Published June 24, 2025, 9 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike Bambas - 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/1yoKMoabZkYJQ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1916928055749760 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6v8vsh-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6242025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html https://rumble.com/v6v8vut-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6242025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-24-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas:a BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Mike Bambas
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's June, twenty four, twenty twenty five. Welcome to our show today. We're going to start out with John Tater with Lawful Defense and then go to Mike Bambus at ten o'clock with pro se cases that he's working. All these guys are doing pro se cases, which I'm totally into. This is this is the coolest thing ever. And you know what? All of us who are working pro se and such. are actually winning, which is really interesting. Let's bring John on and start the show. How are you doing there, John? I'm doing good. Awesome. so much going on out there. Um, you know, I wanted to start out talking about what's going on in Iran because I've been pretty quiet in my posting about what's, what's actually happening because when they started doing the stealth bombers out there, which I think are cool. And just so everybody knows, yes, the SR- seventy-one, two and three actually exist, but we're, I digress, you know, we're talking about a different subject here. Um, Anytime that a stealth aircraft is shown, they're showing it to us for a reason. Stealth by nature means they aren't going to let anybody know where they are or what they're doing unless they want to let us know or send a message to someone. So my thoughts on this were is that I believe they were landing in Diego Garcia, which is a short trip over to North Korea and and maybe a message to Kim Jong-un. So I'm still wondering what's going on there. And also with Iran, I think what we're seeing is a new class by President Trump and all the good guys in how to hit an objective without destroying life. And there was a post put up by Truth Hammer, which I really love this guy's post. Iran is the only nation not already in possession of nukes which has enriched uranium up to sixty percent purity. In just one week it could push enough ninety percent to make one bomb and within one month it could produce about seven. So POTUS made a determination that Iran could no longer be trusted with the possession of nuclear materials that could be used at any time to create a nuclear bomb. So I think that he actually pretty much made a really good judgment there in taking out. He offered them a chance to come to the table and said, come to the table and let's negotiate. When somebody doesn't come to the table to negotiation, you can bet your behind that their intentions probably are not what we would hope it would be. And so, you know, if people come to the table and want to talk, that's one thing. If they just blow somebody off entirely and said, nope, not going to even talk about a peaceful resolution, then what are they actually doing? And so I got to say kudos to the good guys for doing tactical strikes, very strategic, almost like a surgeon to people. in fact, disable them from nuking us. And how long have we been hearing, you know, death to America? That's what I want to know. Not that we're perfect. I'm going to say right now that the United States has got kind of an internal war going on from what I can see of the good guys and the bad guys deep in the deep state. But I think we're winning. I really do. I think we're winning. And I think we've actually one before it actually started. So we have a choice to make right now. We voted President Trump in. I think they're doing a good job. I really do. And we have the choice to back him or not. And anybody that doesn't back him at this point in time, shame on them. I think that what we're seeing is... We're learning, too. We're learning what should not be done through this whole process so that we can go forward in a very positive way, which is pretty exciting, really, when you look at it and you put all the pieces together. But they're not going to come right out and tell us what they're doing. That would be stupid, which brings us to your case that we were going to talk about today. a few things about uh what's going on too okay and this has been historical um the neocons remember that where did the neocons come from Pretty much hell from what I can see. They're a bunch of warmongers. Where did they come from? Who are they? Give me one name. Do you know anybody? I'm just going to let you go and see where you're going to go with this. There's a whole bunch of neocons. I just don't remember all of the names. One of them went to jail. I think it was Scooter Libby. I'm not sure on that one. But Runsfeld was a neocon. Runsfeld still, I don't know if he's in office or not anymore. I lost track of that moron. How about Bush and Obama and almost everyone that's in office? We're not going to get there yet because the neocons are the foot soldiers of the process of what they tried to do, what their whole process was. You know, back when in the seventies, eighties, nineties, I was in the military. So, and a good part of that time, I was in Command and General Staff College, both as a student and as an instructor, where I instructed about, and actually my instruction had nothing to do with the war itself, but with writing and stuff like that, because most of the officers back then couldn't write a paragraph. I never was an English major. In fact, my English background was pretty sketchy to begin with. But over time, if you work at it, you learn and you understand and you put it together. Um, so, uh, the, the, the, uh, education that I got from the command and general staff college was at the very beginning when I went into command and general staff and you had to do command and general staff in order to get up into the field grade ranks, major colonel. Um, and you would never get the general, obviously. So my whole intention was to get the colonel, um, And as a captain and as a lieutenant, that was a pretty high goal. Anyway, back then we were learning about warfare in general, the Russian warfare. And this was the Russian warfare and American warfare in Germany, what was going on in Germany and how would we defend the German border and stuff against the invasion of the Russians. And who knows how much of that was politics and how much of that was reality. I don't know. I wasn't in Germany. I wasn't in the political structure of the program. So I really didn't know. But we were learning about how to defend ourselves if the Russians came across the border and started a war with the Americans or with the Germans. uh came across the border to try to take over germany again so we were being trained in that regard then billy boy clinton gets in slimeball clinton uh rat number two or rat three or whatever what run it whatever rat you want to call him he gets into power and we start learning about retrograde and retrograde in the military meant uh retreating without giving up the fire, slowly retreating back up, back up, back up, back up. So we were learning how to retreat under Billy Boy Clinton. And so there was a tremendous shift in policy when Billy Boy got in office. And the process was that we would, we couldn't hold the German, we couldn't hold the Russian army because we didn't have the troops. It was like two, and I don't remember exactly the numbers, it was like two, battalions or two brigades against twenty brigades or ten brigades of Russians. So we couldn't have done anything at that point in time. We wouldn't have the strength or the power to do an all-out war. The war never happened, but this was what we were being taught, how to retrograde. how to back out of the war without giving up the farm all at once, until hopefully the Americans would send enough troops to fight against the Russians. That was the philosophy that was going on in the military. Now we jump all the way to Desert Storm, and it took one year to establish enough forces in the Middle East of American troops to go against Saddam Hussein. If I was Saddam Hussein, I would have hit America the first day or so after they thought that the war was going to start. But Saddam Hussein was such a nice guy. He gave us a whole year to build up our forces in Iraq before or in Iran. not Iran, in Saudi Arabia before he actually did anything or before we actually did anything. Why did he do that? Why did he wait? I don't know. I don't know why he waited. That was dumb on his part. We used to say he was the greatest XIII century general ever to live on this face of the earth, XIII century. century general was obviously where one force and the other force would attack each other physically with swords and and uh bone and arrows that kind of philosophy so why did he wait I don't know but How in the world would we have been a force that could have been effective in Germany back in the eighties or the nineties when it took a whole year to build the forces up for Desert Storm? Here's the question. Is it, could it be that did the United States or was there a faction in the United States that actually put Saddam Hussein in power? That this is, this is the questions that those are the questions that I'm asking is that I think that our, our deep state put them in power and then they, I don't know what they were trying to hide there, but it kind of made the whole place go dark. And so, you know, like you couldn't, nobody could really see what was going on there because they were the boogeyman and the enemies. Right. And so what were they hiding there, or was it just a setup for more and more war? I mean, there's so many questions to ask. Same thing with Gaza. Oh, the neocons that got in power during, I think it was George Bush, Rapp Sr., and George Bush, Rapp Sr., and the neocons, the neocons had developed a plan A world plan. And this was, number one, to take over Libya. Number two, to take over Syria. Number three, and I'm not sure if I got the process correct, because it's been a long time. Number three, to take over Iraq, then Iran, then China and Russia. That was their plan as to how they were going to take over the world. And these neocons, Rumsfeld being one of them, and I don't remember all of the other ones, Scooter Libby, and I think there were five neocons that were working with the president to try to pull this nonsense off, how to take over the world and this plan of war that they were planning over time. Well, we saw Libya fall, we saw Syria fall, At least we saw war in Syria. We saw Iraq fall. And now they're on Iran, but they're not going to be successful with Iran. They were hoping that they would. And of course, China and Russia, which were the last two of this five-year, five-decade plan or five-year or whatever they wanted to call it. I don't remember now exactly what it was. their strategy to take over the world. And Billy Boy started this philosophy with retrograde, how we were going to slowly back out of the system, out of the war without totally given up the world so that's what the plan was back then in the eighties and we're just reaping the benefits of or the the history of that plan right now we're seeing what's going on the fall of libya the fall of syria fall of iraq was part of a long-term plan this wasn't something that they just Oh, they got a war going on. Same with Iran. Does Iran have uranium? They probably have some. They probably have some uranium to build a nuclear power plant. But do they have the correct enriched uranium to build a bomb? And the ability to launch that bomb and send it to the US by rocket and make it hit a target, that's another whole story. So yeah, the threat is out there, but the threat is out there for what reason? Why do we have this fear that Iran is building a nuclear bomb? Because they want a war with Iran. They want the United States to go into war, to boots on the ground kind of thing, and to fight another never-ending war like Vietnam was attempting to be, or like the war in Iraq was attempting to be. It just didn't happen, but that's what they wanted. It seems like a lot of this is tied into the countries that are not with the International Monetary Fund, the big bankers, the banking system. Well, that's part of it. I think that's part of it, but there's so many tentacles into so many different areas of evil. It's amazing to me, but lots of questions. Well, okay, so that brings us to my important question. What is the art of politics? And what is politics? Politics itself is the ability to get along with others through negotiations, through public speaking, through getting the people involved, through all of that kind of thing. Is it about war? No, it's about peace. Politics is how to live together. So our politicians that live and public functionaries that live in Washington, they've all failed. None of them have succeeded in the art of politics over all these years. And of course, we have those that have been in politics for thirty, forty years of their life. They haven't done anything because the art of politics, if you look up the word politics, it is peace or the ability to communicate and the ability to live with one another politically. And we have failed in that regard, at least our public functionaries in Washington and in Michigan. Michigan's no better. We have a bunch of morons in the capital in Lansing that aren't any better than the politicians or the public functionaries in Washington. They're stupid. Puppets. Puppets, you want to call them? I call them stupid people because they follow their, you know, they're all about their own personal gain, putting money in their pocket. They don't care about the country. They don't care about Michigan. They don't care about the United States. They just want to be on the winning side of the money. And that's what that's all about. The art of war, on the other hand, what is the art of war? as I was taught in karate when I went through and got my black belt, was you don't want to fight. You want to get out of the fight. You want to be prepared to fight if you have to, but you don't want to fight. So if you have an opportunity to walk away, you walk away. But you understand your surroundings and you know where you are coming from and who your enemy is or who could do you bodily harm. You're always aware of your background. You never go into an area blind, as a lot of people do. They just, you know, I'm going to walk down the street because I live in America. And they don't have an idea of what's in their surroundings, and therefore they get in trouble. They become a victim of the predator that's out there. But it's all about who you are and the presence you perform and how you perform that presence that makes the difference. And a lot of people that live in this world, they have no idea. They wear masks. Why do they wear masks? Oh, there is a, there's a, somewhere around here, there's a threat. It's going to come into my lungs and it's gonna kill me. This kind of nonsense that goes on. And it's not because they, I think they never learned the abilities of living in the republic, of who they are, what they are, and how they're supposed to perform and behave in a republic. I have people speeding up and down the street in the middle of the night on loud motorcycles with their radio blasting. They don't know how to live in a republic. it's really pretty disrespectful from, and I don't know, you know, I don't know if everybody's experienced that, but we have that around here too, where somebody will go, I don't know. They're like, they're, they're probably going down a road that speed limit is like. Forty-five or thirty-five and they're doing eighty or such. They take their muffler off. And so it's, it's God awfully noisy in the middle of the night and it wakes you up. They're just not respectful of people. They are people that do not deserve the republic. They deserve to live in a democracy or in a society where there's a dictator and they can push him around and tell him what to do. Otherwise, they don't have any brains to figure out that this is really not the right way to behave in a republic. You got to respect each other and remembering that your freedom ends at the end of your nose. that you can't stick your finger in somebody else's eyeball and say, well, I have the freedom to do that. No, the freedom ends at the end of your nose. You can do all that you want to be free, but you have to respect other people and they don't do that. All that brings us back to the art of politics and the art of war. People don't have any idea what the art of politics is. And people don't have any idea what the art of war is. We don't want to get into a physical fight with somebody. We want to be able to either talk ourselves out or back out of it, if we can, without losing face. And that's what's very important about the way people need to behave in a republic, in our society. So, the neocons started this war way, way, way back when. We are in the middle of reaping the fruits of that war that they started. Rumsfeld, I don't know if he's still in politics or office, But if he is, then he needs to be treated like John McCain. He needs to be removed, eliminated, and so on and so forth. And he's not the only one. I don't remember the names of all of the neocons, but those people need to be gone. I wouldn't be surprised if, what's the guy's name that was just mentioned on the radio talking about war? I can't remember his name. It's not important. These guys are not important. It's like John McCain, don't mention his name. Trump doesn't mention his name. It's like he's a non-existent. Well, Obama will be eventually a non-existent. So will all of the other people that are following in that line on philosophy to try to rule the world. It would be like they never existed. That's right. As far as stealth goes, stealth bombers are jets or planes or whatever you want to call them that cannot be detected by radar. They're obviously... We can see what they look like. We know what they look like and whether they are being shown to the public because they're trying to put a point across that we have these stealth bombers, that these things exist. And so it brings it on. Actually, it was Billy Boy Clinton, rat number two, that exposed the stealth bomber to begin with. He's the one that talked about stealth. And boy, if you did that as a soldier in the military, you'd get hung for it or end up in stockade. But Billy Boy Clinton, because he was the president, got away with it like he got away with a lot of stuff. He's another guy that needs to see the end of a rope. I think there's technology that we don't even know about, too. So I don't know. Like I said, I have great belief that the good guys are in control. And I think all of these guys have already done the walk of shame or they're close to taking the walk of shame if they haven't already. Some of them have, I am certain. The lower, the low level slime balls, scumbags have probably taken the walk of shame, but we'll see how. Rumor has it that at one point we're going to see everybody. It's going to be a week of broadcasts where all of these people that are going to do the perp walk are going to be out there and in the public view. And I'm hoping that's the case. I hope it's all confession of the crimes that they've committed, that they fess up to what they did publicly so that this can be written down certainly for history out in the open where everybody can see it. And that there's enough of a repercussion or consequences of their actions that it never happens again. That's right. That's right. Well, that brings us to the lower level scumbags that are out there, the judges in Michigan. And we have a court case that's going on right now. There is a person fighting for her back pay regarding being laid off during the COVID thing and understanding that the hospital that she worked for was proved liable in federal court and had to pay out a fee to all of the people that they laid off. However, it was a class action suit. And of course, the attorneys, which this whole thing is all about attorneys making their money and judges making their money. It's not about justice. It's not about the legal system. It's about the attorneys having a job and getting paid for their work. And so they did a class action suit. And of course, the attorneys got one third thereabouts of the fees that were paid by the hospital. And the other people got a pittance or the other two thirds, which were divided among the thousands of people. And so, you know, maybe you gave up two weeks of work and you ended up with two hundred bucks as remuneration for those two weeks of work. And it was all about consolidating all of the people that were being mistreated. And so nobody would go after and make more money by filing their own personal lawsuit. Well, this one person decided to file a lawsuit before this class action happened. and got the runaround, got the runaround in one city and then transferred to a second city, got the runaround in the second city, now transferred to a third city and is getting the runaround in the third city. So after her argument in this case and she was dismissed by summary disposition, after I read what the judge wrote, and the judge basically said that the MCR, Michigan court rule, so-and-so says that I can do this, and the Michigan court rule so-and-so says I can do that, and the Michigan court rule so-and-so says I can do that. Understanding that the Michigan court rule is not the law. It is a suggestion for those that work in the judicial system, then that's basically who? The bar. Does it apply to the public? Does it apply to the pro se people? No. My contention is it does not, because we don't follow under the rules of the- Of their club. Of their club. It's a club. It's a membership club. So only those people that practice in the Michigan court have to follow the Michigan court rules. I don't practice in the Michigan court. I don't follow the court rules. Yes, I do to an extent, because if you don't do, then the judges will use that against you. So you gotta play their game a little bit. So after the judge ruled against her in a summary disposition, I wrote, after I read what the judge wrote down, I was so hot at that moment. I says, I got to write it right now. And I dropped everything. And I wrote the motion for reconsideration because the judge is an idiot. And I wanted to point it out. And I didn't want to lose the emphasis and the drive to do that. So I actually brought it up for you to take a look at. And we could bring it out to the public to show the people. Just basically what I did. This is in the forty six district court, which is a third district that this person was sent to to argue. And basically, I'll read through this thing. And maybe you have some questions or whatever. But it says plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as per, and you don't have the number, it's two point one one nine sub F. That's the, because I didn't put it in there, but it is sub F of the order of the court granting summary disposition to defendants issue on six, seventeen, twenty five. And now comes blank in jury proprio and files this plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as per Michigan Court Rule, two point one one nine. sub f of the order of the court granting summary disposition to defendants issues on issued on six seventeen twenty five and states as follows I blank do state and claim that the order issued on six seventeen twenty five concerning the above caption matter by judge cynthia m arvind is a document containing multiple acts of usurpation being committed by judge arvin I do state and claim that The statements of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not a de jure, is not a de jure to this plaintiff's argument D. She writes an argument D as contained in plaintiff's reply to defendant's motion for summary disposition on May sixteenth. Plaintiff further states that, and I read Marbury versus Madison, it is emphatically the providence of due of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. That's the most important part of that phrase. Those who apply the rule to particular case must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the court must decide on the operation of each. This judge did not do that. This judge did not state what the law is. This judge used Michigan court rules as the law in her opinion, merely stating that the Michigan court rule is not a law. This site, MCR, is a merely... is merely a rule. There's something wrong with my English here. This site, MCR, is merely a rule, does not follow the court's responsibility as mentioned above. What authority did Judge Arvin use to enable her to dismiss this case based upon, quote, failure to state a claim when this claim upon which relief can be granted was spelled out point by point by this plaintiff? see plaintiff's argument D, and yet there was no refutation to any of the facts presented by the defendant? Or does Judge Arvin believe she can ignore the United States Supreme Court precedent if it suits her agenda? Furthermore, according to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Kagan, who is a far-left liberal, says in her opinion on Trump versus Wilcox, this court often reminds other judges that if one of our precedents has direct application in a case, they must follow it, even if they dislike it, leaving to this court the prerogative of overruling its own decision. So even if she didn't like what the Supreme Court said, the lower courts, the inferior courts, have to follow it. They don't have a choice. Not following the United States Supreme Court precedent, which is inferior Michigan District Court is duty bound to follow, which includes Norton versus Shelby County, makes this court order a nullity as Judge Arvin acted as a usurper by committing an act of usurpation through commission and omission, rending this court to be fake. And notice I use the heavy duty bolding of fake. I do state and claim that after all of the United States court precedent mentioned in plaintiff's reply to defendant's motion for summary disposition regarding judicial immunity, and I list the whole pile of them there, which is Dela, Ex parte Young, Marbury versus Madison, Norton versus Shelby County, and Pearson versus Ray. In fact, I quote Pearson versus Ray. A judge is liable for injury caused by, and by the way, Pearson versus Ray was something that Mike Bambus brought out to me, and I read the case, which these judges, because the judge said they have absolute immunity. And so I read the case and the case at the last paragraph says a judge is liable for injury caused by a ministerial act to have immunity. The judge must perform a judicial function. the presence of malice and the intention of depriving a person of his constitutional rights. He exercises no discretion or individual judgment. He acts no longer as a judge, but as a minister of his own prejudice. And I said, God, that's beautiful. That's beautiful. That had to be in there. Nowhere in this court's opinion does Judge Arvin refuse any of the plaintiff's arguments and sightings of the United States Supreme Court precedents is in refutation, but once again, cites only the Michigan court rules, which is, and again, I gotta spell it out for this judge because this judge doesn't know, not a law, but rather a suggestion. This act of usurpation in ignoring the rule of law holds not only the court, but the three defendants liable for their oaths of office by not recognizing the duty to recognize this plaintiff's having proved her remedy for money damages. And then the opposing party brings in Quaranto. She says, oh, it's a Quaranto case and you didn't file it as a Quaranto case and therefore we can dismiss it. So then we argue that point. Can you explain what Quaranto is? Quaranto is a common law fight And it goes all the way back to common law. So it's old, old, old, old, old, old, old case. But Quaranto points, is saying basically that you can call a action of the king in conflict with how he's supposed to behave by the use of cor ranta. So you use cor ranta when you say the judge is stepping outside their authority and their actions are such that they should not be in that position. So trying to get rid of the judge or the position of the judge through an action in court by the Quaranto action, but it's BS. And so she throws this attorney who is as dumb as a rock, throws this out and says, oh, this is a Quaranto case. And therefore, since it's not being used as a Quaranto case and not filed as a Quaranto case, we have the right to dismiss. But this is not what she filed. This is not what the plaintiff filed at all in this case. So do state and claim that this was not a Quaranto action as pointed out by this plaintiff. In fact, the mere definition of Quaranto action was pointed out in plaintiff's reply to defendant's motion for summary disposition by citing United States of America versus Nussbaum. That case I found in the Black's Law Dictionary and read that case. where it was merely stated that, and this is quoting from the case, any remedy that could have been obtained under a writ of Quaranto may now be achieved by a civil action of that nature. In other words, I don't need to use Quoronto. I can use a civil action and that'll do just as well as a Quoronto. So that idiot attorney has no idea, hasn't read the case either. She doesn't know what she's talking about, but that's typical of attorneys because they don't read the cases. They only read the little captions so they don't have to spend the time reading the cases. They're idiots. Where is the refutation of this statement and with that authority does Judge Arvin rely on? Or is Judge Arvin making up the law from the bench as she believes she has the authority to make law because she was elected as a public functionary Judge as per Norton versus Norton Supra, or does she believe that she was elected to a position that endowed that and endowed with a divine right of Kings? And there I bring in downs. Downs, basically, and the only part I'll read is the black part, but the rest of it's important. But sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law. But in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agents of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people. So we are the authors of the law, the law does not. And it further goes on to state that the law is the defining and limiting power of government. That's what this is all about. So I bring this out, Downs versus Bidwell. And of course it was brought out in the plaintiff's argument originally, but that judge either didn't read it, doesn't understand it, or doesn't really care. Where is the narrative which supports authority that grants absolute immunity to any public functionary? Please indicate to this plaintiff where in what document does this contain the argument that people have delegated authority and absolute immunity to these public functionaries to make laws from the bench and then to immune and then be immune by violating the rule of law. Number five, I do state and claim that Judge Arvin has only one possible possibility to correct her judicial errors, and that is to follow the rule of law and be held liable for her many acts of usurpation and violations of the United States Supreme Court and her oath of office. Judge Arvin has failed repeatedly during the hearing referenced above and her Subsequent order denying plaintiff's claim to cite, analyze, and or properly apply the relative applicable case of law, most importantly being Norton v. Shelby County. I do saw in number six. I do state and claim that in accordance with Scher v. Rhodes, and again, I'm going to just read the dark part. By trial on the merits is what they're talking about. A further proceeding cited by way of summary judgment or by trial on the merits are required, are required. The complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than is possible on the motion to dismiss a complaint. And so this judge has violated, again, another Supreme Court decision. Dismissal is inappropriate at this time, which makes it abundantly clear that the order of this court dismissing plaintiff's claim needs to be rescinded and other means and methods need to be completed for the plaintiff to prove her claim for money damages. If this motion for reconsideration is denied, such attention by this court will be another blatant act of usurpation, which will lead this court to be liable for its failure to uphold her oath of office as contained above. And demand is, I do solid, I do state and claim that the court reconsider this position and grant this plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as contained above and allow plaintiff's claim to continue with court order discovery. That's basically it. The rest is not important, only that you have an affidavit with this. And so this hasn't been filed yet. There's a couple of things that have to be looked at yet before it's filed, but the next day or two will be filed. And we'll see how the judge responds to this. Got to call them out when they're screwed up because this judge is screwed up big time. That's right. And you can't let even small infractions can't just be dismissed. You've got to give them the chance to correct it and then face the music if they don't. So when, when I was listening to you read through this, you use the term jury proprio. Now there's about four different terms for a pro se type case. Why did you choose to use that one here? That means to stand on your own rights. So is that more, is that more accurate because, or. It is, it is more accurate than all of the others. There is a proprio in pro, Yeah, I've seen that one too. And the one that Mike uses. I can't think of it. But this one, we have gone through our, we have used the other terms in the past. But this one in particular, we thought had more a punch to its meaning. that you're in court standing on your own rights. You're not following the civil action jurisdiction. You live in the Republic, which you've already said. You stand on your own rights. What are your rights? They're the rights of the Constitution. Standing on my own rights. So that's why we use that term. Okay. This is really interesting. You were on a roll with this one too. Oh, I was. I can tell just by listening to the case and reading it that you were kind of sick of all their crap. That's right. I read her order and I said, you got to be kidding. She never cited one law, one rule, one law of any kind. She only cited the Michigan court rules. And I said, how in the world, after all of the Supreme Court cases that I have cited or that this lady has cited in her complaint, in her argument, did they come up with a Michigan court rule gives me this permission? Unbelievable. Unbelievable. But that's what judges do. They use the Michigan court rules against the people that are going in on pro se. And then they bend and twist the rules when it comes to the bar attorneys. Because while they don't want to, they don't want to embarrass a bar attorney. That's right. They got to protect their own. Yep. And that's what they do. That's what they do. You know, I've not been allowed in the federal court to oral argument any of my cases from two thousand twelve. And I've had four cases in the in the Michigan court, and I've not been allowed to go in and argue verbally. My argument is crazy. It's just it's crazy. The judges say you've given all of you've entered all of the documents you need and the records complete. No, it's not complete. because then the opposing party lies and I can't refute that lie on form because you run out of, can't do it. It's just you provide an answer, they provide an answer, you provide an answer, they provide an answer and it's done. And you can't continue the argument going back and forth. They've effectively silenced you. Yeah, so when I started fighting this battle against William Mayer, IRS agent who said that the courts will never rule against us, I did not have an opportunity to bring him on the bench and put him under oath and ask him those very straight questions. How did you get that authority to say that the courts will never rule against us? How do you know that? I could not ask him those questions. Where did you come up with this tax liability for me? Because he would be a bumbling idiot on the witness stand. He'd either have to lie his way through, or if he tried to tell the truth, he would be totally baffled. He would not be able to do it. Same with the judges. I could not get... Nugent on the stand to say, how did you come up with the fact that I was incarcerated? Where did that come from? You said it on the record that I was incarcerated. Where did that come from? I couldn't get that argument out because I was not able to go into court and argue that part. So now we'll see how this new Judge Berg brings out the argument of what he does, or if I'm going to add him to the defendants list and sue him on top of the rest of them once again. I don't know. But they haven't allowed me in the court, which is crazy. This seems to be a pattern of just disallowing people to be there to express what they want to say and to represent themselves. I was talking to a bunch of guys that are involved in the biker clubs across the state of Michigan, and they were trying to address the insurance. And they said that there was a senator concerned. that had asked them to come and give their side of the story. When they showed up, that same Senator said it's Antifa called the cops and kept them out. This is typical behavior. They don't want to be under fire. That's right. And she knew better because, um, and according to what they said that that same Senator got donations from, of course, the insurance industry. Yeah, they don't want to ask them that question. Did you get any money from the insurance agency? What are they going to say under oath? No, I did not. Well, we got proof here that you did. You've just committed perjury. That's a five-year jail sentence. Or, you know, it's... If we start thinking instead of just running and being afraid, they kind of give us chip shots because these people aren't all that bright. That's a fact. That's a fact. They're order followers. They're order takers. But if you just stop and listen a little bit and get educated on these things, then you've got a fighting chance. Well, the whole argument here is – that they believe that they have this cloak because they are elected public functionaries and they believe that they're officials or leaders and you can't question the leader or the public or the or the official because they know her best and you are the citizen who doesn't know anything. That's their attitude. That's who they think they are. They wear this senator badge or this representative badge as some sort of power and well you know I'm here bow down stand up stand at attention uh address me as congressman or honorable or whatever because I wear this badge here and therefore I am um they're they're nobody they're really a nothing they're they're a public They're a public functionary who has a function in government, and that's all they are. They are just like you and me. I have a job. My job is to do the following. You have a job as a public functionary. Your duty is to do the following. And that's it. You don't have any kind of special privilege or special, but they do. They do, they have their own gym, they have their own insurance, they have their own this, they have their own that, and they get three times the amount of money that the average Joe on the street gets. And we allow it because we keep voting these morons back in office and we keep paying homage to them. This is ridiculous. Yeah, I think everybody has some strong choices to make here to write the Republic and bring things back to the way it's supposed to go. Hey, I'm going to bring Mike in here and let's have a little discussion. Hey, Mike, how are you doing? And then hang on. John's on a roll. Before you decide to ghost on us, John, I want to make sure that we, let's see, I'm going to put your banner up here a minute. You can, you know, you can stay on as long as you want, of course. But before you ghost, at least let's talk about where they could find you. All right. Last week you ghosted on me. I'm like, hey, John, where'd you go? Give me a chance here. Ta-da. There we go. MagnificentRepublic.com or call me or write me. Doesn't matter either way. We will have a zoom this wednesday and uh you can come and join our zoom and find out what's going on uh find out the cases that we're working on who's doing what uh the new case that we're going to be reading not quite sure what it is at this moment in time but we're going to also be present at the republican uh picnic on the what is it the thirty twenty ninth I think yeah twenty ninth at um Heinz Park at the Nankin Pavilion, we're going to be stationed. We're going to have our own. I bought some banners and we're going to have some brochures and we'll be talking about the republic. And we'll see if the republicans really want the republic. and how much support we get over there. Anyway, that will be fun. We'll see. Okay, lots of comments. Love is commenting in the chat, so is Charlotte Cosmic, and so is Curtis, and Greg Martini's on this morning, too. Curtis says, the attorneys and bar took over the judicial system in Michigan under the guise of streamlining and consolidation. That happened in nineteen sixty one, sixty three and sixty six. The judicial system was changed in the nineteen sixties and it must be reversed. Greg Martini says she needs to be charged with maladministration, treason. They unconstitutionally remove the township courts in nineteen sixty six. That's Curtis. And you own the record, not the judge. The judge can't block you from adding to your record. May need to file a writ to SCOTUS. So One, one, many comments. And Charlotte says twenty ninth. Right. On the twenty ninth. Yeah. The picnics on the twenty ninth. That's correct. Awesome. Well, you know what? I'm going to let you guys talk for a second and then I'm going to I'm going to step away for just a minute. We were doing hay all weekend and the hottest two days of the entire freaking year, of course. And so I'm going to get up and stretch a little bit because I was throwing hay bales and running trucks and pulling hay wagons all day yesterday. So you guys can't work. What's that? You mean you work? You have a job? Yeah, that's what billionaires do, right? It's so ridiculous. It's like pulling hay wagons. I can't even tell you how many bales I threw yesterday as we were unloading wagons and putting them on the conveyors and that sort of thing. It was a long day. And when I was going to get another wagon at one point in time, My, my truck was registering a hundred and one degrees out and that's not even a heat index. So I just want to tell anybody out there, if y'all want to know what tough is, meet a farmer because that's not for the faint of heart, but we got, we got some really good hay put away. And you know, thanks to my, my hay guy out there and he knows who he is and he does a It is a big job. It's a hot job. And you either just kind of like doing it, do it because you know it needs to be done, or you're insane. Yeah. All right. I'll be right back, guys. Carry on. Carry on. Well, Mike. I got a case I'm going to suggest that at least you and Ron take a look at. What is that case? It was an Oregon case regarding, where did I put that? The case is Lane County v. Oregon. Seventy-four U.S. seventy-one eighteen sixty-eight. Give me those numbers again. Seventy-four. Seventy-four. U.S. U.S. seventy-one. Seventy-one. Eighteen sixty-eight. Eighteen sixty-eight. Okay. And that is in conjunction with thirty-one U.S.C., section five one zero three five one zero three what is thirty one u.s five one zero feds uh created a statute stating that uh gold and silver coins are not legal tender for debts that the funny money is now legal tender and lawful money well that part is true The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that in Lane County v. Oregon that under the since the act of the tender act of changed us to a fiat currency and took us off the gold standard. Only took the federal government off the gold standard because the state governments are still confined to Article I, Section X, Clause III, which says no state can make anything with gold and silver, corn, and tender, and payment of debt. And they can't. But the problem is the courts are recognizing that. They're still falling back and relying on that. That's why Daniel B. Bain there in Livingston County is having his panties in a wad over me paying him in coffee beans. He's he's relying on this thirty four thirty one USC fifty one oh three to say that. Oh, no, you can pay me in in funny money. No, no. Sorry. That's so. No, you're not. We're not paying the federal government. We're paying the state government. State government cannot violate and no statute can violate the article one section ten clause three. No, I look at it as central. Yeah, I look at this, this thirty one USC fifty one oh three as a usurpation, being that they're trying to change the Constitution. They can't. Which they can't do. No, that's right. Well, I'll look at the case, but I think it's it's the same as the Greenway case that says the federal government can can use anything for payment, funny money or whatever. The federal government, whenever you're paying the federal government, they can demand payment on anything. but in the state, they can't. The state will not allow it because Article I, Section Ten, Clause Three. And of course, we have MCL, MCL, twenty one point one five three and one five four. Right. Absolutely says no. So, you know, and and we have this that we have the district court case of of Montgomery Wards versus Eugene Glazer. That says they can't. So, I mean, we have the law on our side. Bane is an idiot. I have any clue what the law really says. He's another, he's another guy. We're surrounded by what was, what was that phrase from that movie? We're surrounded by digits, but we still press on or something to that effect. Yeah. Something like that. You can't give up, you know, they eventually given up enough rope and they hang themselves. The Eugene Glaser case was used in Minnesota to discharge a debt. Yeah. Well, I've used it many times in Michigan to discharge a debt. Yeah. It's actually not discharging. It's paying the debt. Well, tendering. The word discharge, we went through that process. We used to say discharge, but it's not discharging. It's payment. It's payment. I use the word tendering. Yeah. Because we're all in the area of language and how we use the words. And if we use the correct terminology, we control the narrative. If we let them use their technology or their verbiage and we follow their verbiage, they control the narrative. We don't want that. We control the narrative from the Republic. There you go. History and tradition. Gold and silver. That's it. Sorry. Tomorrow we're going to have on, I just want to let you know before you go, because we're both members of the Constitution Party here in Michigan, which is the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which we're working on trying to get the Secretary of State to stop being an obstructionist and change her name. We're going to be having on tomorrow a couple of guys from the John Birch Society after Liberty Essentials with Bill Moore, Karen, and Ralph and myself. And so it's Matthew Rhodes as well as Robert Brown will be on talking tomorrow. And I'm really looking forward to this because I went to the Constitution Party committee meeting in New Hampshire. They put on two of the best presentations I've ever heard in my life. It was incredibly informative talking about, again, you know how I feel about Convention Estates right now. I'm totally against this because they're going to get in there and screw this thing up so bad it won't even be recognizable. Bad plan. And he sets, Robert Brown sets the order of how we got here. and why all of their arguments fall flat on what they're suggesting. And Matthew, he's a real interesting guy. He talks on many topics, but they're both from the John Birch Society and absolutely love the education coming from them. So I would encourage everybody to tune in tomorrow and make some comments and such because If you have questions to ask, those are the two guys, too, that that's that's what they do is they defend the Constitution. And they just like all of us, but they have a little different bent than what anybody else I've hit on here has historically. So I just want to let you guys know that it's worth it'll be worth the watch tomorrow. Cause we're all on the same side of the table. We're on the same sheet of music here. So, so it real interesting. So anything else you want to, you want to say, John, you want to stay on for a while when, when. Unfortunately, I have to be somewhere else at ten thirty. And so I got to run. Okay. I got to ask you about your left arm. What'd you do to your left arm? Besides you had a chicken issue this weekend. I don't know. I, I've been told that I may have carpal tunnel and that this would help. And so far it is. I mean, I got little tingling feelings in my three fingers. But when I don't wear the band and I abuse my wrist, then it actually hurts. So the band seems to be helping. Okay. Tell everybody what happened with your chickens and the air show. Oh, that's interesting. Because of the air show at Willow Run Airport and the rumbling of the jets from the Blue Angels, I think it was, my chickens stopped laying eggs for two days. I got no eggs. Monday, when the air show was over, I had three eggs in the coop. so uh there is a and I don't remember the the name of the case do you mike about the chicken farmer that lost uh because they built an airport next to the chicken farm he lost his uh he lost the ability for the chickens to lay eggs and he sued the federal government and he won because they called it a taking So if it wouldn't have been for that Supreme Court case, I would not have even considered what, you know, I thought something was wrong with my chickens. But because of the noise and the rumbling, the chickens were probably frightened and they didn't lay any eggs those two days. So I thought that was interesting. I'm a prime example of taking by the government. I'm going to throw it into AI and see if I can find out what it is. Just because now I'm curious. I'll have it for you next week. Ron knows it quite well because he does talk about it often. Okay, Ron, where are you this morning? I don't remember the name of the case. Tyler versus Hennepin County. That doesn't sound familiar. Let's see. I don't think that. The tanking. What did you put down as a. I put in taking. And it's. You're not thinking of ALA Schleister Poultry VUS, are you? Oh, it could be. I don't remember. Ron will, I'll have it for you next week. I'll write it down and be sure I have it next week. Awesome. Awesome. Thanks for coming on, John. If you want to give yourself another shout out, if you want to give people your phone number or something, this would be a good time to do it. Okay. It's seven, three, four, nine, six, eight, four, seven, one, five. And I'm available. I, if I don't catch the phone at that moment, when you call, I will call you back. I always call back people. So it should be done. It's like respectful. So that's wonderful. Absolutely. Want more and more people involved in the Republic. Show up at our website, show up at our picnic, show up at our Zoom. And when we do a Nicholas in the future, which will be in July, come to Nicholas and see who we are and talk with us and understand what we're doing. If you have not been tapped by the government on the shoulder yet, for a speeding ticket or ordinance officer or whatever, you probably will be. And how do you respond to that being tapped on the shoulder? Do you have the knowledge? Have you been learning right along? Or are you gonna wait until you are in a crisis situation and then try to cram, which doesn't work? So now's the time to start learning a little at a time while it's somewhat painless and you don't have to really sit down and do hours and hours of homework, just a little here and there and get the knowledge. So when the government comes and taps you on the shoulder, you can say, hey, you shouldn't be bothering me because it's gonna be bigger trouble for you than it is for me. And then you'll have some control of your life and you won't be a slave to the system. Absolutely. Well, fantastic. So thanks for being on today, John. And I'm going to let you exit whenever you feel like it. And Mike and I are going to keep talking, but thank you for being on today. You're amazing. And I really appreciate your graciousness with sharing your knowledge and your experience that you have. My pleasure. My pleasure. Awesome. So Mike, where are we going first? Oh, boy. Well, we've gotten another FOIA response. I'm sorry? I say I will say goodbye. I got to go. All right. See you, John. Have a great night. Okay. We did receive another FOIA response. Someone else said FOIA, the Green Oak Charter Police Department. and requesting the same information that I had requested they have reconfirmed the exact same response and um and going through we also noticed that there was a video attached in the documents uh it was a sixty minutes uh piece by uh through cbs and it's dated may sixteenth uh may sixteenth twenty eleven And it's a hit piece, basically saying that sovereign citizens is a movement, that they're extremists, they're terrorists, they commit paper terrorism in the courts, they don't believe in government, they're anti-police, and all this nonsense and rhetoric. So let's clear the air here. We the people are the sovereigns, whether they like it or not. The government exists by our good graces. We, the people, are the ones who created the government. We created their jobs, their positions. The problem is that it has become so bloated with usurpation and misconduct on their part that now we have all these police departments, policy enforcers. None of them are de jure. They're all de facto. And what's their job? Revenue raising. That's primarily what their job is. They hand out security instruments, the tickets, and that gets the ball rolling to where they're milking everybody through the system and the courts. So to be clear, we the sovereigns are to be celebrated as men and women who self-govern in the Republic. We are not extremists. We are not terrorists. We do hold the right to question and challenge our government when it acts in a way that's not appropriate to the Constitution. They think they're immune from being questioned. They're not. It states right in our founding documents that we can replace them if they become too tyrannical. Does it say how to replace them? No. But that's where the Second Amendment comes into play. Because if the government is the only one that has the guns, then what do you have? You have a dictatorship because no way are the people going to be able to rise against them when they become too tyrannical and out of line. So we reserve that right to bear arms to help do a check on their authority. It doesn't mean, oh, the right to bear arms, that's so you can go hunting. That has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with a check and balance of the government. Does that mean we're going to go out there and start shooting them? No. But just like what's going on right now in the Middle East, why do we not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Because it throws the balance off. Because if they have a nuclear weapon and their goal, based on their ideologies, is to kill the infidel, that the United States is Satan and all this other rhetoric, can we... with good conscience, allow them to have a nuclear weapon? No, they should not. And they're the ones who push the issue. So it's about checks and balances. Is Russia going to push the button? No. Is the United States going to push the button? No. Why? Because we know the end result. It's a check and balance. Mutual assured destruction is kind of a good motivator to act in a more honorable way. Yes. So When you take a look at that, okay, we got checks and balances. So this rhetoric that we are extremists and terrorists because we challenge their authority is nonsense. It's something that the FBI created through their anti-terrorism group. And look who was in office at the time. Look who's behind all this. And these are the same people that, you know, Russia, Russia hoax and everything else. I mean, these people lied. The FBI is not even a de jure department. It's de facto. But they're training the policy enforcers, the police, into thinking, well, if someone challenges your authority, if they use this type of language, if they do X, Y, and Z, you are to consider them an extremist and terrorist. Now, what are you doing? You're creating a situation where people are afraid to speak up in fear of being labeled. Or thrown in jail. Or thrown in jail. Or thrown on the ground and such. I mean, both sides have got a valid point because there's no – for the police, there's no – Justice, when they get them into the court system, I mean, the whole system is completely broken. The prison system is broken. But to your point, the offices that are there should be shifted back to the sheriffs, not the policy enforcers. And that's where I was going next is the fact that we are not anti-government. We are not anti-police. And I'm going to speak just for myself. I am not anti-police. I am anti-fake police. Okay, there's a difference. The sheriff's department is de jure. It used to be that every town had a sheriff. Now what do we have? Now it's a county, and now we have local police created by code, statutes, or executive orders. No, you can't do that. That's where the problem starts, right there, when they start taking those liberties. And convincing the general public, for your safety, for your benefit, we're going to do this. And for your safety and benefit, will you donate money in the form of a millage to support it? Now, what do they do? They took all the burden off of themselves, any liability off themselves, and said, well, you guys voted for it. You guys agreed to it. So therefore, it is. So they tricked everybody into this. So no, we're not anti-police, we're anti-fake police. So if an officer wants to be an officer de jure to hold a de jure office, go work for the Sheriff's Department and shut all these fake departments down because they're not supposed to exist in the first place. Now, to expound on that, I wrote a piece called Sovereign Citizens Versus Terrorism. And I think people need to understand how and why I'm harping so hard about this. And I'm going to connect some dots here that people are not aware of. And I was able to connect some major dots over the weekend, this past weekend. So I'm going to read a little bit of that document here so that help people understand what and where I'm going with this. And to understand terrorism. Okay. Now this is not my. Do you want me to bring this up or not? I've got. I can just read it. Okay. I think I sent it to you. You did. I just didn't know if you wanted me to bring it up. I can bring it up. You can if you want. Yeah. I'll do that. I'll do that as a nice little visual effect here. Okay. I'll give you a second. It was fast because I didn't have to go to email to retrieve it. It was already there. Ta-da. Ta-da. So if you go down to where it says terrorism defined, I believe that's on page, what page is that on? Page seven. There we go. I point out here that since the nineteen nineties, the term terrorism has become a constant term broadcasted by the drive by media. I use the term drive. I've had people say, why do you use the term drive by media? Well, it's kind of my way of um recognizing rush limbaugh because he used to used to say that all the time we used to listen to rush limbaugh all the time and so I just did a little tribute to rush limbaugh and what he did so um so yeah the drive-by media and public functionaries to the point that as a society we have become accustomed to hearing it daily whether it pertains to a middle eastern country or organization tax conducted on american soil or many people have no idea what terrorism is More specifically, what domestic terrorism is as it relates to this article. Now, I put in there Black Law's definition of terror. And below that, I go in the term domestic terrorism. Now, this is according to Congress under A.T. and U.S. Code. Twenty three thirty one subsection five. And the term domestic terrorism means activities that a. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state. So we have to look at, okay, what are they doing? If these police officers are demonizing you as a sovereign citizen because you challenge their authority, are they doing anything that could be harmful to you and your life? Under B. appear to be intended, one, to intimidate, coerce a civilian population. Well, what are they doing? They're demonizing the sovereign citizens, the people, into believing that if you challenge their authority, you are a threat to their democracy. So they're going to use coercion to try and silence you. Two, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Well, what do they do? The FBI put out this report and they're trying to, through propaganda, create a public policy that demonizes anyone who challenges their authority. So their actions fall right in line with this definition. And I'd like to put out a challenge. And I would love to see, I put out a challenge to any police officer, any chief of police, any sheriff to come onto your show. Let's have a discussion. Would love it. I would love to have that. I have invited chief of police, different chief of police, the sheriffs, officers to have a sit down and discuss these things. They refuse to do so. Why? Why? What are they afraid of? The truth? That's the only thing that they could be possibly afraid of. Why are they afraid of the truth? Who's telling them to do this? They're not smart enough to do this. They're the puppets. We need to know who the puppet master is. I think Benson, who publicly got on media and said, if you question the elections, if you do anything like that, we're coming for you, basically. That is absolutely a violation or falls right into domestic terrorism. Yes, yes, by the Congress's definition. So based upon this definition, for the FBI to issue their report demonizing sovereign citizens as being extremist terrorists and distribute this information to every police department, governmental agency and to further the propaganda through the drive-by media is not uh is is this not an act of uh of Domestic terrorism. They're publicizing this. They're putting it out there. That's the day to day rhetoric. Oh, look at this guy. You know, you see all these videos posted on the Internet. Oh, this guy, you know, he got stopped by the police and he won't give his name. And, you know, he doesn't think he needs a driver's license. Well, wait a minute. Let's back this this train up for a second. If a judge issues a court order. He renders his decision on a case and you refuse to follow it. Aren't you held in contempt? You sure are, aren't you? Well, wait a minute. Who's holding them in contempt? Because the US Supreme Court has ruled that you are not required to have a driver's license. You are not required to register your car. So why aren't they following the rulings of the US Supreme Court? Why are they not being held in contempt? That's what I'd like to know. What gave them the authority to usurp, overt, or to completely violate the rulings of the US Supreme Court? I put that into the FOIAs to every police, to all these different police departments, to the state police, and all their responses are the same. When I ask for them to produce documents that allows them and grants them that authority to ignore the rulings of the US Supreme Court, their answer is no such documents exist. Well, if no such documents exist, then by your own admission, you are committing an act of contempt. So where's your delegated authority? Now you go into court. Judge, by their own admission, they don't have the authority to do this. And by doing that, showing the judge and putting that FOIA response on record because it's certified, the judge now loses subject matter jurisdiction and he loses personal jurisdiction. He cannot proceed. And if he does, he's violating his oath as a judge, if he really truly is a judge. I question that, too. That's another whole rabbit hole to go down. But yeah, if he's gonna claim he's a judge, he has to have jurisdiction and you can challenge jurisdiction at any time and it must be proven. They must prove they have jurisdiction. And if the police officer, the state police, the city police, the township police admit that they're de facto, admit that they don't have the authority to stop you, the authority to issue you a securities instrument in the form of a ticket for not registering your personal automobile, not your vehicle, vehicle is a commercial term, your personal automobile for personal use, they have no authority. There's no jurisdiction. We got to start holding their feet to the fire on this and say, look, is it your intent to violate the U.S. Supreme Court on this? That's my question to you, Judge. I need an answer before we continue, before we move forward. Is it your intent to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court and their rulings on the right to travel? We're not going to address that. No, Judge, we are going to address it here and now, or we're done. What is their response typically? That they don't want to deal with it. We're going to move on. That's not before the court right now. Yeah, it is before the court. I can challenge jurisdiction. Judge Bain and some of these other judges have stated that, well, I have jurisdiction because I say so. Wrong answer. Judge Bain's gone so far as, well, you have to file a motion. challenging jurisdiction. No, you don't. You can challenge jurisdiction at any proceeding at any time. You don't have to file a motion. You can file a motion from the floor if that's what they want. Judge, I motioned from the floor. I'm challenging jurisdiction because the cop is fake. He admitted that they're fake. They have not granted you jurisdiction on this matter. They don't have the authority. That's what we got to start doing to them because, again, they're committing an act of domestic terrorism through the Bar Association. I'm going to hammer on this. The Bar Association is the one that's controlling the courts. The judge, is he a bar member? Yes, he is. Is the prosecutor a bar member? Yes, he is. Are the attorneys that represent the municipalities bar members? Yes, they are. And if you take on an attorney to represent you, who does he belong to? Oh, yeah, the bar. Corpus Juris Circumdum, Volume Seven, Section Four. Their first obligation as a bar attorney is to what? The court, not the client. Doesn't matter how much money you pay him. Doesn't matter if you're the best friend. His obligation is to the court. So if the court has been instructed by the FBI, which we now have proof of through David Burris' brief that he filed with Genoa Township, that the FBI is instructing the courts across the country that anybody who does this, what they deem sovereign citizen movement, rhetoric, whatever, then you're to treat them a certain way. And one of their tactics is you ignore everything they say. You hold them in contempt if they try to challenge you. Well, what has Bain been doing? He just keeps holding me in contempt because I challenge him. He ignores my paperwork. He ignores the Supreme Court rulings. So who's committing the crime here? Who's really the criminal here? The one that challenges the jurisdiction or the one who refuses to follow his oath of office? Because he is bound by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. James B. Boise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all state courts, including state Supreme Courts, are bound by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. So where's their delegated authority to ignore it? Where's their delegated authority to commit an act that they like to use, contempt of court? Sorry, guys. This is something that we've got to start coming down and hammering them on. We need to start hitting them with an administrative process. You hit them with a notice of liability because if they don't have jurisdiction, that means they have no authority. Now, you heard John talk earlier. They have no immunity. they don't have jurisdiction that means their acts are not judicial therefore they have no immunity they're usurping their authority under norton ex parte young they have no immunity so now we hit them with the administrative process notice of liability is it your intent to do I a harm by trespass upon my rights and you give them twenty one days if they don't respond which they probably won't then you hit them with a notice of non-response and uh opportunity to cure You give them fifteen days. They don't respond. Now you hit them with a notice of default. You give them ten days. They don't respond. Now you send them a final notice. I'm inviting you to federal court. Now you've defaulted them out. You take that, along with all your other evidence, the FOIA responses, you take that in and put that into federal court and say, This man acting as a judge, who sometimes acts as a judge, because once they lose their immunity, now they're in their personal capacity, not their official capacity. Now you're suing him as a man or a woman acting as a judge. And by that, they're now personally and civilly liable for their actions. That's what everybody's got to start doing. And with the Trump administration doing what they're doing and clamping down on the courts, now's the perfect time to file a federal lawsuit. You're not going to get remedy in the state courts. They're going to protect each other. And this is a federal issue. So we need to take this to federal court and start bringing this through the federal courts and start hammering them on that at that level. We can prove that these police departments are fake by their own admission. We can prove that they have no authority to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling on the right to travel. We can prove all this. So that's not a possibility or a hearsay or an opinion. We have certified documents proving this. And everybody can do this. I don't care where you live, whether it be Michigan or anywhere else. Start sending your local law enforcement a FOIA asking them for their de jure documents. Ask them, where are their documents that allow them to usurp the authority of the Supreme Court? They don't have them. Now you've got documents that you can go into court with and say, judge, by their own admission, they're fake. Judge, by their own admission, they don't have the authority. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. We're done here. Is there a list of documents that they should be providing or is it just a document saying they have de jure status? I put it in a general text that I want whatever documents that you have, including any documents that you've created through the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act of nineteen forty six provides nineteen sixty nine. Anything that you have that grants you de jure status. Well, the only documents that they should be coming up with is, well, according to section such and such in the Constitution, there's my de jure status. This is right there in the Constitution. I exist. That's what they should be coming up with, but they can't. The state police, there's no such documents exist. Why? Because they were created by executive order, not by the Constitution. So that's why they don't have de jure documents. Where's your documents to say that you have the authority to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to travel? Well, of course not. They don't have anything like that. So where's their authority to do it? None. There's your evidence for court. Too many people go into court and say, Judge, I don't think he has that authority. I'm challenging jurisdiction. Well, where's your proof? You don't have any. It goes back to that opinion. Opinions don't matter. You've got to be fact-based. Yes. Yes. And now we've got these FOIA responses regarding sovereign citizen demonization by the FBI that these local law enforcement departments are admitting that they're telling their officers to treat us a certain way. So now we've got the proof on that. So now we're going to go back and we're going to go after these departments. We're going to go after the FBI. We're going to bring this to the attention of the president. We're going to bring it to the Department of Justice and say, hey, we got a serious problem here. Who's the domestic terrorist here? It's not us. Public law says that we're to be celebrated. Why is the FBI violating the intent of Congress to demonize us? They got something to answer for. I think they've got a lot to answer for. Oh, yeah. In many different directions. I'm glad we went down this path today on domestic terrorism because I think, too, as I think a lot of people do, and this here's an opinion, but the enemy is within. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The Bar Association is our enemy, okay? They're supposed to have an anti-bribery statement on file. They're supposed to have a foreign agent registration statement on file. They don't. None of them? I'm sorry? none of them none of them I've yet to have any of them produce one uh the judges you know they're these so-called judges uh under article six section nineteen the mission constitution supposed to have a license to practice law where is it doesn't exist supreme court said so a bar card is not a license so are they judges or are they administrators Why do these judges, so-called judges, claim that the Constitution does not exist in their courtroom? Well, that means that you're not a Article III judge. You are not actually a judge, period. You're an administrator, administrating administrative laws. Administrative laws are rules and policies created by a department or agency, never legislated. So it's all fake. It's all fake. Now, This is where you're going to love this next part. Over the weekend, I was doing a lot of deep diving on another subject. A lot of people have been, let me back up. We've been working on deep diving into property taxes. Now, how does all this come together? Well, the courts are looking at people who challenge property taxes as what? Sovereign citizens. So they're ignoring your position on property taxes. Oh, this is nothing but a sovereign citizen trying to get out of paying property taxes. If I gotta pay taxes, you gotta pay taxes. That's the law. Ah, not so fast, Skippy. Because the mistake I'm finding or did find that people were making in challenging their property taxes is they took it to the tax tribunal. What's a tax tribunal? Tax tribunal is what? Created by statute. Who are the members of the tax tribunal? Seven members appointed by the governor with a four-year term. They in turn create what? Oh, the tax assessor. They're all fake. They're all de facto departments. These people do not have the authority that they claim they do. Now, again, the mistake is that I'm finding is that they're challenging property taxes in the state courts. You're never going to win. Now they claim that property taxes is a state issue. On that pretext, yes, you're right. Property taxes are a state issue. However, where did the authority come from to impose property taxes? Came from codes and statutes by their own delegation of authority, self-proclaimed. Because Michigan, having been part of the Northwest Ordinance, when the property was deemed from the government to the state of Michigan through a land patent grant, property owned by the federal government and the state of Michigan is exempt from property taxes. They don't pay property taxes on any land that they own and control. Okay, fine. So when they conveyed it to we the people, they conveyed it through land patents through land patents. And in those land patents, what I'm finding is a specific terminology. And that is one, they're doing it by what they call fee simple. Well, they did the word salad definition crap on that to where if you are doing something by fee simple, you are agreeing to pay property taxes through their new system. And you're agreeing that your property is subject to eminent domain. Oh, Yes. Now, there's a big issue. Yes, it is. The other part of the language is that the conveyance, when the property is conveyed, it's done by all rights, privileges and immunities to your heirs, assignees forever. Well, wait a minute here. Let's think about this for a minute. When I convey something and I'm conveying all the rights, privileges and immunities, that means I'm bundling everything together and I'm granting it to you and everything attached to it. So if the state has property that is not taxable and they conveyed it to you with all rights, privileges and immunities, They also gave you the non-taxable status. I'm loving this. There's the connection. That makes it a federal issue because they're violating the intent of Congress who initiated the Northwest Ordinance. Now, I ran this through the AI programs and Long story short, when I slow played the scenario and AI, one of its first responses, oh yeah, when you convey it to somebody else, everything is all bundled, it's absolute, it's all the whole shebang. Then when I injected the part about property taxes, the AI program started to backpedal. Well, wait a minute. Well, kind of, maybe, sort of. Wait a minute. What changed here? Who's moderating that? Yes. So I got the AI program to admit that sometimes property is conveyed with the tax exemption. So wait a minute. Sometimes that means that it can be done. So the big issue with the AI program was, well, you can't, you know, there has to be proof that that situation actually exists. Okay. So if I were to pull up, let's see here. If I can do this without. If I pull up the Northwest Ordinance, okay and I'm gonna re I'm gonna read there's there's a section of the northwest ordinance uh of and I'm just going to read this part to you it states in our article uh article four the inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debt contracted or to be contracted and a proportional part of the expenses of government to be appointed on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which appointments thereof shall be made on other states and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislators of the district or districts or new states as the original states within the time agreed upon by the United States and Congress assembled. The legislators of those districts or new states shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence and the carrying places between the same shall be the common highways and forever free. as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States and those of any other states that may be admitted into the Confederacy without any tax imposed or duty therefore. So right there, it states that it confirms no tax shall be imposed on lands, the property of the United States. The next part of that is in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Well, if the residents by the conveyance of the property isn't paying taxes, then a non-resident proprietor can't be charged property taxes. So this is where there's the proof right there in the Northwest Ordinance. There are no property taxes. There were never supposed to be any property taxes. They get a lot of questions to answer, don't they? Yes, they do. A lot. Yeah. So that's what I'm working on. I'm trying to put together a step-by-step process in all of this. And this is where the Elodio title aspect comes into play and the land patents. Well, this is something that Doug Force up in Canada was talking to me about. We went through this, the myth is Canada and such, and somehow he ended up passing away, which was really tragic. We were getting into moving into the same thing in in the United States. that they have in Canada, but a group of people, let's just say the FBI, CIA kind of caliber of people told him to leave the United States and never come back. And he ended up passing away just a few months ago. I'm, I'm so interested in this because we were into lodeal titles and all of this stuff that they have completely disregarded. Yes. Um, The fee simple process has been adopted by the state of Michigan. If you, and I looked and I searched, there are no laws that prohibit Elodio titles in Michigan. Their rhetoric is, well, we've adopted the fee simple process. Therefore, that's the only system that we recognize. Well, wait a minute. You don't get to do that. You don't get to do that. Yeah. They said that, that they're adopting them. And so they're, therefore it is right. Work well. So we retain the rights not granted to the state. So we can do allodial titles, but there's a process to do it. It has to be done a certain way. And so that's where we're putting together a step-by-step process to do that. Now, by the allodial title, we have to remove the fee simple aspect of this whole affair. So that has to be removed from the process, which it can be done. And so once that gets in play, once you get this all recorded, then the taxes are removed. And probably the state may be liable to repay back all the property taxes that they have shall we say, extorted from the people? That's well said. Commandeered illegally, unlawfully. Yes. So this is how this all ties in. If they can demonize the term sovereign citizen, if they can make you believe that you're not allowed to question them, then they don't have to worry about you questioning property taxes. They don't have to worry about you questioning their authority. because you're going to be demonized if you do so this is all a play this is all their their their tactics to shut you down and silence you and that by definition is domestic terrorism I'm totally loving this. And this is a huge difference in the way to approach the taxation than what, say, Ask My Tax is going after. They're just going for a redistribution of taxes. They're not saying or establishing that property tax really has a proven history of terrorism, extortion, etc., And it gives the politicians a way out to be able to tax you in different ways. And also into giving the corporations the ability to pay absolutely no sales tax and shift it back on the people in a different way. That's the big problem that I have with all of this. So this is fantastic. I'm so thankful that you went in this direction. As a contractor, I've always had a problem watching a track of land that's been in a family for generations, and it got to the point where the guy is now too old to farm it. The kids don't want anything to do with it, so he sells it to a developer. Now, that farmhouse has been there since the The developer turns around and puts up multimillion dollar houses around that farmhouse and they raise his taxes and force him out of his own home. I'm sorry, I have a real problem with that. I think the developers right now could fall into the domestic terrorist organization in a way because of how do I say this? I watched it happen in our area with our township board. The residents came up with a whole bunch of questions. They never answered the questions whatsoever. And my point was to them is what difference is this a selling land to China or selling it to someone who's being financed? by a foreign entity and or an entity that's not local, I don't see the difference here. I'm not a supporter of a developer that's somehow tied to the hip with China, okay, in any capacity, commercial, residential, or otherwise. Big problem with that. Yeah, I got a big problem with that. As far as the developer taking a track of land and putting multimillion-dollar houses on it, well, what determined them to be multimillion-dollar houses, okay? As a contractor, okay, I'm going to give you an example. Several of us were building in a community. I put up a two thousand square foot ranch on a two thousand square foot basement on a one acre parcel. I paid called forty grand for the parcel. It cost me one hundred and twenty five thousand to build the house. The tax assessor assessed it at three hundred and fifty thousand. Now, wait a minute. I have a problem here. Huge problems because they are literally setting the prices for housing and they keep increasing our prices so that they can increase the tax base according to them. The problem is, is that if they were even, even within their corrupt system, if they were taxing correctly, it should be a net zero, but they're not, they're doing more and more projects that, And going into these public private partnerships off of our tax dollars that they're extorting off of the people who actually live there. The advantage of going to the big corporations every single time. I challenged them on it. Okay. I challenged their board on it. And I said, wait a minute. How did you come up with this number? You're saying the house is worth three fifty. Oh, yeah. Based on a one mile radius, yada, yada, yada. And I said, wonderful. It's sold. You bought it. They're like, what do you mean? I said, I got it on the market for two twenty. Where do you come up with three fifty? I said, sorry, the numbers don't compute. I said, they're like, well, what do you want to see? I said, it was vacant land. I have this much invested into the development of that property. Therefore, that is your tax base until it sells. And they said, no, we're not going to do that. That's not how our system works. I said, then I'm going to change your system right now on you. He was like, what do you mean? I said, I'm going to lower your property values. Well, how are you going to do that? I said, I'm building in here. My VPs are building in here. My brother-in-law, his uncle, a couple other big developers. I said, we're going to sell every house for a dollar. We're not going to lose a dime and we're going to lower your property values. I actually love it. We're going to bring it down on you. Well, when you think about it. They finally agreed to what I had suggested that they only base the taxes on the improvement to the property. Now, whether they continue doing that after I walked out the door, I don't know. But for that period of time that we were in there, that that's what they did. Wow. Well, think about the radius. So you've got one area and you've got you've got a radius and say one area and they're basing it within a one mile radius. But what happens when somebody that's outside this farther away, they've got a different one mile radius. and a different one-mile radius, and a different one-mile radius. It's kind of like connected, so it falls down into your area. They can raise up the entire area just by connecting, basically connecting these radiuses and applying it however they see fit. Well, let's simplify the problem even more. Okay. You have a township that has a thousand houses in its jurisdiction. and it has a budget based on those thousand houses. Now you have a developer come in and he builds another thousand houses. Well, now you've doubled your income based on that original assessment. You've doubled your income, and yet you're claiming that you don't have enough money to run the township. You need more money, and you have to continue raising taxes. You just doubled your income right there just by those houses, those other houses. Every time a house is built, that's an increase to the budget. So where is the deficit offsetting those increases? Right. well and when what they do is they let the developers come into areas and build build build build build oh my gosh build up and turn it into this metropolis of tax dollars and such but the developers leave and they leave the residents the citizens to pick up the tab for all the infrastructure improvements we have to pay for for roads we have to pay for for water and sewer and electrical upgrades and the schools and everything else that they just have at their whim. They've got a bigger tax base. So we want this and this and this and this, and you're going to pay for it. I have a big gripe with that. I've seen that over and over again. They'll come in and then, oh, gosh, we just approved a development here. So guess what? Now the township is going to have to build out to enable that development. And all of us have to pay for them making money or having that advantage. The problem is you've got people that are buying the houses. That's okay. They're actually paying. Instead of looking at it, and again, you have these houses that are inflated in their numbers based on the assessor who is fake. So you have a fake assessment fake numbers and yet people are still willing to go out there and yeah, I'll pay. I'll still buy it. I want to think about this too, though. It's like out where we live, the township decided to put in water and sewer past a bunch of houses that are on, on septic and well water. And it's fine. It's not an improvement to our property yet. We're being charged for that water and sewer to go past our property. up to and including some properties are paying at the minimal is forty thousand dollars. We have a young family that's in the area saying we just lost any gain to the property value going up, which they have determined that we'll ever have. They said we will not be able to pay this and they're impoverishing them out of their land. to help these developers down the road well if we have it goes back to the fee simple those are the the township is declaring eminent domain to bring the utilities through your property because you're under the fee simple system or it's going under the road we either way we still have to pay the tax or the improvement If you're bringing a land patent forward and get it all recorded under a low deal title, those utilities that they ran through the property, they now have to pay you So help me, Mike, we're going to do this. We're going, I need, I need your help on this because so help me, we are going to do this. We are going to hold these criminals in contempt and, and bring this whole God forsaken system down because it's just a system of coercion and threat. The whole thing is. Yes. So I will be, I will be the first person willing to be the first person to do this. I think this is great. Fantastic. Yeah, it's going to take some time getting some of this. Some of the administrative processes I already have in place are already moving forward. Currently, Dave Burris, Genoa Township, and the Livingston County Board of Commissioners have all defaulted on the first notice of liability. So there will be now a notice of non-response and opportunity to cure going out next. So that process is moving forward. They are defaulting on it. Judge Geddes did respond, but her response was a joke. The response wasn't signed, number one. Number two, and I think it was her clerk that probably did, because she probably didn't even know what a notice of liability is, asked for me to file a motion regarding the notice of liability. And I'm like, I'm not a party to this case that you're citing. And it has nothing to do with that court case other than the fact that you allowed, you know, rhetoric to be put on the record, made publicized that affects and harms me. And I'm not a party to the case. So I'm going to hit I'm hitting her with basically a similar notice that, you know, you didn't properly address this. And, you know, you're you're on the hook. So but yeah, those processes are moving forward. And Again, I'm putting together a detailed process of challenging the property tax issue, and it's going to be a challenge in the federal courts. Well, I think with all the threat and coercion over this property tax and the lodeal title stuff, both in Canada as well as the United States, this is something that we definitely have hit a nerve here. Yes. No two ways about it, because it really does tear the entire thing right down to the ground. Yeah, because basically what they're saying is, and this is what I found, the irony of this, the AI program stated that property is in rem jurisdiction, which means that when they go to foreclosure on your property for failure to pay taxes, you'll notice, and ask anybody who's gone through this, their name never appears in the lawsuit. It's only the property description. What? They're claiming that taxes are not a debt. It's a public obligation. For real? Yes. Yet under MCL, uh, two, eleven point four zero. It states that taxes are a debt. So which is it? Because if it's a debt, if we hold their feet to the fire and say, your verbiage says it's a debt in the statute itself. So therefore, if it's a debt, where's the contract? Where's the contract of obligation? There is none. And they're trying to say, well, we don't need a contract. Well, yeah, you do. If there's going to be an obligation, there has to be a contract. Oh, we're going to get them. This is going to be fun. If it's a debt, it also falls under Fifteen USC Chapter Forty-One. So that has to do with debt collectors because now they're acting as a third-party debt collector. They have to follow certain federal laws. So, yeah, this opens up a whole big can of worms that they're not going to want to deal with. Well, you want to know how slimy these people are? our township withheld a tax bill. And we went down there and one of our one of our financial guys went down there to our CFO, went down there four times to the township, couldn't find him didn't know what we were talking about. The only way I knew that we had a problem was because a piece of junk mail came through from Kalamazoo. Now, I don't know. We're about, I don't know, sixty miles away from Kalamazoo. Right. And we get this piece of junk mail for Kalamazoo talking about the foreclosure on our property. And do we you know, did we need help? And I'm like, what are you talking about? So I finally talked to our guy and I said, somebody's got to get down there and talk to these people because I just smell a rat here, whatever it is. What is going on here? He went down there or called them and talked to them four times. Nothing. The last time somebody from behind a wall basically said, oh, my, look what I found. Here it is. How in the world do you for four times in Byron Township with somebody addressing the situation personally can't find a tax record? it makes no sense and if it happened to me I'm going to tell you what it's happening all over the place where they're literally hiding things in order to grab land and I'm going to tell you they want my land the the land I I can I can tell you they want my land because we it's a it's a I would say it's a very expensive piece of property And it's ripe for development. No two ways. I bought it so that the developers can't get their grubby, soulless, godforsaken hands on this thing and slam a hundred to a thousand apartments in here, whatever it will be, and totally destroy the rural feel of the area. people who moved here moved here because they wanted the feel of a rural rural small town it's not not a big town and um that's that's exactly where this was going so I've been a thorn in everybody's side here and uh it was really funny because the neighbors absolutely hated me when I bought it they were sure that we were gonna develop it. And I'm like, trust me, this is gonna be horse trails. This is what we're doing here is horse trails. And it's a rural area. They keep trying to change the zoning from A-One Agricultural, and that sort of thing. They keep trying to do it through zoning, which is where Fresh Coast and all of these people across the state, they all use the similar law firms, zoning, planning firms to tell them what to do. Again, our association's involved in manipulating this whole system. You bet it is. You bet it is. Because they want to turn this into these megatropolises which they don't live in, nor will they live in it. And then watch the decline happen because there's no long-term planning. There's no protection of the land, of the residents, of the schools, of anything like this. They want to turn these into it's about a it's about a twenty one to thirty year cycle. You'll watch it happen because they've got their their the way they tax it is they tax it based on depreciation so they can keep depreciating, depreciating, depreciating. The developers get a hold of this land. They depreciate the depreciate and then they exploit the area and then they move on to another area because it's never been their homes. It's all about just the almighty dollar and to gobble it up like a parasite. I call them parasites because that's exactly what they do. They come in from outside of the area. They don't live in the area. They eat up everything that's here. And then as soon as they get done, like a dog crapping in your lawn, they move on to another area and expect you to clean up the mess. and pay the taxes for the infrastructure. It's it is so rampant here. I don't know if your area is the same, but our area that's we'll have we'll have developers from Bloomfield Hills come over here, try to grab a piece of property, develop the ever living hell out of it, and then leave And then the taxes go up around the area. We pay for it. They do nothing. I suggested the last one I went to for this developer that came from a course out of our area to develop and exploit this area. I'm like, why don't you make them put up a, you know, ten million dollar, twenty million dollar bond? in case we have to build up for the infrastructure. These people blew past this so fast, it would have made your head spin. Oh, we can't do that. I'm like, why? Everything that we do, we have to post a bond in case that there's a negative response or action to the local area. You have to post a bond. If you're going to do this, you got to pay for it. You don't just grab the money off the table, not saying it to you personally, but the developers that we have around here, grab the money off the table run like hell and leave all of us to pay for more schools roads uh electric all the infrastructure builds out sewer water on and on and on it goes and uh and and there's no negative consequences and we pay their freaking bill to walk away with the profits It's absolutely, and they destroy lives. They're destroying lives like a bunch of little kids peeing in a pool. They don't care. They just don't care. A lot of them don't. It's maddening. One of my associates was in a poultry development, and a box truck pulled in, and there had to have been fifteen illegals. piling out of this box truck. And so he started questioning them. None of them could speak English. And so next thing he knows, he's got the police showing up. And he says, you got all these illegals here. He goes, the cop told my associate, he had to leave. And then another squad car pulled up and they said, you cannot question. And he's like, what are you talking about? These guys are illegal. They're obviously illegal. They don't even speak English. And he goes, if you force us to go and talk to them and challenge them, we're going to arrest my associate. For what? What was the grounds? He couldn't get a straight answer out of them, other than that he was not allowed to question their being there. Yeah, because they're like secret police. They're like KGB officers and such. This was the city of Novi police. Right. The city of Novi, right there. Protecting Pulte and his use of illegal aliens on his job sites. And this goes back to the corporatocracy that we've been talking about and how all these public-private partnerships, all of this funding that's going in through backroom deals and crap to protect their buddies in these... that are doing business. They're all getting a kickback. I can guarantee you that you may not see it. It may go through back channels. It may go through all kinds of trust, trust work, their wives. I watched what happened with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. I tracked this one down and how they turned it from a beneficiary trust to a mutual. And that went to Whitmer's daddy was in charge. And then he passed it off to Dan Lope, who ended up getting paid something ridiculous like eighteen million dollars in two thousand nineteen and set up trust under his wife's name. And I'm like, that's how they're doing it. It's it's you know, it's like I got a friend of a friend of a friend who knows this guy who knows that guy and blah, blah, blah on it goes. And, you know, you could make up a comedy routine for this, just like they did it. What was it? Ant-Man. I got a friend who's got a friend and friend and friend and this guy that knows that guy knows that guy. And the next thing you know, all the money's gone. The people in the community are robbed blind of their properties. through taxation, unlawful taxation. And we never get down to who's committing the crime. That's part of my problem with this ridiculous acts. My tax are just going to move it onto the people and nothing gets called out on the source crimes that are happening. And it's just like, Ooh, pull the, pull the veil over this. Nothing to see here. It's a bunch of crap. How much money would our government need if you got rid of all the de facto departments and agencies and all the personnel associated therewith? You know, what if we brought it down to a local level and let the people decide what they want to fund and what they don't want to fund, and they have the ability to opt in or not. And if they don't, that's okay, too. We can't coerce people to do that. You can't force them. Green Oak Township was looking to pave a section of nine mile between Green Oak, which would be the Brighton area, and South Lyon. I went to the meetings and they were talking about how they're going to take money from the general fund to fund the paving of this road. And I questioned them. I said, where is this money coming from? Oh, the general fund. I said, where did the money from the general fund come from? Well, they hummed and hawed and wanted to talk around and didn't want to come out right out and say it. State law prohibits property taxes on residential property from being used on public roads. So I said, where did the money for the general fund come from? Well, it came, finally I got them to admit, it came from property taxes of residential properties. I said, you can't allocate those funds for the paving of that road. They went ahead and did it anyway. Well, I got to tell you, these people that are in office, when you want to look at projects that are happening, they will happen around their houses. They're using their powers and their influence to in order to affect these build-outs for their financial or for their own pleasure advantage. And I'm just going to throw this one out there because I think we're going to have some sleuths out there that I may know something just by sheer fact of being in the right place at the right time. I honestly think that the Kent County Sheriff needs to be looked into. in Michigan. And, you know, that's not even a de facto office. I would like to have somebody out there looking to maybe some build projects that are being considered. Because maybe, just maybe, there's something going on. I don't know this for a fact. I don't know this for a fact, but I think that this would be worth looking into. But this doesn't go just by this, that one office. Every one of them needs to be looked into on the projects that are going on around them, where they live, their advantage and such. and the people in the corporatocracy that they're rubbing shoulders with and elbows with and saying, hey, you know, we're going to help you get this project through. And any of their residents that come to the meeting, ah, they won't matter. We're just going to slap them down and roll this through and rubber stamp it. I've seen this so many times. It's disgusting. And somebody's grandma, they sit there and ask my taxes going, well, what if older people lose their property? Well, why don't you go down to the city offices or the township offices and pose that to them as they've got their planning set out or laid out for the township steamrolling. properties that belong in families over generations, seen it happen over and over again. Sorry, the source crime isn't in making a victim class of people that are property owners to say, yes, it's self-interest. We want to get out from underneath the property taxes. I own so much property. It would be a huge swing for me if I jumped on the bandwagon and said this, okay, but I won't do it because it's wrong. And even if it would benefit me, I won't do it. And they, they need to start calling the source crime out and you hit the nail on the head with low deal titles. I applaud you and I applaud everything that you're doing. And John and John is doing, you guys are amazing. So we're, we're coming for them. We're going to get them and we're going to get them in a, in a lawful, in a lawful way. We're going to get them. Their foundation of their utopia is crumbling. It's coming apart. It's going to collapse. You should see my pro se cases. They're kind of shocked because I'm not talking about them much online. And watching how they're handling this, they don't know what to do. Because we called out actual crimes being committed by, oh, I don't know, say the Secretary of State, but I think it needs to be looked into, as well as the Bureau of Elections Director. I think it needs to be looked into, actual crimes being committed. There's plenty of them. I mean, you could be lobbing a hundred cases a day out there if you were real good. If you understand what's going on and actually see and pull back the curtain to what's going on, everything around you could be a lawsuit because of the fraud attached to it. Yep. And you know what? I kind of made it made up my mind that, well, you know what? They've been doing this to President Trump and the good guys for a very long time. They've tried to paper them to death. Why are we not holding actual criminals accountable? And all of us papering them out of office. We could do it, right? You're doing it. It's amazing. I love I love this segment with you. I can't even tell you how much I love this segment. So so sign me up for this low deal title title. Okay. I will be glad and honored to jump onto this. Okay. As soon as we get everything put together, I want to put it together to where we actually hold classes and teach people how to do this. You want to do it on BNN? We could. Yeah, we could. Yeah, let's do it here. You know, I don't make any money on any of this. I do it just because I love this country and people and anybody that wants to do an effort like this. I'm like, I'm your girl. I will help you in any way that you need to get this thing out there. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Awesome. I got to take off here. I got to. So but we got into the subject and we just had to do it. You know, that's what it is. Do you want to give any information on how people can either get a hold of you or me? I mean, everybody out there knows my phone number. It's six one six four three oh four. Oh, man. I'm like like losing it here. Four one zero zero. So I should probably look that up a minute. I get on a roll and then I'm like losing it here. Right. So. Yeah, if someone really needs to get a hold of me about something, my email address is gasdepartment, G-A-S-D-E-P-T at att.net. Awesome. Awesome. I'm going to I'm going to do a little banner here and get it out there today, either today or tomorrow. And then everybody can know how to get a hold of me because it's this is very important. I think I gave you the wrong number. I was too much on a roll. Four three zero four four one zero. There you go. I got it mixed up. So but you can you can call or text anytime. I prefer text messages first because I can hold twenty conversations at one time. for six one six four three zero four four one zero so anyhow well thank you about a hundred emails a day so if I don't get back to you right away it isn't I'm not I'm ignoring you it's just I have to take a while to get caught up I do it through text basically because I can answer them while I'm doing other things. If I have to sit down and do emails, good luck with that. It could be now or it could be a long time too. So, well, thank you for coming on. So let's go to that part of the show. Let's say prayer first and then we'll go to that part of the show. Yeah, you got me all charged up here. I'm so excited about this. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Mike and John and and everything that they're doing out there. It's such a blessing that you've given us paths back to what worked and what was supposed to work and how the Founding Fathers set us up to succeed as a Republican. We want to go back to that, honoring you and service to you. And to family and to our country, we're so thankful for everything you've done for us. And we ask your blessings on Mike and John and every single person out there who is listening to this today. We're thankful that you brought us together at this time and know that you are in charge. It's your sandbox and we're willing to walk whatever path that you ask us to go down. We're there. We're your people. And we just want to let you know we love you. In Jesus' precious name we pray. Amen. So that's the point of the show. Boys and girls, we go to, ding, ding, ding, go to brandenburgforgovernment.com because I'm the best non-consider 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, about this. Wearing cowboy boots. I'll wear them better. And then we'll talk about real stuff. So there you go. So have a great day, guys. I'm going to be on tomorrow with Robert Brown and... Matthew Rhodes tomorrow. It's going to be a great show as well as Liberty Essentials at nine o'clock. It'll be a long show and a great show, but I welcome everybody to come back again and talk about real things, which are the basis of the Republic, not made up story narratives and crap that's out there because we've got an awful lot of that going on, but sticking to the facts and doing the work that needs to be done. So God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Have a great day. Thanks for coming on today, Mike. It was amazing. No problem.