Published Sept. 1, 2026, 9 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike - Mike Bambas will be talking about the citizen's rights and process of holding to the law. We will be taking the Trading with the Enemy Act, as well as, other lawful practices not followed by our government including a lawful path to convict political criminals of concrete violations of acts leading to treason X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1pJdRDnlMgpKW Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7exloi-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-912026-lawful-defense-john-tatar-and-pro-se-mi.html https://rumble.com/v7exlqq-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-912026-lawful-defense-john-tatar-and-pro-se-mi.html BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Pro Se Mike
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg and it's the first day of September. Wow. Twenty twenty six. So there we go. And this morning I'll have John Tater on at nine and Mike Bambus or Mike Proce Mike at ten o'clock. And we're going to get right on this because there's there's a lot going on and so much to talk about. How are you doing, John? Good. I've got a problem with one of my feeds. Let me see if I can fix that. So talk amongst yourself for a minute. What's happening? I think we need to take a look at Article I or the First Amendment of the Constitution again. Which is the most important amendment of the Constitution because it is the First Amendment. And so I think we ought to talk about that. Okay. It looks like it's going okay. I don't know. We've got... I want to see what's going on here. Hang on a minute. I want to check one thing. One little detail here a minute. Make sure that I did this right. Let's see. Nope. It's correct. Okay. So we're going, I don't know why stream yard saying it's having a hard time, but we're doing okay here. So anyhow, so article one let's let's I'm undistracted now. So where are we going to go with this? First Amendment. Okay. How many rights are protected by the First Amendment? Five. There is one right that is not mentioned, but is also inferred. Do you know what that right is? I'm going to continue to get this thing up and running. So the test is going to fail right now. So go ahead. Well, can you name the five so far that we spoke about? Not right now while I'm trying to get the feed up. So go ahead. I'm going to fail this test. So let me focus over here and you go ahead and answer the question, please. How about any of your listeners? Can they text you what the rights, well, how many rights we have and what they are? Well, I'm watching it right now, but I really think you should just answer the question because right now I'm not going to be able to focus until I get this resolved. So go ahead, John, answer the question, please. The first part about it is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or questioning the right of religion. So it doesn't say that we have a religious freedom, which in fact it infers, but it says that Congress can make no law in the establishment of religion. So Congress has no power to adjust what particular religion people study or learn. However, it's saying that, does that mean that the Muslims have their religion and they can practice their religion in the United States? as other religions are practiced in the country? And that's a question that probably the constitution is going to, or the Supreme Court's gonna have to answer. But my answer to that is no. Why? Because we are a Judeo-Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and not on the principles of the Quran, which is Sharia law, et cetera, et cetera. I've got a question on that. So people have the right to practice the religion that they want, but it cannot be a legal system that deposes the American system, correct? Am I correct on that? Correct. cannot be anything that tries to change the American system. Actually, America is what we call the melting pot, right? Where people come in and they form their own or they form everything according to what America is doing. They learn the American law, learn the Constitution, et cetera, et cetera. Well, doesn't this kind of look like, doesn't this kind of, you know what it kind of looks like to me? So it looks like what they did to our amendments that, you know, the first, the first amendments that, that were there, you can in the found, you know, the founding fathers put in, we screwed up as soon as they started touching the, adding other amendments that adjusted or altered the original amendments. And you can't do that. So it's kind of like, I see an analogous to what they did with all of the, the, the, subsequent amendments that they added, like changing the tax law. They can't do that because it fundamentally changed. They never changed the tax law. The Sixteenth Amendment never changed the tax law. They told us it did, and we believed it, but it never changed the tax law. Right. Well, you're getting me on a technicality there, but you know what I'm trying to do is explain it. Well, it's not a law, it's a technicality. Go ahead. Well, I'm trying to explain it so that everybody can understand is that the Sixteenth Amendment is truly unconstitutional because it changed the process. So it really isn't, it should be struck because of the altering the First Amendment or the first original amendments. Is that correct? No, I disagree with that. It did not. Okay, tell me why. It did not because Bruce Shaver versus Union Pacific Railroad, which is a Supreme Court decision, said Congress got no new taxing powers from the Sixteenth Amendment. So the Sixteenth Amendment, according to the right to tax an individual person on their wages, it was never a right guaranteed or given to them by the Sixteenth Amendment. That's a lie. But the lie was perpetrated by the heavy hand of the Internal Revenue and not supported by the courts because the courts were in corruption with the with the IRS and the banking system. And therefore, the Sixteenth Amendment was said that they have the right to tax an individual person on their personal property. That was never a right given to them. that was never a sixteenth amendment never gave that authority to them the sixteenth amendment only took away the right of apportionment among corporations so if you were a corporation they could administer the law without the uh rights or without the corporation saying you can't do that because You can't take away that privilege from or that right from the United States or from the corporation and issue an income without apportionment. But it had nothing to do with the public. That had nothing to do with me and you. That was a lie. And that was perpetrated upon us by the banking system and the internal revenue. And we bought into it because we didn't do the research. We didn't know what we were doing. And so we listened to the lies and we followed their lies blindly. And that's exactly what happened. Did they enable that theft through the Sixteenth Amendment, though? Because when I look at the amendments past the Fourteenth Amendment, they're all an alteration of the previous amendments. And so it destroyed the original intention. Is that accurate in your opinion? uh well as we went forward yeah after the twelfth yes some of the amendments did adjust the constitution to change the constitution the fourteenth amendment brought in the civil bar that was after the civil war and brought the united states back together to be one nation uh and the fourteenth amendment gave uh citizenship to the people that were brought in as slaves that lived on the land, that worked on the land, and therefore they were given citizenship so they could vote and do whatever they wanted and become a full citizen like the rest of us. But it did not bring in anchor babies and all this other crap that the liberal Democrat, socialist communists are trying to bring forward. It didn't do that. That's not what the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was. And Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court spelled it out in a ninety three page document as to why the Fourteenth Amendment did not give power to the government or power to the individual to bring a baby in. to born a baby on this land, and therefore they were citizens. That was never the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Remember, the intent of the law is the law. And so whatever the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was, that is the law. But yes, we can go on to the Eighteenth Amendment, which was the alcohol thing, and the Nineteenth Amendment, which was the Or was it the seventeenth? I'm getting those two confused. One of those amendments that said we're going to no longer have the states choose the senators through the legislature, but we're going to open the senators up to the general public. That was a violation of the Constitution and the intent of the Constitution, which was to let the legislature choose the senators. The reason the legislature was to choose the senators is because, as you know, we have fifty states and we have one hundred senators. That's two senators per state. And the senators were to. be the state side of the legislature and the representatives were to be the people's side of the legislature. So we had both sides involved in making law in Congress. They took that part of the senators away from the states and gave it to the public. And now we have a bunch of yahoos that are senators that have really no function in government because they don't support the intent of the constitution as it was originally written. And so we have a bunch of lemmings in the Senate that run for office and stay in there for ninety years or however long they can live and do nothing for the states. And that was the total intent of why we had senators, two senators per state to be the voice of the state and the representatives to be the voice of the people. And so that's why we had a bicameral house in Washington. Now in Michigan, it's useless. Why do we have a set of senators in Michigan? Who do they represent? What do they represent? Nothing. They represent the general public. So we shouldn't have a two house system in Michigan. We should have a one house system, which is the representatives of the people only. And that's the House of Representatives. However, now that we've brought that subject up, the representatives don't represent us. At least my representative, Jimmy Watson or Walt Wilson doesn't represent me. I've written him letters, and he's ignored all of my letters. He's got a lawsuit coming his way. I haven't finished it yet, but it's close. He hasn't because he's violated his oath of office, which is the ability to represent the public and me. I'm part of the public. And he's violated Article IV, Section IV, which is the— part of the constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government. And he has violated article or the first amendment, which was where I was originally starting. And that first amendment is the right to redress a grievance. Each one of us citizens have a right to redress a grievance. And that purpose for redressing the grievance is to get an answer from these people. In other words, if I write a letter to my representative and he doesn't answer me, he has taken my right to redress a grievance away from me. And so he's in violation of four letters that I sent to him certified, and he has violated all four. which makes me wonder why he's running for office again as a House of Representatives person, because he doesn't represent the public. He represents himself or the corporations or whoever he's representing. Or maybe he's not representing anybody. Maybe he's just collecting a paycheck. I don't know. But when I write a letter to one of these public functionaries, I expect an answer. And if I don't get an answer, they're going to get a lawsuit. And this guy's going to get one that's going to make his head spin when it's done. That's going to be fun. I'm looking forward to seeing that because they don't. I had something else that came across today. I am friends with Brian Cates, and I love Brian. He is every bit as awesome. authentic as anyone you'll ever meet. And this is what Brian Cates talked about not being represented at all. You've been told that four hundred thirty five seats in the U.S. House are filled every two years as the result of legally held elections in fifty states. You've also been told all one hundred seats in the U.S. Senate are filled every six years by legally conducted elections in those self-same fifty states. It's not true. It's a lie. The majority of the states, over thirty-five of them, have not been conducting these elections for federal office according to the federal laws. And they know this. They stopped holding these elections for federal office in a legal manner a long time ago. The state and county officials pretty much started running their elections for federal offices in whatever slick-ass, Parisian, bizarre manner they like. Or, uh, Persian. Then they got away with doing that for a long time. Over the next sixty days, several of the states are going to move into open insurrection against the federal government over how they are running their federal elections. These states will insist on continuing to run their elections for federal offices in the same legal manner they have for decades. When the feds assert authority of how federal elections are being conducted to ensure that they're being done according to the law, you're going to see state and county level officials attempt to block, arrest, deny access to federal agents performing their duties. This is when the constitutional crisis will happen. We have no federal laws and no real federal elections and state corrupt, let's see, we have no federal laws and no federal elections if state corruptocrats are allowing blatantly, I like that word, run elections in their states for federal offices in an illegal manner. The feds are going to start asserting authority over how federal elections are conducted in the states. They are giving every single possible signal that they are going to do this. The governors, mayors, secretaries, and state attorney generals are going to resist this attempt to assert authority over the federal election. They are giving every possible signal. What happens when an immovable force meets an irresistible object? If you can't see what's coming, you're stuck in the matrix where this is just another election. It's not. feds will assume control. The states will not stop it, but it will get ugly for a bit. I think this is kind of interesting. He typically is pretty, pretty dead on in his, in his assessment of things. And so I wanted to bring that up. I think we've got some rough waters ahead here because both in the elections and probably in the economy, it's looking like it's going to be a little bumpy, which got to tell you, I'm kind of glad because something needs to change. We can't go on in this little ostrich in denial state of our heads and the heads stuck in sand. I agree with you. Things have to be fixed. But the problem is it's not only the Fed's elections or the national election, but it's the state elections, the same thing. I think it's going to start the role though. It's going to be kind of awesome to see this thing go right, right down, down to the bottom. You know, it's like, and it needs to happen. You know, any of the clerks that have been hiding things, the state beautifully set them up with the secretary of state registering illegal aliens in it. You know, they just arrested another, or they arrested a sheriff in Hillsdale County. This is, I'm going to get Stephanie Scott on at some point in time to talk about what happened. but they've got another sheriff that they went after. So we'll see what happens here, but it should be pretty interesting. And I'm just going to tell everybody, buckle up a little bit, because I think this is going to be kind of an interesting future ahead of us here. I agree. I agree. Okay, so let's get back to where we were. All right, so back to the First Amendment. We talked about make no law about any religion in the country, keeping in mind, though, that we are a Judeo-Christian-based country, and we can't bring in people that are attempting to change that. into something else. Muslims, for example, are attempting to change that into their own way of thinking and their own philosophy. You know, I don't know if you know it, but Robert and I went to that Jake Lang protest. And quite honestly, I talked to quite a few people who are of Arab descent. Their response to me was that the Sharia law has been hijacked. And they said it's what they are taught in Sharia. is you have to first and foremost obey the laws of the land. So I've got a lot of curiosities on this and I talk to a lot of different people and I try to listen unbiased. But the thing that really struck me on this is that there's a clear difference between people who grew up in that religion And the ones who have come in like the Muslim Brotherhood, which should be designated as a terrorist organization, that are trying to usurp the constitution. And they are. They absolutely are. But a couple of them, their families have been here for generations, but they still say that they are Muslim. But their definition of Sharia law was entirely different than those who have usurped their identity and basically took over their identity. And I would say the same thing is true for Christians. There are a lot of people who claim they're a Christian, but I don't lie. I don't lie with them at all. Not at all. And I disagree with this claim it and frame it nonsense that's going on out there because that's trying to hold God to a contract to their will. I've listened to a lot of people pray and their prayers are always, Oh God, they get on the baguette wagon and like a bunch of beggar brats to God. I mean, if I was God, I'd be like, you know, just stop it. Right. It's like when, when we become a Christian, it's God's will be done because he's got the forty thousand foot view of everything. We don't. And when we try to assert our will over his, you know, we can ask him, but sitting there begging for an hour prayer, trying to get him to change his mind is kind of a little bit nauseating to me. I don't think that's the way it should be done at all. You know, and it's God's will be done. The, the, the, process or the pattern is there. And so I just think that there's a lot of misunderstandings and there's a lot of usurpation that's happened to our religions that we see these organizations that have tried to take over an identity. They're paid protest testers. All of them at the Jake Lane protest, they were paid from all sides. You know, it was like the people that were there under the Christian banner. I was so disgusted by them. They were the worst group that was there. Obnoxious, absolutely obnoxious. I stopped him and I said, well, maybe we should just do some, you know, let's do some praise songs or something, you know, to bring some order into this. I don't do that. All I do is Jesus is King and screaming in people's faces. It was so absolutely disgusting. offensive that I just kind of like just shook my head and was like, you're an idiot. Okay. And you're not a Christian. There's no way two ways about it. They're, they're protesters who are holding that label. And I think that's true of, of what they're doing with the, with Muslims as well as Buddhists and everything else. Now I am a Christian and, and there's many good reasons, but that's a long discussion to go into because, um, religion as a religion is trying to work for your way to be acceptable to God. The only religion on the planet that is saved by grace and saying, hey, I'm sorry, I screwed up. God, can you make a way is the Christian is being a Christian. And that's a relationship and an acknowledgement that we're imperfect and we're never going to work our way into God's graces. It is a gift. And it's the only religion on the planet that that is rejecting working for salvation. It's actually acknowledging true love that God loved us enough that he was willing to take the punishment for our crimes and pay the price. And, you know, but the rest of them, it's all OK. We're going to get on the hamster wheel and try to work for something we can never achieve. it's ridiculous. It's absurd. And, um, we're going to be imperfect till the day we die. So we have to acknowledge that and say, you know, we're going to screw up again. We're going to try not to, we're going to repent from those things, but that we are, you know, that we are, um, accepting God's gift and saying, well, it's like, dad, yeah, I screwed up dad, you know, but he still loves us even if we're imperfect. But anyhow, I digress, but I'm going to tell you, it wasn't what anybody thought it was. And we actually had the people that organized that Jake Lang protest and they called us and said, you know, we want to meet with you. We're a Christian organization that has set up these protests. So we went there in their little spook grotto, which was kind of like absurd. And we walked in and it was like, You know, Robert was there. He's like, I don't like the looks of this. And it was definitely a setup. And we went in there and they said in their exact words, we want you to help us slit the throat of Muslims. And I'm like, that ain't happening, you know, you retards. And then I looked at him and said, why are we here? Tell me why we're here. Because they just kind of sat around, you know, bumping into themselves and that sort of thing, trying to be intimidating. They just pissed me off, if you really want to know the truth. But anyhow, why are you here? Or why am I here? What do you want, is what I asked them. And they just came out and said, well, the only thing we want to know is what's your relationship with General Michael Flynn. I said, we're friends. And they started screaming at me, you're a traitor. And then I'm like, the meeting's done. I turned around, walked out to the car as they're screaming at me. And Robert got lost. Why are you a traitor? Because you're a friend of General Flynn. Yeah, that was the only thing. And then they called us. Why did they want to know that? Because he's been targeted right from the beginning by these idiots. And honestly, it's like if they're the ones that were setting this up and in their own words, we want you to go with us to slit the throats of Muslims. I'm like, what's that? My question is, why do they think that General Flynn is a traitor? What? What specifically? Because they're criminals, and they know he's the only one that stood up for the United States, him and Admiral Rogers, the true heroes. So it's like, I'm not going to turn my back on him. You can call me a traitor all you want, but he's the only guy that stood up. Him and Admiral Rogers were the ones that... stepped in front of this freight train of wrecking the United States. So, but can you imagine? So, you know, we look at these protests and everybody goes, oh, you don't understand. I love it when they say that you don't understand. They're here to destroy the United States. I'm going to tell you who's here to destroy the United States. Those alleged Christian organizers that were organizing these Jake Lang protests and asking me in an outstandingly offensive way, if we would join them to slit the throats of Muslims. Hell no, hell no, hell no. And they need to be arrested for even saying it. The problem I have is all of the people that call people names like President Trump and all of the people that are in public office at the moment that call names to these people have no basis for the name calling. Right, I get it. Please explain what that means to be a traitor. Do they know that the Constitution only takes two people to identify somebody as a traitor, and then they can hold them and prosecute them? Only two. There are probably more than that at that crowd. So what was it specifically that made General Flynn a traitor? Got to give me that information, not just the word. Don't just call people names. Give me a specific reason. Well, they're doing it because he's the one that went after these criminals out there and laid them out for everybody to see if you're paying attention a little bit. And so that's the point. It's like if they're screaming and yelling, that's not being a traitor. Well, I'm not agreeing with them. I'm saying they're using that to cover up their criminality. I'm not going to be doing anything like that with Muslims, just so you know. And I'm not going after people who are here for three generations that believe in the Constitution and following the law. Whatever they want to do as a policy within their own religious organization, I don't really care. they they you know to a point they they can't use it as an excuse for crimes against humanity but it's like with all of the stuff that's going on the ngos are doing it why aren't we going after them why isn't why are people picking out an identity war it's so okay it's it's criminal it's against the law it's easy to call somebody a name and not back up your name calling or not even understand what the name is that you're using to call somebody a specific thing. Trump is a pedophile. Show me some information that says he is. Give me something specifically that makes that a true case that we can hold him accountable for it. They can't do it. All they can do is name call. And that's the same with the group in Dearborn. They were just name calling. They had no background, no information. They just had names that they could call people. That's the low form of ignorance that you could possibly have. You don't call somebody a name unless you have something to back it up. And in fact, if you call somebody a name, you better understand what that name is and means when you call somebody a specific name. Well, I'm going to tell you what, if people go after General Flynn or Admiral Rogers in any way, shape or form, you can guarantee, I'll guarantee you, that they're on the wrong side of any good decision that they could possibly make. See, the problem is, this is the biggest problem we have. It is the news media and I hate to use the word name calling, but I'm going to use it again. It's the news media that perpetrates the name calling And based on that, the ignorant guy with the beer in his hand or whatever you want to call it, sitting on the couch watching this, that's all he hears is the name. He doesn't understand why. He doesn't understand the background. He knows nothing but being able to call a name. So when you talk to these people that you go to see at Dearborn who want you to come into the meeting, they could give you sound bites. that they've heard on the radio or television, but they can't explain themselves. They can't explain, and this is part of the problem. I'm pretty sure they were feds or plants of some sort, who knows which side they're on, but it was way too organized because they were sitting there in their little grotto stage in a bar and a podcast stand, and they sat there and told me that they've been working with Anthony Hudson and Carla Wagner. and Sean Trejo and Amanda Love. So they named them right out that who they were working with as they said, yeah, I'm like, okay, people know who you're standing with because they literally said that, that, that that's what their goal was. And, and I'm like, I'm like, I'm done with you people. You know, it's like, you say something that stupid, I'm going to put it right out there. And, and Robert and I were both there to hear it and they chased us out. It's like, Jake Lang and those protests are all paid protests. Every side, Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, Jew, Muslim, whatever it is. I mean, use the label. They're all there. And I don't know. It's ridiculous. It's total and utter nonsense. It's strictly mob mentality. And we know what the mob mentality is all about. One guy says, let's hang them. And the whole mob says, yeah, we got a hundred people here. Let's hang them for no reason at all, because they can't come up with the reason. but they come up with the end result of what they want to do. And the same with the groups that you were confronted with in Dearborn Heights or in Dearborn. They came up with a solution, how to correct the problem that they think is a problem, but they haven't been able to identify the problem because they're ignorant. And that's the problem that we face. And part of that problem is the news media that's out there, the telephones that everybody has, and they're being fed this crap all the time. I mean, if you go on the news... spools on these telephones, you can spool through a hundred different ads or a hundred different articles. And most of them, if you know anything about our country and about what's going on and about the law, you would say that about ninety percent of them are BS. They're not true. The news media is spinning the story somehow or another. Today I was listening to Bill Clinton, of all, because he was on the internet, and I figured I got to see what he's saying. And he's talking about the war in Iran. And he's talking about we have no exit strategy and how bad it is that we have set up a war in Iran and we have no way of getting out of it, which is a load of crap. but anybody that's listening to bill clinton or that has no brain to really understand what's going on would believe him and he's not the only one there's tons of other ones out there he's just the one that uh i ran into today uh and and so you gotta understand that they're being fed this these short uh, phrases that they can remember the cute ones and they don't have anything to back it up. They have no idea what it means to have a Trump deranged syndrome. What does that mean? Why do you hate Trump? What is it about him that you dislike? If you dislike the color of his hair, okay, that's an art. But is that the reason that you should kick him out of office or that you should be pissed off at him? Or what don't you like about him? What specifically don't you like about this guy that makes him a bad president? And what specifically do you like about Biden that made him a good president, if you want to look at it that way? Don't just give me a soundbite because anybody can give you a soundbite. CNN does it all day long. And that shows the ignorance of who you are, because you can't dig beyond the soundbite. So freedom of speech and freedom of religion and our freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the rights to speak what you want to speak. But you have to be able to discern what's the right and wrong of what they're saying. And a lot of people in America don't get it because they're lazy. They don't want to do the background check. They don't really want to see what's really behind the curtain. They want to live in their fantasy land. It's too difficult to exercise the brain. and to get the brain to do powerful work. I'm going to give you an example. I got a lawsuit going right now against eighteen public functionaries. Nine of them are judges in the Eastern District Court. And there's one in in Grand Rapids in your neighborhood and one in in in Ohio. So all of those judges are involved in this. And they all say that they have absolute immunity. But they can't prove it. They just say they have it. So as I do the digging into the Supreme Court decisions and into the Constitution and everywhere else I was looking, I never saw anything or anywhere that gives a judge immunity unless they are within their job description. If they step outside their job description, like lie on the record, that's not their job description. And therefore, they have no immunity. That immunity is taken away from them. And Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case spelled that out. And even the Supreme Court cases that the judges used when they said they have absolute immunity, I read the cases. It doesn't say that. It gives them immunity if they're within their jurisdiction or within their judicial power. But when they step outside that, they lose all immunity and they become, as one of the court cases, Ray versus, I don't remember what the other part of that is, says that they are just a minstrel. administrative person and they have no immunity of any kind and they stand in front of the public and they suffer the consequences of their behavior. This is what is truly the fact of immunity. So when a lot of people out there that are in the middle of a lawsuit and a judge rules against them, they think they're done. Well, you are done if that's your thought process. If you think that once you lose a case, you're done and you got to go home, then you're done and you go home and that's it. It's over. And the judicial system manages to pull off another one on you. So you've got to be persistent and you've got to be willing to do the research. Here's the other problem. that we have all of these people that are running around the neighborhoods in gangs. And I have them down the street from me too. Some of them in this area are flaming liberals. I mean, they tore my sign down in the front of my lawn. I had one person X out my bumper sticker on the car that says Trump. And so they're mentally ill. They can't come up to the window and say, why are you for Trump? What do I need to know that I don't know about your philosophy about Trump? They won't do that. They'll stick their finger up in the air at me or blow their horn or give me a thumbs down rather than want to get into an engaged conversation as to why. They feel the way they feel. And this is the ignorance that we are facing in our country. We are facing the ignorance of the public that doesn't want to do the research and the homework and understand what the real story is. They just follow soundbites. So they have a right to the speech and they have the right to the press, but we have the ability or we have the need to discern who is right and who is wrong. And so now we come back to redress the grievance. I have a grievance against my public functionary, two grievances. I wrote a letter regarding changing the US Taxpayer Party to the Constitution Party, three letters, certified, none answered. And the latest letter that I sent him was to remove Al-Sayed from the voting rolls and no answer. So he's got four letters that he did not answer, two different subjects. So what's the problem? I mean, if you can't handle the US taxpayer party, okay, then write me a letter saying, well, I can't handle the US taxpayer party. At least you've answered my letter. You haven't even done that. And then now with the al-Sayed, issue, you are violating Article IV, Section IV of the Federal Constitution, which says we have a right to a republican form of government. You're violating your oath of office by not answering my letter to redress a grievance, and you are violating the other article. I wrote it down, and I don't know what I did with it. Oh, man, I don't remember now what it was. So you're violating several issues and you're my representative and you're collecting money for this. You're collecting money from the state, which I'm paying a tax on. So you're really taking money from me and you're not doing your job, which is representing me. That's a crime. So I'm going after him too. The problem is, what do we do when people don't do what they're supposed to do? We let them get away with it. We are the holding the feet to the fire. We are the people that can do that. But we have to be willing to do that. Sure, I'm going to end up in court and I may lose this court battle, but he's going to pay for it. Then I'm going to go after the judge because the judge is going to be violating a whole bunch of rights too. I know because that's what they do. They think they have immunity and they can get away with it. They can't. They can't. It's amazing how the judges, like the judge in the circuit court here in Grand Rapids, there's a judge here, how absolutely smug and arrogant they are in court because they sit there as judge, jury, and executioner all in one, and they're not even listening. They're not even applying the law. They don't really care. It's just revenue generating for the court. And it's, it's pretty, pretty sad. I don't even know if they have the mental capacity to actually understand the issues that are coming in front of them. Most of them don't read the case. Most of them don't know the law. Most of them can't apply the law. And most of them listen to the attorneys who lie like crazy to get their client off the hook. And they follow along with what that attorney says without applying the law to it. And so, yeah, the judges are the biggest problem that we have. And I think it was Jefferson that said the fall of the republic will be led by the judiciary, which is exactly what we're seeing at the moment. But we can stop it, but we got to be willing to do something about it and not uh more interested in our football game or basketball game or as that nice lady called you today and said that she's not been interested in politics well politics is interested in you unfortunately if you if you don't pay attention to politics politics is paying attention to you I've heard it. If you don't do politics, politics is going to do you, which I think that's kind of an appropriate statement right there. And also, everybody's got to get the rose-colored glasses off and look at things for what they really are, not what we want them to be, because we can't write it until we see the actual problems and face it, and then we can find the solutions to fix it. And I understand a lot of times it's not real comfortable, but some of us, that's what we thrive on. We love looking for problems because it gives us a path to course correct. That's why we're here. Aren't we here for that reason? I would think so. Isn't that what life is all about? Solving issues and problems? Yes. No, John, didn't you know? Go sit in the Uniparty meeting. It's all about the free coffee and cookies and sitting there doing nothing and going home and knitting your little... tangerine orange cats or something like this i mean it is absolutely absurd and raise money to raise money to raise money to have another party to have another party to have another it is an endless loop of money that goes in these and it truly is a political industrial complex they they've got They've got sign makers. They've got the people at like ActBlue or WinRed who hacked my credit card. All of this stuff. It's insane. They're counting on you not checking what they're doing or going behind them to find out whether they're honest or not. And they're not really, if you're paying attention a little bit, they're not real good at it. But, but we took in it. We got a donation. You want to hear something weird? We got in a donation the other day that went, that was specifically called out to go to our, one of our, University of Michigan, I think it's Board of Regents, right? And you know what the donation was? For three dollars and thirty-three cents, And it was for a guy that allegedly looks like there was an obituary, but couldn't find any other records of him. And so I got to chase this down. But it's for someone in Owasso. We pulled the IP address for it. So if we really want to make things interesting, we'll track it right down to the computer. and the location of it and find out who actually donated it. But because we wrote into the bylaws for the U.S. Taxpayers Party that we can turn down any donation, we voted on it last night and turned it down. So we will not be accepting their little slap in the face, three dollars and thirty three cents, satanic little donation. What a bunch of what a bunch of crap through it by it looks like a dead guy in a wassail. What else is in Owasso? Oh, yeah. A pastor that turned the cameras off at a church where they were registering a secondary governor candidate in the twenty twenty two election because, you know, got to hide the evidence there. That's OK. My security guys got it all. Sucks to be them. All right. So we covered Excuse me, we covered the five rights that are protected by the Constitution, First Amendment, but we didn't cover the sixth one, which is assumed. And that is the right to travel by any means and conveyance afforded at that particular period of time. It had been horses, it's horses, it's cars, it's cars. It's a right to travel. And why is that an assumed right? Because how would you get to a church if you want to go to church? How would you get to a assembly if you wanted to go to assembly? And how could you get to the press if you had to go to the press and you couldn't call them on the telephone? How would you be able to do that if you didn't have the right to travel? If they could eliminate the right to travel, then they would remove the religious one. They would remove the speech. They would remove the assembly right off the bat because you couldn't get there unless you walked. And what if it was in the other side of the Michigan? Grand Rapids, for example, where you live out in that neck of the woods. If I had to come to your convention and I didn't have the right to travel, how would I get there? I can't ride a horse. A bicycle would take forever. So, you know, I have the right to travel based on I have a right to assemble and so on and so forth. So those are the six rights that the First Amendment protects Remember, they're not our constitutional rights. They're our God-given rights. This amendment just protects those God-given rights from government intrusion. And that's the way we have to look at the Constitution. It doesn't limit our power and our rights. It limits the government's power and the government's rights. And so we have to rethink our process. Many people have to rethink the process and many people have to stop saying, hey, it's my constitutional right. No, it's not. The Constitution didn't give you that right. God gave you that right. The Constitution just says government hands off those rights. I think we're heading in that direction. but we should have been there a long long time ago this shouldn't be something we're just learning today and unfortunately uh twenty years ago or thirty years ago when i was talking this people were oh i'm gonna go watch the football game today kind of nonsense rather than paying attention to what is really going on So a follower, Gearhead, just said, Michigan Constitution Article One, Number Twenty-Three and Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, our rights are endless. That's right, absolutely correct. Thank you for the comment. Our rights are endless. The only thing the First Amendment does is tells government they cannot touch these rights. and the reason that they only listed a few were because these were the most critical at that time that could have been violated by the constitution by the government and so the the the religious business they've been fighting religions for how many years i mean the king of england decided that uh since the pope wasn't going to ruin the rule in his favor he's going to bring in his own religion so he could divorce his wife and get a new, divorce the queen and get a new queen. That was King Henry VIII, remember? And so on and so forth. Yeah, gonna just trade him out for a newer model. That's right. That's right. And the press, we've had this business with the press for years. Back in the cowboy days, they would blow up printing presses and beat up the publisher or the person that's running the printing press. This has been going on for years and years and years. It's still going on. But now we have an equally... joint together criminal press that's running our general news media right now. That's the CNN and the NSNBC and all of those people. They're all the criminal elements involved. And we've all heard this story before, but the CIA has got somebody in one of those news media areas every single day, and they're kind of discussing and adjusting the news to fit the... The parameters of where the CIA and the deep state wants to take this country. So we can't listen to the mass media that's out there because they are totally bought off, compromised, paid off. bullet to their head kind of thing. We can't go to these events and talk to people themselves because, you know, what is something that's really sad is people think they know a subject because they're hearing it like, oh, all Muslims are bad, that sort of thing. It's like, no, they're not. It's like we're going to have to start using a little bit of discernment here and stop just going full-on retard because it's just like saying we know what all Christians are like. You can't even get two Baptists in the same room to agree with each other. Or you know what I mean? It doesn't make any difference what denomination it is. You can't get two people to agree on anything because they like to argue who's the most right instead of, Just drop it and go do something. Figure something out to do this. Sit there and argue with this to see who's defending God the most. I don't know what the process is here. It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think he needs defense. I think he can do that all by himself. But let's just keep fighting. We're just going to keep division and keep things going like that. It's insane. The ability to communicate is the biggest problem we have. And it gets into husband and wife's not being able to communicate. It gets into kids and parents not being able to communicate. It gets into you and me not being able to communicate or whomever is out there because we all have our own bias and our own thought process, which we have to be able to put that aside and go with an open mind and say, okay, well, Maybe you got something here. Maybe I need to look further into it and come up with a different philosophy or solution. I'm not here to change you necessarily and to change your way of thinking. I'm here to open your mind and get you to do a little more reading and a little more thinking, a little more understanding what the world is all about and not just live in your own little shell and be afraid to step outside because it is what is outside that's more important than what you know at this moment in time you haven't learned anything if all you are living on is your bias you have to get out there and you have to experience other things and the biggest problem we have is people don't want to do that that's hard work That takes a lot of the paranoia that everybody's an enemy when there are some people out there that are bad guys. There's no two ways about it. But but most people, most human beings are just kind of like, you know, trying to make it through life. And and unfortunately, because we you know, because it's so common. to see everyone as an enemy, people will not reach out to people because they're so afraid. I don't even know what the fear is. What's the real threat? What is the real threat? Somebody doesn't like you? That somebody doesn't like what you said? That's a question I would like to ask everybody. Why are you afraid of other people or see other people as a constant threat? because they want something. They can want something all they want. Like a dog that's begging at a table doesn't mean you have to feed them. And so I guess I don't understand the, maybe it's because there's a lack of being able to set boundaries. I don't know, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Once you remove the fear, then you are free. And you are free to do anything and everything. And my fear years ago was standing in front of a judge. But once you remove that fear, I welcome to the opportunity to get in front of that judge, but they won't let me now, which is very interesting. The Bar Association is a problem, and our lousy, snaky, sixty-three Constitution. Have you ever really analyzed it for the financial grift that was built into that? Not only did it canonize the Bar Association as a superior to all of us, which is wrong, but it's also, there's a lot of money laundering involved. that was enabled by that constitution. It needs to be abolished. It was illegally installed, unlawfully installed with one-tenth of one percent. It needs to go away and be burned on the fires of bad ideas. But if we're going to go back, which constitution would you go back to? I'm saying in eighteen thirty-five. How far back would you roll this thing? About there. Yeah. About there. Well, I have some questions, too, of if the United States was ever properly federated, because I know that Canada was not. And my friend Doug Force, who is now deceased, which is odd, he had proven it that Canada was not properly federated. and a month and a half after he came on my show he's gone and uh it's unfortunate but i think they screwed up the united states or during the a lot of constitutionalists believe they screwed it up during the articles of confederation that whole process and so it was kind of the same process that happened with the um the bna up in up in canada with queen victoria making that a constitution, which was supposed to, that whole BNA was supposed to die off when she, when she was, when she died, but they just turned it into a constitution and it wasn't really voted and it was assumed. So it wasn't properly, Canada isn't a proper country. They weren't properly federated. Sorry to wake everybody up to that kind of news today, but it's, it's been proven. And, uh, And the guy that proved it is now deceased, which is another reason to believe it had validity. Just like dead doctors don't lie or don't tell the truth, right? Yeah. Yeah. Dr. Wallach. Get rid of those truth tellers out there because it might screw up the CIA's little grift here that's going on. But I'm not sure they're all in charge anymore. I think that our white hat buddies up there have been doing a real good job of cleaning people out. We are in a declared war right now. President Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said so, that we are in war. President Trump said he's a wartime president and it's on American soil. When we've all been subject to bioweapons, I hate to tell people that, but I have a good friend and a doctor that's working on this. They have subjected all of us to bioweapons. So I think we're going to be able to get this thing figured out a little bit because one guy that was instrumental in building some of these bio labs, he said too, he said that there's always a separate facility next to the bio lab a lab that he could never go into but it's where they create the solution for whatever they create to poison us because if it gets out there and they can't control it or have an have an antidote for it that had killed them and he said now they're not going to do that they said there's always a separate facility that has the answer to whatever they create so they're not going to kill themselves thought it was kind of interesting so hey let's see if we can give you some props here for the magnificent Republic. Hang on a minute. You can stand as long as you want. I'm going to kick you off. We'll be on this Wednesday. So if you can come and join us, that would be wonderful. We are covering, lately we are covering election and stuff like that. We actually had a woman running for office show up and give her two cents, which was good because we had an opportunity to question her. She's unfortunately a Republican, but you can tell people from the US tax party that they can come and join us and give their two cents, especially if they're running for a Fed office or an office that gets a lot of votes from around the country or from around the state. They can come and join us. So I got to show you guys this. So this is for me to check the spelling of my name on here. There you go. There is the U.S. Taxpayers Party straight ticket. You can actually vote for a straight ticket or you can vote for candidates. Ta-da. There's Donna Brandenburg, Anthony Hudson, who was told to me. was working with the Jake Lang organizer, protester organizers who told me to join them in slitting the throats of, now I don't know if that's true or they were lying, but they did mention his name and said they were working with him. So at any rate, do the right thing, guys. Don't be retarded. and follow these morons out there. Stick with the law. Stick with the law. Don't do stupid stuff. And if somebody tries to coerce you or to get you to go along with their idiotic Fed plan or whatever else it is, throw it right back in their face and throw them out there in the light. Yeah, well, I was a member of the Libertarian Party once upon a time. And they are as corrupt as the Democrats and Republicans. So they tried to pawn Anthony Hudson off on us. It was really funny. I actually, the text messages, Anthony Hudson, they called me as the chairman of the taxpayers party. They're like, Hey, you know, we really think that he's going to be a better fit for you guys. And I'm like, not a chance. I've looked at some of his legal, legal difficulties in the past. He never put, he'd never make it past our, our, uh, vetting process. So he, he put his, he put his candidate form in with us and then, you know, called them and, uh, Mark says now ski reached out to him and he said, no, he said, he's going to run on the libertarian party. So that was his whole, that was his whole thing, but he, he wouldn't have made it through our vetting process anyway, because of, of his, uh, his, uh, his, uh, financial, um, the financial things that he has in his past in the court system. So that's all public record. So if people want to look them up, you might want to do that just to be an informed voter instead of a polititard. So I like that word, you know, when people are too, too compromised or brainwashed to make their own decisions, they become a polititard. So there you go. Oh no, Donna said something mean again. Boo hoo. So anyhow, well, thanks for coming on today, John. I'm going to, You know what? I don't even know if I'm going to go for a break. I'll bring Mike on. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Good morning, guys. How you doing? Great. What Canadian army? Canada has an army? Yeah, they do. Actually, they do have a military because every year in May, We go to, or I go to, an international armed forces night, and there are Canadians that have fought in past wars and that are in the reserves and active still. So they do have an army. Is it led by W. Wright? Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. They're pretty straightforward. The Canadian military is pretty good. We fight and snipe and whiplash. I don't really think they'd ever consider standing against the U.S., because we are all friends when we go to these dinners together. Except they've left the Chinese in and going for training up there in Canada, which is not good. Do you know what the flag for the French Army is? No. White for surrender. No. Okay. I have respect for the Canadian military, but the Canadian military is not necessarily following along with the nonsense that's going on. A lot of people, when you get the chance to really talk to them, we're friends. The US and Canada are friends. We're not at odds with each other. We don't understand our... make any sense of the border crossing nonsense that goes on between the Canadians and the Americans, but that's just the way it is. You haven't been to a U.S.-Canadian hockey game lately, have you? I haven't. I don't go to those things. Yeah, that's totally too bad. All of us hockey people, Mike, are like total savage, you know, enjoy hockey a lot. We do air our grievances. Well, that's okay as long as you air them in an arena where you can do whatever you want to do and don't bring it out to the public. Anyway, I got to run. All right. Time is ticking and I got to go. All right. See you, John. Have a great day. And now we go for how to navigate this court system. Have a great day, John. We'll see you next Tuesday. Adios. Adios. Adios. So what's happening in Mike world? How's your dad? He is doing much better. Thank you. We finally got him past the hump. He had three abscess on his liver. Two of them have decreased in size. One got a little bit bigger. So they've extended his medications another three weeks. But he's getting up around. He's walking around better. Overall, a big change from what it was a few weeks ago. Awesome. Ed, if you're listening out there, I'm assuming that he is probably listening right now. There's a lot of us that just absolutely adore you and are very happy to hear that you're doing better. And he appreciates that. So, yeah, he's on the road to recovery. So I told him he's going to live to at least a hundred. So just deal with it. Yeah. I love that when kids tell you, stop being a wimp. Yeah. Yeah. Well, he turns eighty nine here in October. So. Oh, that's awesome. Very cool. So what are we talking about today? So what's going on in Mike world? Well, I've been MIA here for a little while. Yeah, I know you have. A lot has taken place. The court case against my dad where they were trying to evict him, that case was dismissed. And yesterday we received a brief that they are trying to appeal it. So what is wrong with these people? I don't know. I don't know. They falsified the records. And now I've got proof that not only did the attorneys for this place falsify the record, but the court itself has now falsified the official court record. We got the register of actions and we filed and filed motions and paid for motions. The payments appear on the register of actions, but the brief, the motions themselves, gone. They're not on the register of actions. So somebody's playing games. Someone's playing games. And we're going to find out who it is. Someone's going to be held accountable for it. You know, that's a felony. I think that it's the clerks that are doing more damage than the judges, or at least as much. And nobody looks at them. Well, here's the question of the day. What is a creature of the state? I'm not even going to answer because I don't know where you're going with this, but go ahead. A creature of the state are the courts, are the municipalities. And a creature of the state does not carry sovereign authority, have sovereign power. So if they have no sovereign power, where do they have the authority to rule over us? Okay. So what we have here, excuse me, is a complete breakdown of what we thought the system actually was. You elect who you think are representatives. You elect a township or city council. Okay. But they're creatures of the state. They don't have to swear an oath to the constitution. They don't have to follow the constitution. Okay. Here's the point. Yesterday I received a response on a FOIA that I had sent to Lyon Township. Now we've been battling Lyon Township and Milford regarding flock cameras and data centers. I asked very simple questions. Give me a list of all members of the executive branch. Give me a list of the names of everyone on the legislative branch. The answer, they're all one in the same. Well, if they're all one in the same, where's the separation of power? Doesn't the Constitution say that the who holds office in one branch cannot have that of another? You can't commingle the authority. And yet these municipalities do. Why? Because they're turned a creature of the state. So because they're a creature of the state, they're not bound by the Constitution in the way we think. They don't have to swear an oath to the Constitution. Where's the oversight here? There is none. To expand that, into something that John brings up regarding immunity. Where did immunity come from? It's a judicial doctrine. Okay. Judicial doctrine is not law. The courts cannot legislate from the bench. They have no delegated authority to do so. But they've been doing it. But they've been doing it until now. I have been doing research on a project here for almost a year. And I now know who, what, when, where, and how the fraud was put on us in the manner in which it is. I even have the court case that started it all. So you hear eminent domain. Where did eminent domain come from? It's not in the Constitution. It's not an act of Congress. It's judicial doctrine. Property taxes. Where did that come from? Judicial doctrine. zoning judicial doctrine all these government overlays were created by judicial doctrine and it started in eighteen fifty with a supreme court case and the case involved removing what they did the supreme court they changed um and re abolished a fee tail Fetal is when you convey property by inheritance to a blood heir, generally the male. And the Supreme Court abolished it. Not by because the Constitution, not by an act of Congress, they took it upon themselves. And that laid the groundwork for a progression to getting us to where we are today. I have all the court cases leading up to today that they did all this through. Did they have the delegated authority to do so? Absolutely not. And that's where we're going to be able to start challenging them probably after the first of the year in the federal courts, because it's acts of usurpation completely. I mean, there's no doubt about it. So in addition to that, if you look up Black Law's definition of fee simple, Now, most people, when you buy your house, you see the documents and says, oh, you're in fee simple. Some don't, but a lot of them do. And it doesn't matter if it does say fee simple or not. The courts have taken it upon themselves to say, even if it doesn't say fee simple, we still assume that it is. So what is fee simple? Well, if you look up the definition of fee simple under the Black Laws Dictionary, you'll find that, and this is under the first edition, an absolute or fee simple estate is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property with unconditional power of disposition during his life and descending to his heirs in legal terms. to do those legal errors. So fee simple by its original intent, by its original definition, means there is no government overlay, meaning you own it absolute. Fee simple, absolute. The courts changed the definition. Now, do you and I have access to this new dictionary that they're using? No. They're not following black laws dictionary. They're not following any dictionary, but their own. And how they get away with this is in eighteen fifty, they adopted feudal law. Did they have the authority to do so? Absolutely not. You talk about Sharia law. We can't adopt Sharia law that goes against the Constitution. So does feudal law. We've adopted so many things that are unconstitutional. It's incredible and changed it. We've altered it. That's why we have to go back so far to right what's wrong, because this has been a slow destruction of the United States. One by a thousand cuts. And by adopting feudal law, by changing the definition of fee simple, by their interpretation, by judicial doctrine that we don't have access to, They changed the definition to mean that your land is now deemed property, i.e. an estate. Therefore, because it falls under that term, fee simple means that we can now tax it and regulate it. Well, that's not the original intent of Congress. And where I'm going with that is something called a land patent. A land patent created by Congress cannot be changed, altered or amended by the courts. They can't do it. It's hands off. If they do, they've usurped their authority. So by doing and going through this process, we are going to probably after about the first of the year, we are probably going to end up in the federal courts and we're going to be instituting a process to eliminate property taxes. Now, I said a long time ago when Ask My Tax first came out that the language within that piece of garbage document was trying to eliminate Article I, Section X and a lot of other things. And it was going to do more harm than what it was portrayed to do. There are other means of eliminating property taxes. And we have a process now that we're going to be instituting that is going to eliminate property taxes, period. The courts will not be able to defend their position. I already know that because I've already got them committed to certain things already through my other cases. um because like i said when i do a court case i always put something in there that the other side of the courts just can't figure out where is he going with this you know we're you know what's that rabbit hole all about i'm setting them up for something down the road so and that's what i've been doing is setting them up for for other things so The fee simple is what everybody has to be aware of. It is not what you think it is. And between the realtors, the bar attorneys, the title companies, they have all changed the ownership rights of land. Now, land and property are two different things. Land is the obvious. It's the soil beneath your feet. Property is the house, the trees, anything that's attached to the property or to the land. So when you sell your house, you're selling what's called the property, but the property is not the land. The land cannot be sold. It can only be granted. So when you want to convey your land to an heir, you have to grant it to your heir. You don't sell it to your heir. The property could be sold, but not the land. And the land is not just the dirt itself, it's everything beneath and everything above. So it's the airspace and everything below, including the water and any other minerals that are beneath. So by bringing the land patent forward, and removing the government overlays. There's a process to do that as well. You now remove their authority to regulate your rights on your land and your property. So this is not a quick solution. This is not a quick fix. It is a process. And once we get this through the courts and I have, I will be spearheading this process. Once we have absolute absolution on this, then I'll be teaching it. We'll be teaching this to anyone and everyone who wants to learn. But now it's very exciting. It really, really is very exciting. So we'll be presenting this through what's called the Liberty Institute, which is almost ready to launch. And again, we're moving forward on this because we can't rely and we cannot trust anything connected to the bar, especially at the state level. Now, we've probably got more leverage at the federal level, but we have zero leverage at the state level because they protect themselves. how can the state be a party to its own case you know they sit there as judge jury and executioner on everything that they have a financial vested interest in so when you get a speeding ticket who's the who's the uh uh who's who's the uh victim yeah there's the state can't be a victim The people of the state of Michigan are the victim. How did the people of the state of Michigan become a victim? I want to see the affidavits. We're going to have to put everybody on the witness stand. I get to cross-examine my accusers, don't I? Eleven million people do. So now if the city or municipality is claiming to be the victim, well, how can they be the victim? They're just a creature of the state. Now, what happens when the state is a party to a case? Article three, section two, clause two. Original jurisdiction lies with the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state court. So where should these cases be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court? Supreme Court's already ruled that we have the right to travel by any conveyance. So who are they to say no? Now I've sent out a series of FOIAs and challenging their delegated authority, i.e. Norton v. Shelby County. Where are there de jure documents? They can't produce them. The Michigan State Police. I have the Michigan State Police. I have a multitude of city and township police departments, all admitting they're in office de facto. Also in there is Shapiro v. Thompson. Where do the departments, state police, city or township police, have the delegated authority to ignore documents the rulings of the US Supreme Court on the right to travel. I have asked for those documents. They don't exist. So they have no authority to overturn, usurp, or ignore and violate the rulings of the US Supreme Court, but yet they do it every single day. People, wake up. You need to start filing lawsuits against any officer that deprives you of your rights. If they impound your car, that's piracy ashore. They don't have the right to take your personal private property. Where's your just compensation? It's a total crime syndicate out there. Unbelievable what the state, the state of Michigan, the government, the entirety of the government right now, they're not doing anything right at any level. No, no, we've been battling the flock cameras. We've been battling the data centers now. I take a little bit different approach. Okay. I'm not there to talk about the noise. I'm not there to talk about the water, although I've mentioned it, you know, violation of ninety two days, five hundred clean water act. I bring up the fact that it violates the fourth, the fifth, the ninth, tenth amendments to the US Constitution. It deprives and violates the natural rights doctrine. And because I have a biometric trust, they're violating my biometric trust. So. The data centers, the one thing I don't hear anybody talking about, what data is being stored there? Now I got a device here that's smaller than my cell phone, has all kinds of terabytes on it. I can't fill that on my own. So a data center that's a hundred and seventy acres, how much data can you store in there? Now they want one in Lyon Township, which is New Hudson area. They want one in Wixom. They want one in Howell. Is there any military installations in these locations that we need national security reasons for these? No. It's almost like they're putting up a grid across the country with these data centers. And what are they collecting? Whose data are they collecting? If they're collecting my data, that means they're taking my biometrics without my consent. Where's my just compensation? There was a – I think it was a county in – I think it's in Wisconsin that canceled the flock camera contracts because they lied to them. They said that they asked if they were keeping a heat map on it so that it wasn't just a moment in time, but they were tracking where that car had been and what they had done. And the vendor said, no, we're not doing that. And they found out that they were doing that, which means they're tracking every single move we make. which is a predator and they canceled the contract. When was it authorized for our governments from federal, state, or even our creatures of the state, when was it ever authorized that we were to be under full surveillance? One hundred percent of the time, too. You're never outside of it. Yeah, and now they're trying to put it into your homes. How many people have got those stupid ring cameras and crap on their house? Hello? Where do you think that data is going, folks? Who do you think is watching you and monitoring everything you do, coming and going? Come on. Oh, it's Alexa. I mean, it's just everywhere. Now, I just received the last week. Ford Motor Company just submitted a series of patents so that they can monitor not only what goes on because they got cameras inside and out of their vehicles. They're monitoring where you go, how you drive. They're monitoring your phone conversations, your text messages, everything about you and everything that you do and everyone you come in contact with. Really? Ford Motor Company is now acting as a surveillance contractor for who? The federal government? Is that for the CIA, NSA? What are they working for? Okay. And you think GM, Chrysler, and all the others aren't going to be doing the same thing? I'm sorry. If I'm going to get a new car from you clowns, you're going to remove all that crap. You're going to disconnect it. Because I don't want it and I don't consent to it. And if I find out that you are doing that, even without my consent, I'm going to sue your damn asses and we're going to have a new motor company in the world. It's called Bam Bam Motors. Now presenting the twenty twenty eight Pebbles Mobile. OK. I'm serious. This has gone too far. Why are private corporations now hired by government entities, including creatures of the state who have no sovereign authority to govern us, now hiring these and contracting with these private corporations to monitor us? That is creating a quasi branch of government. Where's their delegated authority to do so? There is none. It's doing the same thing they did in China. We're doing the exact same thing lockstep. They've got the public-private partnerships, which is nationalizing our products. They're owning us. They're telling us what to do through regulation, et cetera. We do not own our companies anywhere. They only let us play ball if we listen to the way they think we should run it and then steal our tax dollars and our property, everything else while it goes along with it. Mm-hmm. How do you claim to be a free nation when you're under constant surveillance? And again, these are quasi branches of government. Now, who are they selling this information to? It's given out through third party distributors. Are they selling it to the Chinese? Who are they giving this to? Who are they selling it to? What purpose are they using it for? Now, I've heard the argument, well, you're in the public. You have zero expectation of privacy. Hmm, let's think about this for a moment. If I walk into a courthouse, if I walk into City Hall and start filming in a public building, what happens? They come running out with their hands on their guns saying, you gotta leave, you can't do that. You can't photograph us, you can't videotape us. Wait a minute, I thought there was no expectation of privacy. How come we can't film them but yet they're filming us. All the time. What's wrong with this picture? How about we start setting up cameras at their house so we can see their comings and goings? Let's set up surveillance equipment to where we can now monitor their emails, their text messages, their phone conversations. Why should that be a problem? If they're doing it to us, we should certainly be able to do it to them. So why don't we start setting up cameras in front of their house, in front of their place of business, and start monitoring them a hundred percent of the time? Maybe we are. Maybe the good guys are doing that. I'd like to think that at any rate. But we the people should be doing it. Right. Okay. Now, the flock cameras on the side of the road, gee whiz, who owns that? Who owns the roads? Oh, that's right. We the people. Do we own the easements? Yes, we do. So where's the territorial jurisdiction? It lies with us. So they don't have any authority to put these private cameras up for private surveillance because it's run by a private corporation under contract with our preachers of the state. We own that. Do we have a right to take it down? Yeah. Are they committing an act of trespass? Absolutely. Because we didn't consent to it. Have you seen these people that are like taking down the flock cameras everywhere? Yeah. It's hilarious. Yes. Yep. And you know what? I don't blame them. I don't blame them at all. Are they, are they causing a harm? No, they're defending themselves. Let's put this in perspective. Oh, they're destroying private property. Well, wait a minute. Whose property are they on to begin with? Who consented to this in the first place? The creature of the state? The creature of the state doesn't have sovereign authority to do what they're doing. So wait a minute, let's put it in perspective. We are doing nothing more than protecting ourselves. This is self-defense because you're taking without just compensation. You're violating my fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendment rights. So I'm just defending myself. Anybody who tears one of those down is just defending themselves. And the creatures of the state with no sovereign authority cannot bring a claim. They don't have standing to bring the claim. The expectation of privacy? Okay. Gee whiz. Does that mean that if you use a credit card at the store, you're in public, right? You're at the shopping, you're in the checkout lane, you pull out your credit card. That means you don't have any expectation of privacy. That means I should be able to use your credit card, right? I should be able to use anything that you and photograph everything that you say and do because you're in public. No. No. Do I have the right to take that information and sell it to a third party for them to use it however they so choose? No. You're worried about pedophiles out there. Wake up. Okay? Is our government that secure that they've never been hacked into? Hmm. I believe it was just a story about that last week about the government databases being hacked into. So anybody can hack into this stuff. Anybody can have access to this stuff if they know how to do it, obviously. But I don't think it's that hard. I'm not a computer whiz, but I bet you if I took the time to educate myself on it, I could probably figure it out. Or I'm going to know somebody who does. So expectation of privacy. Yeah, we do have an expectation of privacy. When I'm in my private automobile, I have the expectation of privacy because If you are eavesdropping on my conversation through electronic equipment in that car and you're not a part of that conversation, that violates the eavesdropping laws. You're photographing and taking my biometrics without consent, violation of not only my God-given rights, but it's also a violation of my biometric trust. And I'm going to bring federal claims against those who continue to do it. I've given enough warnings now. Now it's going to be starting to be instituted. So people got to wake up. They got to get, you know, they think all this technology is great. Really? Great for whom? You got to understand that these private companies are monetizing and making money off of all your stuff. Every time you sign something, they're monetizing it. every time you enter in a contract or an agreement, they're monetizing it. They're making money off of it. And until these municipalities, until these creatures of the state start becoming transparent and letting us know just what data is being stored in these places and to what ends and to what means, I'm sorry, they're not to be approved. And I think we need to write a letter to Donald. I think we need to write a letter to Donald and ask him, is it his intent, seeing how he is in favor of these data centers, is it his intent to cause a harm upon the American people? Because we didn't consent to this. Now, I understand you don't want to fall behind the Chinese. Great. Why don't you put one of these data centers, I don't know, remember the old Wixom Ford plant? That soil is contaminated. Hasn't been cleaned up. stick the data center there why do you need one in a residential area next to a school that makes no sense to me it doesn't make sense to the citizens who have voiced their opinion on that they don't want it in their neighborhood they don't want it next to a school so why are you putting them there why are you why are you allowing this to happen are plenty of industrial areas to put a data center why aren't you using those locations there's a reason for what they're doing and it's simply to monitor us they're setting up a grid to monetize or to monitor us and everything in what we do and say gotta stop sorry as far as expectation of privacy yes i do have an expectation of privacy when in my private automobile Not to be photographed, not to be eavesdropped on, not to be monitored in everything I do. Because otherwise, the reverse is now equally the same. We're going to start monitoring everything our public functionaries do. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Not just the one that's in office, but your spouses, your kids, everyone. And we're going to make sure that it's all public. So fair warning. There you go. Well, it's amazing how much they just, they're not paying attention to any rules whatsoever, any laws. They're just kind of making things up. And this is how far our nation has gotten off the original intention. It's kind of disturbing. It's more than disturbing. And we do need to have the crimes prosecuted that they're doing. I don't want to do a tit-for-tat type of thing with them. I want to see them prosecuted and arrested for what they've done and removed. Well, again, where are they getting the information that they can do this? Who's behind the scenes? allocating for this, allowing and saying, no problem. You're within your rights to do this. You can do this and you can do that just as long as you don't do this. And don't say that in public, but we'll make sure that you don't have any problems with the bar. It all comes back again to the bar. Now, the last meeting I was at in Lyon Township, I had a conversation with their bar attorney who's sitting up there with the board. Why is the bar attorney sitting at a board meeting when they're not a board member? Do the taxpayers know they're paying for that attorney to be there? And why is it the board can't make a damn decision without asking the attorney, is this okay? Can we do this? Can we say that? Really? They can't make their own decisions on their own? They can't make a move without asking a bar attorney for permission? Who is elected into that position? The bar attorney? I don't think so. So who's running these municipalities? Who's actually running these creatures of the state? The bar. Because they manipulate everything that they say and do. They're the ones who tell them, yeah, you can do this, but you can't do that. And bottom line, the bar sits there and says, don't worry about it if you cross the line. My buddy sitting as the judge, my bar associate sitting as judge, we'll make sure that you won't have any problems, that this will be approved. You want to know something, Mike? You're breaking up something terrible. I think you're trying to throw this broadcast some because your connectivity has kind of gone down pretty poorly. Can you hear me now? Yep, there we go. Called it. Yeah, it's kind of spotty there. Both my camera and yours. They're shutting us down here a little bit. I got to figure something out because, yeah, this is interesting. Everything you said was sounding like a robot on this end. And let's see what we've got. Oh, yeah, we got all kinds of internet problems here. Yeah, I think they're going to shut this. Hang on a second. I want to show you what's going on here with that. You still hear me? Yeah, we're having problems and you're not coming through. really well but here's down detector all kinds of things that are problem okay let's keep going keep um mark susanowski said that he could hear you just fine so keep going so it's something on i'm not sure where it is but just keep talking and and uh just keep talking i'm gonna just sit here and you just talk okay um hopefully everybody can can hear and understand what's being said but um Yeah, the courts have taken upon them everything. You'll find that a lot of the things that they claim are by interpretation, that they have the authority to reinterpret the Constitution. They have the power to reinterpret the codes and statutes or Supreme Court cases. Now, we ran into that problem. On one gal's case in Genoa Township, where I was on the stand testifying regarding Norton v. Shelby County and how it applied to the zoning board. The fact that the zoning board, by their own admission through a FOIA, the certified response stated they're in office de facto.