you are, but that's beside the point. The point is, is that you literally were very insulting and disrespectful to him. And he started getting lippy. He said, do you think I don't know the law? I said, I don't know if you know the law or not, but I'm supposed to be here to instruct you. He said, do you know what I do? And I'm like, I really don't care what you do in your outside capacity. We're here to instruct you on the law. He was like, well, I'm, then he asked me if I was practicing law. I said, no, not practicing, not an attorney. And he said, well, I am. And he got all kinds of bent out of shape. And I said, well, you know, I said, if you're a bar attorney, I said, and I said this in front of the group, I said, the bar attorney isn't a licensed practice law at all. It's private membership association. So we've got a little bit of a problem there anyway. And he got a little red in the face and stormed out. And I kind of chuckled. I thought it was funny. Good, we need to keep putting them in their place. I think the pressure needs to get on them and stay on them. Can you get closer to the microphone or something? I can literally hear you. I'm almost on top of the microphone. I'll bring it right next to my nose here. Yeah, let's do that because for some reason, let's see if it improves it. For some reason, the sound is weird today. Hello, hello. Yeah, the powers that be must not want us to say what needs to be said today, clearly. Well, I'm no more than about a foot away from it. Is that any better? I don't know. We'll just keep going. Anyhow. I did bring up the fact that they have no immunity when they get out of their delegated authority. And that was kind of funny. I've got this huge report that I wrote on it. So I was loaded for bear going in there. And I do think that we should all do that is write our comments out if we're going to talk to these people. Because you want to have a plan before you go in there. to talk to them so that if they start lipping off to you or whatever, that you can, you can fire back with actual law. And when you can do that, what's really funny is watching them honestly kind of like, like, uh, wilt on the vine there a little bit because they don't know how to respond to it if you actually put out what the law is they they don't know how to respond and I think I think that that's it's it's pretty funny so what I said is you know byron township officials as punk public functionaries enjoy no immunity when acting outside of the law as they're in position of special assessments and the other things. I'm not going to go into those right now. But anyhow, these actions, taken without authority, consent, or legislative backing, strip officials of any shield from accountability, exposing them to legal consequences, or infringing on sacred property rights of Michigan citizens. The lack of immunity under Ex parte Young. U.S. Supreme Court, Ex parte Young, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, have no immunity when acting outside their lawful authority, particularly when violating constitutional rights. By imposing an assessment that constitutes an uncompensated taking, Fifth Amendment, and denies due process, Fourteenth Amendment, Michigan Constitution Article I, Section Seventeen, township officials exceed their jurisdiction, rendering their actions ultra viris and subject to challenge. Um, I thought, I thought your, your word ultra virus, get rid of that. Okay. I'll get rid of that. So it's why it's a usurpation. Okay. So, and then I also brought in the fact that they are, they entered into contract on private property without our consent and there's no contracts there when they made certain decisions on our properties without our consent. I said, you entered into contract duress. So they were like, oh, what the hell is she talking about? You know, it was kind of, it was kind of funny. But also I think that when, when somebody gets up and talks in front of a group like that, I had a lot of people come up to me and say, you know what, thank you for being here. Even though one of the issues wasn't, my issue with them. It was the issue of the whole township. And they said, you gave us courage to get up and talk. This is something that's important. If we show up and we have the law in our hand and hold them accountable, it gives other people the courage to get up and say what's on their mind. So I think that this is important for all of us who are studying the lawful processes. Show up. Give people courage to get up out of their seats and stand there that they're not alone and they're not going to make... made to look like fools because of the people that are sitting in the seats don't know the law. Got to show up. Got to be present. Got to stand. Yep. Got to stand. So what are we talking about today, John? Well, we started off with the state constitution last week, and we got up to fifth, the freedom of speech and press. And I think we probably should continue at least through Article One of the state constitution, even though the state constitution, as we know, the nineteen sixty three state constitution is fake. because it was brought on by a majority vote of one-tenth of one percent of the populace. And therefore, it is a fake constitution. It was brought in through the democracy, which should be annihilated. And we really are living under the old constitution of... I don't remember what it was. And I believe that's correct. See, I'm learning. But our public functionaries believe that we live under the sixty three Constitution. And of course, they're destroying it with all these amendments that they're adding to it, including the. Which brings me to this, because this was quoted in the full petition language on Ask My Tax. That's a problem because this is what they were leading into. And it really is about most of these ballot initiatives that they want to put on the ballot. It's about changing the constitution. through subversive means. And I talked to a guy this week who basically, well, he didn't basically, he told me that X My Tax was not necessarily written the way that they said. He said there's an attorney and an economist behind this who was working with Carla Wagner. And I got it all. So... It's interesting. Unfortunately, most people won't get behind things and either read the full language, they read what the Board of Canvassers approves and that sort of thing, who basically are writing this. There's another one out there that I want to talk on later, but it's all about changing unlawfully the Constitution by subversive means. And if we don't know their methods, we're going to continue to get roped and gagged. So where do you want to go from here? Well, first of all, we got to go to, as you're saying, when you get in front of a group of people and you have the law on your side and you know the law, then you can put the public functionaries in their place. and get the other people to be stronger in their convictions. But you know, I have people that write me on these stupid emails, on these text messages, and support these stupid organizations like Ask My Tax. I have one. gentlemen do that. And I said, I'm not going to argue with you over this on text. Call me or come to our website or our email or our, excuse me, Zoom, and we'll discuss it then. He knows who we are and where we're from, but he continues to badger me, doesn't badger me, just shows his ignorance. about Ask My Tax and tries to tell me all of the good things that Ask My Tax is doing, but he really doesn't know what Ask My Tax is all about. It wouldn't happen to be Fred, would it? I don't have a clue who it is. No, I don't think it's Fred. Okay. Yeah, that was the contact that called me, which I thought was fairly interesting. You know what? He only leaves his phone number. He doesn't leave his name. Oh, okay. Which is an unsigned document as far as I'm concerned. Right. If you're going to send something out to somebody, put your name to it. Have the guts. If you're going to say something, have the guts to put your name to it. Agreed. It's cowardly. It's so cowardly to hide. And expects me to make a phone call to him. Are you kidding me? That's a joke. Yeah. They just want to bait you into connect on into, uh, discussing with them, you know, nonsense stuff. We'll have to see what happened here. Tick-tock is like, has like decided to stall out my video. I posted today. I got a community violation last week. And, uh, so now everything works slow. It's like crazy. Well, these are the issues that a lot of people out there, they get on the bandwagon on one particular issue, Ask My Tax, or what was the other one that they were pushing not too long ago, the CONCON, federal CONCON to change the federal constitution. These people have no idea what they're sticking their neck in for because they don't know what they're doing. They listen to somebody that has some good narrative, some story. They don't check it out. They don't do the research. And they follow along with that person. And they start passing out brochures and pamphlets and collecting signatures for something they know nothing about, which is a shame. Yeah, it really, it really is. It really is sad. But, but anyhow, what do you, what do you, this is where we have, we are right now. So how do we, where do you want to go? Well, we should be at article one. Are we at article one? No, I was, I don't know where we're at. Let's go to the Michigan constitution. Six, three. This is how you navigate it, guys. You can get in here. Michigan Legislature actually has a... We should be on article or section five. Yep, right there. Ooh, look, it's even giving me a nice little color. Yeah, what we talked about. Good. We're on section five right now. Okay. And if we take a look at this, every person may freely speak right expression and publish his views on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of such right. And no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or the R of the press. Except if you're doing hate speech, right? Yeah, whatever that is. Okay, TikTok just finally let me access the post from this morning. They've got me slowed down because I got a community strike here. So if I get nuked off there, guys, well, it's been a good run. But at this point in time, I think I'm still good. Yeah, they're censoring all over the place. And when you go into these public meetings, remember the people sitting up there who most of them have, they're in there for self gain. I'll tell you that there's conflict of interest everywhere and they use their influence for self gain, a lot of them do. So you have to be able to hold them in check and say, you know, you don't get to tell me what I can talk about or what I can't talk about. And if you do, you're in violation of and then quote it. Know it good enough that you can you can get in there and you can debate them. And if you have to use AI to do it, that's fine. But know that AI hallucinates sometimes. So you need to have enough information to make a good defense and cite things that are good sources. I agree. Getting back to freedom of speech, There is no limitation on the freedom of speech. There is no, and that includes the nonsense of hate speech. There is no such thing as hate speech. First of all, if it's not written down on a piece of paper, like the constitution, then it doesn't exist. They can't make it up on the fly or as they go along, which they attempt to do every single time. And we, the people that do not know that, if it's not written down, it doesn't exist. If we don't know that, part of the rules and laws, then we buy into their nonsense. We fall victim to their propaganda. Okay, that's a better way of putting it. Yes. So we really should know what our freedoms and rights are. And as I've said before in school, if you don't know your rights, you don't have any. And if you don't stand up for your rights, you don't have any. You can't sit back and say, somebody's going to fight this battle for you. Hopefully they will, but what side are they on? And so we have to be able to stand up and fight for ourselves and and call people out, see something, say something, and not sit back and just continue to put the kick me sign on the back of our shirts. You remember how they used to do that in school when we were kids? People would come up and try to get kick me or something like that on the back of your shirt and such. I had never had that happen to me, but I'd seen it done and it's not okay. That's right. Well, you got to consider that public functionaries all think we have that kick me sign on our backs. that they can push us around because they do it on a constant basis. Yes, they do. They may do it clandestinely where they hide monies and things behind our backs and where they make up stories about what things are happening, not what reality is, but what they want us to believe the narrative should be. So we have to watch out for that. Remember the old adage, how do you know a politician's lying? Because he's moving his mouth, right? Yeah, when he opens his mouth, they're lying. Yeah. So freedom of speech has no limitation on it at all. All right. I guess we'll go to the next one. Okay. Which is six. Well, and look at it. To speak, write, express, and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right and no law shall be enacted to restrain, abridge the liberty of freedom of speech or of the press. Now what happens if somebody is lying? about a particular person, then it becomes a slander or liable issue. Liable or slander are criminal and they can be taken to court and sued for those particular issues. And if you can prove liable or slander, the money that you can gain from that just by suing them is worth the effort to take it to court. So I wouldn't worry about being lied to or lied about. If it's in fact a lie, you can go after them. So that's what this is all about. You can say whatever you want to say and publish whatever you want to publish. But if it's a lie and you get caught in it, it's going to cost you. Okay. So here we go. Bearing of arms, section six. I guess what we have to ask is what does it mean to bear arms before we read this concept, before we read this? I would think that, well, let's define it, I guess. Yeah, good idea. Do you know or do you want me to do it? You go ahead. Because you gave me a compliment this morning, which is hard one. I don't want to wreck my streak here, so I'm going to let you do it. The right to bear arms. Bear arms means carry, not only the weapon that you're carrying or the gun that you're carrying, but also the ammunition. To bear arms means you can carry it anywhere, anytime, anyplace, and there are no restrictions on that right to bear arms. However, of course, our government has always made restrictions. Can't carry it in the church, can't carry it in the bar, da-da-da-da-da-da. And they have all kinds of restrictions that they attempt to put on the right to bear arms. You have to have a license to carry. Otherwise, you can't carry it in your car. If you carry it in your car and it's not in a box in the trunk and you don't have a right to carry one, CPL, which is a carry license permit, then you will be held liable for carrying a weapon without the proper authorization. Well, that's not what this amendment says at all. It says you have the right to bear arms and it says every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. So here's a question I have for you on that. So if our public functionaries are just kind of going along, get along kind of nonsense with all of these unconstitutional laws and mandates, they're completely outside the law, correct? Correct. I mean, you can't just go and sit in there and say, well, it's just always been that way. These are the laws on the books and such. If it's unconstitutional, isn't it their responsibility to make sure that they are nullified and hold everyone accountable who refuses to follow the law? Absolutely. And there you brought up a very important word, nullified. And that brings us to jury duty. And when you're on the jury, you can nullify a law, even though the judges don't want you to know that. They want you to follow the law as they say it to you, as they prescribe it to you. And if they hold you for jury duty and question you, they want you to swear that you will hold the law according to what they say the law is. Okay, hang on a second. I'm going to stop my camera because I want to get a book, but keep going. And that's the corruption of this system because they can make up a law even though it is in violation of the state constitution, which they swore an oath to uphold. these public functionaries, including the so-called fake bar attorneys who think they have a license to practice law, those fake bar attorneys have been violating the law on a daily basis every single day because they can get away with it because the public doesn't know the law. Okay, I want to show you something. I got a new tool here. Oh, that's not the right one. I've got new buttons. Let's see. Well, anyhow, one of these worked last time. Anyhow, I wanted to show you this. Check this out. Let's see which one it is. This one maybe. Nope, that's not going to work either. So I'm going to start with this one and see what happens here. Okay, check this out. So there you go. So right here, we've got nullification, how to resist federal tyranny in the I think this is kind of an interesting... Let me go back to where I was. I think this is kind of an interesting book, quite honestly. And some of these books I pick out, I get from different sources, which is really fun. But I thought this was significant enough to get to study in order for us to really understand that process of nullification, the proper process, and why... How it was called out, and Thomas Jefferson said, there is a rightful remedy to federal power grabs, and it's called nullification. In nullification, how to resist federal tyranny, how the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny, how the growing roster of governors and state attorney generals are recognizing they need to become that again, why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the right of states Why it was left to the states, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws. And it goes into this, and I really think this is interesting, because this is actually a used book, which is kind of cool, because there were other notes in the... other notes and other things that are highlighted in here. And sometimes I like to buy used books because I want to see, I just want to see what somebody else thought was interesting. And quite often there are notes in the margins. Nullification begins with the Axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for a federal government or branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of the state. and the unconstitutional law of the federal government. Now, to this point, I'm going to continue just one second, and then we'll go back to the fact. The central point behind nullification is that the federal government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the in . It will continue to grow regardless of elections, the separation of power and other much touted limits on government power. The Constitution is, after all, only a piece of paper. It cannot enforce itself. So what I see there, though, is if you look at it in a different perspective, the states have to nullify the usurpation of the federal government, period. But the counties and townships, the local governance, needs to nullify in the same thought, this is my interpretation of it, the state's usurpation. Absolutely. Absolutely. And so we're fighting this in the wrong battle. It's like when General Flynn says, you know, local action equals national impact. At this township and the county levels, if we stand under the, you know, basically it's the the lesser mad magistrate that I can't think of the first word right now, but you know what I mean? The doctrine of the lesser magistrate, and we force the state to be in compliance instead of the other way around, we can nullify at the local level because the ones sitting in the seat up on top are absolutely not going to give up their power. Am I, am I tracking this correctly? But neither are the local. local people, the local government public functionaries, they're not going to give up their power either. Well, that was clear last night. I'm going to tell you what in the township meeting. Yes. So it goes back to the jury itself. The problem with the jury system as we have it right now is that they choose the jury based on their prejudice. And I'll go back to my Example being in front of McCann on a, and I don't remember what it was, drug issue maybe, I don't know. And I was brought in for jury duty and I was number five, the fifth person to be called for jury duty. And Judge McCann picked number one, number two, number three, number four, and number six, and number seven, and number eight, number nine, number ten. Skipped me. Did not even give me a chance to say anything. She just overlooked the fact that, because she knows who I am, she knows that I know the law, and she knows that there possibly won't be a conviction if I got on the jury. so she picked the jury based on her prejudice and because she's the one that picked the jury numbers or the jury members for the attorneys to ask the questions so this is the nonsense that goes on in in a court where the jury has to be brought up to speed. They have to be intelligent. They have to know what's going on. Most of them that were called, I would guess, didn't have a clue what the law was and therefore would have bought into what she was making the law to be. She had control of the court, she had control of the jury or the attorneys, and then she had control of the judges or the jurors. And when you have control like that, then you know what the outcome is. The outcome is what they want it to be. But the problem is that if we would have had intelligent people on the jury, if she would have had ten intelligent people that she knew were intelligent there, she couldn't have avoided me and she couldn't have avoided a lot of the other jurors. She would have had to pick from the jury pool and the court would have been probably a much more honest court than it was. Yeah, well, and I guess I'm super concerned right now on the fact that why did they get to pick jurors in the first place? I don't understand how the attorneys can sit there and question to choose who they want on those juries at all. I mean, what's the justification for that? How did that even get put in place? I thought it was supposed to be random, and it's not. Why do they disqualify some? I don't understand that. It's been years and years and years ago, forties and thirties and twenties, that they were picking jurors. And they were picking them based on bias, but they were a little more honest back then because the prejudice weren't as... as uh in your face as it is today so you know forty years ago they would ask a question do you know the client do you know the uh defendant here uh uh are you uh relate related to the defendant in any way anyway do you work for the police department or for law enforcement those kind of questions but now they're getting into well give me your religious background or tell me what you believe about uh marijuana for example if it's a drug case or tell me what you uh are you uh do you do you have the right to do you bear arms do you do you uh are you a uh Do you like guns? And then they use those. You're not a good member on the jury because you like guns. And we're trying a case here on the right to bear arms. So off, you're not on the jury. So it's never unbiased. And it's all theater for them. It's theater for them to be able to rig the system and in the favor of whomever that they're representing. That's not supposed to be the way it works. It's supposed to be a jury of your peers. And everybody has bias, but it clearly shows the bias of the attorneys in the court system. Furthermore, let's go on to another point in my particular case. That I've been fighting since two thousand and twelve. They have never let me in the court in the federal courts to argue my arguments verbally. They have said, you have supplied the documentation, the record. You have done your part as to provide your defense on the record or your prosecution. And we have the defense records. And based on the records, we're gonna make a decision. That's not court. That's the bias of the judge because you can put something on paper The opposing party puts something else on paper and you can't rebut it. You can't prove that your part is right or wrong. All they are telling you at that point in time is that they read your stuff, they read their stuff, and they made a decision based on that. That's the bias of the judge. And they have not let me into court since two thousand twelve on four cases to verbally argue my point to call that attorney or that IRS agent on the stand and put them under oath and ask them questions. They would not allow me to do that. So there's the bias. I can't get a trial by jury because I can't even get in the courtroom. So this is the kind of nonsense that they play on us. And it's because only bar attorneys are judges and only bar attorneys can practice law as prosecutors or defending attorneys or counsel to counsel you Uh, you as a pro say are on the second tier lower than, and, and although the, the judge is supposed to help you, he never does. Well, I don't know. I had help from a judge on one of my cases. He asked me to resubmit it and put an attestation in it because I didn't know I had to do that. He did help me with it. And then the other thing that I'm seeing is that, I mean, I don't think it's hopeless because I found the process interesting. But what I also found interesting in this process is the fact that the attorney general's office flat out, the attorneys flat out, Um, lied to the court and they said that they had uploaded documents on, on my files. They didn't, they, they went ahead and they sent it through the mail, which delayed me receiving it, which cut into my time to respond. And I, I still was, we were still able to respond to this. I was still able to respond to it. And so it really didn't work for them, but flat out. If I get called up there, I'm going to tell them that they flat out lie. The first case against Brader, they never called me to ask if I concur for a dismissal. Never called. And they shoved that in the same envelope as all communications in one envelope. They never uploaded it on MI files. It's still not there. Second case, they said flat out, that they uploaded it on MI files. It's not there and I can prove it. So, I mean, why is the court, why would any decent judge tolerate an attorney, whether it's from within the attorney general's office or wherever, them being lied to? I would think that a judge would just bring the hammer on it and be like, don't lie to me. You just destroyed any words coming out of your mouth because you've lied to the court. Got to understand the difference between form and substance. Okay. What you're speaking about is form. They didn't upload a file. That's form. That's not substance. But they said they did. Well, it doesn't matter. Okay. Because form doesn't have the power that substance does. But most of the courts out there that I have seen, that I have been in front of, deal with form, not substance. They won't get into the meat of the argument as to why you are arguing this in the first place. They go after form. They go after, well, you didn't say this properly or you didn't do this properly. That's form. In the particular case of my battle with the IRS when I submitted claims for refund, the IRS said, we never got your claims for refund, even though I sent it with a certified letter and a green card return receipt. They said, we never got it and therefore we never entered it into the official transcript. So that's what they used to defeat my claim against the IRS was that, well, you never filed for your claims for refund to begin with, so you can't bring it to court. So you're dismissed. You know what, dude, I walk right into the court and I file it and I make them give me a copy. And then I've been sending things through certified mail, even if I like do, I double and triple my documentation on it. Cause I know they're playing games. It's the same thing with the signatures that they said, you should have seen their, you know, Oh shit moment. When I said that they were talking about the signatures being that they didn't exist or something like that. And I'm like, that's okay, I've got two full copies of them. And the couple of them sat there and they were like, oh no, and they're looking at each other like, oh no, what do we do? Because they know what's going on. They were too busy talking about Chipotle and leaving early rather than doing their jobs. And that's all on, it's all been recorded. They're finding ways around it to subvert us. Have you been successful in beating them at this point? Getting pretty close, I would think. Or are you in the holding pattern like I am? I'm still in the holding pattern. We'll see, but it seems like it's getting pretty close. Actually, I'm having a lot of fun with this. We are getting better and we are getting closer, but we're not there yet. I agree with you. In my particular case, I have three judges that I'm suing, Nugent, Yonker and Cole. I'm suing those three judges. But then there's a new judge, Berg, who is on the federal court and he's sitting on it. This has been going on since May twenty eighth when I filed my final document. and I really because it's a dispositive motion which means they're trying to summary judge me out of it I should have an oral argument and they have not set up an oral argument for it and they have not done anything with it it's still sitting in limbo so now I got to call the uh uh Chief Judge, which I will do today and find out what he's going to do, if anything. And if not, maybe we'll have to go and do a writ of mandamus in the appeals court to get the appellate court to tell the judge to get off his can and make a decision. So either I can re-sue and put the new judge on the list, or they'll rule in my favor, one or the other. I don't know where I am because this is May, when it was filed and we're almost the end of July and still no, it's a clear-cut case. I'm either dismissed or I'm not. What's the deal? Do something so I can move on. But they're holding it in abeyance to see, you know, I don't know, maybe I'll get tired or maybe I'll die in the process. I don't understand why they're holding it so long. It's ridiculous. Violation of our right to a speedy result here. You know, I mean, the whole thing is rigged. Of course it is. It goes back to the picking of the jury, and the jury has to become more intelligent. The people that are sitting on the jury have to become more intelligent. The right to bear arms means you have the right to carry. You have the right to carry the ammunition. You have the right to carry it on your person, concealed or visible. There's nothing in here that says you have to have a CPL. There's nothing in here that says that you have to carry it in your trunk of your car, unloaded, if you don't have a CPL. That's all a bunch of BS. And we have bought into it, and we allow it to continue. Well, we don't want this to be the old Wild West where everybody's got a gun and the old baby's shooting. That's not what this is about. All right. I think we beat this up enough. We digress. Yeah. Moving on to the next one. Okay, here we go. Remember, if it's not written in there, it doesn't exist. Military power, subordinate to the civil power. The military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordinates to the civil power. And what is that all about? And why is that in there even? Number seven, article seven. In the federal government, it's called the Posse Comitatus Act. You cannot use the federal military against the civilian populace. This was brought on by the Civil War when Sherman made his run to the sea, and he burned and looted and destroyed half of the South. after the war or toward the end of the war. And they said, you can't use the federal military power against the civilians. And that was the Posse Comitatus Act. And you know that there's a bunch of left-leaning liberal democrats and left-leaning uh communists that want to get rid of the in every every session they bring up a try to bring up an amendment to override the posse comitatus act to get that out of there so they could use the federal military power against the civilians But the Posse Comitatus Act is not gone, it's still there. And so the state decides to put it also in the Constitution as section seven of Article One. Military shall never be used against or be subordinate to the civilian power, civil power. And who is the civil power? Probably the we the people or the militia. The militia. We the people. We the people are the militia. Yes. So bingo. I got two of them right on the test today. I'm learning, John. I'm learning. This is good. This is good. All right. No more. Let's move on to number eight. Coordinating. Quartering of soldiers. Quartering of soldiers. And this is also in the federal constitution as article three. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner or occupant, nor in any time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law. Again, quartering of troops because back in the day during the Revolutionary War, the British decided that they could quarter troops in civilian homes. And a lot of the civilians were spied upon by these soldiers. Now they really don't need that because we all have cell phones. We all have our own soldiers. spying on us as we use them willy-nilly in Facebook and Twitter and all of the other social media programs that we give our life secrets away. Some of them do. I'm not on social media. I mean, I have a Facebook account, but I haven't posted on that for years. So the problem with Facebook is the general public doesn't understand what it means to be secure in your papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures, Fourth Amendment, and therefore they willy-nilly give their life away. And of course, they're being spied upon in the cloud or wherever they are out there, giving their whole life's secrets away and opening their process to the public so here we have people that are concerned about this new driver's license that's supposed to have a uh be an enhanced license that they're going to be spying upon you they don't need to do that you go to facebook and you you give them all that information anyway you're on the computer you give them all that information so why do they need to spy on you they don't need to spy on you you're giving it you're giving it freely to them You want to hear something crazy? So I always opt out on the camera when I go through the airports. You can do that. If you don't hand them your driver's license, you tell them before you hand them your driver's license that you're opting out on the eye scans on the facial recognition stuff, then then they turn the camera off, right. And I had somebody from from TSA actually admit to me, she just admitted to me, she said, Well, she said, you realize she said, if you have a cell phone, we already have everything on you. And it really doesn't matter. Then why in the hell are they doing this at TSA if they've already gotten it? But she literally admitted that they've got it all. As long as you have a cell phone, they've already got it anyway. You know why they're doing it? Because they're teaching us to be good slaves. Yes. They're teaching us that you need to do this and you need to do that. You need to take it. Now I guess you don't have to take your shoes off anymore. Well, and put your arms up like this in the scanner in the surrender position. They're literally teaching people to put their arms up in surrender. That's what this is about. And I usually say something. I said something one time at the Kennedy airport and they were they were. They were specifically putting people in a state of panic like they always do at the inauguration and all this other nonsense I've seen. They like to put us in an emotional panic. Oh, I'm going to miss my flight because I've got lines that are going to take me an hour to get through at the airport. Wasting our time on these nonsense policies that are absolutely unconstitutional as they turn us into idiots. into a second class of people that they're sitting with a stick over our head. I went through it. I was a little annoyed that day. And I went to the guy. I said, you know what? I said, I hope you know that all of us know that you guys have an eighty five percent failure rate getting people through TSA in their little surveillance game there before we can get into the terminals. Eighty five percent failure rate. when they're checked to see if they're actually picking things up going through airport security. Nonsense, total nonsense, waste of time, abject failure, and anything that we did if we had an eighty-five percent failure rate, we would be in jail. They should be fired. Hopefully, under the Trump administration, TSA will disappear. I really hope they do too. The magnometers and all of the nonsense that we have to go through when we go on planes. And how much money has been wasted on these systems, on the waste of our time, which is our property, right? Our time is our property. going through and being denied that time to go through airport security. If they have to use that, then guess what? They suck at intelligence because they're watching us through our phones. They know who the terrorists are. They know who the disruptors are before getting in there. It's just another layer of fiction. That fiction is, again, to teach us to become good slaves. Teach us that, you know, you got to wear a mask and you got to stay six feet apart. And they have people that are still wearing masks out there. But I still don't get it. It's ridiculous. Yes, it is. You have no idea what history is about. And you continue to behave that way. Alan, anyway. They don't need to quarter troops because we have our own soldiers in our house spying for the government. Right there. That's what it is. Do you ever talk to your phone? I do because I know they're listening. Well, sometimes I'll make a joke when I'm in a group and a group says, don't talk very loud. The telephone's listening. So I'll say, hey, you hear what I'm saying? Yeah, that's what I mean. I'll sit there and I'll talk to the phone and I'll be like, I know you guys are listening to me. So this is the way it is. You know, we already know what you're doing. You're spying on us in all forms. I hope you decide to get on the right side of what needs to happen in the United States. Or, you know, you might. end up going the traitor's route in treason, which I think is... That's right. That's where they got to end up. Yeah. And if I'm not on camera, I might be a little bit more crass too. So anyhow. Okay. Let's go to the next one. Let's move on to the next one. In the illegal constitution of Michigan. Actually, we're getting to the end of our time period too here. This is another good one. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of a crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state. Jets, slaves, taxes. There's one, but what about a speeding ticket? Is that involuntary servitude that you have to perform in order to pay that fine that you are speeding on the street. It is because it's taking your time and your money for a non-crime because there's no victim. How can you allege there's a crime if there's no victim? It's just a money grab. Shall never be tolerated in this state, it says. So now all of our public functionaries have tolerated this, so they're all guilty of a violation of the Michigan Constitution. Well, bring in the police department, the sheriff's department, the police sheriff, state police, that go after revenue enhancement, which is not their job, which is totally illegal behavior because we have three branches of government and they're supposed to be separated. And police departments are not supposed to raise revenue as they are by collecting money for a non-criminal offense, speeding, going through a red light or whatever. You're stupid if you go through a red light or through a stop sign. But nonetheless, do they have the right to collect a fine for that? And that's the question that comes to mind. What kind of servitude are you willing to provide for the government, involuntary servitude? Okay, so this is a call to our legislators. Time for nullification. Bam, on all of this stuff. The stuff that is just junk in there. Unless somebody's talking nullification out there in the political realm, I'm kind of done with them. And I do want to show you something, and then I'm going to bring Mike Bales. Yeah, we're running out of time here. Yeah. I want to show you something funny because I, you know, I'm, I'm kind of a smart Alec. Okay. I am definitely a smart Alec. I can't help myself. All I can say is sometimes things just need to be said, right? So the Republican party has been dogging me to run for governor, like big time. They want me to run for governor on the Republican party ticket. And I'm like, well, I kind of got a problem with that because you're a criminal organization right now. So I get sent this. this morning and it's like I'm sitting here laughing I'm like the memes just write themselves this is to a republican event and sold out and I'm like I know they've sold out they even just admitted to it on this thing sellout republicans I think this is so funny I had to put it out there so yes the republican party just admitted to being sellouts and the memes just write themselves Morning, Mike. I thought you'd get a bang out of this morning. How are you guys doing? It's hilarious, isn't it? I think it's hilarious. Anyhow, last words, John, we're going to go to a quick break and then, uh, Oh, let me put your banner up here. I've got some skills. We will be at Nicola's this Wednesday for meet and greet, physical meet and greet. It'll start at five o'clock and end at nine. It'll be Wednesday night. which is what, the twenty-third, I think. Yeah, twenty-third. We'll be at Nicola's. And so if you want to come and see us in person, please come out there. It's in Southfield. You can look it up on the computer because there's tons of information on the Nicola's restaurant. And find us out there and come and join us. You know, that night I'd like to come, but that night I'm going to do a special edition at nine o'clock with Coach Dave and Judah Ayers. And we're going to be talking about some pretty serious subjects in the subversion of our nation and how they're really doing it. It's going to be a real interesting show Wednesday night at nine o'clock. So when you get done with John's meeting, come over and tune in to BNN. I'll promote it a little bit this week. and tell you what we're talking about. It should be a lot of fun. So thanks, John. I'm going to go to a quick break and I will be right back with Mike Bamus. And we're talking pro say, this is like my favorite subject. You guys are fantastic. So be right back. Exactly one minute. Bye. Good morning. Welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's the twenty second day of July twenty twenty five. Welcome to our show. And I'm going to jump right into this. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Good morning. How you doing? I'm doing great. Just fantastic. Wow. Was last night a fun night? Um. A lot going on. There is a lot going on. You know, we talked about some of the stuff, the contractual duress before I went to the, you know, what's really fun is seeing, and I'm just going to use the word network right now because that seems to be a talking point out there. The network of all of us out there that are actually working together, not for money, but to help each other out. in restoring the Republic. And I want to thank you. You've been really generous with your time as well as sharing your perspective. And the reason why I like Mike Bamba so much, I'm going to say this publicly, Mike doesn't do it for the money. Mike does it because he's sick of the crap. And so he jumps in, not looking for money for things, but just to be helpful. And you're incredibly generous with your time. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Yeah, I just can't. You know, it's gotten to the point where over the years that the injustices that I have personally witnessed, it got to the point where it's like enough is enough. I mean, this escalated to the point that, you know, you know, I didn't have to do this three years, four years, five, almost five years now that I kind of came out of the shadows, so to speak. and really came to the forefront doing what I'm doing right now. And I've got a target on my head. I mean, since I started doing this, I've had a target on me. I mean, I've received death threats. I've been in, you know, they try to use acts of intimidation and coercion against me. And so, you know what? Go for it. You think you're all that? Go ahead and try. Because I don't care. And they realized that The information that I have, they can't refute it. They know that they can't bribe me. They can't leverage me. There's nothing that they can do to me. And they want to kill me. You know what? That just proves who and what they really are. And they're the ones who are the terrorists. They're the ones who are anti-republic. They're the ones who are trying to enslave the American people. And when I say they, let's be clear. Anyone who is not acting de jure, anyone who is not abiding by the foundation of this country is they. They are those who are trying to destroy this country, who are trying to instill communism, socialism, and tear down the fabric of the American way of life. So to all the they's out there, you want to continue this? Go ahead. Keep it up. But we're coming for you. You will be held accountable. It's coming. And there's nowhere to run. There's nowhere to hide. We will find you. We will drag you out. And you will be held accountable for your actions. And those days are coming. It's coming quicker than they realize. Well, I think that what they don't realize is that the law is on our side. And that that should that should really scare them much more than the potential for any type of an armed conflict. We don't want any civil war. We don't want violence or anything like that. We want this to be done in a lawful, lawful manner. So when Mike says we're going to we're coming for you, we're going to drag you out. That means pretty much fighting lawfare. This is where this is fought is lawfare and information. And in it. Anyone that's running for any position right now better have this well under their belts to know how to resolve this by people who are in office. Because we need to nullify their pretended legislation, their pretended laws, their pretended laws. influence or special categories by being a bar attorney, which is just a private membership association. Wow, did one of the guys walk out of there last night mad when I put him on notice. And I'm like, you don't get to pull rank on me just because you say you're a bar attorney. Because we all know that it's a private membership association. You don't have any special status, right? And he's like, you know, so I think it's going to be funny when they say, don't you think I know the law? I'm a barred attorney. It's called a practice for a reason. It's not called mastery. It's called practice. That means y'all got your training wheels on all the time. Well, bar attorneys are public functionaries because they're officers of the court. Oh, okay. I missed that one. Totally. Okay. They're officers of the court. They fall into the same category as all the other public functionaries. They are to act de jure at all times. Oh, my goodness, Mike. That's like one of those boom things that you drop. Okay. Hang on a minute because I'm going to put this in my... The bar attorneys can be held accountable just like any other public functionary because they are, again, officers of the court. What is their first obligation to the court? Corpus Juris Circumdum, Volume VII, Section IV. Specifically states that their first obligation is to the court, not the client. You may know the guy, oh, he's been my neighbor for twenty years or he's my second cousin and he would never do me wrong. Yeah, he will. Because his first obligation is, again, to the court, not you. It doesn't matter how much you pay him, how well you know him, whether you're related. It doesn't matter. He has to follow and do what the bar. Now, case in point, Judge Bain here in Livingston County threatened me with several things. One, that if I ever appear in his courtroom as a man, I'm going to do ninety days. Well, I'm sorry. God made me this way. So I'm not really sure what we're going to do about that. The second thing was he threatened me that if I don't retain an attorney, I'm going to jail. So under threat, duress, and coercion, I had to take on an attorney. Well, why can he say that? Because he went against the Constitution, which says counsel, not an attorney. True. Well, here's why. Because when you're forced to hire an attorney, you now become a ward to them. They are your guardian. That's why you're not allowed to say anything in a courtroom once you have an attorney. Because you have to have them speak for you. So because of that, now this is where the shenanigans started again. They got an attorney, court-appointed attorney for me. and his name was timothy oh what was it timothy mcdowell or something like that out of howell and he met with me the night before the hearing you know we had a week I think it was a week or two weeks before the hearing he met with me the night before the hearing never looked at a single document never took notes never made a copy of anything We get into court the next morning and he starts off with, judge, we need to go into chambers. So he goes into chambers with the judge, with Judge Bain. They're in there for quite some time, he comes back out. Never consults with me what he's gonna do, never asked me what I wanted to do, nothing. Case is called up and I never said a word through this entire ordeal. Never said a word, never said who I was or anything else. And he proceeds to say, judge, based on our conversation in chambers, he goes, I got three motions I'd like to, verbal motions I'd like to make to the court. I mean, he goes, oh yeah, sure, no problem. And one of the motions was for him to recuse himself. What? Yes, he motioned for his recusal. Here's why. He didn't know who he was representing. Let that sink in for a second. He didn't know who he was representing. Why? Because I refused to allow them to address I as the all caps name. I said, I'm a living man. I am not that entity on your paperwork. May sound like me, may look like me, but that's not me. So he's like, I don't know who I'm representing. I don't know who's here, who I'm not. And he goes, I cannot. He goes, he's filed motions. There are motions before the court for your disqualification, Judge Bain. He goes, I can't sign on to that. He goes, I'll get in trouble with the bar. So he was more worried about his status with the bar than he was representing the defendant or his client, whoever that may have been, because he never defined it. And even Bain admitted, he goes, yeah, I don't know. He goes, I got the same problem. I don't know who's who. I don't know who's being here. I don't know who the defendant is. This is all on court record. They didn't know who they were addressing. Because as a man, they cannot interact. They can only interact with the dead. Oh, that's funny. Well, I got another question to ask you because there was somebody on the township board that I had a nice little fun discussion with and told them that, you know, well, you can't pull rank on me because you're a barred attorney. So that's just a private membership association and it's not a license. He didn't know what to say. So get this. If they swore an oath of office, which would have to be an oath to the Constitution, the Constitution doesn't allow anyone to swear any other oath. but they swore an oath to the bar. Correct. So we've got a big problem here and the problem should be now, what would you say if you were going to pursue that, that avenue? What, how, how would you address that? Would you file? How would you file on it? If you were thinking about maybe this should be done. As far as going after the bar? Either that or the person that filed that, that swore two oaths. One, judge, it's come to my, if you get in courtroom, say, hey, judge, it's come to my attention that, you know, one, he doesn't have a license to practice law in the state of Michigan. If he does, prove it, show it. What executive branch, department or agency issued the license? Because I got a FOIA right here with a certified response from Laura that states that they do not license or register or oversee attorneys. So what department are, you know, who issued the license? Nobody. Do they have a foreign agent registration statement on file? Because they are a bar attorney and they swore an oath to the bar, they're supposed to have a foreign agent registration statement on file. They don't have one. They're not doing their due diligence and having their homework done. They also don't have an anti-bribery statement on file. So based on those elements alone, they're disqualified. And if you can get them to admit that under oath, now they perjured themselves. They're gone. They're off the case. That's what I did in one prosecutor. He swore under oath that he had a license. And I said, judge, I got a FOIA response right here from his own office says he doesn't have one. I got another one from the AG's office says he doesn't have one. I got one from Laura that says he doesn't have one. He just committed perjury. They had to remove him from the case. Wow. So those are some of the others. Now, how this also works is, well, Judge, seeing how we're on this subject of credentials, under Title XXVIII, Section four, five, five, in conjunction with the Seventh Circuit in the case of Taylor v. O'Grady, in nineteen eighty nine, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in nineteen ninety four, the possibility of impropriety, which does not have to be proven just if it may exist, is grounds for a judge's disqualification. Judge, do you have a anti-bribery statement? Do you have a foreign agent registration statement? How about a license to practice law? Because in Article VI, Section XIX of the Mission Constitution, you're required to have a license to practice law to be qualified to sit on the bench. So if you don't have a license and it doesn't exist, then you're not a judge. You're an administrator. Well, this guy actually was on the zoning commission instead, or the zoning board, rather than being a judge. Well, zoning boards are de facto. So now he just proved himself to be fake. So, I mean, this is getting ridiculous with all these administrative tribunals that they have created at all levels. And the enforcement of the administrative rules and regulations, it's just, it's gotten stupid. There's no other word for it. So... But yeah, we can start pushing back. We can start bringing the fight to them by holding them accountable for what they're supposed to do. And they will openly admit, yeah, I don't have one. Well, then you're disqualified. End of conversation. You can't have jurisdiction if these improprieties exist. Now we don't have just the possibility of impropriety. We can actually physically prove the improprieties exist. So there's no argument here. They can't fall back in which every judge does. Well, the court rules, the Michigan court rules says I get to decide if I'm disqualified or not. Well, does the rules come before the law? Which comes first, the law or the rules? According to the law, it says this. According to the US Supreme Court, it says this. So you explain to me how your court rules circumvent both state, federal, and the Supreme Court. So let me give you another scenario. What happens if the person who's the gatekeeper for local meetings says that the supervisor gets to choose what is on the agenda? Who gets to speak, basically? Well, one, I'd be questioning whether or not they're following Robert's rules of order on the meeting. The other thing is the agenda is supposed to be pre-made and put out to the public as far as what the agenda is. So why are they not following protocols? Why are they not putting out the agenda ahead of time and publishing it? so that the general people know what's on the agenda. You just can't say, well, it's a secret till you get to the meeting. And oh, by the way, we're going to see how there's nobody here. We're going to propose that we're going to do X, Y, and Z, you know, without the public knowing about it. Can't do that. You can't pull those kinds of surprises. They have to be forthright. They have to be transparent on everything that they do. Okay. So what are we talking about today? Oh, well, I would like to ask a favor. Okay. I would like, because last night I was given some information that somebody is extremely upset with me. Oh, no. How horrible. I couldn't sleep last night. I'm sure it just affected you just terribly. Did you have to get like a teddy bear just to have your safety net? I'm looking at getting a comfort animal or something. Emotional support animal. Emotional support turkey or whatever it is that you need. So apparently Carla Wagner is extremely upset with me. Oh, no. How horrible that would be. Yeah. So I would like to, if you would allow it, I'd like to invite Carla and her attorneys that are writing the petition for Ask My Tax onto your show so that we can discuss the petition. Well, one of her followers called me and admitted that she was working with an attorney and an economist and which I thought was funny so now there's an economist that was brought into it into the discussion so let's have the economist the attorney carla and you here and I'm just going to sit back and watch this it's going to be fun I'd be I would love to have a conversation with their attorney and accounts I would love to have that conversation and we can air all the issues out And I mean, why would that be a problem for Carla and her attorney? They should open this with open arms. I mean, they should want to do this. I mean, they're out there promoting this. Let's have transparency. Let's have a real discussion on the contents of that petition. I'd like to see more of these like hysterical rants that come out on social media. Oh, don't vote for Brandenburg. Brandenburg is the worst. You know, it's okay. Maybe I am or I'm not, but what's the basis? Isn't that, I don't know, you know, she's the worst and on and on and on. And it's not just like, you know, I think I've got these reasons why I don't really appreciate Brandenburg. I can accept that. But the gaslighting rants are so funny. I hope that they're listening right now because I literally will laugh the rest of the day when these things come out. I hope she's listening too. Carla, I have no animosity towards you. No, none at all. Not at all. They have it against us because they go on social media and they rant. It's like stick to the law, bring out the truth. Yeah. And I want to thank your one supporter that called me and talked for a very long time. about exactly what was going on. It was really kind of fun. I asked a specific question at that meeting. She couldn't answer it. Her other associates couldn't answer it either. They didn't even know or understand the language in the petition. So come on, let's get your attorney on here. Let's have a conversation and let's air it out. Either you're legit or you're not. Either you understand the petition or you don't. Did that attorney put something in there that you don't even understand? Right. And there's the point. You know, there's a lot of people that get sucked into these issues that they have no idea about. And we don't really we can't we can't know whether somebody has good or bad intentions. That's why going after people is a bad idea. They may have the best of intentions and they may have been led astray. And that that would be a very sad thing. Very, very sad. We're not impugning anyone's character because you look at the you look at honestly, most of the people that are in politics, they think they're doing the right thing. Most of them are. But they've been captured by some really evil people behind the scenes. And they're subversive. Usually they're hard to find. They're usually not the people that are standing out in front. And that's what I told the people at the council last night. I said, you know, he's like, why are you here? And do you know the law? And on and on. And I said, well, I'm here enough to know that we're supposed to instruct you, which is my job. And it's like, do you know the law? I'm like, well, I know the Constitution pretty well. So and I'm getting there on the law. And the same thing here. I'm like, I'm here. And I told him this. I'm here because you may not know what is behind this. And it's our job to instruct you. And when we see somebody making a mistake, Even if it's, suppose it's Carla, suppose it's somebody else. It's our job to bring the truth forward so that they know they may have been sucked into something that has a deeper problem behind it. And after this gentleman admitted that there's an attorney and an economist behind it, though he didn't know their names, but he knew they were there and was right out in front with it. It's like, okay, well, let's find out who they are. Let's have Carla tell us who the... economist and who the lawyer is that was working on it with her that's what he admitted and um and so and I have I have it all documented and how do we know who these people actually are who's funding them and who's behind them how do we know that they're not a socialist they're trying to instill socialism into our Constitution. Who's vetted them? How do we know that it's not somebody that's part of the intelligence community, the CIA, or something else like that that showed up to be help? Just about everybody that showed up to help me when I was running for governor, they were just there to see if they could compromise me in one way or another. Very, very few people stepped up to help, and I know who those people are, and they're fabulous people. that did step up to help, but the ones that came that were from other sources, which I check people out. I don't take what anybody says at face value because I want to know who's funding them and who's behind them. We don't know who these people are. We don't know if they're trying to do an asset capture to have their agenda gone forward. And that's true for everyone that's out there. Stranger danger. We don't know who they are. You need to check. And I don't blame anyone for checking into what anybody says or does. It needs that. And hopefully people will come alongside everyone and say, hey, you know, I don't know you. I don't know your intentions, but I just want to let you know that this is what's going on here. And I have all the information, just like me. If I'm wrong about something, I would love it if somebody comes forward and shows the receipts. Because I can say, wait a minute, you know, we're doing our best here to bring the truth forward. But there's a lot of crap out there. And one person can't do it all. You've got to have a group of people, an army of people that can stand together as we the people in order to bring the truth forward. Did you know that the Treasury Department puts out about a nine-page document on lawful expenditure determination? No. Yeah. And if you ever get a chance to go through it, we're actually, I've got it set up to do a class on it on Thursday, next Thursday. And how it applies, how the Norton v. Shelby County applies to this. Are you going to do it online or are you doing it in person? It's a private meeting. Send me the information because I would very much like to see this and maybe I'll drive over and... Sit there and take lots of notes. But one of the things that I saw going through this document was how no funds can be dispersed by village, city, township, county absent a contract. So if funds cannot be dispersed by these elements absent a contract, well, where's the contract to collect the money to begin with? So by their own admission, they have to have a contract to disperse funds, but you don't need a contract to collect funds, to charge the people for those services or whatever it is that you're claiming are the basis of the property taxes. So absent a contract, where's the obligation? Right. So we have a right. I talked about this last time under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling under Obamacare, the Commerce Clause and the proper necessary clause. We get to choose what services we want to pay for. You're not automatically by assumption and presumption automatically into a contract just because they say so. So we get to choose, do you want to pay for that skateboard park? Do you want fake police? And I keep saying fake police, and someone gave me a little hassle on that, and I said, well, let me clarify this. What are fake police? Fake police are departments, whether it be the township police or city police, they cannot prove their de jure status. And show me anywhere in the constitution that city or township police departments are allowed to exist. The only one that's allowed to exist as a sheriff, right? Back to the eighteen hundreds, every town had a sheriff. And then they did away with that. They changed it over and they convinced the people, Oh, wouldn't it be better if we had our own police department? Well, you yeah, it'd be great, but it's not in the constitution, but they convinced everybody for your protection for the children. For your grandma, we'll have our, and you get to vote on it. We're gonna give you the power to vote on it. Well, they don't have the authority to grant that authority to the people to vote on it because it's all part of the constitution. The process is already contained within the constitution. So these millages, oh, we're gonna pass a millage for your health and safety. No, that's not how it works. And also contained within that, if it broke it down according to the sixty three constitution, that all cities and townships are corporations. Well, wait a minute. If they're a corporation, are they? I don't know. I'm going to say this is me, me talking. Yeah. Can the government be a corporation? They cannot. Can a corporation be a government? It's a profit. Who are they trying to help first? The corporation or the people? The corporation. That's pretty clear. Now, as a corporation, are they bound to follow the Constitution? Absolutely not. Here's a test, everybody. Send your local municipality a FOIA. Ask them two things. One, please provide me a list of all the people on the board or within your township, city, whatever. Give me a list of everybody who is part of the executive branch. Number two, give me a list of all the names of those who are on the legislative branch. If they're the same names, what happened to separation of power? It's gone. Why? Because you're on the board as well as on the what was it? I'm answering a question in the text here right now. I shouldn't be distracted. You want to see who is on the executive branch and who's on the legislative branch. Because the who holds office in one cannot hold that of another. So if they're the same names, then they are not following the Constitution, are they? Because now you've melded both the legislative and executive branches together. A corporation can do that. So are they really following the Constitution? No. Are they actually your representatives? No. They represent a corporation. That's why they have an EIN number. That's why they have a Dun & Bradstreet number. So they're not doing what's in the best interest of the people. They're doing what's in the best interest of their financial supporters. Who's pulling their strings? Who's paying them to do what they do? Right. And I've shown and proven that many, many times where I've gone to city council meetings and said, everybody's against this and you're still pushing it through. What's wrong with this picture? We have the support. Support from whom? Who's padding your pockets? And I know certain public officials who have had their pockets padded. I know in various devious ways of doing it, okay? Now, I'm not going to get into the name calling right now, but if any of your listeners may understand what I'm about to say, for road improvements, the highways, is it possible that maybe, I don't know, let's call them a supervisor, may own a gravel pit by which if you the trucking company, the road crew, you want that contract, that multimillion dollar contract to do the road improvements in my territory that you have to use my gravel pit for the materials? Hmm. There's a problem, isn't it? And you know what? That's the problem that I have with all of it. I want to know. Curtis, I'm going to have to send that to you by text because I can't get it in the chat, but I can give you the copy of the court rules here. I've got it chased down. Yeah, the people that are in office, it's like, how is it that we can have builders and realtors on our township councils who continue to vote more development, more things that are going to enrich their industry. I think all realtors and developers should never get near that township council. because they're voting themselves self-favor. The problem is we have a lack of participation by the general public. Nobody wants to bother to get involved. It's easier to sit home and watch a football game than to actually get involved in what's going on in the community. Well, and to that point, I've asked people who are frustrated, I'm like, Step up and run. I'm the chairman of the Constitution Party. Step up and run. Do something. And they're like, well, you don't understand. I'm like, try me. I've got kids. I work all day. And I'm like, and the rest of us don't. Right. No, it's like it's like it's the craziest thing. My my husband literally had. was keeping track of the days we didn't see each other when I was running. He said, do you realize in fourteen months we saw each other fifty-five days? don't think there's sacrifice and taking this nation back right and for you know for us to put our time into this you have a job I have job to do I have lots of jobs to do actually and we still take our time in the morning and doing the research and showing up these court dates and showing up at things because it's something we have to do unless we're all not willing to do something I mean For gosh sakes, even if people decided to post good information, like the link to this show to get your information out there, what we're talking about, five minutes a day, putting the reputation on the line. Well, you know, this may be outside of people's comfort zones, but you know what? Screw it. I'm going to do it anyway. Everybody's afraid to talk politics. Oh, my gosh. Unless it affects them directly. Yes, but they'll sit there and they'll listen and go, go Donna, go Mike. Well, guess what? We need people that will step out there and actually put the stuff out there too. We can't do it alone. If everybody just five minutes, I mean, you don't even have to stand in front of anybody taking the hits that we've taken. Just post it, help us. Now, earlier when we were talking to John, you guys were talking about how they are listening in and monitoring everything we say and do, right? Yeah. What if I were to tell you that, for example, the Secretary of State will not contract with me? The Secretary of State is a corporation. Right. They will not contract with me. How do you explain that? They will not, I've asked them, I've asked them because Judge Bain, this was part of one of the court cases, he demanded, I need to get a driver's license. He goes, I want you to go get a driver's license. I'm ordering you to get a driver's license. I said, okay, Judge, I'll go get a driver's license. Haven't had one for three years, but I'll go get one. So I went to the Secretary of State, said, hey, Judge ordered me to come here and get a driver's license. So we started doing the paperwork. And they go, oh, we can't do this. We can't contract with you. We can't issue one. Well, why not? Well, because you don't have a permanent abode. And because you don't have a permanent abode, we can't contract with you. So I went back to the court. Judge, he goes, well, did you get one? I said, no, they won't contract with me. He goes, why not? I said, because I don't have a permanent abode. So I said, judge, here's what I need you to do. I need you to issue a court order. I want you to order the secretary of state to give me a driver's license. He goes, I can't do that. I said, why not? He goes, it's not within my jurisdiction. Uh-oh. What do we do now? So I guess I can't get a driver's license, can I? And you can't force me to get a driver's license. And they're not going to contract with me to give me a driver's license. So I guess I'm out of the system, aren't I? I'm no longer in their system. What did he say? And he goes, well, why don't you go get a friend and use their address? Oh, now he's telling you to lie? Yes. He instructed me to lie. So this is the stupidity of their rhetoric. Okay. And it's just like, you know what? It's time everybody learned how to get out of their system. And I'm thinking about maybe in the next couple of weeks, we do a couple of shows on how to get out of their system. One of which, your cell phone. Why do you own a cell phone? I don't own a cell phone. I don't own anything, but I control everything. Let that sink in for a moment. I control everything. Your cell phones, get yourself a series of trusts and the trust owns the cell phone. Get it out of your name. Get everything out of your name and into the names of trusts. Your trust should not be Donna's irrevocable trust. It's gotta be something else. Do not use your name, your last name, your kid's name, your pet's names. Pick a hobby. and use your hobby to establish the names of your trust as an example and get everything out of your name so you own nothing because once you own nothing once everything is protected under the veils of the trust they have zero leverage zero dave burris the attorney for seward henderson out of royal oak In his brief to Judge Geddes, in the case where Genoa Township, where they were forced to turn down her deck, he stipulated that, well, he's going out there, Bambus is going out there and telling everybody how to avoid having to pay the court costs and how to get around having to do this and how to get around that using trusts. Yep, sure am. Because I guess we're smarter than you, huh? They've lost to me four times, and that's why they're so pissed. So they can't pierce those trusts. They're trying to. They're trying to manipulate right now. They're changing the legislation in Lansing right now so that the judges can pierce the veils of the trusts. Why do you think they want to get rid of Article I, Section X in this petition with Ask My Tax? So that they can create laws that pierce your wills and your trusts so they have full control over the assets, over your trustees, and over your beneficiaries. They want absolute control over everything. Sorry. They want to get their hands on everything that you've worked for. They want to take all of your rights away, not just your property rights, but even the right for you to live and die. I mean, look at how there's a guy right now that's incarcerated. His name is John Flynn. Out in Connecticut, he was a rep. They've incarcerated him in a mental institution for speaking out. He's absolutely sane. If you listen to him talk, he's more sane than most people you know. And now they're trying to force him to be medicated to shut him down. And that's exactly what this is all about. Judge Green attempted to do that with me. He wanted me to go have a forensic evaluation, which is a fancy term. Like a psychiatric one? Yeah, they wanted me to see a psychiatrist in Ann Arbor under the Department of Health and Human Services. Oh, there's a good one for you. Well, I FOIAed them, asking them for their de jure documents. Guess what? They're de facto. So that's a fake doctor. But I... I came back at back to Bain and said, you are demanding that I do that. Oh yeah. Well, are you, do you have a license to practice medicine? I don't think so. So why are you practicing medicine from the bench? What did he say? Well, I haven't heard, he hasn't responded. So, but this is how you, this is what you have to do. You have to turn around, use their language and use it against them. You're ordering me to get a psych analysis? Well, who are you ordering? Number one, you just stated on and for the record, you don't even know who's before you. So are you ordering the all caps name to go get a psych analysis? Or are you ordering I the man who you have no jurisdiction over? Who are you ordering? You don't even know who you're issuing the orders against. Because you stated it on the record. So what are we talking about here? Are you practicing medicine without a license? Sounds like it to me like you're practicing medicine without a license. What qualified you to have the ability to determine that I needed a psych analysis because I contest and challenge your authority? I know damn well you don't have the authority. The Michigan State Police are the ones that pulled me over. State Police admitted to being de facto. Well, if they're de facto, they don't exist. They have no authority. Where did the court acquire personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction? None. They don't have any. If you're ticketed by the state police, the city police, the township police, they have no authority. There is no jurisdiction in any court. None. The judges have zero personal jurisdiction. They have zero subject matter jurisdiction. Cannot be granted. Cannot be manipulated into such. Cannot exist. So therefore the case is dismissed. It's to be vacated because it was never any authority to begin with. and we have to stop funding their shenanigans. My Thursday group, we just had a report from someone in Florida who used coffee beans to take care of their court case So coffee beans has once again been used. It's now been used in Florida, it's been used in Wisconsin, and we've used it here in Michigan. This is where it originated, was here in Michigan. Montgomery Ward v. Eugene Glaser, in nineteen eighty-two. Coffee beans has an intrinsic value. So if the judge says, hey, you owe me a hundred dollars, well, And what species do you wish that to be in? Well, we'll take a check. We'll take a credit card. Well, those are forms of payment. That's not a specie of payment. MCL, M-C-L, M-C-L, M-C-L, M-C-L, Federal Reserve notes are not worth anything. They're zero intrinsic value. They're backed by nothing. It's monopoly money. So you can pay in coffee beans. We've established that. It is case law. Hey, guess what? I think I'm going to just say it. This is the start of the coffee bean rebellion. It's been going on for a while. Pay their court costs in coffee beans. Get a copy of the transcript and include it with your payment. Do it by affidavit. So you do an affidavit. I'm here to settle. I am tendering this in coffee beans because you failed to specify a species of payment. Therefore, I get to interpret this by what I see to be true. And therefore, because coffee beans have intrinsic value, I am paying you in coffee beans, one bean per whatever the number is. I actually got a postcard saying, oh, your account is account. My account is delinquent. Well, what's an account under fifteen USC chapter forty one account is an open end line of credit. Well, if it's an open ended line of credit under federal law, then under twelve CFR one zero zero six point three eight. I demand to know who the original creditor is. Well, guess who the original creditors are? We the people. We the people are the creditors. We are not the debtors. We cannot be debtors. So tell me who the original creditor is on this account if you're claiming it to be an account. And if it's an account and I get to decide the specie by which it is to be tendered, then I choose coffee beans. Here's the case law. Have a nice day. And you send it certified mail. Oh, that is so fun. So just, I'm going to say it for all those attorneys, those bar attorneys out there that are sitting there. We're going to get them. We're going to get them. Guess what? This is not legal advice. So check with your attorney first. If you're stupid. How's that? Well, where does it say? We're in the Constitution that say you have to have an attorney. It says counsel. Yep. Now, define counsel. Counsel could be spiritual counsel. Could be your emotional support turkey, too, you know? That's right. Now, the Bar Association launched an investigation into me claiming that I'm practicing law without a license. Okay, so I rebutted it and sent them back and said, I need clarification on what you're referring here. And one of the things I asked was, because they're claiming, the Bar Association in their letter to me stated that no one is allowed to give legal advice. unless they're a licensed attorney well wait a minute does that mean that if you are giving advice to your son or your daughter you have to hire an attorney to do so really they're they're this this is you know the nonsense this is there you get two attorneys to turn the whole system into a joke right It is a joke. It is a joke from the get-go to think that we have to follow anything they have to say. They are supposed to give you a guideline. They're supposed to give you a suggestion, not this is how you're going to do it. Look at our public functionaries. They can't pick their nose without permission from their bar attorney who's on retainer at the taxpayer's expense to decide what they can do and what they can't do. It's ridiculous. We had meetings with the supervisors like, well, we need to consult with our attorney first before we can take any action. Who's the elected official here? You or the bar attorney? The bar attorneys are sitting there milking the system, milking the tax dollars out of everybody and giving bad advice. But they feel that they can get away with this because, oh, yeah, well, if you don't do what we say, how we say it, when we say it, then we'll send over our goons with the guns and the badges to force you to do so. Well, guess what? You know what? Go ahead. Send your goons. I can prove that they don't exist because they're de facto. I can show all this. So we're not going to deal with this in the state courts anymore. We'll go to federal court. We'll go to federal court and let's see how you fare there. Now, interesting enough, last week, I put a call into the Michigan Supreme Court, the administrators. And the gal on the phone answered the phone and she goes, what's going on? And I said, ma'am, I said, I got a problem here. I don't know what to do. I said, I don't know if I need to call the sheriff. I don't know if I need to call the AG, if I should call the FBI or the attorney general, U.S. attorney general. I don't know who to call about this. She goes, well, what's the I said, who do we call to report a judge who states on and for the record that the Constitution does not exist in his courtroom and that the codes and statutes usurp the Constitution? Oh, what'd you say? She goes, well, I can connect you to the administrator's office and you can file a complaint. Complaint hell. I want to file charges. That's treason. He now is committing treason in and on for the record. And if he does it in my presence, then I have the right under MCL seven six four point one six to the Institute of Citizens Arrest. And she's like, well, I'll connect you to the court administrators. I said, okay, fine. Connect me to the court administrators. So she connects me. Nobody answers the phone. I leave a message. Guess what? They still haven't called back. Gee, I wonder why. It's all a joke. It's all facade. It's smoke and mirrors. It's all fake. All of it is. Yes. It's all fake. And we've got to stop funding them. We have to stay. You know what? What happened to no means no? Remember that cliche? Oh, no means no. Well, guess what? No means no. I am not consenting to your stuff. I do not consent to enter into a contract. I do not consent to your rhetoric. I do not consent to your rules and regulations that are unconstitutional. I say no. Now, if everybody says no, now what are you going to do? They got a problem. They got a big problem. Huge problem. And if we start paying them in coffee beans, guess what does that do? Oh, that hurts them financially. You know, when you see a Brinks truck pull up in front of the courthouse and loading up sacks of money, what does that tell you? The courts are not an actual court. They're a bank. It's a banking institution, and they're funneling funds through there. We have to stop consenting to this nonsense. We really do. Well, where else do you want to go with this? Because this is fun. I love this. What else do I have around here? Okay. You want to talk more about contractual duress? So I put that immunity into that they have no immunity into my comments last night. Yeah, they think they have this absolute immunity. Absolute immunity, the immunity thing came from the U.S. Supreme Court in, I think it was, and it's something that they made up. It's no form of legislation. It's nothing. It's something that they created. Well, who delegated them the authority to create it in the first place? Wasn't we the people? And how can you grant... this absolute immunity for everything. Okay. Does that mean that a judge can commit murder in the courtroom and call it a judicial act and therefore be covered by absolute immunity? There's no blind scales of justice going on here at all. It all gives them the ability to interpret or choose who they're going to harass. Well, I asked a court official on that in the federal courts and I used that scenario exactly. And the answer was yes. A judge can shoot you dead in the courtroom, declare it a judicial act and not be charged with a crime. How, what was the reaction? My reaction was you gotta be kidding me. What was the rest of the court's reaction? Well, this wasn't in court. This was just a conversation I was having with a court official from the federal courts. And was he serious? Yes. That's a police state. That is not a republic. That is a police state. Do you ever go to ask yourself questions, especially with the spying aspect of how they're spying on us with everything? Thinking back to say, oh, I don't know, the secret police, the Gestapo, the SS, all of these, the KGB, all of these secret police societies back through history. that targeted people. I don't know how anybody can see where we are right now and say that it's any different than what oppressed people through the ages have experienced. Yeah. They're not supposed to be spying on us at all, but yet they are. And that's why, again, I get everything, nothing's in my name. So if they want to tap the phone, well, how do they know it's my phone? They don't. because it's not in my name. So at the same time, we have to learn how to maybe use that to our advantage. We can set them up. We can put out a bunch of rhetoric out there, and all of a sudden they pop up with their SWAT teams and they're like, what are you guys doing? Well, we've got, oh, so you have been spying on us. So you did just admit to committing a felony. You just committed treason. Because you violated the Constitution. You're supposed to guarantee us a Republican form of government, Article IV, Section IV, and we are supposed to be secure in our person and our property. And you just violated it. You just admitted to it. So, yeah, they want to spy. Sure, go ahead, spy. But be careful because we may just set you up for a big eye-opening experience. See, that's what I think President Trump is doing right now. He's always the bait in their arguments. And he'll do things in order to draw people out of the shadows. And then dark delight hands their tail to them, which I think is absolutely hilarious. It's funny. If you don't take things at face value, but you look at the strategy behind it and apply, say, like, oh, I don't know, game theory, if you're really trying to win. You're not going to come forward and telegraph your every move in order to satisfy, I'm just going to say it, the village idiots who refuse to get in the game, who refuse to know the law or know what's going on, but they know everything, you know, because they go for coffee and cookies and such. But I think he's actually, I think they're doing a pretty good job because they're dragging the outliers forward. the ones that maybe I personally think they've already got that they've already got the higher ops players already checkmated. I really do. I think there's still some things going on. But if you were going to catch a bunch of people that have their rubber neck and go, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Wouldn't you throw something out there that was, say, maybe a little questionable to see who is for real or who is just going to go along to get along or who is going to stand on what's right or what's wrong? Or who's going to tell the truth? Who's going to say, well, you know, executive orders, though they are interesting. Because I actually met the guy that wrote the executive orders for President Trump in his first administration. And I asked him straight out. I'm like, How is it you could write an executive order that can't be enforced upon the people? And he just kind of smiled at me. And I'm like, OK, I'm like, this is only stuff that can go interdepartmental. It has nothing to do with we the people. But then you look at the nature of the executive orders, their effect. was pretty much on the government. And the people who have broken the law outside of the government, like human crimes against humanity. It is actually directing people on how to deal with these issues, which I think is kind of interesting. But the executive orders didn't do what Whitmer did. There was a complete contrast in what Whitmer did in telling us you can't buy paint, you can't be outside, you can't do landscaping. You can have a canoe, but you can't have a speedboat. You have to be masked up at all times. You have to do this. I mean, that was a police state, and it's like shame on all of them. And quite honestly, they all have to be held accountable for what they did to this state because they did so much damage, and the damage they did was irreparable. They took our time. They took our freedoms. They took our money. They took our property. And it's still going on right now with the townships. They're still determining policies that they have no authority to do so. Right. Now, I hear some people give the rhetoric, oh, you know, martial law. Well, wait a minute. If we're under martial law, what has to happen in order for martial law to be instituted? The Constitution has to be suspended. And we already know that the Constitution can never be suspended. So the Constitution can never be suspended. Can you institute martial law? No, you cannot. Can you deprive people of their rights at any time? No, you cannot. You cannot. So martial law deprives people of their rights. So can you enforce it? No. So martial law cannot be enforced without the Constitution being suspended. And until the Constitution is suspended, you can't institute martial law. It's that simple. So with that said... If we learn how to, again, use their rhetoric against them, okay, case in point. Now, you've heard me talk about these three court cases involving Judge Bain and all that, right? What would happen if I were to tell you that maybe I did those court cases on purpose? Maybe I got those tickets on purpose for the simple reason to educate people on the system. Maybe I got those tickets on purpose to basically bait and switch them out to get them to say and do things they're not supposed to do. Maybe I got those tickets so that we would have these trials to expose the fraud that they are enforcing upon the people. Maybe get a brand for governor to experience the corruption within the system and be able to talk about it and find out who's who in the zoo, as well as the policies, procedures, and the crimes being committed. You can't find out unless you jump in to see what's actually going on. Yes. And then you have standing, standing to sue. You have standing anyway, but I mean, you've got a stronger case if you have experienced a usurpation or an attack from... the system, which is unconstitutional, you are now, it's, it's a difference between the egg and the pig, right? You can eat the eggs, but once you're in the system, you know, once you're into it, the pig is committed, right? So there, there's a difference there. Right. When, when we, when we step forward, sometimes, and I've said this from the beginning, sometimes you win by losing, right? Yeah, everybody looks at it, well, you're not doing very well in these court cases. You don't understand what I'm doing with these court cases. Yes, we are. I'm getting these judges to say and do things they're not supposed to be doing or saying. So I am winning because I'm acquiring information that I'm going to use down the road. I could give two craps about a speeding ticket. I could give two craps about a taillight being out. Who cares? It means nothing. What the substance is, is am I getting this judge to admit that they are committing a fraud upon the people, that they're committing extortion, racketeering, and money laundering, that they're invading the taxes on the court cases because they're a taxable event and they're not reporting it to the IRS. All kinds of things here, folks. You're looking at things differently. that you're not seeing the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is exposing them. Now, I paid Bain off in coffee beans. I said, you know what, just to avoid any further controversy because the court case is controversy. So I'm avoiding the controversy. I'll end the whole controversy here. I even asked him, I said, would you allow me to end the controversy? He said, no. What do you mean, no? You don't want to end the controversy? Isn't that what this is all about, to end the controversy? And he got all pissy. You know, his panties are in a wad because I paid him in coffee beans. He thinks that's it. He's gone on the record. Well, that's a contemptible offense. Really? There's a court case right here in Michigan that says otherwise. Never been overturned. Never been appealed. So, therefore, it stands. In which case is that quoted? Eugene Glaser. Oh, yeah. So, You show me, Judge, we're to the contrary. Now, I sent two affidavits, one for each case with the coffee beans, because he sent me a postcard. That's another violation to send you a postcard. The postcard had no symbols on it. All it said was nine eight two. Your account is delinquent, nine eight two. Well, what the hell is nine eight two? I don't know what nine eight two is. It's based on my interpretation. To me, I guess that's nine hundred and eighty two coffee beans. So I sent him nine hundred and eighty two coffee beans. And I threw in an extra twenty just to see if they would count them and return the twenty. So I sent it all by certified mail. They returned it. OK, this is not acceptable. Well, wait a minute. It is acceptable, number one, on multiple levels. Number one, that if I pay you, if I tender the payment to you and you refuse the payment, then. the tender of payment is completely discharged under state law and is completely discharged under federal law. So if you refuse payment, payment is in full. So by their own admission, they're violating not only state law, they're violating federal law. But yet, They're immune, remember? They don't have to follow the law, I guess. That's right. That immunity clause is all about the two-tiered justice, that they can do whatever they want, supposedly, which we know they can't. Right. And we're their subjects. When you called the township councils tribunals, I think that that is... So apropos, you know, when you look at how they try to subvert people's voices, tell us what they can talk about or what they can't in a very, very disrespectful way. It happened last night. And, you know, in a way that sits there like with a gavel up there. I mean, the one guy was terribly disrespectful. And it was kind of troubling. And everybody that was sitting there watching this, watching this proceeding was just absolutely furious about this. This is their mindset. They get an office and they get this little king, this little Napoleon complex that they can run around and tell everybody how big they are and what they're going to do and this, that, and the other thing. They just want to sit in front of people and have them bow down to them They want everybody to take a knee. Oh, they're in the know. No, they don't. They are not just equal with us. They are as citizens, but they're below us in the structure. If there's an org chart out there, they're below us as employees and public servants. They are not. There's a saying that when I come across public functionaries who become arrogant and disrespectful in the manner in which you were talking, I go, wait, I'll stop the proceeding right there. We're going to stop right now. Obviously, we need a lesson in the pecking order. So to be clear, for the record, we the people are the supreme authority under the Constitution, making me the people, the employers, and all public servants or public functionaries, the employees. You work for the people of which I'm a part, making me one of your superior employers. Now, if you don't like that, you can go resign right now, become a greeter at Walmart for all I care, but let's make certain that we understand. We're crystal clear on this subject. You are not at the top of the pecking order. You're at the bottom. And that's how it works and that's how it stands. So you think you're above me? You're not. We the people are the superior. We are the sovereigns. You exist by our good graces. You exist because we allow this government to exist. And if you don't do what's in our best interest, as our founding documents stipulate, we can remove you. Does that mean by a voting process? Does it say voting process only? No, it does not. It means that we can physically arrest them because we have a state law that says we can. MCL, seven, six, four point one six. If they commit a felony in your presence, you have the ability and the authority to place them under citizens arrest right then and there. So by them committing an act of treason, by not following the Constitution, by violating their oath, by not guaranteeing, hence the word guarantee, a Republican form of government, not a democracy, Article IV, Section IV, then we have the authority, we have the power to place them under citizen's arrest. Does that mean you have to take them into custody right then and there? No, it does not. You can verbally place them under arrest. You can write an arrest warrant and serve them with that arrest warrant. And that means they are subject to be picked up at any time, any place, any manner down the road. So you don't necessarily have to take them into custody right then and there. But you can serve them. You can put them on notice that they're under arrest. And now we go to the sheriff's department. Now, if the sheriff doesn't do his job, guess what? He's in dereliction of duty. It's an act of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of duty. Now he's on the hook for it as well. Now we're going to go up the chain. Now we'll go to higher up. Now we're going to go federal. They're going to be held accountable. We have all the mechanisms to do it. We just have to see that everybody steps forward and gets in the game a little bit, which this is really a fun process. I have thoroughly enjoyed the whole process for running for governor, for getting in, for getting more educated. and seeing the system, learning pro se, learning the documents and learning how to hold people accountable. It's really fun. I mean, honestly, it is fun to me because it's a strategy game. So when we're holding them accountable, it's not as boring as what a lot of people think it is. Regular politics is absolutely an abysmal, a soul-sucking exercise. It really is. But when you start doing this sort of thing, it is really fun. And you meet some wonderful patriots that it becomes really fun and purposeful. And you start feeling like you're getting your identity as an American, non-American citizen, a citizen of the state of Michigan. You get your authority back. You get your purpose back. And you start experiencing and feeling the freedom that we all should feel, the liberty, the freedom that we all should feel every day without being under threat or coercion. And it's a great feeling. It is such a liberating feeling. great feeling to go in that direction. And these people are dumb. I'm going to tell you that, that are, that are sitting in the seats that have jumped into this. If they were smart, they wouldn't be, they wouldn't be engaging in these activities. Okay. They're sheep, they're followers. They're, they, they literally just jump in. Oh yeah, I guess I can make a few bucks getting into the office, that kind of thing. They're dumb though. And when you start thinking and actually talking, they sit there and they're like, I don't know what to say. You know, And then you just provide them with the defense, the law. It's pretty clear. Once you get your arms around it, it's actually pretty clear. They don't know what to do with it because there is no defense for their actions. And anyhow, it's not scary. I got three or four more days here. before Dave Burris, Genoa Township, Livingston County Board of Commissioners and Judge Geddes default again on the notices. So right now they were served a notice of non-response. They're about to default on that again. And once that happens, then they'll be receiving a notice of default, and they'll have ten days to respond to that. If they don't respond to that, then it'll be a final notice of default, at which point there'll be some other steps taken, and then we start the federal lawsuits against Burris, Seward. Henderson and Genoa Township, Livingston County Board of Commissioners, and they're all on the hook for what they've done, stating that we, the sovereigns, are domestic terrorists. They're the domestic terrorists. The Bar Association is a domestic terrorist organization. We've got the emails. We've got the proof. And you know what? We're going to go to federal court. We're going to expose the whole enchilada and show everybody that, yeah, the people you thought you were getting good advice from, the people that you are being pressured into hiring, and the bar guild that is telling our politicians on what to do and how to do it, guess what? You guys have a big eye-opener coming right now, and it's coming. It's coming. Within the next couple months, it's going to happen. I think this is fantastic. So my fellow Americans, my fellow Michiganians, Michiganders, I like that term. Not Michiganders. Don't call me a Michigander. I know. I think it's funny, though. I love that term just because it's like a redneck good old boy term, you know? You know what Michigander means, don't you? Nitwit keeps calling everybody a Michigander. Michigander is our slave owners of the Civil War in Michigan. I'm not a slave owner. OK, well, that you know what? Karen's going to be like going, go get her. Go get her, Mike, because we've had this discussion for a long time. I just think it's hilarious to be called. It's like a redneck type term. I think it's funny. So at any rate, so that, you know, my friends that are out there, we this is the way to get it done. So help us spread the word out there to actually stand on the legal, the legality, the lawful defense on taking this nation back. Going and wasting your time in all of these nonsense efforts that are going around. Most of them are being run by people that are trying to preserve the system. They're just second string establishment people. That's what I see out there. It's just second string establishment, most of it. Stay within the law. Look at the law. Know the law. Know your legal defense. Read those constitutions. Understand what's in it. It's not tedious. It's fun because every single one of them is putting a tool in your toolbox to defend yourself and to hold people accountable and stay on the rails. Well, do you want to do you want to let's let's go to our day's day here. It's I'll say a prayer. Then you can end in last last words. And then we're going to we'll do we'll do our thing. And then we go to our day and then I'll be back on tomorrow. So that's how it does it. Same time, same bat channel. You know the drill. So dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for John and for Mike and all the wonderful people out there who are in their groups or spheres of influence. They're buddies that we all fight with. We're all on the same team here. And it's just wonderful when you are leading us out of captivity such as this, that you bring so many of us together with different skill sets, different knowledge, and we start putting the pieces of the puzzle together and it starts making sense. We are so thankful for your guidance, for your leading, for your provision, for actually you yourself laying a trap for evildoers and those who would subvert your people, which is your creation. Thank you so much for being so generous to us and kind. You've always made the way. You're a savior, not just at the end of our life, but every single day that we walk with you here on this earth. And we just adore you. We love you. We thank you. And we're ready. Tell us what to do next. This is fun. Minute by minute, following your lead. And what a great adventure it is walking forward with you as our Lord and savior, but also our friend. Thank you so much for being a great friend to us. And we want to be a friend to you. And we want to bless you today. We want to do the things that bless your heart, that make you happy. Not just going to you as Vendigod. Hey, I want, I want, I want. But as your children and your friends say, what can we do to help? Pick me. I'm ready. Thank you so much this day. And in Jesus name we pray. Amen. All right. So what's the last words here, Mike? Just get out there, start learning how to protect yourself, get everything you have into trust so you own nothing but control everything, and they have no leverage over you, then we can start teaching everybody how to get out of their system and how to stop contracting with them and stop funding their extortion, racketeering, and money laundering operations. This is not legal advice. This is lawful advice. This is lawfully holding people accountable. And this is what we need to learn. I'm going to say what I'm saying is advice because I physically have done it. Okay. I'm telling you what I have physically done. I have been successful. It's a recount. And so this isn't a theory. This is not my opinion only. This is based on my actual having done so. Okay. These are my experiences and what I've been successful in doing. So this goes beyond just a possibility or an interpretation of some of the rhetoric out there. This is stuff that I have actually physically have done, and it works. That was a fantastic explanation to follow that up with. I love that. Thank you so much. So with that said, everybody, let's see. It's this hand. Go to BrandonBurkeForGovernor.com because I'm the best non-conceder who's ever not conceded in the 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 J. Trump. Cowboy boots, I wear better than we have a real discussion. I do want to bring up a really, a very serious subject a minute before we go, because I think that there are so many people out there that are lost and have feel abandoned, feel alone. You are not alone. I had a cousin that committed suicide yesterday. And this is actually, I've had two cousins that committed suicide. One was, I was seventeen years old and it was very sad because our family acted like brothers and sisters more than cousins. We were together all the time. I've got thirty three first cousins by blood. We grew up together. We were together every single week. We a large, large family. And I want to let everyone know that is out there feeling maybe depressed or that you're alone. You are never, ever alone. You have a bunch of us out here who care about you. And if you feel like you're not fitting in or that the people who should love you don't love you, I get it. I absolutely understand feeling that way. And I think a lot of people out there are in that position that have taken a stand or who are willing to step forward and not just go along to get along. You're going to be ostracized. They're going to criticize you. You're going to make decisions that not everybody agrees with. The thing that really has got me bitten by this is listening to the responses around this person pretty much it's a judgment and a blame on that person. You know what? It's going to be a judgment upon those of us who perhaps, and I wasn't one of them, that walked away from these people and judged them for the decisions that they're making. A lot of people are doing things just to survive right now. There's no two ways about it. There's a lot of addictions going on. There's a lot of, There's a lot of addictions to many things going on right now just to mask the pain of life for so many people. You know what? There's no judgment here. You're always going to be a welcome around me. I am not the kind of person that's going to sit here and play the piety game of condemning people to judgment, whatever it is. We need to sit down with each other and talk and be there for each other, no matter what the decisions are made. I mean, we need to hold people accountable. I get that. People have to be accountable for bad decisions that hurt other people. However, most of the things that are going on are just people trying to survive in life. And sometimes they're bad decisions they've made. Sometimes there are things and circumstances that go on around them outside of their control. But just as Jesus said, come all of you who are weary and heavy laden, and he will give you rest. The same thing comes here. This is no judgment. If you're having struggles, there's no judgment on it. We get it. There's a lot that is going on out there. And I just want to let you know that you're loved. You're never alone. If you need help, I've put my information out there. I'm easy to find. I'm actually very, very easy to find. I listen to text messages before I listen to emails or anything. Just text me. And you know what? Somebody will be there that you can talk to and sit with you while you're crying or that you feel alone. Reach out. You're not alone. And Don't don't go to that. You know, you don't have to go to that extreme. There's there's other ways. There's other ways around that, that decision. There's many other ways. And it's not necessarily it's never hopeless. So, so with that said, I want to let everybody know that they're loved today and, and that they're not alone. Um, with that said, God bless you. God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Let's make it a great day and be there for one another as brothers and sisters and, uh, and actually live out our faith. And that's what I have to say today. And I got to tell you, my cousin that committed suicide, he was a really, really good guy. I think that the horribleness of the world around him, everyone I've ever known who's committed suicide, and I know several people, I think it was because their standard was so high that the world around them became so so much of a burden of just despondency and lack of hope that they couldn't they couldn't do it anymore so all of us who are willing to stand for something be out there stand for something let the world know that there's that you're there smile make a difference every day and we win that way I'll see you tomorrow we'll be on with liberty essentials once again beating up this whole constitution issue and greg greg martini will be on once again talking about notices I love that you brought that up today I'm sure greg's out there doing a happy dance because I know he watches it and all the people and we the people notices thank you so much for being here with us we stand together united we'll see you thanks stand