BNN - Brandenburg News Network

BNN 6/30/2025 Technocratic Tyranny & Daniel Richard Pro Se

Published June 30, 2025, 9 a.m.

9am Vicky Davis Technocratic Communism The United Nations as an organization is world communism. The strategy to impose world communism on the people of the United States (and the other countries in this hemisphere) has been economic rather than military as the people were led to believe it would be. It's our own leaders who were the Pied Pipers leading us to this demise of the U.S. I'm working on a timeline that shows the who, when and what. 10am Daniel Richard - Daniel Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire has brought a case against the state, which claims that N.H. election laws have been illegally altered by the executive and legislative branches of the state government over the years, without the consent of the voters, thereby making the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29th, 2023 at 9am, in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al. involving the executive and legislature branches of government repeatedly violating the voting rights of Mr. Richard, and the people of this State, by altering the mandatory election provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire established by the people by legislative fiat. This case poses the following questions. Who is qualified to voter in New Hampshire? Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State? Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities? Are voting machines constitutional in N.H? Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws? The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the elections results. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1YpJkBNaNOZGj Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1052515953747937 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6viqev-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6302025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html https://rumble.com/v6viqc1-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6302025-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-30-technocratic-tyranny-and-daniel-richard-pro-se:b BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, Vicky Davis, Daniel Richard

Transcript in English (auto-generated)

Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It's the thirtieth day of June twenty twenty five and welcome to our show today. Hope everybody had a great weekend ready to tackle another week ahead of us and so much to go through. This is just amazing. I'm going to bring Vicki on right away and we're going to just get this show on the road. It's going to be nine o'clock. Vicki Davis with Technocratic Tyranny and ten o'clock. Daniel Richard and we're going to be going through Pro Se again. Morning, Vicki. How you doing? Good morning. Fine. Thank you. Just trying to wade my way through everything that's going on, you know, particularly in one area. And that has to do with Neurotandin. Neurotandin is As far as I can tell by the hierarchy, would have been the person that was in charge of the auto pen. Ms. Autopen herself, in fact, which I think is really interesting. Oh, it's most interesting to me because early on in my research, I researched the Democratic Leadership Council. And there were a group of congressmen who joined together to form the DLC. And the purpose was to lobby for the tech industry. DLC, can you quote the whole? Yeah, Democratic Leadership Council. Okay. And what the deal was is that I don't know, you're probably, you might be too young to remember this, but when Silicon Valley produced the first computerized games, you know, they were primitive, very primitive. There was Pong and there was Atari. Now, I bought, for Christmas, I bought my son a Pong game. because the Atari was just really too expensive. It was like hundred and forty or hundred and fifty dollars, which is really too expensive for like a four or five year old, you know? And so, uh, If you're a good parent, it is. If you're a pandering parent that wants to spoil your kids on too much money going their way and no internal teaching going on. Yeah, I would agree with that. Well, he got spoiled later on. He got a Commodore computer. So, you know, keep the family in the business, you know, the IT business. Sure. Yeah. Anyway, so this group of congressmen formed to support the tech industry because Atari threatened to move to China to produce their Atari because it was too expensive for people to buy here in this country. And so that's how the DLC formed. It was formed in the four or five, a guy named Al Fromm, who was a political consultant, formalized the group under the name of the DLC. And they are the ones that lobbied for the reinvention of government using IT systems. According to their documentation, we were leaving the industrial era and going to the information age. And so all the reinvention of government started from that cell, from that seed. But what happened was, you know, Democrats traditionally, their political base was the working man. you know, the masses of working people. Well, once they started exporting manufacturing, you know, around the world, but in particular China, you had people that were making, you know, in manufacturing jobs anywhere from fifteen to thirty dollars an hour. I know my brother and cousin both worked for GM, you know, and their assembly lines and they were paid really well. Oh yeah. GM was, was a, the place to work. If you could get, get into GM, you had it made because their wages were high and they had great benefits. Yes. The opening of China destroyed all of that. Well, and it was, it was intentional. No, no, no worries. So, So I want to go down here, and I think this is kind of interesting. This Wayback Machine, I think, is so fun. Media Mouse. Look at the posts and pages here on the right side. It's got all kinds of... different things on Grand Rapids, Van Andels and DeVos, which I've been talking about lately. So let's go back and look at this. Obama's transition team, officially called Obama-Biden transition team, has twenty seven publicly named members and is followed. What you brought up this morning, which is I just think is just unbelievable. Guess who was right at the top? John Pedophile Podesta. Uh huh. Yeah. Chicago guy. There's no doubt that it was Hillary Clinton's influence probably that brought him into the Clinton administration. You know, all the reinvention of government took place during the Clinton administration. And that's where they came up with the idea of Third Way. And Third Way was supposedly the resolution between the industrial economy and the information age. And so they used that as a kind of philosophy to justify what they began doing to our government, which was essentially turning it into a totalitarian system. Now, the way they marketed it was that you know, those industrial jobs, those are old jobs, everybody can just get a new job in the information economy. Well, that simply wasn't true. So they left a lot of people, especially in the industrial Northeast, they were left high and dry, you know, just do what you can. And I really think that was the beginning of the breakdown of our society. Because if you can't make a living for your family, the family kind of falls apart. And so that's really kind of what happened to the Northeast. You have to make things. You have to produce them in such to have a strong economy. You can't have a service-only based economy, which is kind of what we've gone to at this point in time. When you look at the migration of all of manufacturing to both China, India, anywhere else but in the United States. And it's really too bad. But anyhow, so... Well, and the export of our economy to India, those were IT jobs. Those were not blue collar jobs. Those were white collar jobs. They did that there. But then also, if the machining hasn't been exported, our old machining for like the mills and such, for example, manufacturing, they're taking them to China and India right now is what I've seen. And that's a real big, real big problem. So we can't even manufacture anything. The things that we used to manufacture because all of the machining for it is gone. Hopefully, we'll go to more CNC stuff here, which is okay because if we could bring it back through CNC machining, but that's small manufacturing. That's not the large stuff that they're manufacturing. exporting and building factories, say, in Mexico, India, China, etc., etc., you know? Well, all of those jobs, you know, that were blue-collar manufacturing but good-paying jobs, those kind of basically disappeared. They exported them to Mexico first, you know, when they created the international zone on the border. But then China was even cheaper labor than Mexico. So what we're talking about here basically is that if you're manufacturing with machines, then all countries are equal. A machine works here, works over there, works everywhere. So what we're talking about is the price of labor. that's what the big deal was something I've been I've been noticing lately too I don't want to derail this too much but but that I've noticed lately too is what they've done too with with uh manufacturing is that they we might build the plans for something and then it gets shipped over to china they get all of our intellectual property make the even making the machines to make the products and such So what they're doing, and there's a few people that caught them doing this, is that they'll have the machines running for the company that bought and paid for those machines. And at night, they just turn it on and make knockoffs out of the same machines and put the ones who engineered it and did all the intellectual stuff right out of the picture. Exactly. Exactly. And so the Amazon right now, too, is they're actually telling their manufacturers in, say, China, oh, look, they're selling a whole bunch of this type of part. This is the one you want to knock off. And so if the whole system is to put it in the hands of the globalists, the CCP is the same thing. It's the same thing put in place by Kissinger. I mean, I know you know all this, but all the stuff that Kissinger started to, to globalize, you know, everything so that we own nothing and they own everything. Yes. And that's exactly what's happened. You know what? I don't believe that they didn't know that that would happen. I'm no genius. I figured it out. If I can figure it out, they sure as hell can. It was intentional. Oh, it absolutely was. Yes. And so essentially they gutted our economy. Now, my research has covered a lot of areas. And one particularly interesting thing was was the plan for post-World War II Germany. And the Treasury Department under Henry Morgenthau, but this plan is really attributed to Harry Dexter White, was the Morgenthau plan. And the idea was to just pave the German economy, to turn it into a pastoral state so that they could never rise again to threaten the world. Well, Herbert Hoover took a trip over to Germany to look and to check it out and see what he thought about that plan. He came back and he said that if we do that to Germany, about twenty five million people will die because you just can't. go from an industrial economy back to an agrarian economy and, you know, maintain the population. And so that's when they came up with the Marshall Plan. And that's what we went with. But in my research and going back through this history, I swear they turned the Morgenthau Plan on us. Can you outline the significant steps in the Morgenthau plan? Yeah. Let me bring it up here. I'll post it. I think what's really important is to go back to these fundamental steps on things. I was writing a report this weekend on how somebody asked me a smart aleck question, and so I decided to just dive into it a little bit. I'm always amused, you know, into going through the steps of what work is out there that actually counts instead of just the busy work stuff that's out there. So I think the steps are really important. Oh, yeah. That's why I do this. Because you can't really listen to what they tell you because they start, always start, you know, in the middle of the story. And so you don't understand what the background was. Right. And there's so many little bits of information and do this, do that. And this is in the news. That's in the news. Pow, pow, pow, pow. Like, like lightning bugs, like firing off all the way around you that, that people typically have a little bit of a hard time connecting the dots in what, which really kind of surprises me because I think that's a fun part of looking things up is connecting the dots and looking who's who in the zoo, what their backgrounds are, what you do at just a brilliant job of through history. know I and and I just I just love it and finding out who's paying for what it's just like this whole green energy nonsense I want to get into that in a minute but you do a great job oh thank you yeah it's um and since I was a systems analyst and I was a computer programmer everything in my world is step by step you know um you you might have a program that's you know, ten thousand lines long or a hundred thousand lines long, but it is still step by step by step, one step at a time. And so that's the way my mind works. You know, it just does. Old school programmers are a different breed. Yeah, I would say, yeah. And I was in the first generation that was a non-scientist when When I learned how to program, all the programmers were like physicists and mathematicians and so forth. And I started in Silicon Valley. What was your first programming language? COBOL. Well, no, it wasn't COBOL. It was actually a national semiconductor. They had a grocery store scan system that they were developing. and they had a little language that they developed for the store managers to use for his store reports which was kind of an interesting thing you know but it was an ns-sixteen hundred microprocessor and there were like I don't know six or eight long trays that were I don't know three or four feet long that had all of the card decks that represented the whole operating system for the machine. And so the machine did have a card reader. And to reload the operating system, you'd have to load in all of those decks of cards into the microprocessor. Wow. I had a roommate in college and she was studying Pascal and Cobalt. And so she was in the computer systems. And she was, coincidentally, she was from Bombay, India. Oh, interesting. Yeah. She was so fun too. I loved her to pieces. When I went to school, we learned, I don't know, about four different languages or more. It was Cobalt RPG, which is a report generator language. Fortran, which was for mathematical applications. And of course, assembly language, which is the native machine language. Right. And so, um, but you know, what I loved was learning about different companies and what they do. And, you know, I wasn't, uh, so much interested in the technical aspects of programming as I was in, you know, I guess you could say I was nosy. I like to know what everybody's doing and how they do it and you know, that kind of stuff. So that's, that's what I loved about it. It tells the story. It's like I got into investing and I made a bet with, with my, my hubby on what we were going to, we were going to pit ourselves against each other and have a contest. And I took the, this is, it's a really, it's really actually pretty funny story. I took he, he decided to put it into like Edward Jones and he made two percent on what he put in there. And I took about fifty thousand dollars and I decided to day trade, see what I could do. And within one year I had above my original fifty thousand dollars, I had made seventy five thousand dollars and still had the original fifty. so yeah I know the the early day traders did just tremendously well Yeah. Well, and I could have done better, but I was working. And so I just, I had my, my, my trades that I decided to do every day. And it's, it was actually pretty simple. And I know our CFO said, well, people would look at what you've done here and think it's really sophisticated. And I'm like, it's really not, you know, I just, I just figured out, you know, I figured it out. But what goes with that is investigating companies and how they work and what they do and, to either mislead people or manipulate the stock market and I thought that was the most important thing that I learned when I was doing that day trading for that year um just watching just watching how quickly and how manipulative the stock market really really was and it it it is so interesting to me. You know, if you get into the directional funds and all that sort of thing, which I did, um, it, it, uh, it opens your eyes to see how they work and the mergers and all this stuff going on and how they panic the investors to get them to sell off, just knowing they're going to pop that thing right up in two hours. I think one of my best trades was within two hours, I made two thousand dollars. Uh huh. Yeah. I got burned on that. I invested ten thousand in, uh, a company called Human Genome Sciences. And the reason I invested in them is because this company, HGSI, was supposedly doing research on the human genome. And there were all these promises of what they could do once they broke the code on DNA. Well, come to find out, HGSI was just nothing but like a holding company. They would pay to have research done, but then they would lease it out to other companies. So they would never make money. Actually, the FTC shut them down because what they were doing was a fraud. Well, there's so much of that out there. It's just like the people that are doing surveillance. The government gets around surveillance by just buying data from third parties, which they fund through grants and subsidies and such. I mean, it's all theater. Right. Yeah, it's the police state by proxy. Yeah, absolutely. Just like the countries. You know, I really don't, I believe that there's a layered system. The globalists pretty well have access to and pull the strings to everyone across the globe. We think that there are country boundaries, which we should have, but they just don't even pay attention to it. And so like Ukraine is a proxy. Iran looks like it's a proxy at this point in time. I know there's a ton of them in South and Central America. They're just proxies of our deep state. And when you look at this, what you brought up here today, when you look at this, you've got the Chicago crime syndicate right there with Daley and Obama, where he came from. It's just unbelievable how few people actually really run things. Well, that's the whole benefit of computer systems, right? Oh, there's Susan Rice. There's a big surprise. Yeah. Yeah. So... Here, let me get this for you. I don't know which one is the best. Yeah, this is real interesting. You know, you've got all the pedophiles sitting in there together. Yeah. Yeah, it's a real... It's a real list of people that I would say are criminals. Yeah, absolutely. I would agree with you on that. Okay. Let me go here maybe. I've got a list of the G-seven. You know who the G-seven is? Gang of Seven. Right? Yeah. Is that the last one? Oh, did you want to go to Neurotandon yet? Or do you want to go to? Well, I'm working my way back there, but I want to get a list of the global systems here so that you can see it. The G-Seven agreed on a list of about eleven systems that they wanted to make global systems which means integrated systems across borders and if if you look at this I I listed out the themes of the of the global the g-seven systems and um A big one to look at. I mean, the important ones, of course, education, emergency management. That is a hugely important one. And healthcare applications. And interestingly enough, maritime information systems. That is really interesting. And we have to go through each of those. I mean, it would take too long. We don't have time this morning to go through each one of those. so that I could tell you what's important about each one of those. Environmental is a huge deal because it's all money laundering into their little pet projects and spun up imaginary companies in such like solar and such. Yes. She actually did something really interesting, and I want to derail this, but check this out. So this was on Zero Hedge. Zero Hedge puts the solar industry as bankruptcy tsunami looms. And the reason for this, and this is what I thought was really interesting here. I'm going to read it, and then I'm going to go down the page. No secret that progressive billionaire elites or dark money funded NGOs, far left lawmakers, and legacy corporate media orchestrated one of the most elaborate propaganda campaigns in recent history. weaponizing the narrative of imminent climate crisis to ram through green legislation on Capitol Hill. Question is why? Massive heist on the treasury all under the noble guise of saving the planet. What a bunch of lying bastards. Well, it's also to be able to steal your property right out from under you. You bet. That's what it is. But I want to read down this because this is really interesting. The darker side of green energy is coming into focus. Reuters, well, about time they caught up. Reuters reported earlier this week that the new draft tax bill released by Senate Finance Committee Chair Mark Crapo proposes an accelerated phase-out clean energy subsidies. So it's accelerated. He proposed an accelerated schedule, which means that there was one there before. And so established under the Biden-Harris regimes, Inflation Reduction Act. So that means what I saw when I saw this was that this energy reduction subsidies to the solar and wind industries started under Biden and Harris. And I'm going to tell you right now that I don't believe that Biden and Harris were who they said they were at all. And I do believe that that President Trump was commander in chief during this time. So when because he wasn't the inauguration was a sham if he studied it at all for Biden. But look at this. If it started under them to phase out clean energy subsidies, it would never they would never have been after clean energy subsidy reduction. I mean, it's it's kind of ridiculous. So that means what were they actually doing there? under Biden and Harris? Was it to wake people up to giving them what they thought they wanted or to make people have to come to terms with it for themselves and answer their own questions? I kind of think that there was more of that going on than a lot of people are recognizing, but that's what I saw there, that the reduction to clean energy was actually set the groundwork under Biden and Harris. Well, do you remember the Bundy Ranch scenario, the Bundy Ranch in Nevada? Yeah, I had Ammon Bundy on my show. Oh, did you? Good. Yeah. But his dad, they were trying to, his dad had had leases on that land since before Nevada was a state, I think, if I recall correctly. But he'd had it certainly before the BLM was established. And so they wanted him to pay fees for the use of federal land to grace his cattle. Well, while everybody else was, you know, researching, you know, looking at the family aspect of it and all of the people that were at the Bundy Ranch standoff, I was looking at land issues. And what I found in that is that Harry Reid was doing some kind of a dirty deal. He had some kind of a dirty deal going on. And there was an old power plant that was run, you know, for the Indian reservation. It was a coal-powered plant. and it was going to be shut down because it's dirty energy right well um Warren Buffett bought that plant and and I thought you know that's like buying a dead horse why would you do that well it turned out as I followed the the leads um he bought that power plant and then he sold it to the government for renewable energy. He got renewable energy credits for doing that. And so they had a whole underground economy kind of thing going on, you know, whereby the billionaires were being used to shut down different aspects of our economy that they considered, quote, dirty. They could centralize it. Yeah. And the person who started that was Carol Browner. Carol Browner was a socialist. I've never heard her name. Oh, well, she was the EPA director during the Clinton administration. But when Clinton was running for the presidency, What we found out about Carol Browner was that in Florida, Disney wanted to expand, but she would only give them a permit to expand in the place where they wanted to expand if Disney bought this other land somewhere else and donated it to the state. So basically, I mean, that's an extortion racket. You bet it is. Is she still alive? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. What's she doing now? She's actually in that list of Obama's transition teams. Yeah, I've got it. I've got it up right now. I put it up. She's involved with the Albright group. And Madeline Albright, she's an interesting one to look at too. But all of this has to do with global systems. It's all connected, no pun intended, to global systems. And one of the big one that is at the heart of just about everything that's going on is global health, the global health network. And everything connects to that. Well, considering they want to determine who lives and who dies, that's the best way to off people is through the alleged healthcare system. It's a killing field. And the insurance companies, because they've designed it such that the insurance companies are really running the system regarding who gets care and who doesn't. And the hospitals have been turned into killing fields. And so through the changeover in management to the public health system, it's not the doctors that are doing this. Doctors used to manage the hospitals, but the public health system basically took that function over. But the public health system, It's basically environmental health. It's not really health care per se. Well, they don't take care of the planet, allegedly. They really don't. They just exploit EPA. EPA is like one of the largest polluters on the planet, just like CPS is the largest human trafficking network institutionalized probably in the world because I don't think they pay attention to borders. They just say they do. Well, they don't because they're building a global health system. And it's the HHS where the public health was embedded. There was a guy named John Aguinobi. He supposedly was a doctor, but I don't believe he was a doctor. I was sitting working one day. It was two thousand five, two thousand six. And I had C-SPAN on because I used to listen to C-SPAN while I was working. And there was a congressional hearing on, and Senator Arlen Specter was the chairman of the committee. And there were two people that were testifying. One of them was John Aguinobi. And the other one, I think, was Bernadine Healy. But anyway, this guy, Aguinobi, Arlen Specter asked him, what did you mean we were not showing good faith? The Congress had allocated four billion dollars for the public health system, and this guy, this nobody from nowhere is saying to Senator Arlen Specter that they were not showing good faith. And that just, that hit me wrong. You know, it just hit me wrong that this guy would be talking to the most powerful Senator in the Senate like that, that he would be talking to him like that. So I tracked down who this guy was and, um, he supposedly was a doctor that was just hired by the state of Florida. And guess what? He's the one that identified the anthrax in Florida. Hmm. Yeah. Isn't that interesting? Well, and it was the anthrax that there was something else going on at that same time. I forget what it was. But at any rate, the anthrax was distributed to, you know, a number of places. There was a hospital in New York. There was an old lady just a random old lady somewhere that got some. But they were delivering this anthrax through the mail. And they ultimately figured out a solution, which was that they would x-ray or send through the radiation machine all of the letters and packages to kill any anthrax that was in there. But then that whole thing stopped. And then they started building out the United States network for health care. And I didn't put it together that it was the public health system that was doing it rather than the medical system. But I eventually figured it out and I did. I've written a lot about that, you know, because that is the ultimate invasion of privacy to put your medical records online with some random company. And when they implemented that system here in Idaho, I was the first person to write and say, take me out of your system. They didn't even have a form ready yet. But I thought the nerve of these people to consider that everybody is in unless you ask your way out. And people just don't do that. They don't pay attention to things like that. For convenience, you know, a lot of people jump on these systems for convenience, just like when they talk about putting a chip in our right hand. That ain't happening for Donna Brandenburg. I think that's the dumbest idea that you could have is to have something injecting in your body as a identifier. or anything like that, it would be convenient. Just go up to a store and go click, click, whatever. It's on your hand. But, man, that's got some scary implications. Oh, and it gets even worse. The DOD was testing a system with children, you know, chipping children, just in case they get lost. Yeah, just in case. So, sure, that's what they want, right? I know you're on the same page to that. I just think it's terrible you know I do too well animals guys the worthless feeders just tag us all well yes just like your cattle or something yeah um the uh um it was an agricultural agency that had the nais animal tracking system they had developed a um a database that included all animals, all different animal types. Well, in a system like that, man is just one more type of animal, right? Well, yeah. And I want you to think about this. I'm sure you've already put this together. But thinking about this, in the Bible, it talks about not being able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast. Right, exactly. Right now, if you have a farm or anything, I went to a local store and said, hey, do you guys need any eggs? Realistically, I just give away a lot of eggs at this point in time because I believe in food security, right? They're like, well, have they been graded or have they been inspected? I'm like, this is a freaking small farm, okay, like a small, tiny, tiny farm. Hell no. And they're like, well, we can't even consider it because it hasn't been inspected and graded. And I was like, are you kidding me? It's like, this is a very, very small town. We all know each other. But they ended up taking seventy thousand dollars in grant money for something from the state. And the minute they did that, wham, you could see a difference in their policies. Yeah. Oh, sure. And we first noticed it in Idaho when one of the members of the legislature and the Department of Transportation, a guy from the Department of Transportation, were pushing for all of the cattle, all of the animals in Idaho to be chipped. And they started out with the animals you know like like the cows and we fought that really hard because what they were doing if if the large uh cattle producers they were pushing it because they could buy one tag for their entire herd whereas the small rancher or farmer would have to buy one tag for each animal oh wow Yeah. Another, there's another racket. My gosh. Every time you dive into this stuff, you just find out more and more ways that it's just a money grab. And the people who were the tech people who designed systems at the beginning of this, they had to know it. They knew it. Um, I didn't realize the extent, because I didn't really pay attention to government. I always worked for a living. I didn't have time to follow what government was doing. But as you follow the history, you have to know that they knew what they were doing. And that the whole purpose of a computer system within a corporation or within an organization is to control the process period you know control a process well when they started the government started facilitating corporations to build these systems you know for our society they were effectively um partnering in building a fascist partnering within a fascist system for communism, for our country. I was looking at something yesterday having to do with the Democratic Leadership Council. Oh, no, it was Michael Milken. Michael Milken was very involved in this. And there was a panel discussion was one of those people that was involved with Neera Tanden and John Podesta. But they were talking about systems. And on Milken's website, they were talking about workers and workplace this. So citizens, the point is that citizens were demoted to simply workers and factors of production. If you're looking, you can see it everywhere. They don't say it to your face, but they do. In all government policy, you're really like low man on the totem pole. Corporate profit is first, using government power. They imposed this crap on us. And, you know, like they say, S-H-I-T rolls downhill, right? Yeah, you can say it here. Say whatever you want here. I don't censor. So Neera Tanden, let's go back to Neera Tanden. You just mentioned her again. Center for American Progress, which brings us back to this little beauty on the web wayback machine. And the transition team and such. But she's the one that admitted to running the auto pen for Biden. Yeah, as soon as I saw that, I knew, you know, as soon as I heard the name Neera Tanden, they're guilty of treason. They did a coup d'etat on our government. Yeah, they sure did. All of them did. And you know what? The problem that I have with all of this is that so often we see that people want to look at the guys that are on the top office, but they can't do it alone. So you literally have to go all the way to the bottom, the ones that shredded the papers and such under the direction of a layer of six people above them. to look at the complicity going on because all of them sold out for money or favor or power. Every single one of them did. Yeah. Well, I figured that out quite a long time ago and I did somewhere. I wrote about it called the second man down strategy. Second, you got to find that. I want to, I want to put that out there. Okay. I'll see if I can find it. But the guy on the top is really just a figurehead. Where the real power is, where the real dirty work is done, is in the second or third man down. Agreed. That's why when I saw Kash Patel and Bongino there, getting Bongino in office was the one that's going to vet the information for Kash, as well as a lot of the directives come from number two. Uh-huh. No, Cash is a good guy. He's a smart, you know, in my opinion, I think he's a smart guy. He's a real smart guy. There's a lot of people playing roles that are willing to take hits for things, even if they're, you know, because they're in it to win. They're not in it just to play around. They're in it to win. And I think it's going in a good, kind of a good direction, even though some things look like they're not going in a good direction. I do believe that things are going in a good direction right now. I do, too. I listened to the hearings that I found. There's a recent Senate hearing on the use of the auto pen. And what my fear was is that they were going to just use this as a dialectic. But they're really going, they're easing their way into the meat of the issue. Which is, you know, the underlings, Joe Biden, the people around Joe Biden basically just used him as a figurehead. But the people, which includes Joe Biden's wife, number one, and Neera Tanden, those are the people that were making the decisions using the auto pens. Well, and I think that's good. I mean, sometimes you put people in situations. If I were going to try to catch all the bad guys, I would make sure that there were situations out there that people would be able to either pass or fail in. Does that make sense? I used to do it with my kids. I actually did. I put them in situations when I was raising my kids. I would literally put them in situations where I knew there was no danger to them, but that they were going to have the opportunity to make a good choice or a bad choice. So that they had to learn, you know, like, for example, I had one that every time we got out in public would like act like a deranged monkey. Okay. Crazy, absolutely crazy stuff. And actually two of them that did that quite actually had two of them. And so I would literally do mall training. I'd go to the mall and expect good behavior. And when they failed, there were all sorts of things that were consequences like complete and utter embarrassment and public that were fantastic. After a while, kids, kids realize everybody's looking at them. you know, and, and it brings their awareness that perhaps their behavior needs to improve or take them out of the situation. And you know what, we were going to go out for lunch, but because you acted this way and prove that you couldn't handle being out in public and acting like a decent human being, guess what? We're going home and you're going to spend the, you know, part of the afternoon thinking about what you did and perhaps writing about in writing something out to outline better behavior. I would literally do that. I knew they were going to fail. Okay, we're going to do this so that you never do it again. Sergeant mom. Yeah. Well, boys are kind of like that. I mean, they're just kind of wild. That's what I love about boys. They're That was one boy and one girl, actually. I had two of them. One boy and one girl? Yeah, one boy and one girl. I mean, savage. So I'm like, fine, you know, you might be savages, but you came for me, which means more savage. Mom is the most savage, so watch out. That's right. And I've had lots of years to practice it. So, okay. Did you put the other link in there then? Which one? I got totally derailed here. I'll have to go back and watch it because now I forgot. I got way off. It's a second man strategy. I'm going to have to look for that because I know it's on my old, if I still have it, it's on my old website. And so stuff that's on my old website takes a little longer to find. You don't have it all indexed quite as well as you in the new one. Is that correct? um yeah for I started building you know different indexes but I never quite got it organized I have a lot of stuff plus I also have stuff from when I built the website for idaho eagle forum you know that's where I have all my stuff on the education system and shipping children and you know, all of that sort of thing. And it's not online anymore, so I have to search it separately. There you go. I mean, it's a learning process. Isn't it funny to see how we grow and learn as we continue to expand the projects we're working on? Oh, yeah. Can't even tell you, you know, especially like when I see a name like Neera Tanden, it's like my head just, you know, goes off like a Christmas tree, you know, so many connections to so many things. And because I've been doing this for so long. Well, you picked it out right away. You saw it right away when her name popped up because you already were familiar with it. That's the advantage of having an area of specialty like you have because you've got decades of information that will just, you know, pop into your head. Yeah, that's one of the, I suppose... I don't really have any talents, you know, like I can't cook, I don't sing, I don't dance. I have zero talent except for being a systems analyst. That's a huge talent. Not many of us have that degree of expertise where you have it. I mean, don't sell yourself short. Yeah, nobody knows about it. Nobody understands. You do now. Well, yeah, because I'm a nerd and I love actual research rather than the flashy, shiny crap that most people go after. You know, and I think this is of note. When I got into this doing BNN, I think that my choices have actually changed because I've readjusted with BNN. vnn was um when I started it was like okay we're going to put the real news out there which which I do that's what I try to do is get get behind the scenes and put the real news out there if you saw my files of research you would you would be shocked it's kind of like yours only I go in different directions than you have gone in which is cool you know it's different different talents and such and in different areas of focus. And that's a really good thing. But when I started, because I know so many people just from going to, say, Mar-a-Lago and DC and all of these events in different parts of the United States too, that I wanted to talk to those people who were sitting in front of the cameras And they seemed like those were the ones that were going to help me find the information. And what I realized is that most of them are just brand managers. And they're trying to grow an audience. And it's all for money. There's no difference between that for the majority of them. That's exactly what you're looking at. You're not looking at anybody who's doing any real work. They're just managing a brand. And that goes with, well, where have they found people's interests? Same thing that politicians do. You hear them over and over again. It's all in the messaging. Well, what's that? That's kissing ass to the voters with no intention whatsoever with following through. It's highly misleading and it's wrong on every level. Anybody running for office who does that should be immediately that when they start talking about messaging, they should immediately be disqualified from voting for them because they're just doing it to pander to the voter for votes with no intention whatsoever. The media is the same way. So I kind of shifted away from most of these people that are just audience builders because they don't know jack crap about anything. They're just pushing a narrative and going into talking to real people like yourselves and Daniel Richard and people who are doing pro se and actually doing the work. I'm sick of talking to people who just have an opinion on everything and they can't back it up with anything and they don't connect the dots and they're not doing any work. And they're just, you know, flashy thingies. That's all it is all the time. So at this point in time, I decided, well, I'm going to continue being on in this direction because this is for my education. And hopefully if people want to come along for the ride and see what I find interesting. that has actual tooth or bite to it, then by all means. But I'm not interested in making money off of this. I'm interested in the real value, which is learning real things to be able to write the nation. You can't do that by going after money. Right. And you can't do it by just watching people. Are you familiar with the allegory of the cave? I'm not sure. And maybe I will if you tell me something about it. Okay. Well, it's been a while since I've looked at it. But basically what it is is that there is a guy who is watching, you know, like caveman days, watching the shadows on the cave wall. And all he watches is that shadow on the cave wall. But behind the guy, there's a guy with a light, and he's the one that's creating the shadow that this one guy is watching. And that's really the way the world works, our modern world, is that most people watch the shadows. But, you know, to see what's really happening, you've got to turn around and look and see what's behind you. For yourself. And that's the difference right there is listening to all of these people who are, say, content creators or whatever. Generally, that's just to validate our own biases. And there's no new learning in that because people watch the people that they agree with instead of the ones that they disagree with. But to get into actual research, you have to pick topics and research into it like you've done. Like I'm going to go through my notes. If you saw my notes file and what I've actually researched, people would laugh about it. I've looked into things like the one I'm currently working on because somebody decided to be a smart aleck with me is qualifying efforts and involvement an involvement action plan. That's one that I'm going to publish here pretty quick. I've also got the Hart-Celler Act on Immigration, DNR-EGLE, different communications I've looked into and talked to the motorcycle groups across the state, and I have good connections with ABATE and MICOC. Going into knowkings.org and what was behind that, the psychological basis of why people do what they do instead of making good decisions and how to help people realize that they're perhaps being led astray. Jennifer Granholm, cancer, you know, I got diagnosed with cancer years ago and I basically, you know how you get rid of cancer? In my opinion, you don't work for me. I stopped going to the cancer doctors. I went four times and I was like, I'm so done with this. I never felt sorry for myself for one minute. And I'm like, okay, so they're telling me you have incurable cancer and this is what's going to happen. Don't worry about it. We'll take care of everything. I could see where this was going from minute one. I was so done with it. So I went four times. And after that, they weren't interested at all in fixing the situation. I just never went back. Yeah. Target practice with a radiation beam. How's that supposed to cure your cancer? It doesn't. That's what kills you. It's the so-called cures. Did you know that all cancer, that only two percent of it is ever, ever cured? It doesn't surprise me a bit. It's a big moneymaker. It's a big moneymaker and chemotherapy can only get rid of on any cancer in any cancer that's out there. It can only get rid of of the cancer. If you've got cancer, one spot, I hate to tell you, I'll be the bearer of bad news. You got it all over your body because you've got stem cells and you've got stuff that's floating around. So even if they take out, like a tumor or anything like that, which I didn't have, I didn't have a tumor or anything like that. I had different type of cancer. And so, yeah, they can only take out sixty percent with that. So you have to think, well, what gets rid of it? And so it's a matter of reasoning and actual critical thinking. Once you get past their their programing, which I've never really been good at listening to programing my whole life. Yeah, I was that kid that was a total pain in the neck because I always marched to the beat of my own drum and I just didn't care. And so, you know, that's a problem for people that want to control others. Because some of us actually fundamentally just don't give a crap. Yeah. Well, and every word that comes out of anybody's mouth has to be analyzed. Is what they're saying logical? Is there any truth to this? Should I listen to this person? What do they have at stake? And what are they trying to gain from this conversation? A lot of people are doing it just to gain your approval. So let's say whatever they think you want to hear. Or that's basically what they do in politics is that they just tell you what they think you want to hear and play to your biases or your groups that you're involved in. It's just like the political groups. They are a cult. They are cults. And there's no leadership in any of it. It's just basically herding the sheep from one issue to the next to the next to keep them busy on stupid stuff that doesn't matter, that's not going to change anything. They never get down to the fundamentals of what's actually going to fix this nation. So people keep following shadows, as you said, on the cave wall instead of figuring it out. So I don't know. I'm kind of bored with the whole mainstream, fake stream, alternative stream media nonsense. I don't even listen to them anymore. I don't listen to mainstream media. I don't even look at what's going on in Iran because you know what? We don't know. They're telling us what they're allowing us to see. We're not there. There's no way to confirm or deny it. We can watch what's going on and kind of say, make some assessments, but If you're listening to the news that's out there, you're being subject to propaganda and propaganda from both sides of the aisle. Either one side is keeping you busy to get you out of the way so they can do the real work or the other side is trying to weaponize you so that you can be the bearer of bad news and one of their captured assets. If you stay away from both sides and go, they both have an agenda going on here. And I really don't feel compelled to jump into their agenda. I'm going to look at something else for a while, and there's nothing I can change in that arena anyway. So I'm going to work on real stuff, fundamental stuff, and going back to say, oh, I don't know, like the Constitution or the rule of law. And when you do that, you can spot what they're doing wrong, too, and how the nation was intended to be wrong, which is valuable all in itself. It doesn't mean you agree with all they're doing, but you can also realize they're doing stuff they're not telling you. And that's okay, too. Yeah. Well, yeah, that's certainly true. It's like we're living in, you remember the Truman Show, right? Yeah, you and I are on the same sheet of music, though, on just about everything here, which is kind of fun to talk about. Rebel kids, we're rebel kids. So back to the Truman Show. Yeah, well, everything is manufactured, you know, and most people go through life not knowing that, not understanding that. And so they really become just objects in the game, you know. Or actually factors of production if there's a use for them and throwaways if not. Yeah, it's really sick. It's really we have a sick society. We have a very sick society because the ones pulling the levers on the top are keeping people captured as assets instead of it's going to come down to us thinking and critically thinking and saying, you know what? We're not playing this game anymore. It's just about time to take the take the red pill for everyone. I mean, there's a lot more people. Most of the people that stick with us here on this show have already been way red pilled and they're done with it. But society needs to get off of this programming and think there's another whole level of waking up that I would say the majority of people haven't even come close to touching. in what's actually going on out there. So I think it's important for all of us to realize, and me included, that we all have biases and we have to check those biases at the door. This is why I talk to everyone, because I'm trying to be on a full-time adventure to not be driven by my bias, but actually listen to what people say so that I'm not part of the propaganda. Yeah, I completely agree. You have to do that, you know, leave your political biases at the door and take everybody as they come and listen to what they say. And think long and hard about those words and what they have to gain or lose by you buying into what they're pushing. It's important. So thanks for being on today, Vicki. Is there anything else that you want to talk about here? Oh, geez, we could go on for days and days. We better save some for next week. That's good. Al Richards was on today, and he wanted to send me a link to a gal named Sabrina. I'll text you, Al. Al gave me a sign when I was running that says, Jesus lives here, and I have that at my barn. And so... I want to thank him for that. So I'll send that to you, Al. I do have your number. So anyhow, well, thank you for being on. We're going to take a quick minute break here and I'll be right back on with Daniel Richard and Pro Se. This is like one of my favorite subjects to get into is, you know, holding. It's actually an actual way to hold people accountable. And to all the naysayers out there, you cannot believe how many people are out there. oh it's hopeless nothing works we can't hold them accountable the courts are corrupt it's time to quit just shut up and stop it I mean what a cowardly thing to say to try to demoralize everyone if you can't do it then go sit in the back row here or something so that real adults can fix things anyhow I'll be right back with daniel in just one minute Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it is the thirtieth day of June twenty twenty five. And we're going to jump right right into things here. Morning, Daniel. How are you doing? Very good. How about yourself? Doing absolutely fantastic. And you came in and heard my little rant there on all these naysayers and people that are chronically bitching about something and demoralizing people. And I'm kind of done with it. You know, it's like I love having you on because you like a lot of us are actually doing something. And tell me what's going on right now and what you want to talk about today. Yeah, I would like to follow your lead. So let's jump right in. In New Hampshire in seventeen eighty four, the last article in our thirty eight enumerated rights, because it's very powerful here under under our Constitution, they left us instructions how to fix our problems. So here, let's start with the perfect. We didn't even plan on this. We didn't. We didn't. I just talked to you this morning. I haven't talked to you in a couple of weeks. He had a couple of short texts and such, but that was about it. Isn't that amazing how God absolutely paves the way for what he wants us to talk about when we just say, Jesus, take the wheel and roll with it. Amen. So I heard your rant there at the end and I says, perfect. There's the jumping point. So let's get into it. So- Sometimes our orderliness works in our advantage, you know? That's right. Amen. Amen. So let's get to article thirty-eight. This was the very last enumerated right in our state constitution. And let me start. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution. How about that? How about that? Right, to go back to, so when you have to solve a problem, let's go back to the Constitution and see what the Constitution tells you to do. Because these men that wrote these documents were brilliant. So a frequent... excuse me, frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all social virtues are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government. The people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives. There's a colon. Now, I want to stop there. Imagine that if we, as a, that's an instruction from my perspective to make sure that when you elect people, that they possess these qualities. So I'd call this job qualifications for your representation, right? If they don't possess these qualities, you ought not hire them. In other words, you should not vote for them. And then it details, uh, this is so beautiful and eloquent and they have a right to require of their law givers and magistrates and exact and constant observance of them in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government. It's beautiful though. That's fantastic. And what was that? Give me the... That's part one, Article XXXVIII in New Hampshire's Constitution. We now have a XXXIX. We have an additional Article XXXIX today, but in the original text, and it's unmodified. It's still there. It's still one of our rights. It's still the guidance that we should rely upon. So next I'm going to go, so following that instruction, that was a big aha moment for me. Once I read that and I says, oh, okay, somewhere within the body of this state constitution must be the rest of the instructions that we're not following. We're ignoring the text. So Article X is our, excuse me, is our right of revolution, which I think we, We are the only state that actually has a constitutional right to a revolution. Article X begins with why government is instituted. Why does government exist? I saw an old video Milton Friedman of, of Milton Friedman, who is one of my favorite, you know, he's a world renowned and economist and, uh, his, his work was brilliant. And he said, he said, uh, four things government should do four things for us. One national defense, Homeland security, right? Two to protect one citizen against another or a group of others, right? And the reason it doesn't do a good job of that is because it spends too much time doing all kinds of things it ought not do in the first place. But if it would focus on these four things that the state constitution provides for, and so that's the first two, national defense, two, protect one citizen against the next. And number three, to establish the rules by which the rules of the game, right? Property rights. What is the definition of property rights? That's where your legislature comes into play, right? They should define what those rules are. And then lastly, courts of law to adjudicate the first two issues under common law. So that is the basis. I'm going to kill a mosquito here. Sorry. I love that. Time of year. But anyway, so government, this is Article X, right? A revolution government being instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the whole community. Now, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men. All right. So what protection are they talking about? What benefit and protection are they referring to? Well, that should take you back to article in our constitution. Article two, I'll start at article one. All men are born equally free and independent. Therefore, all government of right, not some, all government of right originates from the people. That's powerful. All this growth of government without our consent is a problem because it goes on to say is founded in consent and is instituted for the general good. Article two defines what natural rights they're talking about. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property in a word of seeking and obtaining happiness. Sound familiar, right? Where do we refer to that language? The Declaration of Independence, right? And so this is what they're talking about as far as protection. Now, who does the protecting here? The Bill of Rights are your private property. They belong to you. They do not belong to the state. right? The state doesn't get to invoke your rights or take away your rights or trespass upon your rights. And this is the basis for my litigation anyway, and it should be for anyone else. And this should be a tool that all, this is why knowing your state constitution is so important for every person in the United States. You need to learn what your own state constitution has to say. My specialty is my home state and not the others. But I realize I'm talking to you in another state and you have many listeners in other states. So their constitutions have different language, different ways of addressing issues. And I highly recommend that everyone learn what they say because what we have is a huge deficiency in dealing with this. Everyone focuses on the U.S. Constitution. It's a brilliant document. I'm not saying it's not. The problem is it's limited in scope. It only addresses those powers that the states gave, the thirteen original colonies gave to the federal government, which again is to do four things. Wage war on behalf of the states, negotiate peace on behalf of the states, establish treaties for common defense and for commerce. and to regulate commerce between the Indian tribes, between the states, and between foreign nations. So back to the state constitution. So the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, that is your right. So self-defense, for example. is who is responsible. You are, right? If you follow litigation on all cases where government is sued for failure to protect, a police department fails to protect you, even when they're standing right there and you get hurt, the courts have all concluded the same thing over and over again, regardless of the nature of the case. Your local police department has no duty to protect you. If you your ability to protect yourself is your responsibility. So this, again, is a foreign concept to many. So I'm going to go back to Article ten article. Give me a second to scroll there. Which is, you know, when you look at their response from any of the the law enforcement organizations, it's they're not going to be there to protect you for, what, twenty minutes to two hours sometimes. Thank you. You know, they're basically an administrative entity at this point in time. They document things. And enforce the law after the fact. They're policy enforcers. And that's what they are. They are policy enforcers. Absolutely, absolutely. So back to Article X. So I stopped there to detail what exactly they're talking about for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community. And here's where we get the lawyers into trouble. And not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men, the Bar Association. Which needs to be completely abolished. They have done more damage. to the United States of America, our communities, our states, then, then I think, you know, you can, we can blame the courts, but the courts are part of it because they're all freaking attorneys. That's exactly right. And what you have is a monopoly, right? It violates, it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. And here in New Hampshire, we also have a, we adopted verbatim in nineteen oh three, the Sherman Antitrust Act and amended our state constitution to include it, which prohibits what we currently have going on, which is our state bar association is in fact a monopoly. So that's another story for another day. But let's continue. So it's detailed that they're concerned. The founding fathers are concerned that a family, because this was a common thing, right? Look at the crown, right? They just got done with the Revolutionary War. So they didn't want a king. They didn't want a lineage of kings and their family and their progeny to continue to just automatically inherit a dominant control of a society. And so to continue, this is the key. Therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered, aren't we there? Isn't that what we're dealing with, right? Absolutely. Whenever public liberty is manifestly endangered, and here's the key, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, This is another thing. This is where we're at now. All of your rights, and this is what the naysayers like to say, right? Don't waste your time. The game is rigged. You're never going to win. Wah, wah, wah, and you want to cry, right? And not do anything about it. Well, what does it tell you to do? When there is no more means of redress, the people may, and of right, ought to reform the old or establish a new government, right? I'm with you because it's so corrupt from top to bottom. Right. That unless you unless a person got in there and started nullifying. And I mean, get a semi load of pens and just go gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone. That that's that's the peaceful way of doing it. I remember I don't remember where, but Thomas Jefferson famously once said all laws should sunset after twenty years. And he said that for a very important reason. Donna, you're a businesswoman. If you enter into a contract with any one of your businesses or partners, and should your children be bound by the contracts you sign? Absolutely not. But what are we living with now, right? We're living with the state and federal constitutions that have been modified by the legal society to serve their interest. And perpetually, generation after generation, we are forced into living under those corrupt changes that violate the basic tenet of the first article. Where's the consent? One of the proposed amendments, and let me finish this point. One of the proposed amendments that I'd like to see added either by statute or amendment to our state constitution is that whenever there is a proposed amendment to our state constitution, that the moment the legislature considers it or a convention, a state constitutional convention decides that we ought, the legislature finds it proper, that it would be good for us to alter the laws of the land. that they must be submitted to the voters for their consideration because the people are sovereign. My amendment would be that whenever that happens, that they must immediately draft the language of the proposed amendment and submit it to the voters long before the ballot box. Because right now what they're doing, and this is the trick of the legal society, You are not given any notice or adequate information to meet the legal definition of informed consent. What they do is they used to give a voter's guide so that you could read the voter's guide before you walk into the ballot to mark your ballot box because one of the questions on your ballot is not only who you're voting for, but whether you agree to this new amendment. Well, those sneaky boogers have decided to just now put it as a question at the bottom of your ballot. So you're given sixty seconds. Sixty seconds is not informed consent. And you're asking people to modify the document where. We live in a society where we no longer teach these documents in school. My state only teaches the federal constitution on a limited basis and does not teach the state constitution at all. At all. So how can the voter know what the actual document says before amending it? They don't. Does it sound like a good idea or not? It sounds like a great idea to hold them accountable for that because, you know, they're doing deals after midnight in the middle of the night. Right. Signing things and then, oh, this is what we're doing. We're doing it now. You guys are out of the loop and it just sucks to be you. I mean, that's the kind of stuff that they're doing. Absolutely. There's a total coup going on right now. No, you're right. You're right. And so to continue down this road here, so the people may, end of right, ought to reform the old and establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind. It's brilliant. It's brilliant. So my litigation has all been based on this very point. I knew that in order to start over, that I would have to establish that there was no redress of grievances. So my first trip to the state Supreme Court was in fact, I argued, I filed a remonstrance and not a petition. A petition under my state constitution is a request of the legislative body to act in the manner that we need a new road. Something the constitution, public policy things that it has the authority to propose legislation for the common benefit of everyone. a new courthouse, a new bridge, a new road, these kinds of things, right? Within the limited powers that they've been delegated. And this whole process is normally called a petition for redress of grievances. A remonstrance, on the other hand, is a stern rebuke or protest. And the first one here in New Hampshire is fascinating. In the first legislative session of seventeen eighty four after this Constitution was went into effect, they passed the Navigation and Commerce Act and the Navigation and Commerce Act allowed the use of paper money. fiat money because they already knew about inflation why because of the revolutionary war there was two problems there was a lack of gold and silver in circulation and to finance the revolution they printed money called colonial script and so the navigation and commerce act set up two things it set up one the value of gold and silver coin And secondarily, how to discount the paper. How, if you were to cash in your paper notes, that they would be discounted and there was a schedule that it was worth X on this day, X on the next day, X on the next day. That's a racket. Right, but the point was they understood inflation, right? The consequences had already become known to them. And so the merchants were upset. They said, look, we don't want to do business with England or the Bank of England with their paper money because by the time we send that paper money on a boat back to England or any other country that we do business with and apply a depreciating schedule because of inflation, right? Because they keep printing money That we don't want to be bound. No, we want to do business and lawful money. And so that's why the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section VIII, establishes that gold and silver are lawful money and to establish a uniform rule of trade. Why? To prevent this very thing. So the fact that we're doing it today flies in the face of... of the founding principles. You know, if you realize whenever you talk about federal aid, federal aid, listen, that was done on purpose. It was done on purpose. And one of the parts of my studies was something very few people have ever studied, the Virginia ratification debates, where Patrick Henry and George Mason famously warned us. See, they refused to sign the U.S. Constitution because they warned us that we needed to continue the debate because as written, as genius as the document is, as written, the document would ultimately lead to the destruction of the sovereignty of the states. We're there today. They were prophetic. They warned us and it came to pass. And so this is, again, whenever you talk about federal aid, where does the federal money get money from? It prints it or it steals it out of the state citizen's back pocket. And by the way, I know that my state constitution, two things. One, my state legislature didn't vote for the sixteenth amendment. And secondarily, it couldn't. It couldn't. It wasn't permitted. Here, let me prove it to you. Article twenty eight. Article twenty eight. No subsidy, charge, taxed, impost or duty shall be established, fixed, laid or levied under any pretext whatsoever without the consent of the people. You have to amend the state constitution. When this document was written, it only allowed for a property tax and it's been amended six times total. or excuse me, it's been amended five times, giving us six different ways that the state government can tax you. And why did it do that? It did that because of this provision. Because what did the crown do? What did the King of England do? They passed the Stamp Act. Remember the famous Stamp Act? right? And all of the other taxation, taxation without representation was the cry, right? The English parliament, in order to finance the global domination of the English empire, would just continue to tax, make new laws, make new regulations, and force it upon the colonists. So the Of course, they wrote this into their new form of government. They did not want to allow this type of dominant control. So today... remember the federal reserve. I recommend to your audience, everyone needs to read the creature from Jekyll Island. If you've not read the creature from Jekyll Island, you don't know what's really going on. And it, what it deals with is what is money, who makes it the history of it. And, uh, you know, how it controls our society today. We've had four central banks and the consequences of central banking are well known. The first one was the Bank of North America created by fraud where the elite at the time fraudulently borrowed money for shares of this new central banking system modeling after the Bank of England. And it didn't last very long and it was destroyed. And so then we get into the first Congress. Alexander Hamilton convinces George Washington to create the first, the second central bank called the Bank of the United States. And same problem. So it was given a twenty year charter and its nefarious consequences become well known. And Thomas Jefferson refused to renew their charter. What was the consequence of that? The War of eighteen twelve. Right. The English started a new war financed by who? The foreign bankers. OK, read read the U.S. Constitution. Article six. It's a bankruptcy document. Most people don't know this. The part of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, very starts here. I've got it right here. Give me a second. Give me a second. Got to pull it up. I use a Mac, and so I have to broadcast with you on Chrome, on Google Chrome. Don't worry. Our nineteen sixty three constitution is flawed. It's not just flawed. It was illegally installed. They only had like, you know, one tenth of one percent of the vote and they put the nineteen sixty three constitution in the state of Michigan. So therefore, that actually should be abolished and we should roll it back even further. Absolutely. Absolutely. Article six of the U S constitution, all just the very first sentence, all debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adaptation of this constitution. In other words, the revolution and the financing of it shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution as under the confederation. Remember the articles of confederation, right? So there you go. We've been bankrupt more than once. We are there now. We are financially and morally bankrupt. But they keep printing money. And then, of course, third central bank was Thomas Jefferson. Excuse me, Alexander. No. Sorry, brain fart. Okay. Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson destroyed the second, the third central bank. Again, the Bank of the United States and the Fed chair at the time wasn't called the Fed, but either way was Mr. Biddle. And Mr. Biddle warned Andrew Jackson that if you do not renew the bank's charter to continue, and I'm going to get to a point here in a moment, if you do not Renew the bank's charter. You will bankrupt the states and you will bankrupt this nation. And Andrew Jackson's reply was, sir, that would be your sin. It would be my sin to let you continue. And what was he talking about? What most people don't understand is that central banking was created not for its stated purposes, but rather to give a line of credit to politicians because without it, in order for us to go to war under the founding principles, You'd have to secure the agreement from the citizens to pay for the bill. Imagine if George Bush said, hey, we're going to go invade Afghanistan and we all need every American citizen to pony up ten thousand dollars in advance. We wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan. We would have no wars. And all of this debt, right? All of this legislation in nineteen thirty three, the New Deal. And this is how we ultimately destroy the sovereignty of all of our states. And by the way, I'll get to the point about the Chevron deference decision from SCOTUS last year and how this ties together. But in, yeah, in nineteen thirty three, FDR summoned representatives from all of the states. I think there was forty eight at the time. Hawaii and Alaska get to join the union. But they summoned the forty eight representatives and he sent them with instructions to their home states to pass legislation to receive federal aid. And the federal aid was set up under the pretense of the New Deal for road construction. We would put America to work and we would borrow money from the newly formed Federal Reserve that was created by fraud in nineteen thirteen. It's another conversation, another story. I just laid out to you why it's a nefarious problem. But. He sent them all home to borrow, to set it up so they would establish a second set of books. Do you know, Donna, that every state in the union runs two sets of books? You'd go to jail for that. You and I would go to jail for that. But they run two sets of books because in order to accept the federal aid, they've got to keep a separate ledger. How did they do that? So I actually knew that they were running, there's different layers to all of this and we never see exactly what's going on. How are they accomplishing this? Well, give me a second. I'll look up the statute. Newhamshire.gov. They have changed my state constitution website. So I knew they were doing it. I just don't know the mechanisms. Yes. Hang on. So that would probably be pretty helpful right now. Absolutely. Hang on government. laws, federal government. My plan was actually to stop all taxes immediately because I know that there's places where you can get money from for overages to keep basic services going and such. And I was going to take everything and audit the entire state, every department, every organization, every dime that went through this state and throw it out on the wall and let the residents of Michigan, the citizens of Michigan, go through and find all of the errors and and let them be the the investigative branch of uh what was going on what what's been done to us as a as a state as a nation that's what needs to happen so here it is here it is uh this is our state statute created in nineteen thirty three authority for seeking aid The governor and the approval of the council, we have an executive council, which is a check on the governor's office, is authorized to apply for financial or any other aid which the United States government has authorized or may authorize to be given to the several states for emergency industrial or unemployment relief. Remember the New Deal. For public works and highway construction. For the creation of employment agencies. or for any other purposes intended to relieve distress. So there it is, right? Or any other purpose. It's a green flag for your state government to just keep borrowing money. And every time it does so, it surrenders the sovereignty of the people and the state to federal jurisdiction, right? And this is how they propped up all of these growth of state government under the pretense of bribing the states with federal aid because it always comes with strings attached. And what was that? What were, what was the, the document that you quoted the first document? Well, I'm talking, I'm referring to the federal aid statute created in Yes, that's our state statute, one twenty four colon one authority for seeking aid. Now, here's here's something else that should make you mad. Faith and credit pledged. And again, how do you do this? How do you surrender the people's oversight? So here it is. Faith and credit pledged. The faith and credit of the state are pledged to make adequate provisions from time to time by appropriation or otherwise to meet all obligations of the state incident to acceptance of federal aid under the provision of any act referred to under one twenty four one because this is one twenty four two. The governor and council are authorized to issue all necessary documentary evidence of such faith and credit. They get to borrow money on your behalf without your concern. They did that not too long ago where they actually collateralized all of our property and homes at a twenty to one ratio. Yes. Yeah. It's outrageous. It's outrageous. Which means that if they default, they have literally pledged our homes. That's right. That's right. That's exactly what they've done. It should be horrifying to every single person out there. So this is the chaos we have. So let me get to the next point here in New Hampshire that proves everything I've just said to you. Article XII reinforces all of this. There's a lot of synergy in this document. Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it. We just talked about what is it? The Bill of Rights, the state constitution. Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property. I covered that in Article II. He's therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection. The state loves to quote this provision as its authority to take your money. This is a well-settled case precedent here in New Hampshire. and to yield his personal service when necessary or an equivalent. That affects a variety of things. Personal service is militia, petit jury, and grand jury, and or serving in public capacity, serving in public office, okay? But what do you get in exchange for paying taxes, right? Because there's a quid pro quo here, and I'm going to walk you through it. But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him or applied to public uses. That's right. Take money from you for public purposes, applied to public uses, without his own consent or that of the representative body of the people. Now, they're not talking about the legislature, and I'm going to prove it to you in a moment. They're talking about the amendment process. Because that's why I took you to Article I, that all government of right originates from the people. The people are sovereign. If the people are not sovereign, they had no authority to write this document. Okay? Because the people created this document and not the king. So they're not talking about the representative body of the legislature because the taxing clause makes a very clear distinction that they're talking about the amendment process to increase or change the taxes. And history shows us this has been done five additional times to increase the base by which the legislature can tax people. the citizens of the state. One is the timber tax, two is a inheritance tax and so on. But it becomes even more powerful when you read the next clause. nor are the inhabitants of the state. Well, who are the inhabitants? They're not just people who live here. The state constitution defines inhabitants as those people within the state who are citizens who are qualified to vote and to run or hold public office. There's actually a constitutional definition. It says, and every person qualified to elect or be elected into office shall be considered an inhabitant. There you go. So the Constitution defines and our state Supreme Court on multiple occasions has reaffirmed the Constitution and stated the same that I'm saying to you now, that an inhabitant is someone that possesses political rights. But I'll start over. nor the inhabitants of the state controllable by any other laws than those which they, who? The inhabitants. It's the same sentence. There's no comma here. It's all one sentence. Nor the inhabitants of the state controllable by any other laws than those which they or their representative body, that would be them authorizing an amendment to the laws of the land, have given their consent." There you go. So what are they saying here? This is what you get in exchange for paying taxes. Quid pro quo right there. The basis of contract law is offer acceptance and consideration. I just laid it out for you. I think. Any questions? I'm still processing all this. There's a lot of information real quick. But what's really amazing is when you said something about taking money from you for public use, that's going on all the time. We have that right here where they're basically putting in stuff for sewers and water for developers to have the advantage over and requiring the houses that this is going in front of to pay forty to eighty thousand dollars for an improvement that has no benefit to their house. Don, if we don't fix this, America is already bankrupt and we will collapse. We're on the verge. Let's see what happens with the BRICS meeting coming up where the United States is likely to lose its status as the Federal Reserve note as the global standard of commerce. It has to because we are bankrupt. All of our municipalities are bankrupt. Our counties are bankrupt. The states are doing a little better, but it's all based on that federal money. And they know how to move things from one area to another to have plausible deniability of the criminality. No, you're absolutely right. So I'm gonna go back to, I told you that I would prove to you that they were talking about the consent of the people versus the representatives in the legislature. So back to the taxing clause. No subsidy, charge, taxed, imposed, or duty shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied under any pretext whatsoever without the consent of the people, comma, or their representatives in the legislature, comma, or authority derived from that body. Now, I'm going to back up and go one, two, three. I just named three people, three entities. The people themselves, the elected representatives in the legislature, and the authority derived from the Constitution given to the legislature. So here we are a Dillon Rule state. All our municipalities are defined as... All our municipalities are established and created as corporate bodies, bodies corporate, to create political subdivisions of the state. And the reason they do this is that in order for the municipalities and counties to do the business of the people, they create legal fictions called municipalities or bodies corporate. And in order to do three things, to hold real estate, to be able to collect tax revenue on behalf, to carry out the duties of the Constitution, and to sue and be sued. In other words, when they do it inappropriately or in order to sue, in order to cover the tax revenue that they are authorized to do so under the state constitution. So the authority derived from the body, that's what they're talking about. The constitution part two, article five of our state constitution is the authority of my state legislature to tax. And it can tax your estate. It can tax your, it can tax your property to do those things that the, that the constitution gave the legislature, the ability to delegate to the towns, the political subdivisions of the state. Now, or their representatives in the legislature is number two. Their capacity is to only exercise the taxing clause that's in the Constitution. Property, the estates of the people. And then finally, back to the very first item. Without the consent of the people is first, and it's not by accident. It's by design. Because the people must first approve And this is where the representatives in the legislature can amend or can propose amendments to the voters to expand their taxing power. And they've done so. So in the last two hundred some odd years, they've done that very thing. They have sought the consent of the voters to expand their taxing power. And so the point I want to make here is where it lays out clearly that or their representatives in the legislature is completely different than, or their representation of the people. Because the people also are a representative body. They are sovereign and they are the authors of the law of the land. And the last sentence of our state constitution is very powerful. That summarizes all of this. And let me scroll to it quickly. Hang on, almost there. Almost there. And it's not an accident that this is the very last sentence. Provided that no alteration shall be made in this Constitution before the same shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places approved by two-thirds of the qualified voters present and voting upon the question, not multiple questions, but the question. So it's not an accident that the first sentence in the state constitution that all government of right, not some, but all government of right originates from the people and is founded in their consent. So that's the summary. That's the summary. And I can reinforce that. I'm going to take a question from you. And I'm going to read you a case precedent in eighteen eighty two that reaffirms everything I just told you. Just keep going. All right. So night eighteen eighty two. There's a famous case here in New Hampshire called Worcester v. Plymouth. Even though it's horse and buggy, there's a roadway through a mountain town at the base of the White Mountains. We have a town called Plymouth, New Hampshire. One of our big universities is there. And so a citizen was injured on the roadway and the public works were negligent. They left the roadway in disrepair. Someone got hurt and they filed suit. So the state tries to invoke trial by jury. So this case is fundamentally about a trial by jury. But because it talks about one of your fundamental rights, it touches upon all of your rights. And it lays out everything I just shared with you and your audience. And so give me a second. Worcester v. Plymouth. One, historically and constitutionally, jury trial is a remedial protection of substantive rights. But of whose and what rights and against whom is it a protection? Remember I used that word protection? It is a trial by the country. by the fellow subject and peers. It has been steadily regarded by the earliest judicial history in England as the greatest safeguard of our lives, liberty, and property. There's that language again. Of the subject and against the abuses of arbitrary power, as well as against undue excitements of popular feeling. And that's profound as well, because this is why our documents were written this way, because they didn't want the ability to change the laws of the land willy-nilly because of popular sentiment that has been swayed or modified. And as we've witnessed happen repeatedly since these documents have been written. So to continue, it has been steadily regarded from the earliest judicial history in England as the greatest safeguard of the lives and liberty and property and against the subject and abuses of arbitrary power, as well as against undue excitements of popular feeling. In our country, almost every, excuse me, and it's calling New Hampshire a country. Important note because our states, our countries, they are sovereign and other than the power they've delegated to the federal government, but we don't think of them that way by design. We think of the states as counties of the federal government because in order to operate this national central democracy from DC, they've had to change the language. They've had to dumb down the society in order to operate in such a manner. But to continue, in our country, almost from its earliest settlement, the trial by jury was claimed by the people as a birthright of Englishmen and as the most valuable rights of free men. Jury trial was established right of British subjects long before the earliest settlement of this state. And it cites the case. I'm going to skip forward. I'm going to move to the next paragraph. The fundamental articles of the absolute rights of every Englishman usually call their liberties were asserted in the great charter of liberties frequently affirmed by parliament. This takes us back to the petition of right in the bill of rights in England. So I'll start over. We're asserted in the great charter of liberties frequently affirmed by parliament, the English parliament in the petition of right of in the bill of rights of the Bill of Rights of England, or a declaration delivered to the Prince and Princess of Orange and enacted by Parliament in the Act of Settlement of one. The rights defined by these statutes consist in a number of private immunities. which are indeed no other than either the residuum of natural liberty, which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience, or else those civil privileges which society has engaged to provide in lieu of natural liberties is so given up by individuals. In the great charter, the trial by jury is insisted as a principal bulwark of our liberties. It ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals." By the way, that's why I sought a trial by jury for my case. And that's what this trial judge is denying me. He's denying me. I don't want his opinion. I want a jury of my peers to decide the modifications to our election law were in fact constitutional. Because if the jury finds that the allegations that I've levied against my bad faith state actors is in fact true, they lose their voting privileges. They lose their ability to hold public office. So that's why this case is so important. But I'll continue. A constitution that may venture to affirm has under providence secured the just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages. The trial by jury is, quote, that trial by peers of every Englishman as the grand bulwark of his liberties and is secured to him by the great charter. The liberties of England cannot be a subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and invalid. Its entire legal significance is the immunity which every subject finds in his property, liberty, and person in the unanimous verdict of twelve of his neighbors and equals. That would be in the criminal prosecution. The defense of public rights of the sovereign and the government is no part of the protection which this constitutional bulwark was intended to afford. To continue, I'm going to skip over this to make the constitutional point to wrap this up. Our state constitution, that trial by jury is secured in Article XV of the Bill of Rights, which really makes the whole point here. The clause of the fifteenth article of the bill in which it is reserved, quote, is so manifestly conformable to the words of Magna Carta that we are not to consider it a newly invented phrase. first used by the makers of our constitution. But we are to look at it as an adaptation of one of the greatest securities of private right, key private right, not public right, but private right. It's the property of the people. handed down to us among the liberties and privileges which our ancestors enjoyed at the time of their immigration, they're referring to their immigration to the United States, and to claim to hold and retain as their birthright. These terms in this connection cannot, we think, be used in their most bald and literal sense to mean the law of the land at the time of the trial." Ready? Because the laws may be shaped and altered by the legislature from time to time in such a provision intended to prohibit the making of any law impairing the ancient rights and liberties of the subject. Isn't that what they're doing now? That's exactly what they're doing right now. They're warning us. This reaffirms everything I just spent the last forty five minutes explaining. that the laws of the land are established by the people because the people are sovereign. In order for the government to grow at the state level, it can only be done so. And at the federal level, that's what an Article V convention is all about. That's why the U.S. Constitution has been amended, what, And so because, and how did they do it? The state government is the creator of the federal constitution and it takes the consent of your state legislature, but at the state level, your state constitution, and this is what we're talking about here and in this case, is that the state constitution can only be altered and the taxing power and its authority can only be expanded. And this is what they're talking about. So to continue. It's intended to prohibit the making of any law impairing the ancient rights and liberties of the subject and would under such a construction be wholly negatory and void. In other words, if they do it, it's null and void. The legislature might simply change the law by statute, which is what they're doing. That's exactly what they've done. Yeah, thus removing the landmark barrier intended to be set up by this provision in the Bill of Rights. That's why in New Hampshire, the Bill of Rights Part I comes first. Part II, the second part, is created to protect the first part. But I'll continue. It must therefore have intended the ancient established law in course of legal proceedings by adherence to such, excuse me, by adherence to which our ancestors in England before settlement of this country and the immigrants themselves and their descendants had found safety for their personal rights. This provision, quote, this provision of the Bill of Rights was unquestionably designed to restrain the legislature as well as the other branches of government from all arbitrary interference with private rights. It was adopted from Magna Carta and it was justly considered by our forefathers long before the formation of our constitution. They're talking about our state constitution here because it came first. as constituting the most efficient security of their rights and liberties. Then it talks about Mason's argument who was argued a famous case of Dartmouth College versus Woodward. It goes all the way to the US Supreme Court. It's a landmark case. The object of the clause in our Bill of Rights seems always to have been intended in this state to be the protection of private rights, not public rights, that the government can, that these judges can, this is what these, the Second Amendment case that the landmark decision in the Bruin-Hellert case is all about, right? That the, you must look at original intent, right? and that these are private rights, not public rights, because the Heller-Bruin decision abolished means and scrutiny. Do you understand what means and scrutiny is, Donna? Please explain. Means and scrutiny is a balancing test where they apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or a lesser means of scrutiny in order to put a balancing test where these judges for the last hundred years have, for example, Second Amendment, have looked at public policy and public interest and have decided whether you should tolerate infringement upon your rights as being in the public interest and therefore allowing rogue legislatures from restricting your rights on behalf of public policy. That's what they're talking about. They're saying, no, that's what that case settled. That means ends scrutiny can no longer concede. The Heller-Bruin decision doesn't just talk about the Second Amendment. It talks about the First Amendment, freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from establishment of religion. which is what they're doing with our schools today, by the way, but to continue. And the confrontation clause, right? All of these things, the Supreme Court said, hey, why do we treat the Second Amendment by applying means and scrutiny to justify why the state governments should violate your Second Amendment rights? And so it struck down that tool. So now it applies to all of your federally protected rights. I've invoked this in my case as applying here in the state as well so that it would be used as precedent when we move forward. But let me close with this final provision. This is the next paragraph. The division of the Constitution into two parts. Like I said, part one, the Bill of Rights, which comes first, and part two, the form of government. The division of the Constitution in two parts was not made without a purpose, and the name of each part is not without significance. The first is a bill of rights. The second is a form of government. The second is, in general, a grant of powers made by the people, quote, to magistrates and officers of government. Remember, they are our public servants. They are not our leaders. They are not the dukes and earls of our state governments. We call them public functionaries because they have a job description. And that's probably where we have the biggest problem is they don't follow a job description anymore. They go in and they're like, OK, I'm in office. I can do whatever I want. That's right. Because you voted for them on party platform. Yeah, because the parties because the parties install them. And so they think they can do anything that that their their handlers ask them to do. Absolutely, absolutely. So it goes on to say, who are declared in Part I, Article VIII, our Bill of Rights, to be grantors, agents. The first contains a list of rights not surrendered by the people when they formed themselves into a state. Part one, the Bill of Rights, articles one, two, and three, which I shared with you earlier, and part two, article one, which is the form of government. By the reservation of these, they limited the powers they granted to the second part, the form of government, and exempted themselves to a stipulated extent from the authority of the government they created. In Pennsylvania, the convention of seventeen seventy six made a similar division and the Bill of Rights being, quote, declared to be part of the Constitution in revision of the seventeen ninety bipartite form. An original name of the first part were discarded and the Bill of Rights was inserted as Article nine of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. It's the last section of the article. The people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania say, quote, to guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is accepted out of the general powers of government. This declaration did not give the article a new legal character. In seventeen seventy six, this title was a Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Pennsylvania. Under any name, excuse me, in any part of the organic law, it is a reservation to insert it in the clause expressly declaring it to be a list of rights reserved or accepted would be superfluous as to stipulate that a jury shall consist of twelve men or that their verdict shall be unanimous. There you go. Did I just not prove my point? And then I'm using the Supreme Court of New Hampshire before it was corrupted in eighteen eighty three, making my point. I can assure you that this is this is why I say that understanding your state constitution, more importantly, the thirteen originals, what the legal society has done to us is that they've allowed judges to interpret the Constitution and and to use precedent and their interpretations and not look at the thirteen states because if you look at the original intent of the thirteen sovereign states that created the federal government, right? Because it was the thirteen originals. Everyone else is a derivative because of the Northwest Ordinance. All of the other states in the Union are derivatives of the federal government, not the creator of Now you understand why the original thirteen are so important and why New Hampshire's was so important? Because it was the first and the last. New Hampshire was the first of the thirteen colonies. The delegates to the Continental Congress was... They gave them or directed them and suggested to them that they should write the first written constitution of all the thirteen colonies because that's what they were. And New Hampshire did so on January fifth, seventeen seventy six. It was a very defective document, but it went first. And then Virginia would follow just in June, just before the Declaration of Independence. And the other states would follow the other states. The other eleven states would follow by writing their own state constitution during the revolution. And they'd all, before the revolution was done, have established themselves. Remember, they did what? They wrote the Declaration of Independence. I like to call the Declaration of Independence a divorce letter. They said, hey, we're done with you and here's why. And so they followed up with that. So they wrote their own forms of government. And so reading those and understanding those is paramount. Because once you do that, there's no confusion as to what the U.S. Constitution means. But they don't use that tool, do they? At all. No. And that's why I have a unique understanding of all of this, because I started with the eleven hundred Charter of Liberties. Remember, I shared with you this before. A brilliant constitutional lawyer named Chris Ann Hall does a great study that you can see online called The Genealogy of the Constitution. And she spells out that in order to understand all of this, you must understand English history. You have to understand that the eleven hundred Charter of Liberties was the first set of so-called statutes. The king. Right. The people were upset with the king acting like a king. And they said, hey, If we're going to continue this relationship, you have to abide by this charter of liberties. You have to promise us that you won't violate these liberties. So the homework assignment for your audience is to go read that. What is the eleven hundred charter of liberties? Because it would lead to Magna Carta, right? So the eleven hundred charter of liberties, the king continues to defy, even though he agreed to it. it would lead to twelve fifteen and he's still acting like a king so they grab the king they put a sword to his throat and say hey if you don't sign magna carta we're going to kill you because you didn't get the memo last time and so that worked for a while so from twelve fifteen for four hundred years we get into the petition of right in sixteen twenty eight the petition of right was again saying hey We're petitioning the parliament that you said in the eleven hundred charter of liberties and you said in Magna Carta that you wouldn't do these things. Right. And this is where Magna Carta gave us the right to redress of grievances. Article sixty one. So. They petitioned the parliament to say, hey, you agreed to this and you're violating those terms. So we're petitioning you to get your act together and stop violating those agreed upon terms of our relationship. And they didn't. So next comes the grand remonstrance of sixteen forty two, which is the rebuke, the protest, because the petition of right didn't work. And when that didn't work, they led to the glorious revolution where they cut off the king's head, my favorite part of the story. And so they drafted the English Bill of Rights in sixteen eighty eight, I believe. And this is what the revolution was all about. Parliament was disregarding the English Bill of Rights. If you read the New Hampshire Constitution of seventeen seventy six, that is one of their grievances. They're saying, hey, we as Englishmen, because they are they're all English subjects, they're all living here under the protection of the crown, his Navy and his protection. And they're saying, hey, you're depriving us of those rights. that we agreed to and you're depriving us. And therefore we're going to start a new. So this is why history is so important. And this is what fueled my studies. So my studies were not, and this is why some lawyers in the state have said that I have them at a, at a big disadvantage. My knowledge of all of these things is, These are things they've never studied because it wasn't necessary for them to practice law. Because in order to practice law, you have to learn procedural due process, not substantive due process, even though some of them do learn substantive due process. But they don't. Our law school here in New Hampshire, UNH Law School, I called up the professor and said, hey, are you teaching the state constitution anymore? He said, no. Other than procedural due process that lawyers need to learn in order to be attorneys. That's all we teach. That's kind of scary. It is. And I can say, and I don't mean to be disrespectful to my judiciary, but I'm going to state something that is true. No judge in the state can pull out their resume and show me or any of our citizens that you have enough hours of study of the state constitution because it's not being taught. It's been stripped out of school for more than a hundred years. that you are qualified to sit in judgment of our rights and our constitution. You're not qualified. You are an incompetent judiciary. You're not a judicial body of competent jurisdiction. And again, I don't mean to be disparaging, but it's a factual statement. Prove to me and anyone else that you're qualified. You're not. What are you qualified? You pass the bar. You pass the bar. It's not even a license to practice law. well not only that and if you look at the bar association's charter you first it my my studies on this has shown me that it came to be as an unincorporated association a voluntary association in for the purposes of post-secondary education for lawyers okay I have no problem with that but in they mandate mandatory They petitioned their own members, the Supreme Court, and said, hey, we need you to violate the Monopoly Clause and grant us a charter to amend our charter. And what they did is their charter created in eighteen seventy three authorized by the people's representatives. The state legislature granted them the ability to operate as a nonprofit private association. They said, hey. We're going to ignore that charter that says only the legislature can alter, amend, or abolish their charter. And they didn't do that. They wrote a brand new constitution, brand new bylaws, bypassed the legislature, went to the Supreme Court and said, hey, if you don't make the practice of law that everyone that practices law to protect the citizens of the state from rogue lawyers, you must make it mandatory that we have oversight. The Bar Association has oversight over all the lawyers, which goes to and extends to the courts. And that's how they established this monopoly power. Where they are not controlled. And in night in nineteen sixty seven, after they passed seventy two, a which was an amendment to our state constitution that said, hey, if you pass this addendum to the state constitution, that the superior and Supreme Court will become constitutional courts. Well, it begs the question. The state constitution established courts in seventeen eighty four when it came to be a political body. And part two, the form of government. Article four gives the legislature the authority to have oversight over the courts. It can abolish the courts, rein them in and control. So the people have all the people through the representative body in the legislature have authority to control the court system if they run amok. This amendment, without any disclosure to the voters, stripped the voters and the legislature of oversight over the judiciary without saying a word. And then in nineteen seventy eight, they passed another amendment. They said the following language that now appears under our state constitution was not submitted to the voters for their consideration. Quote, the rules so proclamated by the Supreme Court, the rules so proclamated shall have the full force and effect of law. In other words, right? But here was the- Don't question God's anointed is what it sounds like to me. Well, absolutely. And here's the point. That language wasn't in the voter's guide. The voters, and here's the other rub, that authority was statutorily already existed from the year, the legislature had already established that under common law, that the common law practice of understanding the English common law and the rules of the legal system. Well, well understood by lawyers and the legal society. And it was passed from generation to the next. So it was a bullshit statement. No, what they were doing was judicial supremacy. Their goal was to become a co equal branch of government because the state constitution didn't provide for them to be a co equal branch of government. Now they are out of control. Yeah. I'm writing a few notes here. So that's your history lesson for today. Yeah, that's a huge history lesson. Hang on a second. Sometimes it frightens me that I have all this floating in my head. I got to clone myself. Seriously, I love talking about you and Vicki. I like all the people that have these specific areas of specialization that you study with for so many decades. I mean, it's just amazing. I don't even know what to say right now because I feel like I've got a lot to process. I'll probably go back and watch this again, which I don't usually rewatch episodes unless it's like so much information that I really want to get it in my head. But you can see... The outcome of these decisions on a daily basis around us, you know, that in the first pro se case that I filed, and that was against, well, it was the second one, actually, Jonathan Brader, our director of board of elections, bureau of elections. They came back and the attorney general's office sicked five attorneys on me and said that I was practicing law without a license. Right. Right. And you know what? But the problem is, is they falsify documents in order to even make that statement. Right. And I'm like, I'm like, so how come that you can you can, you know, do a pro se case? Why would you even have a pro se recognize this pro se jury proprio sui juris? Why would you even say that if those if those things exist? It's ridiculous because they want a monopoly on everything unless you are a barred attorney. You're done in their language. But you know what? People like yourself and myself, we're just like, tut, tut, oh, you naysayers out there. Guess what? There's deeper truths out there which do allow us to hold them accountable and do allow us to get in there and throw a wrench into their machine that they've got going on. We have to be willing to do that. Donna, under everything I just laid out in today's podcast here, I'm going to give you one more tool. Okay. Because this reinforces, remember I said who the rights of the people are their private property and they have the right to protect themselves. Okay. The state legislature in New Hampshire passed this law, the statute in seventeen ninety one called an act relating to attorneys. Quote, that the plaintiff or defendant in any cause, prosecution, or suit being a citizen of this state may appear, plead, pursue, or defend in his proper person or by such other citizen of this state being of good reputable character and behavior as he may engage and employ whether the person so employed be admitted as an attorney at law or not Case closed right there. Bingo. You don't have to be a lawyer. Give me the source on that. That is the statutes on page one hundred to one oh one of the eighteen oh five law. I found this. Google has has copied all of our original publications. Every ten years, New Hampshire would republish its constitution and the statutes written pursuant thereof. And I found this in the archives of the reprinting of that publication on pages one hundred and one oh one of the eighteen oh five copy of our state laws in Google. You have to enter Google, go to Google Books, enter New Hampshire Constitution. And that's where I found it. And so this is where I find a lot of original intent that completely destroys the shenanigans we have going on. But again, they were making the point. that you don't need to be a lawyer again they've done this to isolate and protect themselves and to ensure their profits if you look oh it's it's totally corrupt and if you look at this at the current charter of the state bar association here in new hampshire you will discover that its first stated purpose is in fact not its real intention but rather its second stated purpose is its real agenda And that is to ensure the protection of the citizens of the state that we have qualified and well-educated lawyers is the stated first purpose. That's a lie. The second purpose is its actual real purpose, which is to ensure the profit and emolument of its members. Wow. Crazy. Right. It's crazy to say that. I'm so glad to know you and to be able to learn from what you've been studying and such. This is really amazing. And just your raw ability to connect the dots is seriously overwhelming. I'm going to go back and listen to this again so I can pause and take notes and pause and take notes and pause and take notes. And really have this nailed down because I feel like not only myself, but everybody needs to know this. Have you ever written this down in a like outline format or have you put anything together in a written thing, in a written format for people to be able to go through? I quote a lot of this in my legal work. Most of my legal work has used this foundation of articulating, this is the basis of my defense. This is why they feel, this is why they're using procedural due process to try to kill me. And so right now, by the way, I'm headed back to the state Supreme Court for a third time. Upon prevailing before the state Supreme Court the second time, the court found that I did in fact state a claim upon which relief could be granted. And second, that I had standing to bring my case forward. I believe I'm the only litigant in the United States that still has a case that affects the election outcome, the and the most recent election. All the other cases that have been brought have all been dismissed for lack of standing. Remember, we were all frustrated on the Trump challenge to the twenty twenty outcome. We all knew we got screwed, right? Yeah. But all the courts kept using this standing argument. And my response is, what good are your rights if they're going to use the tactic of saying, hey, that under our standing rules that created by the courts, that we, unless you can articulate an injury that is specific to you as an individually, in other words, as long as we screw everybody equally, you have no claim. So unless it impacted you in an individual manner, you can't bring the case. No, I have rights. And if you look at my video of my oral arguments where I destroy the state lawyers, one of the judges stops me and asks me, he says, if we grant you the relief that you're seeking, what would you bring forward in your case? I said, the body of my rights. The body of my rights, Your Honor. I'm entitled to the protection outlined in the Bill of Rights. And he caught me with that question, but because I'm so versed in this, it's on recall for me. So unlike the state lawyer who spent the majority of his answers to the court stumbling, going, great question, your honor, and never answering any of the questions. And what the trial judge did to me was upon establishing standing, the court granted me the relief that I was seeking for a trial by jury. And the trial judge, oh, we're not going to do that for you, Mr. Richard. We're going to go ahead. We're going to go ahead and order the state defendants to file a new motion to dismiss. See, the motion to dismiss was already argued and they lost, right? You already had your bite at the apple. You lost. Matter of fact, you raised standing. And so my state Supreme Court said, hey, Since you're now raising and the standing arguments were assumed rather than briefed, we're going to order both of you to re-brief your standing arguments, which we both did. And we both re-briefed standing, and I won! So, you know, the Supreme Court said Mr. Richard has standing. So the trial court says I'm going to order the defendants to file new motions to dismiss. We're going to exclude Mr. Richard from his ability from amending his complaint. And they rewrote new motions to dismiss based on state precedent, which is now obsolete because of the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. and federal law, federal precedent in the U.S. Constitution, and they ignored that ad nauseum, and simply both them and the trial judge didn't answer a federal question. They didn't want to go there. The judge said, because the state constitution equal protection provisions offer you more protection than the federal Fourteenth Amendment, I'm just going to address your state rights under the precedent that I'm going to pick and choose. Talk about dirty pool. Yeah, you can't make this stuff up. No, no, because they are obviously nervous because I have them dead to rights. I'm not supposed to exist. No one like me was ever supposed to be able to come down the road and unravel the mess they created. And it's really fascinating for me personally to look back on my life. I grew up in poverty and my mother kept me busy with puzzles. She kept me busy with complex puzzles. And of course, the first thing you do with the puzzle is empty the contents out of the box, throw it on a table, and then flip the cart and look at the picture and put the pieces together. And what it developed for me, and I look back on my life and realize I've been doing this all my life in deconstructing things by that very tool. And so it programmed me on how to solve puzzles. And that's how I have this analytical capacity. And so it was a blessing in disguise, better than I would have received in a public school, for sure. For sure. Wow, this is amazing. I am going to go back and rewatch this. I suggest everybody else do the same because there's so much information in there. Just overwhelming. Wow. Well, is there anything else you want to talk about this morning? No, I think I've said enough. I'm going to have to process. This is a lot. But what great information. I think what you said about Chris Ann Hall and the Constitution class, I think you've got some listed here too on your site. Let me put this up here. This is Daniel's site. And I think this is Constitution of New Hampshire classes. Yes, I ran a twelve week course. It's come and gone. People want me to do it again, but I'm waiting to have enough of an audience. I was disappointed that we didn't get more people to attend, but I'm grateful for those who did attend. And I hopefully, as I said to many of them, you know, I'm willing to do this. Some of them, you know, are trying to fight back. And so my goal was to create as many warriors to go fight the good fight. How many people have you gotten to bite on it? I had thirty. I had thirty three people show interest and I had a steady attendance of about twenty people. That's that's pretty good considering the deep the depth of the topic. Usually people don't have the attention span for that sort of thing. So did any of them file lawsuits as yourself? No, no, because that gets into a whole other realm, which is learning. What I did is I took a course on how to practice, how to win in court without a lawyer. And so that taught me how procedural, how the process works. And there's a course out there that you can take. And so I took the course, paid the fee, took the course. And that's how I learned to prepare my cases. That's fantastic. And now we have A.I., Yeah, AI is real helpful. Did you see that lately they've been trying to tell people that there's a psychosis going on and people are being involuntarily committed for being too into AI. And I've been saying this for a long time. They don't want us to know the truth. That's exactly right. The unmoderated AI models will tell you the truth. If you're listening to some of them that are moderated, of course, they're going to skew the answers. However, you can go to Lama or some of the other models that are out there and run a local AI. And you will, in fact, find the truth that they're trying to hide. You just got to be a little persistent and ask the right prompts and then question it. If I see that AI is wrong, I'll tell it. I'll say, no, you're wrong on this. And this is why. So I'll actually help train the AI. as we're going forward and that's what you have to do is you have to say no you're wrong on this and this is why and then it'll spit back another answer based on what you put in it but this is something not to be afraid of it's like anything else in the world there are people that will use things for good and people that will use things for evil just wait it it's always good I think it's going to put the lawyers put lawyers out of business I think it's going to put a lot of people out of business. Once we don't have to pay for information that they've been protecting and hoarding and keeping away from us. I think that our entirety of civilization is going to change. And that's a really good thing because we got to look at what we have right now. And it's absolute crap. The United States has already been infiltrated. They have been conducting a multi... century coup against we the people to subvert the entire earth. It's very satanic. They said this was the way it was going to go, and it's exactly gone the way that they said it was going to go. That evil has reached into there. The depth of depravity in order to control and profit off of everything here that God provided for all of us to enjoy. And that's really unfortunate. But you know what? I really do believe that good wins. God always wins in the end. And so their arrogance of saying there is no God, then their arrogance is going to be their demise right there. Because God's just going to look at this as a dad and go, how's that working for you? You know, like all dads do and letting letting kids fall on their faces a little bit in order to find out the folly of their of their consequences of what they want in a very childish, selfish, self-centered way. The only reason why we're here, honestly, is to grow, to serve God and each other and to glorify God. That is it. That's right. Draw closer to God and become more like him and take off that childish behavior, you know, that going from me, me, me, me, serve me, serve me, onto someone who will stand against all threat. to protect others regardless of the consequences. And you and I both are on the same sheet of music here. That's exactly what Jesus did when he laid down his life, that we all had an open door to have a relationship with God and live eternally with him. We talk about a vetting process. There's the vetting process right there. Are you going to spit on God's only begotten son and, you know, his giving us a way to have that relationship with him? Or are you not? I mean, it's a pretty strong dividing line right there. It was said clearly, directly, and to the point. That's right. You know, I think that there's just a lot going on right now, but good wins in the end. But we do have to pick up our job, which is self-governance is having to step up and do the work, not just talk about it. And I applaud you for jumping in and not only doing this, but educating the rest of us. I would love to do a Constitution class with, say, you just overall and do it on Zoom for the Constitution Party in the state of Michigan, of which I'm the chair. I'm the chairman of the Constitution Party here, which is the U.S. Taxpayers Party. Because of the obstructionist government we have, Benson, who I am actively suing right now, will in brader have been obstruction obstructionist to allow us to change our name there's eight pieces on the books across the nation where it's just been a you know a sign of paper we're changing our name just like putting candidates up and they've made no no no no no so anyhow I would love to do that because I think I I don't think no matter how much you study the constitution or the the stuff you're talking about you can't put enough time into this No, it's a lifelong journey. Yeah. No doubt. And by the way, I'd like to put a plug in. I am soliciting donations to help my cause. I've spent my savings doing this, and it's empty. It's gone. And so the unfortunate thing is that the courts do what they do. They drag their feet, and they purposely try to bankrupt you so that you quit the litigation. But I'm not quitting, so... Yeah, I feel the same way. It's like they will try to paper you to death. They'll accuse you of things you haven't done. They'll try to do collateral damage to other areas in your life. If you stand up, you can expect you're going to be attacked, but that doesn't mean we quit. Right. Yeah. So my contact information is on the website. If you post my website and people want to contribute to my cause and or want to engage me for classes and or further training, I'd be pleased to do so. Well, I tell you what, there's a lot of issues that I would not contribute to, but I would contribute this to you. Absolutely. Thank you so much. The work that you've done, I mean, it's just extraordinary. And And like none of us here on BNN Get Paid, we all do this just a civic duty, including yourself. I mean, we put ourselves out there and said, we're going to do this with or without anybody's permission or help because it needs to be done. And hopefully there will be people out there that see it as, man, this is the way to hold our public functionaries accountable. We have to. And if you set precedent in one state for this, guess what? It rolls and it rolls across the United States because of reciprocity. So thank you so much for doing this for all of us. I really appreciate you, Daniel, so much. So let's go into prayers a minute, and then we're going to go on to our day here. So I know there's a few things that I personally have to attend to. So dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Vicki and Daniel and all the wonderful people out there who have been actively listening, participating, and investing their time in understanding exactly what's happened to the United States. It's a wonderful gift that you've given us, this country, freedoms that you've given us, and the ability to have a relationship with you. It's fantastic. And we love you for it. We're grateful and we're willing to do the work that you ask us to do no matter what it is. I ask that your favor would rest strongly on Daniel and Vicki, but Daniel in his work that he's doing currently, that you would move people to contribute to him and help him in his fight so that he's not standing there alone bring many people to him to help him in his quest going forward to hold this nation and the people who have usurped the form of government to hold them accountable. You laid out exactly what we needed to do in Judges and Kings, and we know that there is a form of government out there which ensures peace. Peace is the goal, to live with peace with each other in our lives. love for each other, to reach out to each other, to take care of each other as brothers and sisters should do, and to serve you in all things. We're thankful for a relationship we can have with you through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And I ask you to be blessed by our behavior today, that you would know that we love you above all things. We love you, we will serve you, and we will go on any path you ask us to go on, regardless of the consequences, knowing that your plan is always the best plan There is a plan and we trust the plan and the plan is your plan. In Jesus Christ's precious name we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Great. Boys and girls. This is where we go to. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Go to Brandonburgforgovernor.com because I'm the best non-consecutor who's ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump about this wearing cowboy boots. I wear them better because I wear them every day. And then we talk about real stuff. So with that said, though, we have a lot of choices to make going forward. And either we're in the game. to be in a national inquirer mindset, looking at all these stupid firefly things that grab our attention, or to get in and do the real work, which is the fundamental law of the United States of America, starting with the founding documents, the original intent, Etc, etc, etc. We have to go back to what was intended, what worked, what was supposed to work in order to restore the republic. It is not a democracy. They've overlaid a democracy over the republic. Not okay. It's not okay. But to restore our rights, the rights that God has given us, we're going to have to go back and do some study and some work. And that's not just one person. This is all of us having to stand together because they're so good at capturing assets. So they'll lie to people and because they don't do their research, they just jump right on board with their nonsense. and become part of and complicit in their crimes. In order to not be complicit into the crimes of theft of America, we're going to have to know what we're talking about. And that means for a long period of time, like with people like Daniel and like Chris Ann Hall and like, and I love Chris Ann Hall. I think she's an amazing person. And Vicki and people who have tirelessly worked for decades with no recognition and or with no payment just because they know it's the right thing to do. We need to all be on that plane of existence right there. And once we do, the nation's going to work well. And we will live at peace with our neighbors. And we will have all of our rights restored. And this theft and slavery by people who are extorting and coercing is going to be done. So with that said, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love. And God bless America. Remember, we're to make this day a great day. It's a gift. This day is a gift from God. Make it count. Make it count in every way. And so tomorrow I will be on with John Tater. Wednesday, I am actually having a meeting. with some common law people. I'm going to be hosting a meeting with some common law people. I might turn the camera on for that. It's going to be an interesting time bringing together some wonderful people across the state who are talking about common law practices. I don't know who all is going to be here yet, but it sounds like the interest is growing rapidly. But I will keep you informed of it one way or the other. I may record it or I may just go and put it on live. We'll have to see what happens that day and if I can make that happen. But I just want to thank every one of you for being here today. You're amazing. If you stuck with us this long, I know that you're interested in the things that are real, the qualifiers. to being involved in. And I did write a report on this. I was going to run through that a minute, but the show's gotten a little long today. But qualifying efforts, if you go to my Telegram channel or my X account, I will be talking about this more and putting it into a formal report. And or if you sign up for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, ustpm.org, it's probably going to go out on a newsletter. So you can be on the newsletter for that. So have a great day, and we will see you tomorrow. Stand in line, Daniel. Okay.