Published June 17, 2025, 9:01 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike Bambas - 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/1eaJbWvQvlkxX Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/2080215776237735 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6uwsd7-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6172025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html https://rumble.com/v6uwshj-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-6172025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-17-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas:a BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Mike Bambas
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It is the seventeenth day of June twenty twenty five. Happy Q Day. And we're going to get right into our show. So at first we're going to be on with lawful defense with John Tater and then close to ten, probably before ten. Mike Bambus is going to be coming on talking about pro se again. So morning, John, how you doing? I'm good. I'm good. Good. So any any big news or anything going on right now? Not necessarily, no. Nothing? The parade went off without a hitch in D.C. Yeah, I was there in D.C., but I left before the parade. I was there for the opening of La Mis, and I thought it was pretty interesting. It is my opinion that there was a lot of CGI that was going out to the public because what I saw there didn't match up what was out in the news at all. So I would have to say that it is my belief that President Trump was not there, nor were a lot of the people in that they were doing some CGI stuff. It wasn't because we went into this black tie event, right? It was supposed to be a black tie event. And we're all in our formals and such. And we walk in there and a whole bunch of people were there in tennis shoes, jeans, and t-shirts. The the auditorium had so many empty seats in it, probably half and half. And then there was some drag queens that were there and some protesters that when they introduced allegedly introduced President Trump, nobody could see him from where we were. It was just sort of like you couldn't get near to see him. So I have to conclude that it was probably a bunch of actors and a lot of it was for optics. We can't believe anything that we hear and see. And I think it's a good time. And if anybody wants to say differently, guess what? I was there. And so from my perspective and what I saw, there was an awful lot of optics going on there and I'm not believing two percent of what I see anymore. And that's just the way it is. We were driving on the way out there and they had construction and construction, allegedly construction and construction workers everywhere. I work in construction, right? These dudes that were out there dressed up as construction workers were in no way, shape or form construction workers. A lot of them were on areas where they were doing no work and on top of the bridges, watching from bridges and that sort of thing. There were just some oddities there. And I'd have to say that if it were my opinion on this, that probably what we were looking at is military dressed up in plain clothes and as or posing as construction workers. I do not believe what I was seeing was what they were portraying. So how's that for an evaluation? So this morning there were two things that I want to touch on and that is the situation at Trout Lake Dam and what the DNR, I've got the biggest bitch about the DNR and EGLE right now because they are totally, completely off the rails and unconstitutional in their actions. And then my lawsuits, my pro se cases against individuals in the state of Michigan. I think it's time to talk about these things because somebody is in big trouble. So I got a call from the Attorney General's office yesterday on these cases. And they don't really know what to do with them, which is really, really funny. So this is what I decided. I'm just going to talk about this because somebody needs to know, the people need to know what's going on inside. So my first lawsuit that I filed was against Jonathan Brader because he literally, it's about the change of the name for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the Constitution Party, and they are obstructing it. The Secretary of State, as well as the Director of the Board of Elections, are obstructionists. We have eight cases where there's precedent of being able to just file a name change on a party that's already established. Well, what happened is Jonathan Brader wrote a letter, and it was further to Bill Moore years ago. I reappealed it, and they sent me the same answer and same letter saying, that we cannot change the name without getting signatures again in order to do the name change, which is forty five thousand signatures of what it takes for a party to get on the ballot in the state of Michigan, which is all kinds of bull crap. we make changes within an existing party all the time just by filing we're changing our name they don't have the jurisdiction to make that call and so what he ended up doing is telling us to collect signatures to collect signatures for refiling, as it were, almost another political party. Well, a political party can't reconnect without it being a felony. So not only was he establishing a policy that was a felony that that he was coaching us to, he was coaching us to commit a felony. We can't do that. So they don't know what to do with it. So what they did is the attorney general's office sicked five attorneys on me personally. It's a personal, it's not an us, it's a Donna Brandenburg lawsuit, not a party lawsuit because I'm the chairman. And as the chairman, he told me to coach people to collect signatures, which is a felony. So can't do that. You're wrong. We're done. So the attorney general's office, what they did is they six, five attorneys on me from the attorney general's office and they changed the case. They changed documents. They did everything wrong. They never, they never responded to my case. They responded to a, I don't know what they did, but that's what they did. So I ended up filing for default judgment because they never responded to my case. And the question is, why is it that they pulled five attorneys into it in order to protect Jonathan Brader, instead of looking into this and saying, let's investigate this and see what's wrong. They went right to, we're going to defend one of our own, which is wrong. And it just gets worse than that. So yesterday I'm going to go to the second case. The next case I sued Johnson and Benson on because we found something. I'm going to say, we, it's not the, it's not the party I'm suing on my individual capacity. and I found a problem where they registered an illegal API in the elections and have it all documented. It's amazing what happened with this. And it hauls in a whole bunch of NGOs into the case. So yesterday, After I filed the case and no response, silent as the grave because they don't know what to do with us. I get a call from the attorney general's office saying, hey, we just want to give you a call because we're going to file. This is the attorney general's office defending the secretary of state. I filed these suits on Brader and Jensen in a pro se capacity on an individual basis, and they are using taxpayer dollars from the Attorney General's office to defend them instead of doing it on their own. This is wrong. First of all, it's wrong. So they call me yesterday and say, we're filing. So the attorney general's office is filing a motion to dismiss. And they said, we just wanted to call you and see if you concur with dismissing the case. And I'm like, no, absolutely not. I do not agree to dismissal and concur with your basic coercion to dismiss. And she said, well, by law, we have to call you and see if you concur with us. And so I'm sitting there reasoning this through, right? And I'm like, nope, I don't concur. I will not agree to dismissal of this case. Well, I'm sitting there thinking about it, and I never got contacted from the first case against Jonathan Brader. Never got contacted. In fact, they said they reached out to me, which was a lie. They never reached out to me, not once. I never got a call. I never got anything. And all of a sudden, I get an envelope that has not only the motion for dismissal in it, and it wasn't even to my case. And they never called. It was the craziest thing. It was the craziest thing. So, well, you're not going to answer my case. I guess we're going to go for default judgment because you didn't answer my case within the timeframe. And they never reached out. They lied. They absolutely lied. They did not reach out to me to see if I concurred to dismiss the case in any way, shape, or form. None of it. Does that make sense? Typical behavior of the court system and the typical behavior of the attorneys because the attorneys are officers of the court, remember? And so as officers of the court, they're basically working for the court, not for you and not for anything else, not even for the government. And in this case, they are working for the government. But they are working specifically for the courts. I recorded the call too because I'm like, if these people call me, I'm recording these calls because I don't trust them. No one should trust them. Okay, you can, but they have to send you, when they send you the document now that you didn't concur, that's fine. Concurrence is kind of like a courtesy, even though it is in the court rules that you need to get a concurrence one way or the other. But I have written... the opposing party many times or even call them on the phone and not got a hold of anybody because they're not answering my phone call or they're not answering my email. And therefore, when I file a case, I say concurrence was sought but not gotten. They never reached out to me on the first case for concurrence or anything. Yeah, I wouldn't try to make a case over that. Well, I'm just saying that this needs to be out there. They do as they please. They need to be out there for people to understand that this is what the process is. And one of my goals is going to be to become an expert on this so that when they breathe in the wrong direction, when they decide to do one thing that's stupid or wrong, that we're going to nail them for it. It's called accountability. And it's like, I don't think the accountability... You're going to be chasing your tail over little stuff. No, I don't think so. I think if they know we're watching them, maybe they'll get off the stupid boat and decide that we're actually watching them and we're going to hold them personally accountable. You've got to hold them personally accountable for something a little more powerful than concurrence. Well, that's the plan. I mean, if we have attorneys within the Attorney General's office which are not following their own rules, they need to be disbarred. You know, like Whitmer, Nestle, and Benson, all of them need to be disbarred. Of course. All of them. Well, they should have never gotten a bar license, number one. They should have never gotten into government, number two. There's a whole lot of stuff. They're crooks. They're crooks. They're part of the deep state system, and that's the problem that we need to fight at this moment. Right. It's the deep state system. We have a deep state judicial system in Michigan. They're all crooks. Ninety percent of the judges in Michigan are crooks. What's really crazy is how, okay, I finally got my arms around this, and Daniel Richards helped me with this, is I finally got my arms around this, is that the judges by statutory and their decisions are literally creating laws from the bench. And not only that, all the NGOs that are appointed are literally creating laws instead of the legislature. This whole thing is so far. It's all screwed up. I agree with you, one hundred percent. I never got my hands around it until recently. I'm like, what's the core issue here? You know, it's like we can say that they're, you know, they're regulated. But the core issue is, is the NGOs, the regulatory organizations and everything, which brings me to the next point, which is the DNR is on the top of my shit list right now. because of everything that they're pulling in the state. They're making up policies which are turning into laws, which honestly, you go back to the Constitution, none of this can be enforced. I know you've read Norton, but the most important part of Norton, not the most important part, but one of the most important parts of Norton is that they have been attempting to revolutionize take us out of the Constitution and make us a democracy in the form of dictatorship controlled by the few. That's where they've been going. This is revolutionizing. Now, we're partially revolutionized in the state of Michigan. So if you understand that, then you can deal with the battles. That's the core issue is that they're literally creating laws through policy. They're revolutionizing of the government. And if you read Norton again, go back to that part where it talks about revolutionizing. As long as the Constitution has life and power, we are in charge. But if they revolutionize through individuals voting for it or through the force, then they will take over and destroy the Constitution and so on and so forth. That's what they've been trying to do since, I don't know, Bush Sr., Bushrat Sr. They've been trying to revolutionize this country, maybe even way beyond him. But that's where I really noticed the difference when George Bush Sr. got in and he started doing his policies. They've been trying to revolutionize, and Obama is the biggest revolutionizer of all of them. He has done as much as he can to destroy the country. So now we got to get back to and we still have the power because we still have the Constitution. So we got to get back to that. How do we do that? Yes, individual judging, suing judges individually is a great way to do it. Suing public functionaries individually is a great way to do it. But you've got to also understand that you're going through a morass of BS in the process. And they're going to throw everything they can at you to defeat you or to get you to give up and go away. You got to do it almost like a surgeon. You have to look at the structure and decide. They're all breaking the law. I mean, all of them are breaking the law. But that's part of the process. That's part of who they are and what they're trying to do. Right. So you have to, when you're doing this, you have to look at who are the people that are in charge of breaking the law, committing treason. and how they did it why they did it and so I'm I'm kind of like I'm kind of like all about um a bunch of different efforts when you find things that you can tack to actual actual policies and law and sue them in that capacity in their personal capacity pro se it's the greatest it is the greatest tool we have at our disposal but you got to know how what you're doing and you've got to expect the pushback and get to know it. It's just like jurisdiction. So they argue this jurisdiction in that, well, you don't have jurisdiction because there weren't damages. Well, guess what? They haven't given you any jurisdiction yet. All they're doing is they're throwing the term at you. Right. Until you get your document from them and see what the jurisdiction argument is, why you don't get jurisdiction. Well, a lot of them, they don't even quote an argument on jurisdiction. They have no damages. It's like we don't have to have damages to have jurisdiction. We are citizens of the state of Michigan. Let me ask you a question. You've got this big... uh uh anger towards the uh dnr is the answer the state of michigan constitution I did and wait a minute and see where it says that the dnr can own property I read I read that but they really can't own property does it say that It doesn't say that in so many words. No, no. It's got to say that. If it isn't in there, it doesn't exist. Correct. They can't own the property. It doesn't say, I didn't read the DNR thing. That's not my battle right at the moment. That's yours. Right. Did you read the Constitution? And in that state constitution, does it say that the DNR can own property? No. Okay. You got your answer. Well, I kind of already knew that. So the point being is that they don't have the right to own any property. and they further don't have the right to claim the ownership over the dams or anything like that. They don't have the right to just schedule projects that don't go through the legislature. That's the big problem. They're literally scheduling projects and not consulting or having them planned by the legislature. If it's not in the constitution, they have no authority. So that is where I would focus my lawsuit on that individual that is usurping authority never granted by the constitution that they have authority to own property that's where you got to focus your argument and that then you have a better then you have a better chance of being more successful with it so if it doesn't say in the constitution state constitution that the dnr can own property And that guy told you that, well, we own that property. Now you can go after him individually. Okay, so I'm going to put the DNR thing up here a minute, why I'm so furious about this. And let me tell you what my talking points on this, why I literally hate these people. I really do. I know Jesus said to love them, but I'm past that right now. You're not focusing on the real argument, though. That's the problem. Well, let me show you because let me just show you. I'm just talking about this. I'm not focusing on any argument other than they need to be abolished, the whole thing. They set up this trust fund within the DNR that enables them to buy property and such. I just asked you, does that say that in the Constitution? That they can buy property. The trust fund is in there. Donna, it's got to say in the Constitution that they have the authority to buy property. If it doesn't say that, they don't have authority and they can't buy property, period. Understood. Let me get back to this issue, though, for how this is playing out. So anyhow, I hope you guys all know John and I are good friends. That's why we can sit here and argue with each other and walk away smiling and going, you know, having a great discussion, a heated discussion over this stuff. I think it's fantastic. So anyhow, what they're doing is with them removing these dams. Let's move down here and show you what they've done. The people that are behind this have got their expertise in fisheries, not in engineering. So they ended up having an alleged dam inspection, one, and their numbers were wrong. The whole thing is a sham. So here is an article, Linda Cooch, I met her, and she is a very nice, very informed person up there. I love these people intensely. I went up there and I met with her. This is the dam that they have that they said that they quoted approximately a two point five ish million dollars to remove. I want everybody to get their arms around this. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure any of us who do. This thing is twenty feet across guys and they're quoting two point five million dollars is the price and they're saying it's in poor condition. And this Jeff Jolly, who is up there, who's got his expertise in fisheries, not in engineering, says that The DNR, here's the statement right here. The DNR says it owns over two hundred of these dams. There's twenty five hundred or so dams in the state. And they're saying here, he says it comes down to the issue of financial responsibility, says Jeff Jolly. the criminal with the DNR or who is engaged in usurping the Constitution, which is criminal, we don't have the funding to maintain these dams. Of course, because they've got a sham quote on fixing it. This is like the seven hundred dollar screwdrivers, right? And so going down here, these older dams were built with the engineering knowledge and standards that occurred at the time. Sometimes we call it a Band-Aid fix. That's not necessarily a really big deal to replace boards. And they... and that may give you another ten years until they start rotting again. Well, guess what? They can replace those boards. How much do those boards cost? Probably less than a couple hundred dollars. So that would be a good situation. The rest of the dam is good. And you know what these people had the audacity to do? When they removed the boards, They threw the boards down through the conduit to further damage the dam. I allege that they're involved in destroying these dams and damaging the dams. And it's the DNR that did it to justify their stance of destroying our resources. There's a campground there. The local economy depends on it. And if they take the lakes away, the campgrounds go away. I mean, this is about destroying the resources, the economics of the area, as well as the ability to be able to hunt and fish and keep us off the lands, which now they claim they own, two point six million acres. So this is what's really going on here. Here you go. When I was there, there were... Did you ever write a letter to those people and ask them, would you please point out in the Constitution where you have authority to own property? We're getting there. There's a lot of people involved in this fight, and they're very educated. Yeah, but the problem is that you're fighting... I don't know how to put this. You are fighting a whole lot of different areas and you're creating loopholes. They can jump through. And then you get nowhere. And you spend a lot of time spinning wheels and eventually they'll frustrate you and you'll quit. Well, I'm not... The point is... My point is that you've got to start at the source, which is the Michigan Constitution, which I contend is not a real constitution. But let's stay with the Michigan Constitution for the moment and find out where it says that they have the authority to own property. Right. No, I'm right there with you. I'm not arguing that. I just wanted to tell everybody what the situation was. So this was the lake and this is the lake. This is what they've done. They are destroying the state. And I'm sorry, this dam was built in the sixties. Clearly people were smarter that were in office back then than the idiots we have in there right now. So, and the people don't want it removed. They don't have the right to tell us what to do. There's a violation of the constitution. They have to take direction from us and do what we want done, not what they have commandeered, let's call it, stolen from the residents. And that's the issue of the Constitution. Remember what Norton says. They don't exist. Unconstitutional act is not a law. So if it's unconstitutional because it doesn't exist in the Michigan Constitution, it's not a law. They have no rights, they have no authority. Just follow with what Norton v. Shelby County states and you will be ahead of the game. Right, and I'm just kind of excited about the fact that there's actually, because I've been fighting the DNR and dealing with putting all of this crap that they're doing across the state to destroy the state. They're revolutionizing Michigan. They sure are. Stop getting all excited over that and just understand where the battle is. Well, and the thing of it is, is they're trying to destroy the natural resources, but this is what commies always do. They want to steal the resources and kick the people off the land. And so that's the core issue. And so if I went straight to the Constitution issues on this, Most of the people will not understand because they haven't read the Constitution. They don't really know what it says. So they have to understand the greater issue of them draining our lakes and why they're doing this to commandeer the resources. Donna, that's where you've got to start. You've got to go to the Constitution. You've got to point out in the Constitution where does it say that they have the authority to do this. If they don't have the authority to do this, they are usurping authority never granted. That usurpation is a criminal act, and you go after them for usurpation. That's number one. Number two, when you are organized and decided that they have no authority to do what they're doing, and it's one or two individuals, then you go after those individuals for usurping authority never granted, and you sue them. And you sue them for exemplary damages, that's millions of dollars. Exemplary damages, explain this to me, that's one thing I don't understand. Exemplary damages means above and beyond. Anything that's unconstitutional, you have the authority to sue them for violating that Constitution and their oath of office. Now you can add two, three, four, five million dollars per individual for violating their oath of office or violating the Constitution that doesn't give them authority to do what they're doing because it's not written in the Constitution. If it's not written in the Constitution in black and white letters, it does not exist. They can't make it up on the fly. They can't say, I assume it says that, or we are just kind of bending the rules a little bit for the benefit of the public. No, no, no, no. If it's not written in the Constitution, it's a violation of their oath of office, which they swore an oath to uphold, both the Michigan Constitution and the federal Constitution. And if they violate those oaths of office, they can be held for exemplary damages, and you can make that whatever you want. Okay. Exemplary damages are a type of compensation awarded to legal cases to address humiliation, outrage, and dignity. I'm outraged. That works. suffered by a plaintiff due to the defendant's malicious, willful, or wanton actions. Unlike punitive damages, which are meant to punish the wrongdoer, exemplary damages focus on compensating the victim for emotional distress and mental suffering. In Michigan, courts generally do not permit punitive damages except where explicitly provided by the statute. However, exemplary damages may be awarded in cases involving intentional torts, slander, libel, deceit, and malicious acts. There you go. And so, okay, this is a new one for me. You're violating the Constitution of Malicious Act? Yes, it is. Absolutely. So perfect. Hey, guys, I got another tool in my toolbox today. That's fantastic. And this is what we need to do is talk about this so that we can continue to hone our skills. You've got to go through the Constitution, that part. And I'm pretty certain, and I read the Michigan Constitution a few times, but I'm pretty certain there's no place in the Michigan Constitution that says the Michigan Constitution or the government can own property. It says that the government can requisite property for parks and recs and stuff like that, but not ownership of it. Ownership belongs to the public, always has. But you got to go through the Constitution now that you have honed your argument in to a specific area of ownership, because that's what he said. We own these properties. And that's what that article says. They own these properties. That's where you have to hone your argument. Well, and so as the chairman of the Constitution Party and the state of Michigan, the U.S. Taxpayers Party, we wrote a resolution against the DNR. So we combed over the Constitution. and the references to the DNR. So I'm going to pull them up. The article five, section fifty-two, there's two instances in the Constitution where it's quoted. The conservation and development of natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be a paramount public concern in the interest of health, safety, and general welfare of the people. They're clear-cutting the state of Michigan and they're sending this to bioenergy sites to be burned for electricity and our electricity rates keep going up, guys. There's something wrong here. Anyhow, let's go back. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, and destruction. Well, then they need to call... a DNR on the carpet for this because the legislature is wrong. This section establishes the state's commitment to environmental protection, which is overseen by agencies like the Michigan DNR. You can explore the full content. Let's see. And so there's another one in there and it's in, it's the Michigan, let's see, the Michigan Trust. Hang on a minute. Let me see if I can find it. Let's see if we can find it here because there's two instances. Article nine, section thirty five of the Michigan Constitution establishes because we combed over this in detail, every word, everything that was there. So, yes, but I'm going to read it because I don't want to misquote something and let everybody know what it says. Article. Article nine, section thirty five, the Michigan Constitution establishes the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. This fund consists of revenues from bonuses, rentals, delayed rentals and royalties collected from leases or extraction of non-renewable resources on state owned lands. The fund is used for purposes such as acquisition of land for recreational use or environmental protection. No, they've decided to use this with their public-private partnerships. Development and renovation of public recreation facilities. Administration of the tax fund, including payments in lieu of taxes. on state-owned land, the fund under certain financial limits, including accumulated principal cap and provision for revenue allocation to the Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund until it reaches a specified amount. So I'm going to pull this up here in another way. Hang on a minute. And we're going to read more about this. I can bring this up here. Hang on a minute. You've talked about state-owned land twice. Yes. What does it say that in the Constitution that the state of Michigan can own property? I don't believe it does. I've never seen it. Well, that's where we have to find out. I think it's implied here. What did I say? Implied doesn't count. Okay, so here we go. Here's the Natural Resources Trust Fund. Those two paragraphs that I read are the only place that it is alluded to in the Constitution. So here we go. Let's see. Acquisition of land or rights and land for recreational uses or protection of the land of its environmental importance or scenic beauty. I'm pretty sure those pictures that I brought up of the scenic beauty being destroyed around the lake has been destroyed there. And so, yeah, we've got all kinds of problems. Hang on. I'm going to read through this real quick. Until the fund reaches the accumulated eight hundred million, the amount accumulated in the trust fund in any state fiscal year shall not exceed five hundred million, exclusive of interest and earnings and money authorized for expenditure pursuant to this section. development, renovation, and redevelopment of public recreation facilities. They're not doing that. They're putting it into their fake EGLE. Public. Yeah, it's public. It's not for EGLE. It's not for anyone. It's not for them. That's my point. Yes. That's my point exactly. They can't own property. It's public owned property, owned by the public, not by the state. This is where they get off the rails too. And this is what I was trying to explain is that this is what they're doing. They're just doing projects without approval. So the legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of the trust fund board within the Department of Natural Resources. The trust fund board shall recommend the projects to be funded. The board shall submit its recommendations to the governor who shall submit the board's recommendations to the legislature in an appropriations bill. The legislator shall provide by law for the implementation of this section. Nobody's doing anything. Now you've got an argument. Got several of them, actually. Well, but you've got to, if you throw twenty arguments at them, they're going to find the weakest one and they're going to beat you with it. What's the strongest one that you see? Well, that one seems to be the strongest one. It didn't go to the legislature. Legislature is the one that makes the final decision. They didn't. I mean, the others are recommendations. we recommend that you do this and the legislature passes the rules and the laws to make it happen. And they didn't do that. They bypassed the legislature. This is getting back to the whole process of the seventies when they brought in the executive, when they brought in the, what do we call it? All of the organizations that they have right now like the FBI and the CIA that can make law. Administrative, when they brought in the administrative state, and they have the administrative state in the state of michigan right now that needs to be dismantled because it's the administrative process which is the executive branch that's making law and they can't do that that's in violation of one of the sections in the state of michigan that says there are three branches of government and one cannot uh violate the other branch by doing their job. That's in the constitution. Separation of powers is what it's called. So that's where you start with the separation of power. And now you have an executive branch, which is the DNR, which is the governor, which are making rules and laws, which they have no authority to do because they're in violation of the separation of powers branch. part of the Constitution. So that's how you've got to focus this argument so you have some sort of strength when you go to court. If you're just blasting I don't know the guy's name, whatever his name is, for doing something. But you have no steps by which to use against him for violating his oath of office, for usurping authority never granted. That's what you've got to set up in order to be somewhat successful, in order to get their attention. If you do it any other way, you're going to be wasting a lot of time and energy and getting frustrated because they're going to look for loopholes to jump through. And the attorneys are great at that. They're liars, thieves and beggars that are out there to try to steal property from the public. They've been doing this for a long, long time. We're just getting involved in it now. So we have to know where, how our battles are to be fought, to make them, to hone them in, to make them much more powerful. Let's see if I can find the, I'm looking for the, it never works well. It's like, I, I, I'm trying to find the resolution, the cease and desist resolution for the, First of all, you write the DNR or that individual and you say, prove your de jure status. That means prove your authority, who you are, where you are, and so on and so forth. Then when he comes back and he says, well, my authority is Article IV, Section III or whatever it is of the Constitution, that's my authority. Then you can ask them, then the second letter should be, where is your authority to make laws, rules, and regulations regarding whatever, whatever, whatever. Those are the kinds of battles that you have to start fighting. And when you get him in writing to say things that he shouldn't be saying, now you've got a lawsuit against him. Nothing worse than having it in writing for that guy who's violating the law. I'm trying to pull up the resolution because this is the cease and desist is the resolution, which has all the documentation and all the arguments in it from a constitutional standpoint. And it's... it's, it's phenomenal. I mean, and it's, it's, it's been really fun to work on these with a group of people who actually understand the constitution also and know the law. And yes, we sit there on Monday nights and argue this stuff out until we get the perfect thing. And then we walk around and high five and go team, go, we got this, you know, it's too fun. Um, yeah. So, so this is a big issue and I don't know if people understand on a, on a, uh, What happens in real life when our elected or unelected public servants go off the rails like this? I think a lot of them just don't even know that they're off the rails because, A, they don't know their jobs, and B, they don't understand the law or what they signed up for, and it becomes a paycheck to them. Most of them don't know the law. Most of them don't care about the law because they are in the administrative state and they can make the law, they think. But that's where your battle has to be, that they don't have the authority to do that. The DNR is a Whitmer issue, really, because she oversees it. It's one of the executive branch offices. And so this is going to be really interesting. I'm trying to get the resolution figured out. I can't do it when I'm online. I start looking for stuff, and then I kind of like check out on everybody. So I'm seeing if somebody can send it to me real quick so that we can put it up because I'd like you. I don't know if you saw that. Did you see that one? Were you in on that meeting, the DR meeting? No, I don't think so. Okay. Hang on a second. I'm going to see if I can get it because I know, let's see, e-mail. Our meetings are fun when we get into them. We had a great meeting last night and looking for people that want to submit articles for the Constitution Party to be published in our newsletter. So if anybody's out there wants to write some articles, I think that send them to me and y'all know how to get a hold of me. So go to USTPM and it's chair at USTPM.org and we will take a look at that. Hey, look who showed up here. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Hey, guys, how you doing? Good morning. Good morning. Good. Thought we'd bring you in because I have to leave a little early today. So I'm going to cut into both of your time just a little bit and see if we have common things we're fighting on or what's happening out there. What have you seen in the news? Aside from a lot of red herring chaos. You've got people out there being paid to do these demonstrations and misguide the public into these red herring protests and whatnot. And so people need to take a step back and not pay attention to that. It's a red herring. It's not what you need to be concentrating on. You need to look at what's going on in your own backyard to your own public functionaries who are... stripping their authority and depriving you of your rights, not only your God-given rights, but your property rights and everything else. So pay attention to what's going on in your own backyard. Don't worry about what's going on in Washington, D.C. That cesspool will take care of its own. And if we clean up our own backyards, that will eventually migrate to D.C. and force them to come into compliance as well. Well, I think a lot of the stuff in D.C. is all for show. Yeah. I really do. Well, here's a question for both of you and our Colonel that's sitting here. What do you think, Mr. Colonel John, about a wartime president as well as a wartime Speaker of the House? Because Mike Johnson said that he's a wartime speaker and there's been several allusions to the fact that President Trump has alluded to the fact that he's a wartime president. How does that change anything? Well, he is a wartime president. We're in the middle of a war. And that war is not a kinetic war, a physical war. That war is a war of information. He is a president, wartime president. And I would say probably Speaker Johnson is also a wartime Speaker of the House because we are in the middle of the war. Again, we would rather have an information war than a shooting war. At least I would. So this is the best of the best. Not going to kill anybody or hurt anybody. Well, obviously, there are people getting hurt in the process. in general we're not shooting each other we're not having a civil war and we're not uh taken to the streets with guns and destroying property so this is we are in the more though we have definite there's no question in my mind we've been in a war ever since president trump walked down the aisle in he was teased took over the war at that time And when they put Biden in as resident, that was part of the war. This whole thing has been a war for information against the deep state. I agree with that. What does that mean? That means he should have, he has certain powers such as the, what is the act that he's threatening to use? Insurrection Act. And he has the power to do that and bring in the troops if he needs to. These are all trying to get the public waking up to see what really is going on. Because I still think the general, I still see people wearing masks. It's unbelievable, unbelievable. Driving in their car with their window closed and wearing a mask. I just don't get it. But if they're thinking about wearing a mask out in the public, then you got to know where their mind is. They have no idea what's going on. They're asleep in the fog and they've been there for probably most of their life. So we still have to wake a lot of those people up because those people are part of America. We don't want to have a situation where we're going to have this kind of conflict between if we can't unite this country, we've got problems. We've got to unite this country against the common enemy, which is the Federal Reserve Banking System and the deep state. What else can I say? We're in war. Agreed. So is there anything else you want to talk about today, John? No, I just say, and we can let Mike take over for a little bit, I'll stick around for a little while. Gotta argue when you're putting your lawsuit together, you gotta go back to the original rules and laws and who gave them, what gives the DNR power? simple question what gives the dnr power what was that mike go ahead and answer it people's consent more than that what gives and what gives the people how do they know they have this power you're right it's the people consent but the constitution constitution written law that's the that is the That is the rule book by which the government functions. And if they step outside the rule book, then there's no law. Then it's anarchy. Then it's whoever has the bigger gun, whoever can force the bigger process through law. threatened coercion, and that's what we gotta get away from. We gotta go back to the original intent. And that's the original, what is the original intent of the law, is the law. So the original intent of the constitution, of the state constitution of Michigan, which we agree is not really a constitution, or we should be going back to the national way constitution. That's the real constitution, because this was passed in a democracy by one tenth of one percent. So it's not really a constitution, but that's what we are working on right at the moment. So we go to that constitution and we see where do they have that authority? And if they don't have that authority, they're stepping outside. That's like playing a game of Monopoly. And today you decide that you're going to pay so much money for that. But tomorrow, because you are the banker, you can change the rules and say, yeah, but now it's going to cost you five hundred bucks instead of four hundred bucks. You can't do that. The rule book says it's going to be this way. You can't play a game and adjust the rules as you're going along. And that's what they're doing. The administrative state. And the constitution is the rule book and they get away with it because people refuse to stand up and, uh, uh, oppose it. They grant their, they give the validation through their consent by consenting to it. And they have to stop doing that. That's right. There is, uh, all kinds of comments going on in the chat today. This is amazing. Denise and Curtis and, and, uh, Let's see, we've got an MLM five and this is pretty interesting. And David is on here. Hey, this is great. David said, Whitmer has more than doubled our state budget. And I think a lot of it has to do with the criminal justice system. Michigan is known as the lock them up state. Interesting, David. So Julie Green, Prophecy Today. Whitmore nestled Benson going down. Fantastic. That's good news on the day. So what do you have planned for today, Mike? What did you want to talk about today? I have some information that I have gotten certified documents confirming Who is our real threat? Who is causing our problems? And to the point that what is going to shock a lot of people is your tax dollars are funding this domestic terrorist organization through the county board of commissioners. And I have proof and I have documentation that I have now received that I'm going to share with you today. Awesome. Did you email it to me or do you have it on your side? I think I just have it on my side. I can get it over to you. You can share it on your computer too. You just go to the present button at the bottom. Okay. Let's present. All right. And then click that and then it'll bring up a window that gives you a choice of windows to look at. click the window you want to show, and then it'll show up on my dashboard. And then I add it to the screen. Share file or share screen. Yes. It's it's present go share screen, go to the window versus window. Pick a window there. There's about six of them there. And then it'll show up in my dashboard and I add it to the screen. Okay, hold on. Give me a second here. I got a gazillion windows open. Tell you what, why don't I just email it to you? It might be quicker. Yeah, just email it to me and I'll put it up. Okay. That's fantastic. See here. Um, It's going to just take us a minute, guys. So we're still trying to get the, let's see, go through. We're going to have to bring that resolution up. I can't do it while I'm online. So that's okay. It gives us something to talk about next week. Not like we have to look for subjects. These clowns out there can come up with more unconventional, constitutional crap, then you could shake a stick at. Give me a second here. I'm downloading it here. Yeah, no worries. No worries. We're all looking for the documents, which never works out really well when we're online, but that's okay. This is real news for real people by real people at the kitchen table, sort of. So you get what you get. This is actually something I very much agree is it's like a Zoom call where you're trying to get work done. There's usually pauses and breaks and people take their time to find the stuff that they need to communicate. All good things. Here we go. Oh, guess what? I think I've got it on the OneDrive. Let me see if I can pull it up here. For goodness sakes, come on. There we go. Never works the first time when you really want it to. It's crazy. These PDF files take a while sometimes to, for whatever reason, download. All right. All right. Here we go. Yep. Oh, we got a lot of files here. This is crazy. All right. I'm going to have to have somebody else do it. That's all right. So goes it. So. Okay. Sending it to you by email. Okay. So it should be there momentarily. Perfect. Well, why don't you talk about it while I'm trying to bring this up. Okay. For those who don't know, there was a court case in Genoa Township, Livingston County, and it had to do with a gal who had a deck on her property. The township told her she was not privileged to have this deck and forced her to tear it down. the attorney representing Genoa Township, the name of David Burris from Seward Henderson, a law firm out of, I believe it's Royal Oak. And he filed a brief stating that, Anyone who challenges the courts, anybody who presents themselves in a certain way as a man or a woman before court, challenges the jurisdiction of the court, challenges the jurisdiction and the authority of a township and public functionaries is an extremist and a terrorist pursuant to the FBI report of twenty eleven. And so he filed all this, stating that she was one of these terrorists, that I'm a terrorist because I testified as a witness in the case. And so he put all this out there, and it was like, wait a minute, you know what, this is crossing the line. She went to file a rebuttal to this, and Judge Susan Geddes of the Circuit Court in Livingston County wouldn't allow her to file a rebuttal, stating that anything she would file would be considered frivolous. and wasn't going to listen to it. So she condoned and promoted this act by Dave Burris. Now, in that FBI report, it states that the FBI has instructed the courts, the Bar Association, our public functionaries on how to act and treat what they call sovereign citizens. Everybody's heard this term, sovereign citizens. Oh, they're extremists. They're terrorists. They go around causing all kinds of problems. The problem here is that they didn't do their homework. There's a public law that states that sovereign citizens are men and women, having reached the age of twenty-one, who are self-governing in the Republic. And we're to be celebrated that the President of the United States, under an act of Congress, is to deem the third Sunday of May, We Are American Day, to celebrate sovereign citizens. Wait a minute. If we're to be celebrated, under a public law, and that public law states that we are self-governing under the Republic, then how can we also be terrorists? We can't be. We're not. We are a terrorist to them because we are a threat to their democracy. So if we are a threat to their democracy, the equal is true to the opposite, that they are a threat to our Republic. So I launched a campaign to counter all this. And I put out a bunch of notices of liability, which I've now just received one response the other day from Susan Geddes. And I also sent a package to the DOJ and a package to the FBI, which I was gonna discuss here also. And as well as a series of FOIAs. I like FOIAs because I can get them to answer things that they shouldn't be answering if they want to stay and hide their fraud. But the letter that I sent to the FBI, and it was a response to their FOIA, that they don't have to answer questions, because I asked them if they were still enforcing that FBI report. and whether or not they're still instructing the courts and public functionaries to treat sovereign citizens as terrorists. They refused to answer. So I sent a letter to Kash Patel. And in that letter, it demands that they cease and desist any actions of that nature as the report puts out. I gave Kash Patel, twenty-one days to respond. His response is a couple of things. One, to issue an order to cease and desist. And two, that I want a public apology and a public apology to all Americans for the actions of the FBI. Now, I realize this took place before him, but he's the new sheriff in town. So it's up to him to come forward and say, you know what, the previous administration stepped out of line, they usurped their authority, and I'm the new sheriff in town, and therefore I am rescinding these acts, and I apologize for the behavior of the FBI. Let's see a little credibility and transparency here. So it'll be interesting to see what they do with this. And I sent them a copy of a paper I put together called Cyber Citizens versus Terrorism. And it depicts and describes the entire incident and what all took place. So the other thing I did was a series of FOIAs, and that's what I just sent to you. The second one, Go to the go to the other one. Yeah, that's to the Livingston County Sheriff's Department. And what I asked was whether or not they were still enforcing the FBI report in how to treat sovereign citizens. Now there's a little highlighted section there. And what that states is it is hereby certified pursuant to section five, five B of the FOIA that your FOIA request is denied because to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, no public records exist under the names set forth in your request nor under another name reasonably known to the county. So basically he's denying any knowledge. Sheriff Michael Murphy is denying any knowledge of this FBI report, that they have no knowledge of any enforcement of that report, that he's not instructing any of his personnel to enforce that report upon anybody who they classify as a sovereign citizen. Now let's go to the Green Oak one. Now, on the green oak one, let's see here. It would be, you want to scroll down. Now, here's, let me go back up here a minute. The FOIA that I had sent, and I should probably read this so everybody understands what it is I'm asking. or did ask, all these departments. I state that I, Michael Inman, request a full disclosure and release of all records and or data contained within your department and or agency, and that a copy of the following requested documents be provided to me as they relate to the following, but not limited to Green Oak Charter Police Department rules, policies, guidelines, and any other administrative rules or laws created through the use of the Administrative Procedures Act of nineteen sixty nine or any other external sources of information related to the requested documents and information listed below. In September of twenty eleven, the FBI issued a bulletin entitled Sovereign Citizens, a Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement by the FBI's Counterterrorism Analyst Section, volume eighty, number nine at page twenty through twenty four. Whereas the FBI states that, quote, sovereign citizens are an extremist or terrorist movement engaged in illegal activities. So what I'm asking is, number one, please provide documentation the Green Oak Charter Police Department is still enforcing this FBI bulletin and did instruct this department to view sovereign citizens as a threat to the democracy. Two, please provide documentation of any other forms of instructions, mandates, or orders issued from the Green Oak Charter Chief of Police to the officers of said department on how to engage with sovereign citizens. That was my ask. And if you scroll down to page, yeah, just scroll down a little bit. Keep going, keep going. Right there. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Keep going. That would be my FOIA right there that I just read. Okay, this next page. See the heading on that? Yeah. It says address flag request. Now, what they're doing, now you know that Michigan passed a red flag law. So if you or if somebody just out of the blue reports to the police that, oh, I think John Doe may be a threat because he acts like one of those goofy sovereign citizens. They flag you under the red flag law. They categorize you as something. Now, this one, if you look at it, it says regards to officer safety. And in the reason for the flag is sent an email to LCSO. What's LCSO? Livingston County Sheriff's Office. Wait a minute. The Sheriff's Department said they have no knowledge of any of this stuff. Well, we got a problem here, Houston. Somebody lied on a FOIA. Well, this is what's amazing is they're lying all the time. Yes. Constantly. Constantly. Now, it says that stating that there is a suspicious vehicle. This one is in regards to a suspicious vehicle. The email was forwarded to me from LCSO, Lucy County Sheriff's Department. I returned an email to Greg to contact LCCD if the vehicle returned. Greg sent a very long return email and so on and so on. So they're flagging this guy as an extremist under the FBI report. as a sovereign citizen. Now, if you continue scrolling, let's see here. They were kind enough to send me, you have to go down a couple of, two, three pages here. There's one that really stuck out here. Keep going. Let's see. Is that the one? Nope. All right. That one right there. Now, this one is from, it says at the top, Kramer Stephen. Stephen Kramer is the chief of police for Green Oak Police Department. This is addressed to all of the officers of that department. It states, over the past couple of years, we have been coming across more and more sovereign citizen type of individuals. As with everyone, please make sure you use caution and have your in-car video system turned on. If you are to have contact, notify a supervisor while on scene, if possible, unless there are Yeah, my thing is a little circumstances. We shall not enter a home for an arrest warrant or any reason unless the deputy chief or I have been notified. If you have any questions, call me. So here the chief of police is instructing his officers on how to treat sovereign citizens to take precautions because they've been told by the FBI, we're extremists, we're a threat to their safety. So they're red flagging people on these issues. And if we go through this through these emails, we're also going to find that there was another couple who were flagged as sovereign citizens, according to the FBI report, because they did a land patent on their property and they posted a no trespass sign on the property, contacted green old police and said, if you're going to come on the property, please call first. And they're tagged as an extremist terrorist under the FBI report as this sovereign citizen entity. So what do we have here? We have improper use of procedures. We have the county sheriff's department lying about it because all this goes through their office. We have a de facto department being Green Oak because they're not a, I've already proven that, I've already got a, for your response from them admitting they're de facto and they're tagging people as sovereign citizens uh being a threat next uh an extra uh a threat and an extremist to the to their uh to their democracy so what we have to do here is expose us and we got people right now working on this And they're going to expose this more and down the line. But I suggest everybody, send a FOIA to your local law enforcement department. Ask them. And use this form letter that I just did for a FOIA. You can use the whole thing. Just put your information in there. I grant permission for anybody who wants to use it as a template. and send your local law enforcement a FOIA asking for this documentation. Now, this cost me like forty bucks to get these emails. Sorry, go ahead. Sorry. And I highly suggest everybody do this to find out whether or not your local municipalities are going to lie to you about this or not, because then we can set up and we can show intent. We can show the intent that they are lying. We can show the intent that they are. against the people becaus they're not allowed to do law that prohibits them f we are to be celebrated a we're not supposed to be citizens. We the people ar them to exist. We create t They exist due to our good graces. We can shut them down if they become a threat to our republic. And that's what we need to start doing. And these are the steps to doing so. Because now that you can do this, then what you do is you do what I call the administrative process. You now confront them on this, call them out on it, and then hit them with a notice of liability. And this is where a fee schedule would come in. Now, they have a fee schedule. Everybody realizes this. They have a fee schedule. Every time you don't follow their rules, what do they do? They send you a security instrument in the form of a ticket and hit you with their fees according to their fee schedule. They call it fines or whatever they want to call it. But that's their fee schedule. You can have a fee schedule and I have a fee schedule. My fee schedule says that if you're gonna call me a sovereign citizen in the context of the FBI report, then you violated my rights. You have violated my being. And as such, whether it's written or oral, it's a ten thousand dollar fine according to my fee schedule for each occurrence. And that's to be paid in lawful money, which is gold and silver. And with my consent, which I'll give them the consent, if they want to pay me in Federal Reserve notes, it's a twenty five to one ratio. Because Federal Reserve notes are fake. They have no intrinsic value. That's what I'm hitting them with. That's what goes into your notice of liability. Now, if they default on the notice of liability, then what you do is you can come back and hit them with a notice of non-response and opportunity to cure. And you charge them with a trespass, because that's what they've done. They've trespassed upon your rights. And you give them, now on the notice of liability, I give them twenty-one days. On the notice of non-response, I give them fifteen days. If they default on that, then I hit them with a notice of default and opportunity to cure, and I give them ten days. After that, then you now have and can show intent on their part. You've got everything you need now to bring them before a federal court and charge them accordingly because they defaulted already. So what can they possibly say in a federal court to defend themselves? And you can show by this process that they're violating Article IV, Section IV, because they're supposed to guarantee us a Republican form of government. They're not doing it. And here's your proof. Here's everything validated by their own admission through the FOIAs, through the administrative process and defaulting them out. It's very simple. It's very clean and simple to bring before a federal judge in a federal court then. Go through the steps again, just one step at a time without explanation behind them. Can you just list it? I would do a FOIA first, get them to admit. Their normal response is, no such documents exist. So that's fine. If no documents exist, then that's an answer. Um, so you do the FOIAs and then once you have that information and you can show and prove that this is what they're doing, then you hit them with a notice of liability and charge them according to your fee schedule with whatever fees you're going to hit them with. And, um, from there, when they default on that, then it's the notice of not a notice of non-response and opportunity to cure at which point you add the trespass charge. And then they default on that. Then it's the notice of default opportunity to cure. You give them ten days. And after that, then you send them a full default and inform them that you are inviting them to federal court to answer for what they've done. Making notes here. Perfect. So we now have proof that they are enforcing the FBI report. We have proof that this is all unconstitutional on their part. We have de facto departments and agencies demonizing we the people. And they're warring against us because when they don't follow the Constitution, they're warring against the Constitution. So we need to hit them back. We need to bring this to the attention. Now, who is the real crux of this problem? The Bar Association. judges belong to what? The bar. The attorneys, they belong to the bar. Who instructs your municipalities on what they can do and what they can't do? The bar. The bar. They all have bar attorneys. And what we found out is that it's through the insurance companies for their bonds and that sort of thing, that they give them a discounted rate as long as they put one of their attorneys on staff to be able to advise them. Yes. And so it's actually the insurance companies that are funding the attorneys by means of a discount in our municipalities. And so the barred attorneys are running the show. Yes. Yes. They are the problem. They are the problem. Last year, the Livingston County court system filed suit against the Livingston County Board of Commissioners because they wanted an increase in their budget. and the county commissioners caved and gave it to them. So they got their increase. Now, where does that money come from? Does that come from the taxpayers? So by definition of Congress, acts of coercion, intimidation and such, and trying to create a public opinion on something that's contrary to the constitution is an act of domestic terrorism, by definition. What are they doing? They're trying to demonize sovereign citizens. They're trying to demonize us. So they're trying to create a narrative to where people will be afraid to say something, to do something, to stand up, to challenge. Because if you can get everybody to be silent, well, silence is actually us. You're giving them consent to do whatever the hell they want. So they scare and intimidate everybody to be silent through these acts of propaganda. The Bar Association is obviously using it and enforcing it. The judges are doing it. The FBI report states that they're instructing the courts to do this. So every court case is now what? Tainted. It's biased. That vitiates every single court case. Every case is now void on its face. So again, the money comes from the taxpayers. Where does it go? It goes through the County Board of Commissioners. They're the ones who set up the budget for the courts. So your tax dollars are funding a domestic terrorist organization and is being run through the court system. Corpus Juris Secundum, volume seven, chapter or section four. The first obligation of all bar attorneys is to the court, not the client. You can pay your attorney millions of dollars. Guess what? His first obligation is to the court. He don't care about you. That's why they play Bob Barker. Let's make a deal. So this has to be stopped. We have to stop consenting. And what would happen if everybody... I don't know, maybe stop paying their taxes. What are they gonna do? If we're now under the Patriot Act, ever heard of that one? Oh yeah. You're not supposed to fund terrorist activities. And anybody who does fund a terrorist activity, those assets are supposed to be what? Oh yeah, frozen and or seized. Hmm. I think Pam Bondi needs to come and take a look at the court systems at the state level and say, you know what? The Bar Association needs to go. They're a terrorist organization and the assets that have been funneled through the court system need to be seized and shut it down because ninety percent of the court cases are not really court cases because what? They're claiming that there was a crime, but there's no victim. How do you have a victimless crime? Yeah, you pretty much don't. They've gotten away with this for a long time. But then that's a question everybody needs to get their arms around a little bit, is that it's just a shakedown for cash. Yes, this is extortion, racketeering, and money laundering. You thought the mob was bad? These guys are ten times worse. The mafia at least had a code of ethics. These guys have no code of ethics. They just destroyed families alive. at their at their discretion they don't care they do not care why because they think they have absolute immunity they don't they do not have absolute immunity ex parte young norton v shelby and several others prove that they do not have absolute immunity but they get away with it because that's what they think because nobody really challenges it and the u.s supreme court needs to take this issue up this needs to be clarified are you telling me that a judge claiming to be in his black satanic role, claiming an act to be judicial in nature, can shoot someone dead in the courtroom and not be held accountable? That sounds extreme, but let's talk about the elephant in the room, shall we? What prevents a judge from shooting you dead in the courtroom, declaring it a judicial act, and therefore he has absolute immunity? I'm sorry, but no. And that needs to be looked at by the U.S. Supreme Court. What actually are they immune from? Where does that immunity line actually exist? Now, I understand the argument that, well, then you'd have everybody suing judges and nothing would ever get done and yada yada. When you've got all these victimless crimes coming through and ninety percent of them are being put through the system by de facto departments, i.e. the Michigan State Police, de facto, city and township police departments, de facto. Take them out of the equation. What do you got left? So does that mean, oh, we're going to have anarchy? Does that mean that we're going to have riots and looting in the streets? No. If they want to become actual law enforcement, then they have to do what? Join the Sheriff's Department. That's the only de jure department. All these other departments are de facto. They have no authority. And watch what Whitmer did. Whitmer turned the state police into her own little secret police. They were following the congressmen around in the Capitol and such. And you pointed out to them that they needed to arrest Whitmer. And you had a complaint for arresting Whitmer, didn't you? And the police told you, as I understand it, that everything was perfect about what you wrote. But if you went to arrest her or that they went to arrest her, that they would shoot you. Yes. Yeah. If I enforced the arrest complaint, that they would shoot me. Okay. What does that tell you? I mean, they've militarized their own special forces here against the people. So we need to stop consenting to this. We need to stop funding it. We need to stop allowing them to get away with this. We need to start taking this back. This is why we have to look in our own backyards. Stop worrying about what Washington's doing. Let's clean up our own backyards first. Then we can get Michigan back to a republic. then we can worry about DC and everybody else. Because I'll tell you what, if Michigan gets back to a republic, watch what happens to all the other states. I agree with that. And, you know, it's really so bad. And I've said for a long time that Michigan is the head of the snake in the United States right now as far as states because we have the resources here that the other states don't necessarily have with the water, the amount of water we have and such, fresh water. They're after our resources, which is why the DNR is such a threat to everyone out there right now. You're absolutely right. the, the Michigan state police, the, the, the biggest pro or one of the biggest problems is the funding. If you look at the funding, the funding is always where you can catch them always. And they, they typically law enforcement will start out with the sheriff's department, become a deputy. And then the Michigan state police offers them money, more money because they pay more because it's a unionized police force that it is the craziest thing. So, so they're literally destroying community policing. So by an entity that actually should be for forensics and investigation that would work for special projects, not have under the jurisdiction of the sheriffs. Yes. Yeah. If you actually look at how the Constitution has everything set up, the sheriff is one of the top enforcers, as far as authority in the county. There's only one position higher than the sheriff, and that's the coroner. coroner has more authority than the sheriff the sheriff's not actually number two so with that said the sheriff the state police are supposed to work under the sheriff's department not the other way around and the state police can be can exist but only as an advisory position they cannot arrest detain um issue security instruments in the form of tickets, that is number one violation of the Constitution in itself because they're doing what? Revenue raising. Only the legislators can do revenue raising, not the executive branch. So there's another problem that we have. this bit about being unionized. Where in the US Constitution, which the state constitution has to be in compliance with the federal constitution, where does the word union or unionization come into play? It doesn't. And they're doing it in the municipalities. They're doing it with the teachers unions. They're doing it in the police forces. They're doing it. These people that have signed up for this, nobody held a gun to their head and said, you need to take this job working for the government. Right. They signed up for this and then they get in and they unionize to hold us hostage. The state, their boss is hostage. This has been going on for a long time and it needs to stop. These unions are have to go. They cannot exist. They're not allowed to exist. Get rid of the unions. Get rid of the Bar Association. This is the Bar Association is the real crux of this whole problem. Because all your municipalities, you get these newly elected officials in there. And what's the first thing they do? Well, I don't know what I can do. So I'm going to go talk to the bar attorney. He'll tell me what I can do and not do. Wait a minute. Who was elected to office here? Right. The bar attorney wasn't elected. So why can't you stand on your own two feet and make a bloody decision? You campaign on a platform stating that you're going to do A, B, and C. And instead of doing that, you go talk to the bar attorney and he tells you do X, Y, and Z. Completely opposite of what you're supposed to be doing. Well, look at when people run for office, how much they don't know about the job. Anthony Hudson put a post out just recently that said that when he's the governor, he's running for governor, that when he's the governor, that he's going to introduce legislation about, and I'm like, the governor doesn't introduce legislation. So that's a failure to even know the job that you're walking into. You've got to know the job. If you're applying for a job, And every one of these positions, when we elect people, when we vote, we are literally hiring them for a service contract to provide a service for us. They don't tell us what to do. You know that that that is absolutely insanity and how they flip things upside down. Yes. And, you know, the problem here also is that, again, back to the bar, the bar association, they want your bar, the bar members have to take an oath. Oh, wait a minute. What oath are they taking? It's not to the constitution. So who are they taking an oath to? So, and if you look at article eleven, section one of the mission constitution, the oath they take doesn't match. It does not match. I've yet to find any judge who has taken an oath, filed it with the county clerk, where that oath of office matches Article XI, Section I of the Michigan Constitution, which is the oath of office that they're supposed to take. What typically do they swear an oath to? I guess I'm not really into it. Well, what it is is the last sentence of the oath has been removed on the one that they sign and file, which is that they can't take any other oath. So because they take that out, now they can take an oath to the bar. Now they swore what? Their allegiance to the bar. Gotcha. So, you know, let's, you know, this whole thing is a joke. Now let's go a little bit further. Do these judges have an anti-bribery statement on file? No. Do they have a foreign agent registration statement on file? No. Well, these are improprieties. And the biggest one is Article VI, Section XIX, Michigan Constitution, in order to qualify to sit on the bench as a judge, you have to have a license to practice law. Well, according to Laura, there's no such thing. They don't license or regulate attorneys. What state department or agency issues the license? None. U.S. Supreme Court ruled twelve times. No such thing as a license to practice law. Bar card is a membership card. It's a union card. It's a union dues. It's a club. Everyone is a club that they have a membership association. It's a PMA. Yeah. So if there's no license, then do we actually have judges sitting on the bench? No, we have administrators. And what are they doing? They administrate their rules and regulations, not the law. They're revenue raising. Yes. That's what they do. You know, and then that's that's a really sad thing. When when I became aware that ninety eight percent of the cases that they that they actually rule on. Bad word, but you know what I'm saying is their money judgments and they take eighteen percent of that and that goes towards their benefits. It's more than that. It's more than that when you actually start looking. Look at ask for ask the prosecutor to produce the A.O. for thirty on your court case. They refuse to do it. Why? Because on that ledger, it states that they are the debtors and that you are the creditor. Well, wait a minute. If I'm the creditor, then why am I responsible for paying the fines? I can't be. So what the judge does is flip the jurisdiction to make you the debtor in the courtroom so that you're responsible for the fines. Now, they're all supposed to notify the Secretary of Treasury that this court case, that case number is a taxable event because there's gotta be taxes paid on this. They're not doing it. This is tax evasion on their part. So we should file a, what is it, a, to report them to the IRS that they're committing tax evasion. The whole system is just... It's messed up. One person would tell me it's kabuki theater. All of it. What's really fun is to sit down and reason this out, like with you and with John and with Greg Martini and Daniel Richard and people who have. studied the law and have actually put this into practice for a very long time. And it's amazing. And what's really amazing is how many of us out there are in this fight. There's a lot of people, John's group, you have a group, you know, there's, there's groups of people all over the place that are getting this figured out, figured out, you know, we, the people notices it's, it's amazing. And it's a wonderful thing to see. And I think, I think with the amount of education that's out there that we are going to see things flip. so I'm gonna let out a secret okay go ahead I'm gonna let I'll let out one of my my trade secrets as it were okay I can disqualify any judge any time any court case I can also disqualify the prosecutor any time any case okay and I'm going to tell you how okay now as I just talked about about the license the anti-bribery statement the foreign agent registration statement all these things title twenty eight section four five five disqualification of a judge you combine that with the seventh circuit case of taylor v o'grady which was upheld by the u.s supreme court in And it was in that case that the judges opined that if the possibility of impropriety exists, and the possibility need not be proven, just that it may exist, a judge is automatically disqualified. You don't have to file a motion. You don't have to file an affidavit. It is automatic. It is self-serving. And no judge has the authority not to recuse themselves. All orders issued by a disqualified judge are null and void with no bar of recovery. If the judge continues issuing orders after he has been disqualified, he is interfering with interstate commerce, which is a felony. He is also warring against the Constitution, which is an act of treason, a felony. So what's an impropriety? Well, let's see, no proper oath of office. No anti-bribery statement, no foreign registration statement, no license to practice law. These are all improprieties. And it isn't that it's a possibility of impropriety. These are actual, factual, proven improprieties. And now that we have the FBI report from twenty eleven stating that they are instructing the courts to treat sovereign citizens as terrorists and extremists, making the court biased. There is your biased entry. All judges are disqualified. Let them state that they're not a judge for the record. Well, now they're a trespasser upon the bench. Another felony. The prosecutors, same thing. When the prosecutor opens his mouth to start the proceeding, I object. Well, what's your objection? It's come to my attention that the prosecuting attorney does not have a license to practice law in the state of Michigan. Let him prove it. He can't stand there and be the prosecutor without the license. Because he's what? Representing a corporate entity, the state of Michigan. Who's bringing the claim? The state of Michigan. It's a corporation. If it's the city, oh, I'm here on behalf of the city of Brighton. Well, the city of Brighton is a corporation too. They incorporated. You got to have a license to represent that corporation according to your terms or according to your codes and statutes. Don't apply to me and your court rules demand it. Those aren't my court rules. I never signed a contract agreeing to those terms and conditions. Never once did I ever sign anything like that. If you did, show it to me. Show me my wedding signature on a contract. You can't. Well, I tell you what, I love this. And I'd like to revisit this again next week because I've got to leave a little early today. This is absolute brilliance. I am loving this. So can we bring this up again next week? Sure. Yeah, I believe I can be back. I absolutely love this. And I just want to thank you so much for how gracious you are with your time. I'd love to see the judges and the prosecutors taking the task for this because they're not doing their jobs at all. They literally have attacked the United States of America through that judicial system. through the injustice system. And I think we need to reverse it. So let's say a quick prayer. And I'm really sorry, but I'm going to, I think I told you before you got on today, I needed to run. So I'm hitting my rope limit here of how far I can stay on today. I wish I had all day to talk about this because this is fabulous, but I have another meeting to go to that I need to be there for. So let's say a quick prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this day. And I ask that you bless every single person here. Let your favor rest upon them. Thank you for Mike and John and for helping us to understand the processes that they have been working through for many, many years. And I ask that you would give everyone out there today peace. And as we work through the system, knowing that you are in charge, you're in control, and we have nothing to worry about. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. This is where we go to, boys and girls. Bing, bing, bing, bing. BrandonBurkeForGovernor.com because I'm the best non-conceiver who's ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And I'd like to have a discussion with the President of the United States, President Donald J. Trump, the right president, and Cowboy Boots, see who wears it better. I win. And then we talk about real stuff. So with that said, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Go out and have a great day today. And Mike, thank you so much for sharing that. Let's go over it again next week. So we get this in our brains so that it starts really making sense. And that way we can enable a lot of people to go in and fight this corruption. One person can't do it. It's too vast. We need all of us standing together and fighting this. We have to unite. The only reason why they win is because they keep us divided over stupid stuff that doesn't matter. So all of the distractions, which to your point that was talked about earlier in the show, your point and John's point is that the distractions are keeping everybody away from the actual tools we have to defeat them. And this is how we do it, guys. It's in a lawful manner and you just have to have the guts to go forward. So thank you for being on and we'll see you next week. Have a great day, everybody. All right.