Published June 2, 2026, 9 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike - Mike Bambas will be talking about the citizen's rights and process of holding to the law. We will be taking the Trading with the Enemy Act, as well as, other lawful practices not followed by our government including a lawful path to convict political criminals of concrete violations of acts leading to treason X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1mxPaawlWdjKN Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7apoo2-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-622026-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike.html https://rumble.com/v7apoji-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-622026-lawful-defense-and-prose-mike.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2026-06-02-lawful-defense-and-prose-mike:d 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 is the second day of June, twenty twenty six. And welcome to the show today. Start out at nine o'clock with John Tater with Lawful Defense. And at ten o'clock, Pro Se Mike talking about whatever else is breaking in the court systems that were, you know, the good guys are letting them have it. So I think that's important because because we have to have accountability. And just so you know, for some reason, X is not. X is not working this morning. So yesterday we had a whole bunch of other anomalies and today it looks like I'm not being able to go live to X, which is really interesting. Let me check my channel here and see what the problem is because I don't think that there are any problems. I don't think I got any notifications, but at any rate, that's where we are. Morning, John. How you doing? I'm good. I'm going to figure out why X is not allowing me to post live right now. This is insane. because usually I have a live stream going on on X, and I'm not seeing it, and I do not know why. See if I can see if they nixed me for what I said yesterday. They might have. X isn't supposed to be monitored. Yeah, it is. I mean, there's no two ways about it. They are absolutely being monitored. So let me see what's going on here. So what do we want to talk about today, John? Well, I'm trying to figure out why X is not going. This is insane. Well, we could talk a little bit about your Your meeting, our meeting, or the U.S. Taxpayer Party meeting. Yes, and let me start out with this, is that John is the chairman of Washtenaw County, and he was officially the party in Washtenaw for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which is the Michigan affiliate of the Constitution Party, was affiliated last night. So congratulations, John. Well, thank you. Thank you. With that said, there's only two of us that are in the party at the moment. Nobody else has stepped up at this moment. And I found out that Mike is not really in Washtenaw. He's in Oakland. So he's not. So now we're down to three. And I talked to the other gentleman and he hasn't committed, but says he's interested. So we'll see where that goes. Yeah, I think he wants to work behind the scenes. A lot of people don't want to take an officer position, but they will definitely help. Well, we'll see. We'll see. Everybody can talk a lot. The problem that we've had in the past is everybody talks a lot about it and says that they're going to do and what they're going to do, but then they don't stand behind what they say, so that's a problem. But that's typical human nature, so... We just got to motivate them. They just got to see that people are working. You know, that's the main thing. And then they usually come around and go, wow, this is a great idea. So the one thing about it, though, is that the nice thing that Mike is in Oakland is that Mike is starting a Oakland party. So it's all good. You know, things have a way of working out. Yeah, on the eleventh, I'll be speaking. Let's see. I'm going to see if I can have somebody do the down detector a minute to find out why. why we're not on X. That one's been pretty, pretty reliable. But yesterday we had a complete internet outage and it was, it was kind of crazy. We were breaking up at the middle, but we just endeavored to persevere and it just, and it did, did well. So let's see, I'm going to see if, This should be going live and it is not going live. This is insane. All right. Well, it is what it is. So, um, so there you go. We'll see what, cause they nuked my Facebook account and then they nuked, uh, let's see which other ones they nuked Facebook. They nuked the YouTube account and now it looks like X is not coming up the way it should. So you got to figure out why, but we'll just keep going on. So what do we want to talk about today? Well, I'd like to spend a few minutes speaking about the judicial system in itself, because there's a lot of people facing the judicial, facing judges that are pretty much, we want to call them rogue or illegal or violating their oath of office or whatever, but I don't think they even understand what that is. And they may understand it and they just may be stupid on the surface, but I really kind of feel that most judges do not know the law. They know what the law school taught them. They know what, which is pretty much nothing, just how to pass the bar exam. And they know a little bit about the reading the crib notes of what another attorney might write about a court case. But they don't read the court case, so they don't know what's in the court case. They don't know the intent of the law. So those people that the general public that goes in front of these judges, they quote a court case and they tell you what the court case says. And we are the general public and not engaged enough to read the court case to find out what the intent of that court case was to begin with. so we follow what a judge may find in a court case in one paragraph and you know a lot of court cases are you know ten fifteen twenty thirty pages long and so they'll read one paragraph and they'll say aha i have it right here this is it this says judges are immune And because that one paragraph says judges are immune, they believe that judges are immune, have absolute immunity. When in fact, when they read the entire case, that case doesn't say that. So when you go into court and you write a brief or an argument for the courts, you really have to go and understand what the court case is all about before and and write out those parts of the court case that you're trying to press against the judge or against the prosecutor and in this case when you when you go to court you generally press it against the judge because it's the judge is acting both as a prosecutor and as a judge at the same time uh which is illegal they're not supposed to do that they're supposed to be a judge impartial to both sides but when you go into court especially on something like a speeding ticket or what else um the prosecutor that's there generally doesn't say a whole lot the judge does the judge says you know you're guilty that you're that but the judge really doesn't have that authority to do that that's not in the law that in fact there is a court case out there that says the judge cannot be both prosecutor and judge at the same time, one or the other. But in most cases, when you go in front of a court, you go in front of the judge who's generally acting as the prosecutor also. So when you go into court, you've got to be prepared well enough that you understand the court cases that you are using and what the court cases actually say. And when the judge rules against you, go back and read the court case that the judge is using to see if it really said what the judge says it means. That's part of the problem. The intent of the law is the law in this country. And we are a nation of law, not a nation of men. So the judge can't make a decision based on what he feels. He has to make a decision based on the rule of law. But most judges don't know what the rule of law is. And they use that against us. Well, and the thing of it is, is that when you see a judge letting go repeat offenders and such, we, you know, the... he, he, like you said they're completely disregarding the law and they're going well you know we want to let them go and have a second chance no they don't they're doing it for subversion and so i mean the whole thing is just kind of screwy you know i got to show you something because i was curious why x wasn't working today and i'm not trying to get off uh topic here but you can keep you can keep talking i'm trying to figure out what's going on um but it absolutely looks like like we're having another cyber attack and it's worse than the one yesterday to the entire grid of the United States. Something is going on and it's, it's, it's at its best. Well, I don't know if it's deep state or if it's the good guys at this point in time, because it's, it's too, hang on a minute. I'll show you what we have here. This is kind of an, and I'm glad that I, that we're up and running because yesterday it was, it was a, you know, crapshoot all day long. We didn't know if we could keep it up or anything like that. So the problem, Oh, it's much worse today than what it was yesterday. This is really interesting. Hang on, hold on guys. We're under another, um, another, uh, large motion against the communications grid. And here it is. It is definitely worse than it was yesterday. Yesterday we had, we had Chicago and, um, uh, dc these hubs here but look at the other ones have also kicked in and look at how many more bubbles we have here from yesterday back to yesterday's map a minute that's yesterday's and now look at today's map it's it's expanding and now we've got it down here in the caribbean so he we're over here off of cuba and uh Puerto Rico and Cuba and such, and we've got more in Mexico. Yesterday we had many in Mexico, but the big hubs are all failing. Look at that. This is amazing. We are literally watching history in the making right here. Well, you do know that way back when, I don't remember what year it was, but Soros and others had said we are in the midst of a cyber war and we are going to cyber attacks and he said this years ago this wasn't something that came up so they're prepping the world they're prepping us the uh people who use the internet and stuff like that they're prepping us that when this finally when they pull a big pull pull the switch on this whole thing and they get a great cyber attack across the world the united states and and people in general that have been not really engaged mentally will realize well yeah they were saying this was coming just like they said uh years and years of years prior to the uh van prior to the uh pandemic that we were going to see a pandemic that was going to be so great it was going to shock the world and then covet came out so this is the same kind of nonsense that's going to happen again and the deep states behind this deep state those criminals uh the um a good part of the lefty Democratic Party, et cetera, et cetera, that are behind this. I kind of figured this was coming. It's going to get more intense as we get closer to the elections so they can try to shut down the election. They're not going to be successful there, but they're going to try. Yeah, so this is really interesting. This is going to be a fun day to see if we can get anything out there, but we're going to keep going because I do have belief that no matter what happens, I'm going to just keep doing what I'm doing and it's going to get out there. So there you go. Please talk to the people in your networks and ask them to go to the other links on X or rather not on X, but the other channels like the rumble channels and, uh, being on, um, Brandenburg news network live. We're live there. So, and Instagram is up. So that's real good. So very, very interesting day. So, well, let's keep going here, John. I wanted to point out the break here, you know, wanted to point out one of the supreme court cases um pearson versus ray you don't i don't care if you bring it up or not because there's only a couple of small little paragraphs i want to read here but pearson versus ray is a case that the uh justice department as well as the judges used on my last go around with them that judges have absolute immunity And if you read, it's like in third or fourth page, it says, accordingly, this court held in Turney versus Brandhover, and it's the site, that the immunity of legislators for acts within the legislature role was not abolished. Immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established. So they're saying, hey, judges have absolute immunity. That's what they read and that's what they come across. But then you go to the last paragraph, which they probably never get to, and you read, a judge is liable for injury caused by the ministerial act to have immunity. The judge must be performing a judicial function. And they mentioned some court cases. the law of torts, etc., etc. The presence of malice and the intention to deprive 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." That's the last one. What was the case? Pearson v. Wren. Pearson versus Ray. Pearson versus Ray. So when you listen to a judge say they have absolute immunity and Pearson versus Ray says it does, they do not read the last paragraph or they ignore it, one or the other, and they believe that the public, the people that they're judging against is not paying attention to this. And therefore, these court cases they use against us, they have used in my particular lawsuits, in their orders and their judgments against me, they have done many things such as try to drag you off in a different direction, red herring kind of thing. and they're good at it they're good at misdirecting so if you don't bring them back on target then you lose and when you're in the court the judges will you know you go in and you argue that the uh judge did not answer or the plan the uh opposing party defendants or that the prosecutor did not answer my or did not respond to my answer and therefore they're in default The judge kind of takes a break and he says, yeah, but let's talk about the police officer. And so they misdirect, and then you as an individual standing in front of this judge follows their misdirection and goes into talking about the police officer. And did the police officer give you a ticket because you were speeding? And how did he give you, and how did he decide you were speeding? And it had nothing to do with the fact of the law, which is, according to Michigan court rules, court rule two point one one oh sub b sub fives sub b sub five says if you demand an answer they've got to respond they don't respond therefore they're in default and therefore you win they lose but they don't go there they try to drag you in a different direction and of course you're not capable of standing because you haven't really rehearsed or this is your first time or you're frightened or your shape your knees are knocking together or whatever and so you don't stand your ground and they drag you in a different direction and in a different direction you lose that's why when you bring up uh eighteen hundred violations that a judge uses and you don't spell it out really well They're going to find the weakest one that they can, and they're going to direct you into that direction, and then they're going to dismiss your case. I don't know if I've saved off that Pearson versus Ray. If you had sent it to me, can you resend that to me today? And I'll put that one in your file. Sure. Sure. I'll send it to you. That'd be great. Okay. That's not the only... I mean, I've read a lot of these cases. especially since I've been up to my ears in battling the judges. And now this new judge, Judge Berg, that ruled against me, he has violated so many laws, so many rules, so many misquoted Supreme Court cases. This guy has no idea what the law says. And consequently, I'm going through it very carefully, reading the pieces that he's quoted and using them against him. Yeah, judge, but you didn't read this, you didn't read that. You can't read, you don't understand English, that kind of thing. Because that's what it's all about. And then we have all of these other judges that recuse themselves, those five judges that recuse themselves based on the fact that they might appear to be that their integrity might be intact or questioned. How can your integrity be questioned if you rule by the law? Law says this, and if it says that and you violated it, you lose. I mean, there's no gray area here. It's a black and white. If you violate the law, you lose. If you didn't violate the law, you do not lose. So these judges that say that their integrity might be intact, that means that they're biased. I'm not going to rule against my fellow colleagues because it might look bad on my record or my job might be in jeopardy or they might shun me or they might not let me sit at the table and have lunch with them at the lunch counter. It's a bunch of crap that goes on. You either rule with the rule of law or you don't. And the judges in the Eastern District of Michigan, as well as the Western District, which is your area, they don't rule by the rule of law. They rule by the seat of their pants or to protect the system. And it's obvious because they don't read the court cases. They don't know what the court cases say. And they cite the court case. in order to get you to believe because you haven't read the court case what the court case says and it doesn't say that in most cases well you go into court and it's it can be a little intimidating because the judge has the power over life and death of your life and that that's i understand that you know even if you're prepared it's a little bit of an intimidating situation for most people So the awesome thing is, is you've got so many decades of knowledge here that you just kind of go in and take them hostage and just with your knowledge. And that's what the path that I think all of us need to be on is to continue to learn all this so that we can help educate them. First off in court. Second of all, get them out of this administrative procedures nonsense. Yeah. and get them back to the law. You know, it's crazy. It's a crazy system. Well, the administrative procedure has been overruled by Loper Bright versus Raimondo. Okay. I don't have that one either. So make sure you email that one to me too. Like every day it's like John comes on here and he starts out the day every day. You're wrong. And then we go into he's got all this stuff that he's been holding out on us with. And, you know, and then it's sort of like, all right, John, come on, cough it up, dude. Loper Wright versus Raimondo speaks about the administrative courts and administrative process that they put together back in the seventies. And a matter of fact, it might be before that, where they said that the agencies can tell you what the law is. We're live on X now, everybody. We finally got X up. That's good. Because they're the professionals. So they know what the law says. When in fact, that's like asking the fox to tell you which chicken he's going to eat. There is no... basis to allow an agency that is exercising power on you to tell you what the law is, because they can tell you what the law is in any direction. And of course, because they're the experts, the law is uh the law is what they say it is so when you get involved with the irs the irs says oh the law says this and then when you go to court the court the irs says yeah the law says that judge and the judge buys into that but loper um bright versus ramando says no no no we can't do that anymore you have to let the judge decide what the law is that's actually the judicial systems responsibility. And according to Marbury versus Madison, the judge has to tell you what the law says and what the law means. That's their job. And that goes way back to eighteen or eighteen hundred. I'm not. That was one of the first case ever, ever argued. Marbury versus Madison. So here we're in a situation where Marbury versus Madison says the judge has to tell you what the law is. But during this time of Chevron, with Chevron as part of this overturning, was overturned by Loper versus Bright, Loper, Bright versus Raimondo, Chevron was overturned. Chevron said that The professionals of the departments tell you what the law is. No, no, no, no, no. That's backwards from what the intent of our structure of government was. And the judicial system was to tell you what the law says. And the judicial system kind of parked it off, just like the legislature in Michigan parked off the election process to the executive branch. they can do that but the executive branch has to be watched by the legislature and of course when the legislature did that they stopped paying attention to what the executive branch is doing and so now we go back to the judicial system where the judicial system isn't really watching what the law says they're listening to the experts of that department and loper right bright Loper Wright versus Raimondo said, no, that's not going to work anymore. You have to let the judges decide what the law is. So now we're back to closer back to what the Republic is all about. What is the law? What is the intent of the law? What was the intent of the law when it was written? Not what the departments say they believe the law to be. So That's where we're at at this point. Things have changed significantly. However, saying that, the Sixth Circuit appellate court hasn't figured that out yet. Because when you quote something to them on a court case and you don't spell it out, I just got an argument back from an appellate on a particular one of the people that we're working with. That court decided that you didn't spell out what you wanted me to do about what you wanted the court to do about Loper Bright versus Raimondo. You didn't spell it out. You didn't tell us what exactly you want. All you did was quote the court case. And that's that wasn't enough for them because they probably don't even know what the court case says or they only know the crib notes of the court case. Judges are pretty much lazy. They don't do very much work. When they were when they were attorneys, they were probably doing a little more than they did when they're a judge. Now, once they're a judge, they think they know it all. They are assumed to know all the law, but they know very little of the law or they. It's kind of disturbing in a way, you know. well you go to you go to the court for what you go to the court for remedy because you can't deal with the department you can't deal with uh we'll pick on the irs again you can't deal with the irs because the irs has their own idea of what the law says and you can't talk to them about the law because they come up with all kinds of excuses or reasons why that what you're saying doesn't apply And they got the power and they got the guns and they're going to do what they want to do. Well, this is all of the agencies of government. They all behave that way because they believe that they are in control of what the law says regarding their department. And you can't argue with somebody when he says, I know the law. You're fighting against me and I know the law and you don't. you're in a losing situation right off the bat if you don't do your homework and you don't go in there educated and understand what's going on. Now, it's not such a major task to do that, but you have to do it. You have to know what you're saying and have the backing and have the authority to back it up. Otherwise, Otherwise, you're blowing smoke and the judges will abuse you on the bench left and right. But one of the things that has gotten me unafraid of the court system and should be on the minds of everybody out there that is ever thinking of dealing with the courts is that the courts are not the final answer. You go to court and you lose, there's an appeals process or suing the judges process or going after them through other means, such as letter writing to the administrator, to the Judicial Tenure Commission. And there's a federal judicial oversight and Congress. so there are other methods that you can use and and if you don't sit down and scare and get scared because i've lost that case now what do i do um and if you if you're not in that frame of mind that if you lose you lose and you're out of business if you're out of that frame of mind then you don't get so excited when you get in front of a judge hey i lose i lose i'll see you tomorrow That's a really probably one of the greatest statements you've made on here concerning the legal system is that, you know, you can have the faith that there is also another step you can take this to to get remedy. Yes. And you must take that step. If you're dealing with the system, you must take that step. I have another question I have for you. On constitutional issues, I've heard that there's no statute of limitations. Is that correct? On fraud, there is no statute of limitations. Gotcha. And what does that mean? If you have your First Amendment right violated, by a public functionary who says or doesn't respond to you, that's fraud. That's a violation of his oath of office. That's fraud. So yes, there is no limitation on fraud. So in a roundabout way, stating that if you violate a constitutional issue, there's no limitation on it, well, Uh, technically, yeah, there is a limitation on it technically, but it's fraud and then there's no limitation on fraud. You can go back, uh, twenty, thirty years on fraud. That's, that's amazing. Because, um, you know, when I look at twenty-two, uh, it was fraudulent what they did to me for the signatures. And it was absolutely fraud. And the problem is, is that it goes back to in mail administration. I mean, you can go and look at what Jonathan Brader did with losing the signatures. It was absolutely it was fraud. And so what's that? Well, you go after John Brader specifically. I don't think you can get them in the state courts, though, because all the state courts are protecting the people in the state. I mean, it's a protection racket. The court system in Michigan is a protection racket. But that's why I say you have to start somewhere. So you start at the lowest, most convenient and evil and easy level for you to start at, which would be the local district court. And you're going to probably lose there, but you got to keep that in mind that I'm probably going to lose there. So what's my next step? Take it to the appellate court, maybe, or sue that judge and Brader in another district court. How do you do that when you say go to a different, can you just literally go look at the other district courts and file there? I mean, do you, how, you know, because normally they say you have to go into the district court where you are. How do you move things around? The way I have done it is I sue in, we'll pick Livonia, for example, or any other court system, but I'll sue one judge in Livonia and obviously I will lose probably because it'll be the other judge that picks up that case. So then I'll take both judges and I'll put them on that court case. Now, what are they going to do? They only had two judges in Livonia. How are they going to fix that? They got to listen. And this is what I'm doing in the district court, in the federal district court. I sued two or three judges in the federal district court. And by the third judge, they said, oh, we got to get this out of the Eastern District of Michigan. And so they sent it to another one in the Sixth Circuit, which was in Ohio. Cleveland and we sued that and I lost there. Then I filed a lawsuit and I added that judge to the list and they sent it to a judge in your area in Grand Rapids, Western District. Yonkers, right? Yonkers. Yonkers ruled against me and so I added Yonkers to the list. And it went back to the judicial court in the Eastern District, Michigan. But now I got nine judges on that list. I don't know what they're going to do at this point. Probably go home and cry. They've got it. Now they're going to have to. And I've been asking for a master judge. But they haven't been giving me one because the master judge is going to be a retired judge that has no axe to grind or anybody to protect. And he's going to go, hopefully, by the rule of law. But we haven't got to that point because they won't give me a master. They keep judging it or ruling on it in-house. So I don't know what they're going to do with this new case that's coming up against them. because i've kind of closed all the doors yes it takes time yes it's a long process yes i spent a lot of time on it uh and and a lot of people decide that, you know, wow, it's way too much time. I don't have the time. I don't have the energy. I have a family to raise. I have money to make. I got to do this. I got to do that. Oh, don't you love the excuses? I love it when people have every excuse in the book not to do their duty as an American. And it's like, you know what? I had somebody tell me this one day. They're like, I'm so busy. I've got, you know, I've got little kids. It's like, I raised a family too, and I worked, I get it. However, you know, everybody's busy. It's a choice to make to get involved in what's important, prioritizing the fact that We have to do a better job with our country. If we don't do that, no matter how many soccer games we go to or football games or golf games or whatever. I mean, when people tell me that, that it's I usually look at that and say, you know, if you were my kid, I'd probably put you in time out for the next twenty years and say, get it figured out. It's like wah, wah, wah, turn the TV off, do better time management, put your time into something that actually works. There's the Brandenburg butt-chewing moment for the day. It's all a choice. It's a choice to be involved. It's a choice to make time. And like they always say, if you want to get something done, give it to a busy person because they're going to know how to fit it in. It's not that they get overwhelmed or overloaded. They're going to be able to fit more stuff in just because they're better at time management and their motivation is maybe higher. Bam. The Brandenburg moment is done for the moment. Once upon a time when I was high school, college, I was not real excited about reading court cases. They're not easy to read. And in many cases, they're boring. I mean, you want to go to sleep, you read a court case at night, and then that'll put you to sleep. That I understand. And it is very difficult to get things motivated when your mind is totally in a different direction. But as you start working in the process, it's like, when you were in elementary school learning to read. It's not a simple, easy task. You got to go through some process. Once you get through the process, and in our case with Magnificent Republic, If you come to our meetings on Wednesday nights and we read a few court cases, eventually you start getting the idea of how it goes together. And then it becomes, in my case, pretty interesting, some of the stuff that, especially when you're looking for something specifically, when you're arguing an issue in court or getting ready to argue an issue and you start reading the court case and you say, holy cow, this is... really what the court says, and the judge totally misread this case. He doesn't have any clue what this case says. And you start getting these, as my partner says, ta-da moments, where these are all of a sudden very important. Then you start getting involved more and more, and it's not such a chore anymore. It's difficult. Life isn't, especially, it's like giving me now an engineering book and telling me how to build a bridge. I'm not interested in building a bridge. So reading that manual on how to build a bridge doesn't, you know, that would be a chore to get through. But I understand these are chores to get through, but The rule of law is what makes this country a republic. You were talking about people wang, wah, wah, wah. Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah. It's like this is amazing. What? I don't have the time and don't have the energy. But, you know, I was in Europe years ago. I don't remember when, in some of the countries like Ukraine and whatever. And you had to stand and you got up in the early morning and stood in the store line. They had a line over there. You had to stand in that line. And when you finally got to the end, if they were out of meat, sorry, we don't have any more meat. You got to go home and come back tomorrow. And so you would have to do this. And this is what you were wasting your time on, chasing after your daily bread so you could eat. Is that what you want in this country? And we are a long way from it at this point. But that's where they were trying. Maybe. Because things can change very rapidly. We don't know. They were trying to push this country to do that. You bet they were. And how they were doing that is they were taxing the heck out of us. So you'd have to have two jobs. Your wife would have to now go to work or you'd have to have two jobs in order to make ends meet, so to speak, in order to keep your standard of living. So you'd have to work twice as hard. Is that what you wanted? I mean, when I was growing up, my dad was the only one working and he was the only one bringing money home and we were living a fairly decent life. We weren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but we were doing okay. Nowadays, one member of the family working doesn't cut it necessarily. Why? Because we are being taxed to death by our property tax by our income tax by criminals that are sitting in the seats. And they're taking and we're not paying for services in our country. We're not paying our government so they can provide garbage collecting and so on and so forth. We're paying money so they can launder that money or first of all, give it to the Federal Reserve. to pay the interest on the dollars that they're giving to the public functionaries to spend on stupid programs or to launder to destroy us. People realize how much self-enrichment is going on to the people in our government. And I'm not just talking to the ones that we've elected. I'm talking about the deputy positions, the second positions, the clerks, the clerks to the judges, all of this. The teachers, the disguised compensation that the teachers are getting so they don't have to report this. It is in everything. And it's not that... The really sad thing is because people do not understand that this is wrong. How many times have you heard somebody, and I have heard it over and over again, well, you know, everybody just does it this way. And I'll look at them and go, well, guess what? I'm not everybody because I'm not going to break the law. Just because you do it and everybody says, well, it's okay. This is just the way it's done. The greatest one is this is industry standard. When you hear that, realize you're listening to a crime being committed right in front of your eyes. Industry standard is a bullshit term to hide things. Well, I don't know about what the teachers are getting nowadays, but I didn't get that. Well, I know you didn't, but it's crept in like it has to everyone. So what we're finding out and seeing is that they keep their wages a little lower, but there's instances across the state, and I don't think everybody's caught up into everything, okay? Everything's been infiltrated, I'll give you that. But people, it's spotty. So you've got to be a little bit tactical or specific like a surgeon when you're cutting corruption out. But we're finding more and more that the teachers are getting undisguised compensation or disguised compensation, like a ninety thousand dollar benefits package on top of their hundred thousand dollar salary. So those are. I don't know that. I didn't know. It is. It is. We've got proof of it. And so maybe there may be. I'm still going to say there may be some that are receiving that. But I don't believe that all of the teachers have gotten that. No, I don't believe all of them have. And they should be more angry than the rest of us that this is what they're doing to their little select communist favorites. This is what they do in every industry. If you play ball with them. they're going to give you anything you that you want they're going to make it real easy and the minute you bite bite on that bait now you're captured and they've got blackmail on you i'm not saying that every single teacher has it the teachers that are the good teachers should be madder than hell about this and go after those those people that have been complicit in the system because they have you know it's like anything else we have to clean out our own houses The teachers should be looking at this and going, hold the freaking phone. Let's look at this because this is in fact wrong and go after them. Screw the teachers unions and all these other cartels that are made out there. Because anything that is a union like that, it is a cartel. It's just like in any of the industries, the regulatory organizations, that is a cartel. And the cartel exists to benefit the members, keep competition out. keep the competition low and decide that they're going to do the regulation. They are the writers, the enforcers, the trainers, and they make tons of money off of regulatory capture. But it's all about keeping the competition out so that the ones that are at the top, they're basically price fixing through these cartels. And so, you know, you look at the stuff like, perfect example, I'm going to say it out there, anything having to do with ISO, wink, wink, Perry Johnson, that has a large industry regulation component is functioning in that, absolutely in that structure. And so those are the clues to look at who is involved with a structure which is an unlawful structure, unconstitutional, and has set itself up against the United States. but so there you go. Okay. That was the second Brandenburg moment for the day, but you know, as you said, not, not everybody in anything is involved as is even knowledgeable about what's going on in the, what's really going on. It takes some time to learn just like when you teach the law of the constitution, it takes a while to learn this, but it doesn't negate the fact that it's true. Uh, well, I don't know. Uh, again, I'm saying that, uh, There may be a handful of administrators and a handful of teachers out there that are being compensated outside their salary, but most of us that were on the front lines were not. We were there for the job of teaching the students. I needed the summer off so I could do other things. I was roofing houses, I was doing construction for people, handyman work. And I was in the reserves to keep my standard of living at a certain level. I had three jobs going. Basically, the reserves were weekend, you know, on the weekends, except for the two weeks in the summer. But I was working three jobs specifically. And my wife at that time was doing kind of a sideline. She had a small, making a few bucks here and there. So, you know, we were hustling in order to keep a fairly decent standard of living. So I can't say that all of the teachers are on the corrupt side And I never said that. I never said that. I'm saying that it happened. And, you know, we just need to know that it's happening. But the teachers that are good teachers that are doing the right thing, they've got to stand up and they've got to do their own house cleaning, too, to the people. I didn't know about that. Oh, I'm not saying that directly at you, okay? Just so you know. But I'm just saying that. But I'm pretty much involved in everything that's going on. And I didn't know it. And there's a lot of teachers that are just specifically classroom teachers and they work on what's going on in the classroom. They have no idea what's going on outside. I agree with that one hundred percent. So that's a problem. If you're good at your profession and you put time in, as I did, Building houses and stuff like that was not a seven to three o'clock job because after three o'clock, I'd be calling mechanics and setting up lumber for the next day. And I'd work sometimes nine, ten o'clock at night. And then I had a couple of rental houses that might have needed my attention or whatever. So I was hustling constantly and still had the time. to get involved in the war going on on the political end, on the judicial end. So yeah, you're right. There's a lot of people that don't want to do that because they have other more important things to do in their mind, such as watch the football game. But that's not what it's all about. What it's all about is we have been given a task by God that we have to behave and do certain things. We have to fight certain battles. If we choose not to fight those battles and ignore them, they eventually come back larger and larger and larger until they become an insurmountable battle that we can't fight or that we really need some outside help to battle. So people need to start understanding what is going on around them and paying close attention to politics because politics is paying attention to you. I heard a statement once that from somebody that if you don't do politics, you know, you ever hear people say, I don't do politics. If you don't do politics, politics does you. Exactly. I think that's kind of interesting. Mike's having a hard time getting on this one. Mike is not getting on here, and I don't know why. Talk amongst yourselves, and I'll see if I can get Mike on here. He's trying real hard. I talk about myself. I talk amongst myself a lot of times when I'm doing work, when I'm on the computer. Sometimes my wife comes to me and says, who are you talking to? I say, I'm talking to the court case. So I do talk about my, sometimes it has to be verbally stated or I have to read something live in order to get it. Must be a dad thing. My dad used to talk to himself all the time. He'd be my, my dad had, he was funny. He, he had this thing with his fingers, right? So like if he was telling us something and he goes like this, you know, you're in trouble, right? But if he gets to the next finger, he's getting madder. By the time he got down here, it was going to be, you know, it was going to be hell to pay moment. So you got real smart and you made sure it never got to that. Yeah. This is the, this is the dad warning system. Are you looking at, have you looked at my letter at all? Yes. And do you think we should proceed with it or do you have to run it in front of the committee? You can do whatever you want with it and we can get individuals in all of the other areas. I think this is good. Let me put it up. And I think if we did it individually, you know, with our and, you know, we might be able to get people to sign on just like just like doing, you know, this is this is new. So we're going to look at it a little bit. But I think we could even do something like a declaration of independence and have everybody sign it and then send it to their respective their respective representative. So I think it's great. I love everything you write because it makes us all sound smarter, which is wonderful. Well, my point is here that if we want to do this and want to get this to happen, to the name change, we have to point out, and again, I spell out Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company versus Oregon. that the plenary power of the legislature is the election issue. You don't take the election issues to the courts. You take them to the legislature, which is the authority for the elections. That's what they're there for. That's part of their job. And of course, in this case, we spell out that We are not a democracy, and that's the last paragraph here, which I like. The power of the majority of the people to impose upon a state a democracy form of government or to adopt institutions violating the republican form is one of the powers which was not intended to be exercised by anyone, but must be wholly annihilated. In other words, we hear these Democrats out there talking about our democracy. In fact, a lot of Republicans are talking about our democracy. They haven't read this. They don't know what the Supreme Court has stated. That is to be totally annihilated. We do not have a democracy in America in any form except the elections process. So you've got to drive these comments the Supreme Court decisions, the law to the legislature so they know what they're doing. And the precedent has been set because eight other states have been able to change their name. I think there's eight of them through just filing papers that just say, in an administrative way, we're changing our name to match the national party. But Benson and the state of Michigan, the criminals, will not let us change our name to the Constitution Party, even though we're the Michigan affiliate, which is crap. And so, you know, I mean, it's total crap. So Mike does not have a microphone. Try again and I'll add you. But here again, I'm stating very emphatically that the executive branch has no power. to prevent this from happening because it's the legislature that does this. And so we have to focus on the legislature and not Benson. Benson was put into place to be the disrupter in the process. Because when you take it out of the hands of the legislature, which we have the power to control, we don't really have the power to control the executive branch. That's what the legislature does. So we have to go to the area that we can control, which is our legislature, which is our representatives. We can control them by going after them, by running against them, by... being sure they don't get reelected by making it public that they don't do their job by suing them. We can go after the legislature, but we can't really go after the executive branch because they really don't have, number one, they don't have the authority to do what you're asking them to do. They are just a stumbling block for us. So we constantly beat our head against the wall, but the wall never breaks because it's concrete. And we can overcome that. So we got to go where we can affect the change. And that's through the legislature. That's why this letter is going to my representative who I never talked to or who I've never had any conversation with, but he's going to get this letter and he's going to look at it. And as it's spelled out in there, I'm going to come and get you if you don't do what I ask you to do. And I will go after him, and hopefully he'll figure that out, and he'll not wait for that to happen. But that's the only way we can effect change in Lansing, is to go to the legislature and get them to do it. I was trying to see if we can get Mike on here to see. He's having problems with his microphone. So can you talk at all? Do we have anything? No, nothing. So yeah, you know what? Everything's been wonky this week and I'm not sure why, but if we can't, if we can't get Mike up with a microphone, then we're going to have to do this next week, but not for lack of trying. So hi, Mike. He can hear us. What's that? I say he can hear us, but we can't hear him. Yeah, he's tried to join several times and I'm like, well, maybe we can get it up on our end. But sometimes that's, can you do it through your phone? Okay, let's try that. I'll remove you here and we'll see. We'll see if he can do it through his phone because he can talk on his phone and either use the camera or not. We'll see what happens. Oh, he might be able to just talk on his phone here. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Good. Let's return your feedback. It's Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. Let me try logging in through my phone directly to the show, and that way we won't mess. Yeah, that sounds good. See you in a second. Bye. All right. We'll get them up. Just wait. It's a matter of time. So do I need permission from the committee to proceed with this letter? Or do I have your permission? Or shall we wait until we run it by the committee on the eleventh? Tell me what you want me to do. Well, we're going to meet again on the eighth. I can send it out tomorrow. Yeah, we're going to do it on the eighth. Well, you're... I got to see... I want I really think that we have to have some sort of an endorsement from the party just to say that this is OK. I think that would be the polite thing, because as an individual bringing this, you kind of we kind of got to do this as members of the party. So I would think this is be a good thing to do on next week, Monday on the eighth. And then we'll run it past the SEC Commission or the SEC Committee, State Central Committee, and get approval. And then we can all probably go after our representatives all at once. And then, you know, it's amazing. You should see the map of the committees that we have right now. We're just rolling across this state. It is incredible, the motion that we have. And I can tell everybody, that I really do believe that the only way to write the state is it's not going to be through the Republicans or Democrats because they're part of it. They've taken foreign money in our election. And so with the dark money and the corporate dollars, that's foreign money because it's not just invested in by Americans. You've got all kinds of people that have their hands in the pie there. So we have a problem. And so my whole thing is, My analysis of this is the only way to do it is the only clean party in the state is the U.S. Taxpayers Party. And that's why they've been trying so hard to subvert our ability to move forward and be obstructionist to it. I agree with you to a point. But you know how the government has been dividing and conquering the American public, right? Oh, yeah. So that's what we have to do. We have to divide and conquer the legislature. We have to go after them individually and conquer them, and then we will be able to straighten the rest of the world, straighten the executive branch and straighten the judicial branch out once we control the legislature. And that's our easiest way we can do it. so we divide and we conquer we get you know if your group get if the group gets together the taxpayer party gets together and says yeah we're going to do this and i'm going to do this i'm going to and all these people decide that they're going to get involved and and do this and proceed this process then we will get a hold of the legislature and we will be able to control their behavior because they don't want to be sued Yeah, and so let me ask you this. If we go forward with this to the representatives and such, and we reach out to our representatives in this process, each of us individually, and get them to get this change made, you know, individually, the change made for the taxpayers' party, or if they fail, can we bring a suit together as all of us and sue them Let's see if we got Mike in here. Oh, there we go. There's Mike. And sue them together or is it? No, it has to be individually. You don't want to do class action. I'm not saying class action. I'm saying add them to a suit. Well, you know, if I do a lawsuit against this character, Jimmy, and then I pass it on to you, here's what I did. You just changed the names of the representatives. Yes. And then you file the same lawsuit and they get a team lawsuit against public functionaries. In some of these cases, there may have two or three against Jimmy or two or three against a different representative. They're going to start waking up to what we're demanding. Yeah, well, I think we've got enough people now that, you know, we start going after them and, you know, we file on our own representatives. It's going to, and I mean, this is on everything. I think we should do something for the elections and file on our representatives and, you know, all of us in the party just go after them. go after the legal way to do things and, you know, have different people doing that so that we, in fact, force them to follow the law. This is this is a great thing. And I mean, both you and Mike are just doing amazing things. So, hey, Mike, you hear us? How you guys doing? Can you hear me now? We got it. So, John, where are you going to be Wednesday night? Wednesday, we're going to be on Zoom. You can go to the Magnificent Republic website. and uh find out how to get on our zoom and listen to us from uh seven to nine and we're gonna be discussing further norton versus shelby county in fact i'm sending out to everybody a video on norton versus shelby county that you should be paying attention to you should listen to because it'll talk about the Strengthen the power of that case and who we are and the power we have against a failed government that does not follow the Republican form of government, but rather is trying to push us into a democracy. Yeah. Well, then this is really great. I mean, all I'm seeing is good, wonderful, lawful motion here within everybody that is here on BNN as well as the party. I mean, it's all lawful. Nobody's grabbing their torches, the pitchforks and acting like a bunch of idiots. You know, we're actually trying to fight them in the lawful way and we're making some great gains. And so it's fantastic. Well, thank you for being on today, John. It's always a pleasure. And I learned so much from you. I mean, it's amazing. Well, thanks. You're just like, yes, Donna, I know you do. I'm going to be putting up Hay Wednesday night, so I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to make Wednesday night, but I'd love to come over the next time you're at Nicholas. Well, we're going to keep you informed of that, but watch the video that I'm going to send out. It's going to go out today. In fact, as soon as I hang up with you, I'm going to send it out. The video on versus Shelby County. Text it to me so I can look at that too, okay? I don't know if I can text the info. Just email it to me then. Just email it to me. Mike's not sure which one I'm talking about. Awesome. Hey, Mike, how are you doing? Got it. Yeah, it might be a little bit too big a file for an email. I did send it to you, Donna, by Telegram. Okay. Yeah, I saw the email there. So if that's the same email, I wasn't sure exactly which one we're talking about. So that's good. So I'll put that up on my Telegram channel and probably Acts too. Yeah, put it out. It's good. Awesome. Well, you have a great day today, John. Thanks for being on. I'm not even going to go to the break. So when you want to jump off, you just jump off at will and we'll continue on. But thanks for being here today. Unfortunately, I have to. So say goodbye to everyone. And I'm out. And I'm out. Okay. And out. Thanks, John. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. All righty. There we go. I don't know what's with all the technical difficulties all of a sudden. I've been having issues no matter what format it is. It seems like I keep getting blocked either by video, mostly sound. So someone's trying to mute me. Do you want me to show you exactly what's happening? And I'll show you this. And then it started yesterday. We watched it spike because we watch all the stuff behind the scenes and such. And so I'm going to show you exactly what's happening. And yesterday was bad, but today is worse. So as far as their connectivity, they've gone after everything. Those are all like our hubs, information hubs. And so like, The one in Chicago, we see that one down, you know, a lot more. But it's one floor in one building that almost all of our communications go through and connect with that. Well, these other guys over here have kind of the same scenario where, you know, these are... These are significant hubs, right? And we almost never see Washington, D.C. do it because there's so much redundancy. But right now, this map of outages and where the problems are has exponentially grown starting at nine o'clock yesterday morning. And it's getting bigger. I would tell everybody right now, Brandenburg is going to make a prediction that this is in fact the good guys that are doing it, not the bad guys. And that they're actually, this is a planned takedown of the bad guys and they're making it difficult. We're going to have the, as they take things down, it's also going to affect us. Don't panic. Look at this and go, oh, okay. And let them do their jobs and stay out of the way for right now. Because, you know, don't go into crazyville and do stupid stuff. But just watch this thing play out because they're doing their jobs to protect the United States. And this is all part of it. I've said it for a long time. We're going to have to take down the grid in order to in order to, uh, put up the boundaries of capture. And I do believe that the good guys are in charge and that it's, it is a planned, um, it is a very planned demolition of the deep state. Um, it could be, or it could be something else. Um, This is Donna's prediction and I'm pretty sure I'm right. Well, I've made, I've been warning people. Okay. This is a good, this is a good example. And I'm going to tell you something that happened a week, about a week, week and a half ago. Um, I've been warning people to pay attention. Why don't you pay attention to what happened in Canada when the truckers went on that strike and people were donating money to the cause, not just people in Canada, but people here in the United States and what they do, they pushed a button and everybody's accounts got frozen. Here in the United States as well. What's to prevent them? Because everybody's like, oh, just do everything online. I pay everything online. I do all my banking online. Hello, people. What happens when the grid goes down? Now what are we going to do? Exactly. So wake up. And save offline. You have to save offline in case it goes down, which it's going to go down. It's just a matter of time. So if it does go down, how are you going to function? Are you prepared to be able to function? I highly doubt it because you're too reliant on that damn credit card. Number one, I haven't had a credit card since nineteen ninety nine. You don't need one. you can function without it if you have to have a piece of plastic then get a uh set up a trust with a bank account and set up a debit card you do not need a credit card why are you funding the fraud that's what you're doing you're funding the fraud but if you have to have one get a debit card but have it in the trust name not your name Jen just said, can you please catch me up? What is this grid? The internet and the connectivity that goes over the lines or it's the communications grid. What you're seeing right here is our communications grid. And yesterday, they took down almost the entire internet was down to a certain point. But then they went after Klaus Schwab and the investment entities out there too. U.S. Bank was down for a while. And so anything that does transactions or that communicates over the grid, think about it, your credit card banking, the communications of getting through to your social media accounts, how information is moved and transactions are moved. That is what the grid is as I speak about it. But there's a couple other grids too that they've created for industry capture. The energy is a grid too, electric as well as, gas and that sort of thing that's another grid that can be manipulated with a push of a button the banking grid push of the button they're all connected but the thing they have in common is the is the communication grid which comes back to the internet and over the wire stuff or through the air stuff that sort of thing that's the grid yeah now to my other part of the story here Roughly a week or so ago, went to a bank. I'm not going to say which one. And went to do a cash withdrawal because I have a construction business. And so we do everything cash or check. The bank ran out of money. Literally. They don't keep money in. I'm going to show you the other outage that's happening right now so you can see in real time which companies are out. Go ahead and keep talking if you'd like. Look at the spike that happened today. We've got Rainbow Six Siege, Amazon, HubSpot. Let's look down at what else has been affected this morning. Zoom. To a lesser degree, HubSpot, Spectrum, AT&T, Outlook. Outlook was bad yesterday. Fox News, Ramp. Infinity. Look, we just had a glitch right there. So this is a real thing, and it's in real time. Canva. Facebook has a couple. Fortnite. UnitedHealthcare. Google. Google was bad, and Microsoft was really bad yesterday. World of Tanks. Microsoft Teams. Slack. MediaCom. OpenAI had one, but they look like it got under control. CloudFlare, which everything touches. Amazon. Microsoft. Webull. HubSpot. Let's see if I can get down here. Zendesk. And fresh surf. All of these guys that he had these these outages yesterday it was straight up at nine o'clock in the morning like the zoom ones. See what you're seeing is the pattern here. That was what we saw right off the bat and everything yesterday. They're playing games. They can turn shit on and off. Everybody's relying on it. You better sit yourself in a situation where you're not going to be relying on it. I really believe this is a good guy move, not a bad guy move. Nobody go out there and panic. Because it's some of this has to happen. So it could affect, you know, absolutely anything on the internet if it goes down could affect the flock cameras and everything else. So everything is connected. So you're you are absolutely right on that. And so all your banking, all your banking, everything, just watch it. They're not keeping cash on hand in the banks because it's not worth anything. It's fiat currency. Well, the teller, I asked the teller, I said, how the hell did you run out of cash? Literally run out of cash. You have not nothing in your vault. She goes, we there's a new system that was instituted. And the bean counters now have decided to not allow banks to have as much cash on hand anymore. Well, why? I mean, who would better know than the bank and the bank tellers as to how much cash they generally go through in a week's time or however they determine that? So now they're being manipulated that, oh, sorry, so you go to the bank to cash, oh, sorry, we have no money. What do you mean you have no money? Excuse me. First off, let's put things in perspective here. When you go to the bank and you make a deposit, you're making a loan to that bank. They're not loaning you squat. They can't loan on their own credit. So they're not loaning anything. The money that you get on a loan, whether it be a mortgage, a car loan, a boat loan, it doesn't matter, a credit card, that's your own money. You're borrowing your own money. So explain to me how I can't get access to my own money, my own credits. So this is nothing but manipulating. You can call a good guy, bad guy. I call them all bad guys. If anybody's got their finger on the button, whether I don't care who's what side of the aisle or anything else, if you got your finger on the button to manipulate all this, you're not a good guy. Because now you're depriving us of our rights. OK, you're depriving us of our rights. And I don't care who it is. Anybody who deprives us of our rights is a bad guy, period. I'm going to say that I'm going to disagree with you on that one. But to a certain point, I don't like people that are putting, but if you've got a country that's under attack and they've attacked every single system that we have and infiltrated, you have to, we may have to remove the threat before restoring things and go after the bad guy as we're restoring things. So this is the map. I'm going to let John's things come forward. Digital and control is already here. Yeah. So I actually think that this is a good guy attack against the control we already have, that they've already had on us and been working on for decades and decades. That's my personal opinion. And I am very positive about or optimistic that it's going to restore things. But we're going to go through a little bit of a pain process. Because we allowed this to happen, the invasion of our country. We were the ones that allowed it. So we're going to have a little pain digging ourselves out of the hole we put ourselves in. But we didn't know. It's like the conversation I had with John earlier. Most people don't know how far we've fallen from the original intent. It's digging ourselves out of the hole that we helped create by jumping on board and refusing to hold them accountable. Yes. That's the doubt. That's the doubt. Now, in regards to the flock cameras, okay, I talked about this before. How do you shut down the flock cameras? And how do you shut down the data centers? Well, first off, the data centers, if they're using foreign parts, Chinese chips or whatever, guess what? Shut them down. Right. Because now they're an endanger to national security. Okay? Okay. The flat cameras, I highly recommend everybody get a biometric trust. Get yourself, put yourself together a biometric trust. Why? Because when they take your biometrics, hence the word take, they take your photo, they take your biometrics, they take your pattern behaviors, they're taking, taking, taking. Well, under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, these are all violations. When they take something from you under the taking clause, they're supposed to give you just compensation. Where's the compensation? There is none. So is this a violation? Yes, it is. Another thing, the property that these cameras are sitting on, the street corners, wherever, they now must prove territorial jurisdiction. Now, how do they prove territorial jurisdiction? Well, let's see. Who owns that street corner? Who owns the roads? We, the people, own the roads, public and private. We own the street corners. We own the easements. So that pole that that camera is sitting on is a trespass upon us. So I want to add to what you're saying right now. Look at all of the restaurants during COVID that they gave the permission to build a cafe on our public streets. People never even questioned that. And I was like, how in the world are they taking our public streets and rewarding the businesses of being able to build out on those public streets? I think if you look behind the scenes, most of them had become public-private partnerships. I don't think that they did it by themselves, a lot of them. But regardless, it was wrong. Well, wait a minute. You have to take a look at the property surveys. Is the area where those outside seating areas, is that part of their property? They built over the street, Mike. They literally went across the sidewalk into one of the lanes of traffic. that yes i agree but where you have ones that are on the sidewalks you have to take a look at where the property lines are in order to understand that you've got there has to should be a survey and has to show where where their property lines are okay now if they're within their property lines i don't have a problem with that But if they're impeding and encroaching upon the roadway, yeah, we could have a problem there. Okay. So again, you have to go back and take a look at the property lines on that. They may well be within their jurisdiction to do so if they're within their property lines. Let me show you what I'm talking about here. And you're going to go, Oh my gosh, this is, this is insane. I'm going to see if I can find pictures of seating on the road that they literally took a, took a, um, a, uh, lane of traffic and built on the lane of traffic. Here you go. This is, uh, um, This is, here's some examples of this. Cause I really want you to see what I'm talking about here because I saw this right away. I was like, you gotta be kidding me. So now look at this one right here where they built, this is, this is in a traffic lane right here. Here's the, here's one. See if I can full screen it here. Hope I can get it to go. Oh, let's see. Let me go back here one. I'm going to go back. That's taking me nowhere. But this is what I'm talking about. Let me find Grand Rapids ones. Where they are on the street outside of in a traffic lane. It wasn't like this. No, I mean, I'm telling you, they're permanent. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, we had permanent seating on the streets. Well, that's where you guys are going to have to, you know, you're going to have to, you know, raise a grievance with your city officials and show where they have the ability to do so. Because as a taxpayer, if you're paying taxes and your taxes are paying for those roads, you have a right to use them, you know. How's that not obstruction of traffic? Well, it was. But here's the thing, getting back to the flock cameras. Here you go. I've got the one I want to show you. I'm sorry. Look at this. This is what I want to show you. Here it is right here where they blocked a lane off in the road. They used Jersey barricades. They painted them and such so that people sitting there would be safe. But they literally took up a lane of traffic or parking near one of my buildings that I own. They took the parking and they gave it to the nonprofits to be able to park on or seat on. But this is what I'm talking about. um right here and they were doing it everywhere well i guarantee that anybody any restaurant that's doing that the city is also um probably charging them for a permit to do so so they're taxing them over and above so they're double dipping on the taxes that's another thing that the city's probably doing also i have to see if we can find any more here because uh Yeah, I'll go around and I'll take pictures this summer to show you which ones are doing it. But it was on Wealthy Street in Grand Rapids. Just tons of them that were building on the literal street. Isn't that crazy? Yeah. But again, back to the flock cameras. Territorial jurisdiction. The city must prove that. who has the actual ownership of that property, okay? Territorial jurisdiction means that they have to show that they have a financial vested interest in that property, which they cannot do. They also have to show that they have an equal or greater title to that property, which they cannot do. So they have no jurisdiction over that. The fact that also that the flock camera, the company is being contracted by your local municipality, right? To put up those cameras. Well, what did your local municipality just do? They just created a quasi law enforcement agency because now flock is acting as a law enforcement agency. They do not have the authority to do so none whatsoever. This is a complete violation of your rights, complete violation of, of, of the, uh, of the constitution need to shut it down. Now, what's the best way to do this? You guys were talking about lawsuits and suing public officials. okay right now several of us have got uh federal lawsuits going on and they're all sitting there nobody's moving on nothing so the thought process now is well right now we're trying to go after him for money damages so we think that maybe because we're going for money damages the courts are just sitting there you know what we're just going to shelve it we're going to let it collect dust and we'll get around to it when we think we might want to so we're going to do an end run The end run is this, you file the suit against that public official in their personal capacity. And what you're asking for is injunctive relief. What you're asking for is that public official deprive the right, deprive this, you know, violate these amendments, whatever the case may be. And you're asking for injunctive relief, meaning cease and desist from those activities. Get the federal court to grant you that injunctive relief. now that you have the injunctive relief and you've got them to stop doing whatever it is that they were doing now you turn around and file a claim against them for money damages why because now the federal court's already admitted they're not supposed to be doing it because that's how you got the injunctive relief so now the federal court can't do a one eighty on you and say well now it's okay for them to do it no you've already decided that what they're doing is not proper So you've got the federal court already on your side. Now you go after them for money damages because the injunctive relief supports that. So that's what we're looking at trying to do now. Because everybody goes right for the jugular vein. They want the money damages right off the get-go. And they're being denied. Oh, they have immunity. Oh, they have this. No, no, no, no. Let's be smart. Let's think outside the box here a little bit. Get the injunctive relief. Now you've got the federal court admitting and backing you up on the fact that they're not supposed to be doing whatever it is that they're doing. And then you can go after them for money damages. so the flat cameras you know i guess i did that so i think it is the thing on it where it's a violation your fourth fifth ninth tenth the natural rights doctrine and it's violation of the trust in your trust law so you've got a lot of ammunition there to go after him with so you know guys we're also talking about how how bad the judges are and all that the state level it's a joke and You know, I wish I could make some of this stuff up. I really do, but I can't. I'm going to do a book or a mini movie, mini series. I really appreciate, too, you helping us to think in divergent ways and teaching us things that may not be – you know apparent right away and i mean just like the them getting permits and double dipping and then the flock cameras being a quasi um law enforcement uh department i mean this is this is amazing so i have here in my uh uh former pepsiholic hand um i quit all i quit all soda oh did you Yes, I did. I was like a pepaholic. I used to drink, you know, a tall pack, writing a court briefing, you know, in one day. So, yeah, I quit. I quit all pop. I've lost ten pounds. So, OK. Anyway, I have a court order. And this is the this is in regards to the eviction against my father, where my father lives. He lives in a community. And he rents the property. So it's a manufactured home community. And they have since this since January of this year, he's been there for ten years, made tendered the obligation the same way for ten years, wrote a check, dropped it off at the office. They have now since January refused every one of his monthly payments. And January, February, and then come March, they filed a lawsuit against my father to evict him. And so what they were doing was saying, we no longer accept checks. We came up with this portal system that's here to pay us through. Now, here's the problem with the portal system. It's a third party. There is no oversight as to how that third party portal system uses your information. They want your routing number, your checking account number, all your information, and they can use it however they want. And they charge a fee for the use of the portal system. So it's like, no, can't do that. Now, furthermore, the house is in a trust. It's in an irrevocable trust, which violates the terms of the trust. Trust does not do online banking systems. So he continued sending them a check. They refused January, February, March. Filed suit for eviction. Came to a settlement agreement. And as that monthly rent actually went down, it went from over seven, it was like seven hundred and fifty bucks down to six hundred and fifty bucks. OK, fine. Pays April. They refuse it again. Paid May. Refused it again. Filed another suit to evict him. So it's like, okay, you know what? We see a pattern here. So we're going to try and break the pattern. So they filed suit. We filed a response. We filed a motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. One, that the names on the case happened to be his father's name and my mother's name, both of whom are deceased. My father's name never appears. My father's first name and last name are identical to my grandfather. The difference is the middle name. My grandfather didn't have a middle name. So under their court rules, and let me specify, their court rules. Now, I piss off judges all the time. They're like, you're not following the court rules. Well, wait a minute, judge. Those aren't my court rules. Those are your court rules. You're the corporation. You incorporate it. And those are corporate rules of which I am not your employee. And further, I'm not even a subcontractor. I have no contract with the bar. I have no contract with the judicial branch of government as a corporation. Where am I contractually bound to follow your court rules? I'm not. But what you do is you use their court rules against them. So under the court rules, when you have a situation where the names are identical, there must be a specific identifier. In this case, it would be the middle initial or the middle name. The park has refused to acknowledge that. And now the last session last week, they're like, well, we'll take your mother's name off the case. Well, they never filed a motion. In order to add or subtract a party from a case, you have to file a motion. They never filed a motion. And what they're trying to do is say, well, your dad's name and your grandfather's name, they're close enough. And the court's trying to act as if, yeah, that's close enough. We know it's a misnomer. The names are close enough. He's an occupant. Therefore, it's close enough. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Sorry, guys. If you're not going to follow your own court rules, you're done. so we filed a motion to dismiss and my father came as the executor of the two estates his father and my mother so last week the judge dis uh denied the motion to dismiss the case and again i can't make this crap up i'm going to read you word for word what this judge based the dismissal on okay It is so ordered. The court has reviewed the pleading entitled motion for dismissal filed on May seventh, twenty twenty five. Well, it was twenty twenty six. So she's got the date wrong. The court finds that the parties who filed this motion lack standing and are not a party to the current action. Therefore, the motion is hereby denied. further the court dispenses without oral argument pursuant to mcr mission court rules two point one one nine e three the order has a um computer generated judge's name on there shauna murphy it's not written it's not nothing it's it's a it's you know computer germany and it's not dated now Aside from the fact that she's got the date of the dismissal wrong, twenty twenty five, number one, number two, it's not dated. So how do I file an appeal if I wanted to file an appeal on this? Do I have forever to file the appeal because it's not dated further? It's not properly signed. So this is an invalid order from the face. But let's listen. Let's go over the context of it. Let's go to the meat and potatoes of this. The court finds that the parties who filed the motion lack standing and are not a party to the current action. What she's saying there is she's admitting that my father is not a party to the action. She's admitting that the trust is not a party to the action. So who's the party? Two individuals who are deceased? how can you move forward see what does she do she reschedules a new hearing for next week on june eleventh how how are you going to move forward on a case when the when the parties are deceased you can't why she just didn't dismiss it on that grounds alone is beyond me but this will be interesting next week when we go before the court now we also filed a motion to add a party now you can add a party to a case or remove a party from the case at any time. So we decided to add the trust to the case. And we provide them a certificate of trust, and all that kind of stuff, including the an email that the management had sent. Now the management in its infinite wisdom, after having retained an attorney continued communications. Now, If you're ever in this type of situation where you're dealing with a landlord and all that, check the attorney's website. If they have an attorney that's looking to file a suit or there's an attorney involved from the other side, go to their website and check them out. In this case, the guy's name is Aaron Cox. And so we went to the website and right on his website, front page, he is a debt collector. Well, if he's a debt collector, what does that mean? It means that the federal laws now apply in regards to debt collecting. So in order for management, now that they've retained an attorney, if they continue communications after the suit is filed, that's contempt of court because it's called harassment under federal law. And because what they're doing in their communications, it's false and misleading representation because they're not the attorney of record. So there's a multiple areas here in the federal laws that they violate by doing that. And their attorneys are letting them do this, believe it or not. Yeah. How smart is that? Yeah. So, again, payments were made on time in full. And so they sent an email and the email states in part. Additionally, the payment related to this check was already paid in full by the trustee on April thirteenth, twenty twenty six. Now, well, trustee, that means they recognize the trust. In addition, the payment related to this check was already paid in full, so they're admitting that the amount of the check is a payment in full. Well, if it's paid in full. Why are we in court? Why is there a lawsuit filed? Why is any of this happening? They're admitting through this email. Now, the check, they sent a photocopy of the check that they're returning. To date, they have not returned it, but they show a photocopy of the check that they're returning. It's for the month of May. So month of May, they're returning the check claiming it's already paid in full. Why are we in court? This is false and misrepresentation. Okay. False and misleading statements by the attorney because he's making a claim. We've never received payment. Hello? Yeah. Ding, ding, ding, ding. What is this? Right. Exactly. So this guy's either the dumbest attorney on the planet or Or he thinks he's got the judge in his back pocket. I'm not sure which. Exactly. You know, one bar, you know, all for one and all for, you know, yada, yada. Anyway, so, yeah, we got to go back to court on the eleventh. And it's going to be like, judge, you know, we're not going to identify... You know, who are you? Wait a minute, we're not identifying squat. Why? Because by your court order, nobody's a party to this case. Nobody is a party of interest. So how are we moving forward on anything? And we have a motion to add the trust to the case, which I know she doesn't want to do, but she's going to have to by her own court rules, which means she's got to deal with me directly. And that's the last person she wants to deal with. So this is going to be very interesting, but it's like, you know, three ring circus, you know, you admit that there's no party of interest. Then why are we here? The plaintiff has admitted that the account is paid in full and they're returning the checks, which under MC, uh, MCL four, four, zero, three, six, Oh three. When a tendered obligation is, is made and rejected, it's considered paid in full. So, uh, I don't know what we're doing here. I'm not really sure. I don't think they know what they're doing. OK, but if you're dealing with a landlord that pulls these shenanigans, you do have rights. You've got to pay attention to what's being done here. Check out the attorney. If he's a debt collector, he's bound by federal laws. It's fifteen USC chapter forty one. And that explains everything that they can and cannot do as a debt collector. And that's what everybody should go through and review. And because more than likely, they are making multiple violations. As a matter of fact, a debt collector cannot call you, write to you, or do anything without your consent or court order. So if they've never reached out to you and say, do we have your consent to reach out to you? And you say no, they cannot reach out to you. They cannot contact you. So You know, got to pay attention to some of this stuff. This is the education that people need to get on all these matters. Because, yeah, same thing with property taxes. Who's bringing the claim? The state of Michigan. Well, wait a minute. Article three, section two, clause two of the Constitution specifically states that when a state is a party to the case, original jurisdiction lies with the U.S. Supreme Court. So when the state brings an action against you, whether it be for taxes, whether it be for a speeding ticket, the jurisdiction is wrong. How can the state be a party and judge of its own case? It can't. This is the fraud that they're placing on everybody. And this is what everybody's got to wake up to and start saying, guess what? I do not consent. You're suing the wrong person. We're in the wrong venue. You've got to call them out on these things. And nobody's doing that. That's what everybody's got to start doing. So whether it be the flock cameras, all this stuff, you got to start, you got to start one thinking outside the box. You got to start getting engaged. You have to start knowing and educating yourself on what the laws actually state. And you'll realize real quick what they're doing is they're the committing the crimes. They're causing a harm. And if a harm has been made, then there's a claim to be made. And you can bring that claim. And bring it in federal court, not state court. State courts, they're going to protect them. But in federal court, not so much because now they're bound by a different set of regulations. The other thing we hit the attorneys with, another reason why we're bringing the trust into this matter, is we hit them with the fact that as an attorney, they're committing the unauthorized practice of law because a representative corporation can't do it. That's all hearsay. Further, we're hitting them with the fact that they don't have a license to practice law. Now, once the trust becomes a part of the case under the terms of the trust and according to the duly recorded fee schedule attached to that trust, they must produce a certified copy of their license to practice law. Failure to do so is a fifty thousand dollar fine to not only the attorney who is showing up at court, but to her boss, who is the actual attorney of record. So that's a hundred thousand dollars just right there in fines that we can bring on a counterclaim. Another reason why you go to federal court, those two that just that alone meets the minimum requirement to be in federal court on a counterclaim. So yeah, there's a lot of advantages to having everything through these trusts because now proper service must be before the trust, not you. So they have to serve the trust. The trust is the interested party, not you. So this is how you protect yourself from them. This is so interesting and the work that you've done and everybody that's standing with you in the American Equity Group is just amazing. Yeah, we're going to be having a lot more information coming out here shortly. I'm working on trying to finalize the land patent process to eliminate property taxes and eminent domain issues. and uh that video that john was talking about earlier everybody should see that because that plays a big part in getting out from uh having to pay property taxes you're you're gonna have to know these things uh uh to you know because they're gonna they're gonna challenge you no matter what you know you're you're taking their your your i should say they survive on threat to arrest and coercion and money power and control When you take that away from them, they consider that a threat to their system, their little utopia. I want to play this video right now. Yeah, it's only like six minutes. Yeah, I've got it up. So let's play this on while we're on here today because I think people will enjoy hearing what we're talking about. I mean, I can post it, and I'll post this on my Telegram and my X account. But let's listen to this a minute. legal shield. Sovereign and official immunity protects state and federal actors from being personally sued for actions taken while doing their jobs. But if a litigant can successfully prove that an official's legal authority is an illusion, that shield breaks. A recent legal filing titled Questions for Federal Court attempts exactly this maneuver. It is a calculated set of arguments designed to dismantle a judge's jurisdictional power from the ground up. We are going to map the precise legal syllogism this document uses to strip government actors of their immunity and expose them to personal liability. Whether this specific argument succeeds or fails, analyzing its architecture tests the exact boundaries of constitutional power and state protection. The author's opening maneuver is designed to corner the state court. The document begins by demanding acknowledgement of the Supremacy Clause. It cites the case Downs v. Bidwell, establishing that the US Constitution does not yield to local circumstances or treaties. The filing asks a pointed question. Does any state or federal judge have the delegated authority to ignore the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court? The question is a logical trap. By forcing lower courts to admit they are strictly bound by the Supreme Court, the author locks them into adhering to specific nineteenth century rulings regarding unconstitutional actions. Establishing historical case law as the binding authority for lower courts provides the foundation the author needs to trigger the immunity strip. Node one of the document's legal flowchart relies on the eighteen eighty-six Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County. First, it defines a de jure office. This is a lawful government position explicitly. moving the focus to the vulnerability of the individual actor. To do this, it introduces the nineteen oh eight precedent ex parte young. This case deals directly with state officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional statutes. Ex parte young outlines a specific legal reality. A state cannot impart immunity to an official who violates the superior authority of the US Constitution. The mechanical result is immediate. The official is legally stripped of his official character. The filing brings in the case Schweyer v. Rhodes to reinforce this exact stripping mechanic in modern case law. The author leans heavily on one specific phrase from Schweyer. The offending actor is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. Premise B makes state immunity conditional. Committing an unconstitutional act instantly severs the individual from the state's protective shield. With the theoretical framework built, the author points to the specific modern action they claim triggers the loss of immunity. The court grievance centers on the courts categorizing men and women who challenge public authority with the label sovereign citizen. The document claims this terminology stems from a twenty eleven FBI report, which is used to demonize and prejudge individuals in the courtroom. The author argues this federal labeling contradicts decades of congressional intent and presidential proclamations spanning from FDR to Trump. The author legally categorizes the use of this term as an active deprivation of unalienable rights. The filing alleges that court administrators issue these biased instructions to lower courts and attorneys to predetermine the outcomes of cases before they even begin. By framing the sovereign citizen label as active institutional bias, rather than administrative procedure, the author arms the trap set by Ex parte Young. To ground this claim of institutional bias, the author presents a real world example, a twenty nineteen magistrate specialty seminar held at the Michigan Hall of Justice. The seminar included a presentation instructing magistrates on identifying and handling sovereign citizen behavior in courtroom. The legal deduction is straightforward. The author argues that receiving mandatory training on how to process specific litigants creates systemic, predetermined bias. To operationalize this bias, the document cites Title XXVIII United States Code, Section four fifty five, which governs judicial disqualification. The author pairs the statute with the nineteen eighty nine appellate ruling Taylor v. O'Grady. which enforces this disqualification standard for bias. This connects directly back to premise A. If a judge is automatically disqualified by statute but continues to issue rulings, they are now occupying a de facto role. The court's own administrative seminars create an inescapable paradox. Training judges on how to handle sovereign citizens legally disqualifies those same judges from hearing the cases. Zooming out, we can see the completed legal architecture the author has constructed to trap the federal court. The Norton Doctrine dictates that usurped offices possess zero legal power. Furthermore, the Scheuer and ex parte Jung precedents clearly dictate that unconstitutional acts of bias shatter state and unity. Combined, the syllogism concludes that the public functionary is stripped of their official character, exists outside the rule of law, and is personally liable for money damages. the document finishes with a direct challenge. Will the federal court uphold its own stare decisis rulings against state actors? The sheer density of this document makes it a highly calculated exercise in weaponizing foundational constitutional law. Ultimately, this calculated strategy functions to systematically deconstruct the very legal legitimacy of the tribunal sitting in judgment. That's amazing. Did I lose my sound there for part of it? Yeah, you did. Sorry about that. There's a construction project that is violating my rights going on right now, and I needed to take that call. So I'll go ahead and play it again when we get off camera and just let it play. We'll go back and do that again. The author of the document that that whole video was discussing was from me. It was something that I had created and filed. Oh, that's cool. So that's where that video comes from. someone had taken someone had taken my document and i don't know i'm not into ai stuff or how to do any of that stuff i have no clue and they had done it and they had posted it in our one of our chat groups and someone said hey did you see that video and i'm like no what video are you talking about so they we played it during one of our meetings and i'm like holy cow this is really good you know and she ended up coming out she was late getting onto the onto the uh uh meeting And I said, where did you get that? She goes, well, I made it. And I said, you made that? She goes, yeah. I said, wow. She started laughing. She goes, I took it from one of your documents. I'm like, you did? I'm like, okay. That's fun. That's awesome. Well, that's a kudos to you. Yeah, as soon as we're done, I'll go ahead and play that again. So, well, this is amazing. I'm going to replay that now a minute. But let's go ahead and I'll replay the whole thing because I think it's good enough to replay. So do you want to jump off or do you want to be on while it's playing and then talk about it when it's done? Because somebody – sorry I had to take that call. I didn't realize it was going to mess up my sound. No, I can stay on for a couple more minutes. Okay, let's go through and replay it again. Sorry about that, everybody. My bad, but I'm trying to catch bad guys that are breaking the law too. So here we go. Government officials operate behind a powerful legal shield. Sovereign and official immunity protect state and federal actors from being personally sued for actions taken while doing their jobs. But if a litigant can successfully prove that an official's legal authority is an illusion, that shield breaks. A recent legal filing titled Questions for Federal Court attempts exactly this maneuver. It is a calculated set of arguments designed to dismantle a judge's jurisdictional power from the ground up. We are going to map the precise legal syllogism this document uses to strip government actors of their immunity and expose them to personal liability. Whether this specific argument succeeds or fails, analyzing its architecture tests the exact boundaries of constitutional power and state protection. The author's opening maneuver is designed to corner the state court. The document begins by demanding acknowledgement of the Supremacy Clause. It cites the case Downs v. Bidwell, establishing that the US Constitution does not yield to local circumstances or treaties. The filing asks a pointed question. Does any state or federal judge have the delegated authority to ignore the rulings of the US Supreme Court? The question is a logical trap. By forcing lower courts to admit they are strictly bound by the Supreme Court, The author locks them into adhering to specific nineteenth-century rulings regarding unconstitutional actions. Establishing historical case law as the binding authority for lower courts provides the foundation the author needs to trigger the immunity strip. Node one of the document's legal flowchart relies on the eighteen eighty-six Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County. First, it defines a de jure office. This is a lawful government position explicitly created by the text of the United States or state constitution. The text contrasts this with a de facto office, any position that lacks this explicit constitutional enumeration. The author details the specific ruling from Norton. An unconstitutional act creates no office, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. This leads to the document's legal conclusion. Public functionaries occupying these de facto offices are usurpers acting outside the rule of law. The text claims to possess certified FOIA evidence, proving a specific official is occupying one of these void de facto positions. Premise A establishes the baseline. If an office is de facto, its actions are legally non-existent. The official occupying it holds no inherent authority to rely upon. The document then targets the limits of the eleventh amendment, moving the focus to the vulnerability of the individual actor. To do this, it introduces the nineteen oh eight precedent ex parte young. This case deals directly with state officers who attempt to enforce unconstitutional statutes. Ex parte young outlines a specific legal reality. A state cannot impart immunity to an official who violates the superior authority of the US Constitution. The mechanical result is immediate. The official is legally stripped of his official character. The filing brings in the nineteen seventy four case Shwire v. Rhodes to reinforce this exact stripping mechanic in modern case law. The author leans heavily on one specific phrase from Shwire. The offending actor is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. Premise B makes state immunity conditional. Committing an unconstitutional act instantly severs the individual from the state's protective shield. With the theoretical framework built, the author points to the specific modern action they claim triggers the loss of immunity. The court grievance centers on the courts categorizing men and women who challenge public authority with the label sovereign citizen. The document claims this terminology stems from a twenty eleven FBI report, which is used to demonize and prejudge individuals in the courtroom. The author argues this federal labeling contradicts decades of congressional intent and presidential proclamations. spanning from FDR to Trump. The author legally categorizes the use of this term as an act of deprivation of unalienable rights. The filing alleges that court administrators issue these biased instructions to lower courts and attorneys to predetermine the outcomes of cases before they even begin. By framing the sovereign citizen label as active institutional bias rather than administrative procedure, the author arms the trap set by Ex parte Young. To ground this claim of institutional bias, The author presents a real world example, a twenty nineteen magistrate specialty seminar held at the Michigan Hall of Justice. The seminar included a presentation instructing magistrates on identifying and handling sovereign citizen behavior in courtroom. The legal deduction is straightforward. The author argues that receiving mandatory training on how to process specific litigants creates systemic, predetermined bias. To operationalize this bias, the document cites Title XXVIII United States Code, Section four fifty five, which governs judicial disqualification. The author pairs the statute with the nineteen eighty nine appellate ruling Taylor v. O'Grady, which enforces this disqualification standard for bias. This connects directly back to premise A. If a judge is automatically disqualified by statute but continues to issue rulings, they are now occupying a de facto role. The court's own administrative seminars create an inescapable paradox. Training judges on how to handle sovereign citizens legally disqualifies those same judges from hearing the cases. Zooming out, we can see the completed legal architecture the author has constructed to trap the federal court. The Norton Doctrine dictates that usurped offices possess zero legal power. Furthermore, the Scheuer and ex parte Young precedents clearly dictate that unconstitutional acts of bias shatter state immunity. Combined, the syllogism concludes that the public functionary is stripped of their official character, exists outside the rule of law, and is personally liable for money damages. The document finishes with a direct challenge. Will the federal court uphold its own stare decisis rulings against state actors? The sheer density of this document makes it a highly calculated exercise in weaponizing foundational constitutional law, Ultimately, this calculated strategy functions to systematically deconstruct the very legal legitimacy of the tribunal sitting in judgment. Okay, I've got a question to ask you right now. With one of the cases that I had, if that judge participated in that training, not against sovereign citizens or against some trials per se, because I'm assuming that that is all rolled into that, would that immediately have disqualified her and disqualified her judgment? It could, yes. She disqualified a summary disposition. She misapplied the law, and I had another attorney that was sitting in there and said she misapplied the law and the other attorney misrepresented the law. But if she was in that training against sovereign citizens or pro se, wouldn't that have disqualified her? Yes, automatic. How do I address this? You would file a motion to disqualify, and you would cite the reasons why, including the seminar that the Supreme Court puts out in connection with the FBI report that they're in violation of the intent of Congress, they're in violation of public law, and they're in violation of every presidential proclamation made from FDR all the way to Trump. I've got copies of most of those as well, where the Congress delegated the authority to the President of the United States to deem a time to celebrate sovereign citizens. Do you consider us sovereign citizens if we are fighting pro se? Yes. Okay. Boom. I got it. If you identify as a man or a woman, they think you're a sovereign citizen. If you challenge their delegated authority, they consider you a sovereign citizen. The seminar manual lists all the language that they deem means you're a sovereign citizen. Do you have that? Yes, I do. can you post that to my to the telegram link that we communicate on yeah yeah okay because i want to see that and specifically point it out because i've got several lawsuits like that last one that was for injunctive to relief that i had if that's the case because she didn't even read the case i can tell you that i would like to see her that judgment um challenge and then have that judgment taken away because they're supposed to give pro se litigants a pass. And I titled my last brief incorrectly. And I was going to ask her, but she made a decision before I could even speak that it was done. And then I asked her if she would reconsider that. She was like, no, my judgment is my judgment. Okay. And I never got a chance to talk. And then they were misrepresenting the law. And I sat there and I was like, I just sat there and go, I don't even know where to pivot right now, you know? Yeah, I would file a motion to disqualify, and I can get you some more information on that. Because when you take Title XXVIII, and combine it with Taylor v. O'Grady, before the Seventh Circuit, the judges opine that if the possibility of impropriety exists, and the possibility may not be proven, just that it may exist, a judge is automatically disqualified. This just qualifies all of us in the state against us when we file pro se. Yeah, we're well beyond the possibility of impropriety. We can actually prove the impropriety. That's why I say they don't have a valid oath of office pursuant to Article XI, Section one of the Michigan Constitution. There are noncompliance with five USC, thirty three, thirty one noncompliance with twenty eight USC, four fifty three, just on the oath of office alone. They don't have an anti-bribery statement on file, no foreign agent registration statement on file, and pursuant to Article VI, Section XIX of the Michigan Constitution, they do not have a license to practice law. That means they're not a judge. They're an administrator. That's all they're doing is acting as an administrator. A judge, or all they are is revenue raising. Yes, the state courts are tax courts. That's all it is. It's all revenue raised, and it's all taxes. That's all it is. And so these are improprieties. We can prove the improprieties. And now that the Supreme Court of Michigan puts out these seminars, training them on how to identify us extreme terrorists, and that's what they label us, is a terrorist. Excuse me, but last I checked, we the people are the sovereigns. We're the ones who allow them to exist. We're the ones who created the government for our benefit. Where's the benefit when they're demonizing us? Where's the benefit when they're taxing us inappropriately? Where's the benefit when they deprive us of our rights? I don't see it. So they're not acting according to what they're supposed to be doing. That disqualifies them. These are improprieties, and we can prove it. And that's why I keep saying, don't go to state court. Stay out of state courts. Go to federal court. I play around in the state courts for only one reason. I use their terminology against them, and I do it to milk information out of them. I do it to just piss them off a lot of times, but I do it to set up something for down the road, okay? My dad's case, you know, I told him, I said, we can go right to federal court right now. We can go to federal court anytime we want. But right now, we're going to try some things to try and see and show more fraud as it pertains to a landlord-tenant situation. We have an opportunity here. So why not use it? We can move this case to federal court anytime we want. OK, so right now I'm going to milk this court and this judge for information. I'm going to expose her for more fraud that she's placing. It gives it sets up another claim. She's doing a harm not only to my father, she's committing a harm to the trust itself. And those are claims that can now be brought before a federal court and will if she doesn't. to get her act together. This is amazing. I just got this in. Check this out. They're already putting this out in front of everybody to vote absentee ballot. And that's how they're rigging it. Guys, just don't do it. Don't vote straight ticket and don't vote absentee. That's a stupid person's action at this point. Well, there's no... Where's the chain of... When you're doing the absentee stuff, anybody could be filling those damn things out. That's right. You have no chain of custody at all. None. So how do you know what's right? What's valid and what isn't valid? There's no way of proving it. There's nothing there to validate it. Nothing. And you complain about election tampering, election fraud. That's election fraud. That's election tampering because there's no accountability. There's no chain of custody. Anybody can fill out one of those things. Anybody. A five-year-old could fill it out. I'm tempted to see if somebody couldn't get their kid to fill it out with crayon just to see if it would go through or not. Yeah, well, I tell you, we get those sent out to us for one of my kids. One of my kids has very, very special needs. And she'll get this stuff in the mail to her. And it's like she is absolutely incapable of even understanding what an election is. Let alone what to fill out a ballot. And it's like, as our guardian, as her lawful guardian, you know, yeah, we have to go to court to establish that whole thing, too. But it was like, as her legal guardian, you know, I've got a guardianship on her. She's not capable of doing that. Nobody asked me because she has no capacity to handle something like this. She's like, on a good day, maybe three years old. Would you hand a ballot to a three-year-old? Our government does. It's insane. Think about this. Someone should actually do a deep dive on this. How many people out there have a court-appointed guardian handling their affairs for them? Well, and that's what Ask My Tax was all about. It wasn't about property taxes. It was about something else. There's a ton of people, and they keep trying to get more court-appointed guardians so they can steal your stuff. It's crazy. Yeah, but now you've got a court-appointed guardian who looks at that absentee balance and says, well, I'll fill it out for that person. You have some of these attorneys who are acting as court-appointed guardians for people, and they have hundreds, hundreds of guardians over people. And they're getting all these absentee ballots. And now you've got this attorney going, well, I like this person. So all these absentee ballots, he's going to fill them out all the same. Yeah. You bet. That's, that's another way they're cheating. It's fantastic. But you know what? The great thing is, is that we're seeing how this is done and it's amazing. Well, this is a great time to take a break here because it's like, there's, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, there's so much to process. I love it. I absolutely love it. Thank you. I love whoever did this video. I'd love to talk to her because she did a really good job. Yeah, she did. Yeah. I'd like to talk to her. So, but at any rate, um, We're going to use this. Here's the other thing. I want to say this real quick. This video, now we're going to use it for training. Okay. And educate, you know, for educating. But you can use this video as an exhibit in your court case. Okay. Now here's how you do it. You cite something. In your case, you're talking about something about Norton, you know, this public official you served as authority, yada, yada, yada, and must be held accountable. See Exhibit A. And Exhibit A is a flash drive with this video on it. Now you get into court, well, according to Exhibit A, Guess what? It's an exhibit, isn't it? It's now evidence in your court case. And if you have a jury, what better way to let the jury see just what's what than to plug that sucker in and play it in the courtroom for the jury to watch. Love it. This is amazing. Well, with that said, thank you, God. Let's say a prayer here a minute. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for all of this that's coming out now, for teaching us how things are supposed to work here, arming us and preparing us and giving us everything we need to do what it takes to have self-governance and protect this wonderful asset that you've given us. It just needs a little maintenance. Everything's there. and i know that us standing together no matter what comes ahead we are always going to pull together as a family one family under you and figure things out as long as we are committed to you we are guided by you we are seeking your will on things it's going to be okay and thank you for everything thanks for everything you've done we love you so very much And I ask that favor would be upon Mike and John and all those who stand with them for the lawful process of the rule of law. We thank you so much for everything. Amen. All right, boys and girls, here we go, too. Let's see. uh oh geez i've got my head's going so fast now that it's that it's just kind of amazing you ever get that when you're on a roll and you're like processing it all of a sudden all these ideas are like flashing around you like fireflies and you're like oh that and that and that and that So, there we go. So, well, we're at that point in the show, boys and girls. We go to, you know, thanks for being here today. And I'm still not conceding. I'm the best non-conceder who's ever not conceded in 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. Probably who he wears better. I'll win because I wear it every day. And then we'll talk about what's really going on. And this kind of stuff, which is really, really exciting. So at any rate, thanks for being on today, Mike. And God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love. And God bless America. Make it a great day. And don't get too down. You know, there's a lot of people that are really down and depressed. You have the right to have righteous indignation to be really pissed off about what's going on. If you're not, I would wonder if you're sane right now, quite honestly. Because every day, something worse and stupider just is coming out. And you're just like... Where's the bottom of the corruption? We haven't hit it quite yet, right? But we got to keep going and, you know, go ahead and get upset about it. That's fine. But don't let it get you down. Let it motivate you to fight harder. Give up. Never give up. And include more people in the knowledge that is coming forward. This is really important. So at any rate, have a great day today. And we'll be on tomorrow. I've got a really interesting lineup on Thursday. And so let's go ahead and make it a great week. And I'll see you guys either tomorrow or Thursday.