Published Feb. 17, 2026, 9:02 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/1ZkJzZZjabrJv Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/2347910195671090 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v75vh60-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-2172026-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike.html https://rumble.com/v75vh3s-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-2172026-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2026-02-17-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike:4 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Pro Se Mike
Good morning. Welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg, and it's the seventeenth day of February twenty twenty six. And welcome to our show today. We're going to get right into this with John Tater. We actually had some time this morning to talk before we came on about all sorts of things. Man, we covered a lot of ground there in five minutes. Yeah, well. It's good stuff. It's good stuff. Well, it's called having actual content. So there, you know, you can kind of continue to go on. Well, I've been posting about Pam Bondi, and I think you and I are very close to believing the same thing. So I believe that the good guys are in charge and that they're doing exactly what needs to be done. But look at what happened. A bunch of us were saying, we demand that you release the names unredacted. The next day she released the names unredacted and it gave us an opportunity to talk to people and say also, well, that's fantastic. She read, you know, she redacted the names and put them out there. But that doesn't mean that they're guilty. So now the responsibility comes back on the people to also be responsible to lawful governance. And I think that's a very important step in all of this is teaching everyone how to react Instead of letting our, our confirmation bias take over and, or wanting vengeance to actually do the right thing. And the right thing is, is let it play out. Let's take a look at what was going on. This was the push by, because they believe Trump was involved and they believe Trump and they believe all of that and Trump. resisted like he did before in other situations where he resisted the release of his tax returns, for example. So it ended up going to the Supreme Court so he could get a Supreme Court ruling saying that the people in charge have the right to look at all tax returns. And that became a Supreme Court case and became a Supreme Court precedent. And now people like Bill and Hillary and all those others that have their private money systems can't have the private money systems anymore because the Supreme Court said the government can look into all of that. And had it not been for Trump resisting and getting it to the Supreme Court, that would still be a question. Biden says, oh, yeah, I'm clear. Here's my tax return. But what about his wife and his brother and his cousin? Because that's where they hide it. They hide it in spouses. Exactly. So here's the same scenario going on again with the Epstein files. He resisted setting them out and the rumor got out that, oh my God, Trump is on it. So the Democrats pushed to get this file out. They pushed like crazy to see if they could find something to nail them. Now, if he was really part of the Epstein business, Why didn't Obama bring it up and why didn't Clinton or Biden bring it up during their administrations? They were all Democrats. They could have brought that out and they could have had the Epstein files out in two thousand sixteen. They didn't do that. Why did they not do it? Because they were in it and they were afraid that, you know, they couldn't hang Trump with it, but they're going to hang themselves with it. So now Trump gets the Democrats to go out there and say, yeah, yeah, yeah, release it, release it, release it. And he does and they do. And all of a sudden they say, oh, my God, we screwed up again. Because Trump is playing a pretty good game, and he's really in charge, and they have no clue what's going on. Democrats are out to lunch. I think what's really interesting is that both sides were demanding for the release. And so, like, I put things there. I'm not sure that. that the Republican in general were demanding. But yeah, the rhino... I don't think there are clear lines though, John. And so there were a lot of demands for the, you know, between rhinos and Republicans and Democrats or whatever other zoo animals we want to call ourselves. But it's like I really think that a lot of people are so disheartened by what they're seeing going on in the United States that they just want something that clears the fog. And that's great. And it's like if she released it, that's great. But clearing the fog doesn't prove guilt on President Trump or anybody else that are in that file. It's a curiosity. It's a nice step. But we need to have prosecutions. And I think that there are ongoing investigations and prosecutions right now that they're not going to talk about until they carry it out to a conviction. With that said, when you look at the criminal conviction that we got in Michigan through the Attorney General's office and the signature gatherers last week, that was really interesting. But what's really interesting is in my case, I really think that I'm able to tie this into the Board of Elections as well as the complicity with Dana Nessel herself. And I think we need to look into that because it is pretty interesting that she spent a lot of time admonishing me for not checking sources on the signature gatherers? Well, I did. I called down to the Board of Elections and asked them what their opinion was. And they said, well, the person, the woman that answered the phone said, well, you know, a lot of people use them and we see them a lot. And she kind of gave an implied endorsement. And it's the responsibility of them to make sure too that the contractors are okay. Well, absolutely. The state published the, the, the records for, um, the C of the voting records and the candidates didn't have access to it, but the signature gatherers did. So who determined that that'd be the state, right? And then you add to that, that Dana Nestle's brother, Ariel, uh, loaned a million dollars to Nestle's wife, Elena. And the nonprofit that Nestle set up, I think it was in fifteen or sixteen. And then her wife took over running it. And all of a sudden, Ariel Nestle loans a million dollars to that nonprofit. They paid over a million dollars to the signature gathers. How come she didn't prosecute them? Or why did she hire them if she knew that they were or if she knew or had an inkling that there was a problem? There's a question. Why didn't she prosecute them? Interesting. Yep, because the sword doesn't cut both ways with the government. That's right. So it's up to us to stand strong and ask these hard questions and then get answers for it. But you can't get answers if you're just trying to be right. You have to be balanced. And so we've got some names. We don't have all the names, and that's okay. But they did release some of them, which now I think is a test to see if we are going to pay attention and uphold the law or if we're going to jump into – the grab your torches and pitchforks nonsense instead of going into a lawful process. And it gave me a chance to, to talk about this a little further, which is important. You know, nothing is clear cut and we need to ask those questions. So anyhow, the other thing you brought up was this nonsense with, with a witness going over to Germany. Yeah. I got a couple of questions about Whitmer going over there. One, What authority gave her permission to go over there? Under what authority of the state of Michigan? Who is responsible for dealing with foreign countries? Is it state governors or is it the president of the United States? Clearly, it is identified in the federal constitution that the president deals with foreign countries. And that's the reason we have a president, and that's the reason that Article II is set up that way, that they deal with the foreign countries, not state governors. State governors are supposed to deal with the state of Michigan. So she's stepped way out of her, as far as I'm concerned, way out of her authority. And who paid for it? Right. Well, look, we've got Steve Cara sitting there chairing that. And it's Center for Economic Availability, the House Subcommittee on Corporate Subsidies and State Investments. Could be real interesting. But I want to know, let's see, a hearing at the House Subcommittee on Corporate Subsidies and State Investments, chaired by Steve Cara. featured a pointed critique of Governor Whitmer's frequent overseas travel. I think we've got a real problem there. Whitmer and state economic development officials, including China, Germany, Austria, Italy, Ireland, Spain, and UK, and United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Netherlands, have said, He suggested trips blur the line between public officials, promotional work, and luxury travel. There's more to it than that because it looks to me like they're selling off the United States through foreign investments, and that's not okay. They can't even make it work here with the investments or make it work here with Americans. It's sad. She has no authority to go overseas. There's no authority in the state constitution that I can see, and there's no authority in the federal constitution that gives her the right to go on a political junket to a foreign country and make deals with foreign countries. That's why we have the United States. That's why we have a president. That's their function. She definitely doesn't know how to stay in her lane, number one. Number two, I want to know who's funding all of these junkets. And if it's being funded by the Michigan taxpayers, we got a real problem. She is stealing money from the American people. And she has no authority to do that. And AOC is another one. And actually, AOC, I'm glad she went over there. She made herself look like a real... She was stupid. She is as dumb as they come. I think the wording that she used and the phraseology that she used and the way she spoke in Germany was, my God, I'd be embarrassed. And as a country, I would be embarrassed to have somebody like that in congress that would go over there and act as as ignorant as that it's like biden over there again even though biden had the authority to go over there biden was nothing that we we wanted to represent us as a country so let's take a look at norton because norton really sets this the parameters for these public functionaries like Whitmer, like AOC, like the whole lot of them, that their behavior is outside their job description. And they've therefore they are committing acts of usurpation and they should be held accountable for it. So go to page six because we kind of left off at page six. That was the I think it's page six. Yeah, it's page six. But let's start at the top where it says, but. You got that? I can't read your. Do you want me to see if I can increase the size here a minute? This is amazing. This is doing things on the fly, guys. Can you read that better? I wonder why your butt starts in a different location. It doesn't matter. But it is contended that if the acts created the board was void and the commissioners were not officers de jure, let's stop this and let's back up to the history of this case again. This was where a governor was appointing people to be commissioned to sell bonds for the railroads. It all sounds like a really good thing, except the authority for the governor to create such an office isn't in the Constitution. And therefore, because it's not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. The governor can't create something that he does not have the authority to create. Remember, we are the sovereign. We give, we delegate to these public functionaries, their obligations and duties and their rights. And so if we don't delegate it to them, they don't have it. They don't have that. When you think of the application of Norton versus Shelby County, what percentage of our Michigan government would you estimate is absolutely null and void because of Norton versus Shelby County? Anyone that falls under the governor has the right to create a department. Seven departments, ten departments. I don't remember what the number was. There is a part in the Constitution that gives the governor an opportunity to create departments. I think she said twenty. Yeah. Now, those departments could be created for the purpose of collecting information for the governor, but they do not have any authority other than that. They cannot arrest. They cannot bother the public. They cannot detain people. They have no authority other than to gather information. So they can gather information as a part of the cabinet of the governor, but that's the only authority they have. So Child Protective Services, Adult Protective Services, And I can't think of all of the departments that they have there. Those departments don't exist, according to Norton versus Shelby County, because you can't have a part of the Constitution that says, oh, they can create departments. Well, what about creating, why can't the governor then turn around and create a department called gun confiscation departments? Why can't they turn around and create a department called free speech or what's the terminology for that? Bad speech or threat speech or anything like that. You know, censoring the name of the rules. That's right. So they can't create these departments out of thin air as the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air. They can't create these departments out of thin air. And of course, Whitmer, along with, you know, it goes way back to sixty three. uh john engler and and the whole schmear of governors over there that believe that could create departments out of nothing uh the department to uh sell off the lake in michigan to the chinese so they could bottle the water and sell it back to the michigan people those departments cannot be created without a Congress without a constitutional amendment that says those departments exist. And the twenty departments that supposedly they can create, they have to be specified. in the Constitution. They can't just be a department, a name of department, and then therefore it can do whatever they say it can do. Well, look at DNR. DNR broke off EGLE, and they've been working on the public-private partnerships, EGLE, and it's all about the energy. And public-private partnerships are fascist. That is China right there. That's the process for nationalizing our businesses. That's right. And they have no authority to do that. But the people need to understand this. Because the people are the ones that put these turds in office. And they don't know what these people are capable of doing because they're not paying attention to them. And so we have a big problem of... people that are lackadaisical and they don't want to pay attention to what is going on in the government because they're out on the beach or they're watching their movie or they're having their beer parties or whatever, or they're just not interested. But you've got to get interested in this because if you're not interested in politics, politics is certainly interested in you. And if you don't understand that. The problem that we have, and we have the same problem here in Byron Township with them taking over the land and giving it to these big corporate developers and giving them all sorts of things. They're not playing with their own money. It's all foreign money. And we don't have that. The people in Byron Township, I was talking to one of the gals that is on my channel, on some of my social media channels that's here, share. And the problem with this whole thing is that they won't do anything unless they have or feel the pain. But if they see him doing the wrong thing, they're like, not my problem. I'm going to go play golf. It's like, no, it is your problem. Yes, it is. If you don't pay attention to government, government will pay attention to you. So you've got to get off. The government is probably the most destructive form of body of people, of organizations that we have. They're necessary because we do need law enforcement. We do need to be sure the water is clean, which they don't do, to be sure that there is sewage and that kind of stuff. We do need the government. uh and so we can't we can't just disband government and become anarchists that wouldn't work but we got to have a very limited government which we do according to the constitution but we're allowing the nonsense we're allowing whitmer to go to germany we're allowing aoc to go to germany and they're they're stepping way outside their their authority. And we have judges that lie on the record. Nugent from Ohio lied on the record. And it's okay. It's okay. He's got wide discretion. Yeah. We're going to have to become a little bit more savvy in as a population to understand what's happening. I've been kind of looking into Perry Johnson, who is the new little darling of the Republican party. and what his background is. And I think we have another China problem there. And so we need to look into this and not pay attention to the good videos and that sort of thing. Did you talk to this guy? Did you ever get a chance to talk? No. Well, I've been in the same place he's been and such, but started with some background on his business connections with ISO registration across the globe. And when you start looking at that, it's regulatory capture. If you have a chance to talk to him, you must ask him and make this public. Will you be a de jure officer occupying a de jure office? And if he says yes, ask him, please explain that. And if he doesn't understand that and he doesn't explain it appropriately, tell him that he needs to resign immediately. for his uh campaign and go back and do some learning and you can even hand them norton versus shelby county to give them this is where you need to start uh learning but these people need to say yes i will be a de jure officer uh and i will occupy occupying a de jure office and if they don't know that they shouldn't be running for office because they're ignorant They think that they can do what they want once they get in office, and that's not what the case is. The case means when we talk about the word de jure, we talk about constitutional. Are they doing it constitutionally and by the law? And if they can't agree to or can't say that they are going to do that, then they shouldn't be even running for office. But then again, we have problems with our delegates who are most of them are brain dead, too, because they don't understand what it takes to put somebody there. Oh, he looks so cute. Oh, he's such a he's my neighbor and he's such a nice guy. But they don't really understand what it is that this guy is going to do when they get into office because they haven't asked the right questions. And so let's take a look at this. I'm going to do quite a bit of digging on this because it, you know, it's like the patterns that I'm seeing there are, it's regulatory capture. And so that's, you vote somebody like that in who's made a lifetime out of regulation, you're going to get more regulation. And the regulation we have right now is unconstitutional. Well, it again goes back to, will he be a de jure officer? Let him answer that question. Let him embarrass himself. We had Judge Warren, who was running for Supreme Court at one point. He came to our meeting and we asked him, have you ever read Norton versus Shelby County? He says, I looked at it. You're a Supreme Court. You want to become a Supreme Court judge and you haven't read Norton versus Shelby County. It's a treatise to what the republic is all about. You don't even know it. And we are going to put you in office as a Supreme Court justice in the state of Michigan. And you're unaware of this act. I mean, unaware of this Supreme Court decision. You're too ignorant to be in office. And this goes on with many, many other judges that are out there. They're too ignorant to be judges. They just don't know or they don't care or they're following a specific agenda. And the agenda isn't our republic. The agenda is whatever whoever put them in office made them want them to do. So let's go back to this, Norton, and Norton, as I explained earlier, this was a governor that was creating departments, a department, without the authority of the Constitution. Uh, and as I started, but it is contended that if an act creates the board was void and the commissions were not officers de jury, in other words, not officers, according to the constitution, they were nevertheless officers de facto, which meant that they were just people put in office and that the act of the board as a de facto. Court are binding upon the county. because they are appointed into that position. But we're going to clean this up a little bit as we get further into it. The contention is met by the fact that there can be no office, either de jure or de facto, if there would be no office to fill. so if the office to fill is not in the constitution then they can neither be a de jure officer nor a de facto officer they are usurpers and they are violating uh the uh the the constitution uh oaths of office and a whole bunch of other things if there be no office to fill so we got to get back to is there an office for these people to fill as the act attempts to create the office of commissioners never became law law by the constitution law by the vote of the public the officers never came into existence Even though they sat in a so-called chair and they were paid by the government for money, they were doing this illegally against the Constitution. Such as, and we'll get back to Child Protective Services, that office doesn't exist. It's not in the Constitution. Yes, the institutional kidnappers. We the people delegate authority to create that department and we haven't done that. The governor decides on their own that they're going to create this office similar to what the governor of Tennessee did, creating the commission to collect money for the building of the railroad to sell bonds. An office was never created legally by the Constitution, and therefore it does not exist. And these people that are collecting wages for an office that doesn't exist are stealing money from the public. That's where this is leading. The doctrine which gives validity to the act of officer de facto whenever defects, whenever defects there may be in the legality of the appointment of elections is found upon consideration of policy and necessary for the protection of the public and individuals whose interests may be affected thereby. And very big in red letters, officers are created for the benefit of the public. not for the benefit of a few groups of people or for a for a select group of people, but for the general public. Again, we go back to the federal constitution, which talks about the general welfare. It's not talking about the people of the poor. It's talking about the general welfare of everyone. So we have to pay attention to this. But the idea of an officer implies the existence of an office which he holds. It would be a misapplication of terms to call one an officer who holds no office. And the public office can exist only by force of law. And of course, Child Protective Services is created by force of law, and it is the force of law that keeps that operation or that keeps that body of government operating. And it is a misapplication of the whole idea of what who the republic is. So the last paragraph of this of this or the last sentence of this paragraph. An unconstitutional act is not a law. An under jury act is not a law. A usurpation of the Constitution is not a law. So an unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed so a lot of these departments that are out there irs uh epa uh fcc uh all the alphabets state police i think the state police are under that too that's right state police were created not by the constitution and their their de facto office or they're not even a de facto office their usurpation of authority is what what's going on there and so we need to be very much aware of this as the public that you people you're wearing a uniform you look like you're and you're driving a uh blue uh car with flashing lights on it and you look like you're official, but you're not. You're a public functionary, number one, if you're in a legitimate office, but you're not in a legitimate office. You are in an office that has never been created by law, only by people like the governor. Think about how that would be an amazing thing if the state police went back to and forensics and investigation and things that could be shared between the sheriff's departments and be a function that assists the sheriffs. That was the original intent. That's the way it's supposed to work. And remember what they say on the legal eagle side is intent of the law is the law. So what was the original intent of the state police? They would gather evidence, yes, investigate. They were never given pistols at the very beginning. They were never given the authority to arrest. That came later because we, the public, allowed it. We, the public, sat back and enjoyed our day off or whatever and didn't pay any attention. So as time went on, a prime example I use is the seatbelt law, supposedly. The seatbelt law was supposed to tell you to put the seatbelt on, and if you didn't have a seatbelt and they stopped you, they could fine you ten dollars. Now they look for you in a car drive traveling and if you don't have a seat belt on they pull you over and give you a sixty dollar ticket or or more well it's just uh it's just a way to detain people it's the it's the it's the it's the creeping crud that's going on in the state of Michigan the creeping police state yeah it's an excuse you know if they can find any reason to pull you over they you know they will now another um the next paragraph which you flipped off of us and in norton go scroll scroll down a little bit to the next yellow section i'm working on it here okay i think that might win when that's the first word you're too hang out a minute i screwed it up yeah right i think you're just pat When the government is entirely, and this is the keyword revolutionized, that means we have given up our constitution. That means government has taken over and we become a democracy, which is being pushed by the people in power because a democracy is where a fifty-one percent tell forty-nine percent how to live their life. That's a democracy. So when the government is entirely revolutionized and all its departments usurped by force or by the voice of the majority. Oh, hang on. Sorry about that. Yeah, we're in the wrong spot. No. Well, yeah, I kind of it was my fault. God, that's all right. The departments were usurped, again, and usurpation is stepping way outside your authority. This isn't overreach. This is usurpation. There's no overreach. Usurpation is the legal term used for stepping outside your judicial, executive, or legislative authority. job description that's usurpation so the department is usurped by force or by voice of the majority then prudence recommends and the necessity enforced uh obedience to the authority of those who may act as the public functionaries and in such a case the acts of a de facto executive, a de facto de jure and a de facto legislative judiciary. I'm sorry. And a de facto legislature must be recognized as valid, but only if it's been revolutionized. And of course, in Michigan, they're doing their best to revolutionize our government. But it is required by political necessity. There is no government in action except the government de facto because all the attributes of sovereignty have, and by usurpation, been transferred from those who have been legally invested. Those are us. We have the legal investment with them to to others who sustain the power above by form of law, claim of act and do act in their stead. But when the Constitution and form of government remains unaltered and and supreme, there can be no de facto department or or de facto office. So are we still under a constitution? Yes, we are. Are the usurpers in Lansing and Washington trying to revolutionize our country into a democracy, a different form of government? Yes, they are. Yes, they've been doing it since the eighteen hundreds. They've been trying to turn us into a democracy. But we haven't been revolutionized completely. We still have a constitution. Do we follow it? Yeah, I think some of the people are waking up and reading it for the first time in their life, which is good, which is good. But the general people that are in office have no idea what the Constitution says. Most of them have never read it. They swear no to a document that they don't know what it says. They say, oh, yeah, we got a Constitution. Yeah, I can say I'll uphold it. But I don't know what it says, and therefore plausible deniability makes me not totally liable because I really didn't know that answer. I really didn't know what was required of me in my office. So they get away with nonsense, plausible deniability. But you know what? If you were an engineer and you were engineering the braking system of a car and you didn't realize that in order to make the braking system, you had to put this screw into that screw hole and tighten it a certain way with certain torque. And you didn't do that. And the car ends up getting in an accident because the brakes don't work. you're an engineer you get fired because you didn't do your job but here we have government in office such as whitmer who is not working on where are the roads being fixed all of a sudden here or there they close a freeway or two but the jet my roads around my neighborhood are atrocious They're terrible everywhere. Yeah. And so where is that? I'll fix the roads. Then she looks for money to fix the roads. And then that doesn't work. So she comes up with some other scheme to launder money. But getting the roads fixed is not one of her, not one on the on the priority list that she wants. promised to do when she got elected. So she's not in her lane. She's usurping authority never granted. She's flying off to Germany. I wonder how much money and how many feet of road they could have fixed instead of sending her to Germany. Or we didn't send her to Germany. She probably took the money out of the Treasury herself. Well, they're on a full-time holiday, the people that are in an office anymore, and using it for their own self-gain from what I can see. You know, I talked about something the other day that brings it home to understand how much they have taken from we the people. Did you know that in the seventies, I did a little research, in the seventies, the buying power for a person on minimum wage was about nine thousand dollars a week. Mm-hmm. in today's money so silver didn't appreciate the dollar is literally dying on the vine value and so but you'll see these these uh idiots out here and there just is no end of the money because they keep printing it and they have no concept and and nor do they care it's all about themselves They have a, as X-Twenty-Two puts it, a bottomless credit card where they can take the credit as much as they need and as much as they want all the time. Just create a program, the snail darter study or whatever, or sending Whitmer to Germany and they need more money for this. So they create the money out of thin air. and you as the public see what i mean when you don't pay attention to politics politics pays attention to you you're not paying attention to politics and they're going to tax you more or come up with more schemes to get money out of you uh in order for them to be able to carry on their uh boondoggles or whatever they're trying to do in lansing And of course, you know about the high speed train that was supposedly to be built in California twenty years ago. And they only have like six hundred feet of rail or something like that. Right now, we're those billions of dollars. Yep. Billions of dollars spent on this so-called high speed train. And of course, they're that idiot in in California is pushing for get get send us some money so we can build a high speed train. So he's still at it, still at the same program. And of course, the public, as I say, public is got a very short attention span, and a very short memory. They keep voting these people back in office. They keep putting the same people that are robbing them blind back in office so they could steal more money from the public. This is an insane society. All right. If we move back on to Norton. We can get off in a million different tangents, you know? Yes, yes. When there is a constitutional executive and legislature, there cannot be any other than a constitutional executive. Without a total revolution, there can be no such political solemnness in Kentucky as the de facto court of appeals. And this is basically built on what's going on in that country. I'm sorry, that was Ron calling it. There can be no such court while the Constitution has life and power. and so our constitution still has life and power and there can be no such court there can be no such court there can be no such executive and there can be no such legislative branch that's not uh a de jure branch because our constitution has life and power um There might be under our Constitution, as there have been de facto officers, but there never was and never can be under a present Constitution a de facto office. It comes right back to the office that's created. If the office isn't created de jure, then it cannot be created. And the court held that the gentleman who acted as judges of the legislative office tribunal were not incumbents of a de jure, not incumbents of de jure or de facto officers, nor were they de facto officers of a de jure office. They never existed. So it all goes back to that. An office must be created de jure according to the Constitution. So if there's a department out there in the state of Michigan or in the federal government that isn't part spelled out in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist. You cannot find anything about the IRS in the federal government in the federal Constitution. It doesn't exist. It's not even an American entity anyway. It's a foreign entity. Well, we're not even going to get into that. But you know what I mean. It's like the whole thing. That office being not the jury makes it a foreign office. It's not that it was in Puerto Rico or any of that. That's Patriot's BS. Yes. I'm not saying it was in Puerto Rico. I'm saying that the international monetary system is completely separate. And so is, you know, so is, I don't know, most of it. So you're right. It's all de facto. It's not de facto. It doesn't exist. It's not there. It's not there. In order to be a de facto, first of all, Norton says you can't have a de facto offer. Right. Sorry. Doesn't exist. So the IRS doesn't exist. It only exists by force of law. Remember, we went back, we talked about that. If a department exists by force of law, then it is only if we've been revolutionized, which we haven't been. Right. I misspoke. I meant that anything having to do with the monetary system, the banksters and such, is completely, everything is off the rails right now. And I thought it was interesting this week that Pam Bondi put something out that said, if we prosecute everyone, the entire system will collapse. And I'm like, okay, so is that so bad? I'm okay with that. It's like, pull the pin, let her go. Well, yeah, I don't know if we want the entire system to collapse because we still need the constitutional government. But we need to bring it back to a constitutional government. We need to get rid of the usurpation that has been plaguing us ever since the eighteen hundreds. Well, my point is, is that you can't stop prosecuting because you're afraid of the consequences. So you just let it go on dragging on and on and on forever. There's the point right there. If there's people that have broken the law, they have to be prosecuted. And if there's got to be adjustments made or it collapses, It collapses at least part of it. I don't think that's going to be bad. If it brings the whole thing down, do we stop prosecuting just because we're afraid of the change? That's my question there. And I don't think that – I don't think this prosecution would collapse anything. There would be a lot of people that will be standing in the soup lines, though. Well – To a degree, you're probably correct, but to collapse the entire system and collapse the entire financial system that we are living in at the moment would be catastrophic to a lot of people that are dependent upon it. That can't be done. To back it down and then finally close it down is probably a more productive way of doing it. And that's what Trump is doing. He's not collapsing the system because we would end up in a civil war. And he doesn't want that. It's very, very planned. It is a very planned reversal of the usurpation. There's no two ways about it. But I guess my point being is that I don't really want to hear the excuses to try to fearmonger people so that we don't prosecute, you know, we need to prosecute people that broken the law. So, but anyhow, I digress. And I don't hear you, John. Yeah, I just went on mute to Ron has called me twice. So he's either listening to the broadcast and he wants to say something to me or he's got something to tell me about what's going on. And I didn't want to take time out. I just wanted to let him know I'll call him back when the broadcast is over. How's Ron doing? Hi, Ron. I know you're watching. He might be watching. I'm sure he is. And he's a big proponent of Norton. He could probably be. uh give you the whole the whole norton case without reading it i have to read it my memory is good but it's not that great uh but anyway this is this is his bible for how the constitution and how the government and how a republic is supposed to behave so he is yeah he just said okay so i don't know if he's watching or not okay Moving on to the Michigan court case, which was also part of this, which was Carlton versus Peoples. And it's got a very important point where there is no office. There can be no officer de facto for the reasons there can be none de jure. So here in Michigan, we have a Michigan case that says exactly the same thing as Norton says. If there is no office, there can be no de facto officer and no de jure officer. Then how come we got so many people running around acting like they're officers of a department that doesn't exist? What's that all about? We have a Michigan case that says it can't be done. But the people are allowing it because the government usurpation of authority is way beyond the imagination of what's going on in our country at this point in time. So that's why I wanted to point out the Carlton case. It's a Michigan case. It's not federal Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court is the law of the land. We know that anything that goes through the Supreme Court is the law of the land. We have a Michigan case that says the same thing. There are a lot of other state cases in here. that pretty much say exactly what Norton says. You don't have an office, you can't fill it with an officer, either a de facto officer or a de jure officer. It doesn't exist. All right, so moving on down to another point. An officer de facto is one who acts though not through those of the lawful officer. In other words, he's an officer because he was put in there. Maybe he wasn't old enough. to take that office at the time he needed to be thirty five and he was thirty four and he got voted in but he's going to be thirty five it's curable then he'll become a de jure officer or he was put in position um not necessarily because he has all the qualifications but because he was necessary to be there so he then becomes an officer de facto the law upon principles and policies and justice which hold valid so far as they are involving the interest of the public and the third person where their duties of the office are exercised so we need a we need to have a constable or a police officer or a police chief in a certain city, so they put somebody in there. He's not totally qualified, but he is therefore a de facto officer, but he's occupying a de jure office, which is the office of the police chief, for example. He's an officer that occupies a police chief office, but he's not qualified exactly because he didn't pass the exam or he didn't take the exam yet to become that police chief. So he's a de facto officer, but it's curable. On the other hand, if we look at Obama, Obama was a de facto officer because he was not a natural born citizen, but it's not curable. So he really hadn't. He was really a usurper in office. He had no authority to be in that office to begin with. And it's an uncurable situation because you can't become a natural born citizen if you're not a natural born citizen. And in order to be a natural born citizen, your father and your mother have to be citizens of the United States when you are born. And that wasn't the case with Obama. So he was not only a de facto officer, he was a usurper in office. He was in violation of Norton versus Shelby County of the federal constitution. He was in violation of that office to begin with. Should have never been in there. Everything he's done in there is null and void as far as I'm concerned. And I suspect that's where Trump is heading with this thing. Which is pretty exciting. Indeed. Very exciting. But like you said, if the system goes down or if there's some radical change, it doesn't really matter. We're going to figure it out. I mean, we think that things are insured day to day, but they're not. And so it's important for us to have as much knowledge and skills as what we can acquire, have good people that we know that we can stand with. And then whatever happens, we don't have to worry about it too much. We just Just keep going, you know, but I know there's a lot of people that depend on the system. We just got to step up. We'll be fine one way or the other. But I do think we're going to see some sweeping changes eventually. And based on Norton versus Shelby County, there needs to be. You and us will see some changes. But the one issue voters or the low thinking public will go from point A to point B and they'll never realize there was a change. It'll just happen. They'll just live through it. Nothing will be different. And so we don't want to collapse the system because there are a lot of people out there that have finances, you know, retirements and whatnot. You collapse the system, the retirements go away. That's a problem. So you don't want to do that. You want to reduce it or change it, but you want to change it in such a way that it doesn't destroy the public. And that's what Trump is attempting to do. He's trying to change it without destroying the public. Right. Which is the right thing to do. Yes. We don't want a civil war. I don't want to... Even though I'm a high-powered rifle shooter or was in the past, I don't want to do that. That's not what I'm all about. I shoot paper. I don't want to shoot people. So I don't want a civil war. And that's a fact. And we don't want a civil war because we know that when that kind of conflict takes over, and that's what the deep state wants, a good conflict. Because when the conflict takes over, generally, we give up our rights, as we did in World War II and World War I. We gave up a lot of freedoms, which we did in World War II and World War I. And we became more of a democratized country. And I don't even know if that's a word. But we've become more on the democracy side than on a republic side because we gave up a lot of the personal power, the sovereignty that we had that we are entitled to. That's our birthright because we had these conflicts. And because of the conflict, well, Roosevelt pulled that one on us. You're going to have a victory tax. That victory tax never went away. Well, I'm ready to see some sweeping changes, I got to tell you. And I would think that as smart as the people are that are working behind the scenes right now, that there's probably a plan there that even if we did see a complete total crash, I think that there's going to be a plan there. It sure looks like the financial systems are in really bad shape right now. So I think we're going to see something. And if that goes away and we go back to a different system or one that actually works, Maybe a little bumpy for a while, but I do think that it's not going to turn into the Wild West. We've got too many good people working behind the scenes. And so I'm positive at any rate. Well, I'm positive, too, that it's going in the right direction. It's going to take time, which a lot of people are very impatient. Oh, my gosh, yes. They want it to happen tomorrow. It's not going to happen tomorrow. It's going to happen over time. It took them since the eighteen hundreds to bring us into this process. And so we, you know, nineteen thirteen was the nineteen thirteen, nineteen sixteen. Nineteen thirteen, I think it was. Federal Reserve Act was brought on board. So it was a long time. We were at this for a long time. Now they're expecting Trump in one year to flip the switch. Doesn't happen that way. I just had a question from from one of my friends here that says Brunson case, is it still active? Have you been following it? Somewhat to a degree. And I don't know how active it is in the Supreme Court. I know they have not gotten cert. So at this point in time, it's probably a case on the file waiting to decide whether they're going to even listen to it or not. But it's not been listened to. And as far as I know, there is no cert granted to them at this point. I'll have to call him because I know Loy. So I'll give him a call today and see what he has to say. Well, why don't you give yourself a plug here and then we're going to go to Mike. And what's the week bring for you? Well, we're going to be talking about a case that precedes Norton v. Shelby County called Pope v. Pfeiffer. We're reading it right now on Wednesday night, and we're, I don't know, a couple of pages into it. Actually, I just sent out the... secretarial notes of the case. So somebody that hasn't been involved could read the secretarial notes and join us for more further understanding of it. But that case was a similar case to Norton, but they never brought out the lexicon of the words de jure, de facto, etc. So it's worthwhile to know and have behind you so you understand the history and tradition of our country. Okay. So what's the deal with this week? Are you going to Nicholas this week? That's the following week. That's on the twenty-fifth. This week will be Zoom. So go to MagnificentRepublic.com and it'll tell you how to get into the Zoom or write me an email and I'll put you on the mailing list. Either way, you can join us. Awesome. Okay, guys. Well, let's see. Let me get everything back to the order here. And we're going to run to a fifty seven second break. And I'll be bringing on Mike, Pro Se Mike, Mike the National. OK, so fifty seven seconds. And here we go. We'll be right back. good morning and welcome to the second hour of brandenburg news network i am donna brandenburg it is the seventeenth day of february twenty twenty six and i'm here with pro se mike how you doing mike good morning how you doing ah doing okay i was having a little trouble technical difficulties this morning getting on again so i don't know what's going on but uh i had to use an alternative source to get on this morning but the other one wasn't working so Well, I tell you, yesterday X was down for like over thirty minutes at the beginning. And so we just kept going because we were out. We were going out to Rumble and Rumble was spotty. Brandenburg News Network dot com. That one's usually the most reliable, but we've got like, I don't know, we're on two tour nodes and some other things, too. But we just kind of kept going. So I saw that a lot of the major hubs in the United States that was following that a little bit were having some serious difficulties. So I think there's a lot of technical stuff that's kind of wonky right now. Yeah, it's all that stuff made in China, you know. So what are you going to do? You have to persevere. Yeah, listen, you and John, they're about, you know, we don't want civil war and all that. And, you know, my sarcasm has a tendency to come out when I hear things like that, because we know that, you know, the Democrats and all these haters of the Constitution, they would love to see that document shredded. They would love to see our founding documents shredded, thrown away, burned, whatever. You know what? So maybe, maybe, here's my sarcasm coming, maybe we should allow them to do that. You want to know why? First off, there's more of us than there are of them. That is very true. Okay, so the war of attrition, we outnumber them. And so if, now just think about this. If we put them all in a room and say, okay, when the buzzer sounds, you're going to shred all the documents so they no longer exist. And we're going to allow you to do that. And they're going to look at you kind of funny. And so the buzzer goes off. They shred the documents. What they don't realize is that the minute they do that, the laws of the land cease to exist. There are no laws. There are nothing. So guess what we get to do? We get to round them up and ship them off someplace to a remote deserted island someplace, drop them off and say adios amigos, come back and reinstate the Constitution and all our founding documents as they were. So guess what? We didn't violate any of their rights. We did nothing to them because we didn't break any laws because they didn't exist at the time. That takes care of that problem. Just a thought. Well, and, you know, it's like when people say that there's a lot of people that are dependent on the system, that's part of the problem. And it's like, you know, there's better ways to do everything. And we need to take care of, you know, we need to be responsible for those around us. I'm not saying that. But the criminal, the crime syndicate that's going on right now has got to come to an end. And we cannot tolerate that. We can't tolerate lawbreakers and say, well, we're not going to prosecute because the system's going to collapse. I mean, that's basically what Bondi said. And let me pull, I'll pull it up because I know. And I'm like, okay, so we're scared that we're going to lose what we have. Okay. Does that stop us from following the law? In my opinion, absolutely not. Well, I sent you an email, the talking points for this morning that you can pull up so everybody can see it. Because something I want to bring to their attention, everybody, you know, it's like pulling teeth to try and get people engaged. You know, people are like, well, you know, it really doesn't affect me. You know, what can I do? Blah, blah, blah. I got news for you. It's already knocking on your front door. I am so sick of that. It's nauseating. They've already infiltrated your day-to-day life. And that's what I'm going to show you today in regards to the banking and your banks, your money, and what they're doing to steal your assets. And I have the proof today that I'm going to show you. I talked about it, I think, the last time I was on the show a little bit. Well, today, I not only have the proof, I also have the counter to all of their rhetoric. Okay? So if you ever get involved with a conversation with a bank and they start pulling some shenanigans, guess what? I have what you need to refute what they're saying. And it's very easy. Very easy. Very easy to understand. So that's why I was going to look to cover today to show you guys what's going on. But go ahead with your clip. Yeah, there's Pam Bondi's thing. Pam Bondi warns that prosecuting everyone in the Epstein files could cause the entire system to collapse. Okay. Well, does that mean we get to re-institute a new form of government, which the, uh, the declaration of independence guarantees the whole damn thing is corrupt. So this is like trying to try to restore. This is going to be like trying to build on a foundation made of popcorn. It's not even a foundation of sand. We have gotten to this foundation made of popcorn. And I'm pretty sure if we stopped all the theft and all the other stuff going on, we'd have so much wealth here and it would be quick. We put everybody that's usurped the United States, you know, we prosecute them and take all their stuff because they profited unjustly. And guess what? Take that. Eliminate the Bar Association. No more Bar Associations. Eliminate all of them. Because what do these public functionaries do? Well, I can't make a decision because I have to talk to the attorney first. Right. Well, he's not the elected official. Right. So why does he get to say what happens and what doesn't happen? No. He's going to weasel his way out of it or weasel it out of accountability, you know? Well, the other aspect is, you know, wink, wink, nod, nod. Don't worry about what you say, even if it's wrong or whatever, because my bar buddy on the bench is going to protect your ass. So... Guess what? The fraud, the crimes perpetuate. Why? Because of the bar. Because of these bar attorneys need to be eliminated. Period. The right to practice law is a common right. It does not need to be licensed. And There is no such thing as a license. U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on that numerous times. So this is all a facade. It's all fake. It's all BS. And people got to start waking up to it. I can't tell you how many times people are going to be, well, I got to go talk to my attorney. Dude, you have no idea what you're giving up. You're giving up your rights when you go hire an attorney. Corpus Juris Circumdum, Volume Seven, Section Four. First duty of all bar attorneys is to who? The court, not the client. You're third on the pecking order there. So with that in mind, they have infiltrated also the banking system. I should say they're the enforcers for the banking system because the banks control the governments, and the bar helps enforce what they want. So, again, I sent you an email on this. Now, the information I'm going to cover today, this is from Key Bank. Okay. Now, I've already received another response from PNC. PNC has admitted that they will discriminate against We the People. So I went to KeyBank. I gave them a copy of a trust. And this is what they and how they responded, okay? Now, this is from the attorney of KeyBank. and in part one now this is now everything in black is what she wrote this is exactly word for word everything exactly how she had sent it to me everything in red is the rebuttal that I have put together when I go to meet with them again to go over this, and I want to see how they react to this. I want to see just what it is that they think they can do, and let's see how far we can push this. So in part one, forcibility, jurisdictional assertions, She states that what the document says, it declares itself a foreign irrevocable trust governed by God, Constitution, natural law, rejects the Michigan Trust Code, administrative law, and most state federal oversight, insists only a court of equity of its own definition has authority. Well, damn right. It is God, you know, governing law is God and the law of the land, the constitution, the first, you know, the first amendment allows us to do this. So what the bank is doing, this is a first amendment violation. The Michigan trust code is repugnant to the U S constitution, Marbury v. Madison, and a court of equity still exists. Maxim's of law prevail. So what she's asking, what they're asking you to do is if you have a trust and you go to open up a trust bank account at key bank, They do not want the law of the land, the Constitution, or God in the trust. They want it removed. And they want the administrative process, the administrative laws put in place as the governing law. I'm sorry, but no, that's not how it's going to work. Now she states here why this is risky. U.S. courts uniformly apply state and federal law to trusts administered or sentenced in the state. Self-declared immunity is not recognized. Foreign state claims under federal statutes, twenty eight U.S.C. Section sixteen oh three and sixteen oh nine don't apply to private domestic trusts. Well, let's break this down. Uniformly apply, she states. Well, that violates Article one, Section ten of the Constitution of the state of Michigan. Self-declared immunity not recognized. Well, wait a minute. Shouldn't that not also apply to judges and their so-called immunity? And every other public functionary that's sitting in the seat or takes a paycheck. Yes. Yeah. They literally have given themselves advantages over all of us. Yeah. It's a quasi branch of government, which they don't have the authority to do. It's a usurpation. I mean, we could go on and on on that. uh section sixteen oh three foreign state is an entity including trusts so they're misreading their own codes and statutes a foreign state except as used in section sixteen oh eight of this title includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency of instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection b this fully The whole thing is taken out of context. They are taking and twisting everything to suit their own narrative. Under Subsection B, an agency or hospitality of a foreign state means any entity. Well, any entity includes a trust. Under Subsection I, which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and under Subsection Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of the enactment of this act, the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from the attachment, arrest, execution, except as provided in section sixteen ten and sixteen eleven of this charter. So there's immunities that apply to foreign status. And they want to take that away from you. Now, she goes on how this plays out. A creditor, beneficiary, or agency sues. The court exercises jurisdiction regardless of the instrument's assertions. Wait a minute. First off, creditor. Well, whom is the creditor? Pursuant to twelve CFR one zero zero six point three eight, we the people are the creditors. We're not the debtors. And for them to exercise their jurisdiction regardless of what the trust says, it violates article one section ten again. And what jurisdiction do they have? It's a usurpation of authority in order to be Shelby County. Now, ignoring orders because the trust says courts lack authority can lead to contempt, default judgments, and expedited remedies. If the court lacks jurisdiction, no orders can be given. Jurisdiction, once challenged, must be proven. They're totally ignoring this. And what she's suggesting that we do to change the trust, adopt a conventional governing law clause, e.g. Michigan. Well, wait a minute. We already have a governing law clause. It's called God and the Constitution, the law of the land. So here, plain as day, she wants that removed and she wants the administrative state to be put in place. Keep certification of trust tools, but allow lawful third-party diligence. Banks, title companies, under standard practice. We don't want to be under their standard practice. Accept that courts do have oversight in defined circumstances. Keep well-drafted dispute resolution clauses. Well, wait a minute. Let's look at what they're just saying here. Again, the governing law is God and the law of the land, Constitution. Michigan codes and statutes do not come before either of these two jurisdictions. Third parties are not a party to the trust. They can never be a party unless consent is given. The standard practice is administrative, which is unlawful and repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. And do not consent to having state court jurisdiction. They are only administrative and lack any personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Note, if the courts can lawfully declare jurisdiction over the trust, then why do we need consent from the trust? Why are they asking that the trust grant that consent? So right there, it tells you right there, they don't have jurisdiction unless consent is given. And we don't want to give them consent because they're going to steal and pillage your assets. They're going to dominate what happens to you. They're going to put you in a nursing home that could kill you. We've got people who have gone through this. I've got a couple of people who have been made homeless. Because the courts, these people were the sole beneficiary, and they took the assets from them. They left them homeless. Now, how is that just? Where's the equity in that? She goes on in part two. Tax exposure, income, gift, estate, employment. What the document says, declares the grantor is, I'm sorry, declares the grantor a creditor. The trust and subsidiaries tax exempt and claims blanket immunity from IRS state taxes. Demands wet ink contracts, sets conditions before any tax is owed. That's right. That's absolutely right. Why? Because the Bankercy Act of nineteen thirty three made all men and women creditors, not debtors. Proclamation twenty thirty nine and twenty forty. All debts owing are that of the United States. IRS is a third party debt collector for the Treasury. To prove an obligation is owed, there must be an original wet ink contract or promissory note that has to be produced. I'm lost here. I've got to figure out where we were. Part two. Part two, page two. And there must be a true bill indicating what the obligation is. I don't know about you. I've been a contractor for thirty five years. I can guarantee I've never gone to a customer and said, yeah, you owe me this much money and never give an explanation, never give a bill or anything else. Just a you owe me. No, I don't fly. Are you going to pay your contractor just because he says so? No, there has to be validation here. She states that why this is risky tax liability arises by statute. Not by private contract. If the grantor retains power to amend, revoke, or benefits economically, the trust may be a grantor trust. IRS code six seventy one through six seventy nine. Even if non-grantor gift to state and information reporting rules still apply. Asserting blanking immunity is a hallmark red flag for enforcement. Really? Let's take a look at that. First off, lawful tax liability is to be discharged through the IRS, i.e. a . There is no income, only reimbursement, thus no taxable income. I don't make an income. What's an income? By their definition, income means you're making a profit. All I do is get reimbursed for my time or the materials I put into something. I don't make an income. Reimbursement is not taxable. It's not a profit. My time, I trade it. It's a trade. That's all it is. Taxable income indicates that one made a profit. Granter has no substantial beneficial interest. Only the beneficiary does. That's who benefits from the trust of the beneficiary. Now, according to the codes that they cited under six seventy one, Granter is not the owner of the asset. The trust is the owner. Violates Article one, Section ten of the Michigan Constitution. Now, you're going to have to go through and read each one of these sections to understand more about what they're claiming here, but these are all the rebuttals to every one of those sections. Uh, six seventy-three, the rancher never had revisory interest in it at any time. Six seventy-four, none of the assets. It's considered to be an income, rather a personal household good, according to UCC three dash one oh three subpart two. When something is a personal household good, there are no taxes. Is your house a personal household good? Yeah. Everything in it? Yeah. How about your car? Is that a personal household good? Sure is. Those are non-taxable. Granture is not the owner. All transaction is by way of the trustees. Six seventy six. Granture is not the owner. The power to revoke is enforced by the trustees and the provisions of the trust. Six seventy seven, grantor is not the owner and receives no income from the trust. Six seventy eight, the trustee and co-trustees is not nor can be treated as a substantial owner, nor do they receive any form of income, only reimbursement for their time and materials. Six seventy nine, this applies to income and residency of a person of the United States. However, no person attached to the trust receives a taxable income. All of these sections is a violation of Article I, Section X of the Mission Constitution, and all referenced obligations are that of the United States. They cannot create laws, codes, statutes that obstruct the enforcement of the obligation of the contract, i.e. the trust. The trust is an agreement, and they're creating codes and statutes to manipulate the trust. And this is how they get their foot in the door and take away your assets from your beneficiaries. How this plays out, she states, audit and adjustments, accuracy-related penalties, potential civil fraud penalties, inclusion of trust assets in the grantor's taxable estate if retained powers, benefits trigger, sections twenty thirty-six and twenty thirty-eight, retained control enjoyment, if used to avoid payroll, self-employment taxes, Routing personal or business income, additional penalties apply. Well, let's take a look at that. The IRS. Audit is met with delegated authority challenge via Norton v. Shelby County. Where does the IRS have the delegated authority to investigate any of this? They don't. Sections, uh, twenty-thirty-six. Use of assets is determined by the trust, not the grantor. Twenty-thirty-seven. Regionary interests do not apply. Grantor has no ownership rights attached to the assets. Twenty thirty eight assumes grantor retains owner rights to the assets. Assumes and presumes are not fact. All assets is purchased by the trust in lawful money. Therefore, these sections do not apply. These sections violate Article one, Section ten of the Michigan Constitution again. Again, they're trying to manipulate, they're trying to control ex post facto, creating laws and regulations that obstruct your ability to enforce. mitigation get a tax opinion on grantor versus non-grantor status and estate inclusion if grantor trust treatment is intended embrace it and file correctly graduate ssn or trust ein statements if non-granting status is needed remove retain powers add adverse party and ensure separate economic substance never rely trust is tax exempt language comply with federal and state filings well women state and federal filings remember The rules of the IRS are not laws. They're rules. Rules are never laws. So how do we, what's the response to this? CPA estate planners and attorneys follow administrative law only leaving trust and assets vulnerable to the pirating by the probate courts. Why do we have probate judges right now being arrested for doing this? Obviously this is something that's going on. Obviously we have a problem. That's why they're being arrested and investigated. Subtrusts do not have an SSN and the trust EIN is in no way attached to the SSN. Adding adverse party is not a guarantee and opens the possibility of other issues. Compliance with federal and state filings is administrative law. So we don't want administrative law. Part three, fraudulent transfer avoidable transactions. What the document says, strong asset protection tone. Threatens suits and fee schedules against third parties. Seeks to insulate assets from creditors and government claims. Well, what is a trust supposed to do? It's supposed to what? Protect your assets. The language of the trust is too strong. It has language that is too protective of the assets. Well, damn right. So strong asset protection is what the trust is supposed to do. Outside third parties have no standing to interfere with the terms of the trust. That includes a judge. Judges are outside third party to this. And again, whom is the creditor and who is the debtor? So when you've got someone claiming to be the creditor, you have a right to challenge that. You should challenge it. She states, why is this risky? Transferred, made, or structured to hinder, delay, or defraud existing or foreseeable creditors can be voided under state voidable transaction laws. Courts scrutinize timing, retention of control, insider trustees, and secrecy. Again, whom is the creditor and who is the debtor? See XV U.S. Code Chapter XLI. It talks all about it. It gives all the breakdown. And the courts like jurisdiction to scrutinize a private trust. They can't do it. How this plays out? She's claiming that there has to be a clawback of contributions, injunctions, charging orders, extended look-back periods in some contexts, fees shifting against transfer and trust. Again, see, U.S. Code Chapter Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, and the court is bound to adhere to Article I, Section X of the Michigan Constitution. They can't just claim it doesn't exist for their own opinionated pursuit of the assets. She says, in the mitigation document solvency at the time of each transfer, avoid funding during active disputes or insolvency. Use independent trustees and conventional spendthrift clauses And keep transparent arms like record records and ordinary course of funding. Well, courts must act as jury at all times. They're going to be Shelby County. They must adhere to Article I, Section X of the Michigan Constitution. They must adhere to XV U.S.C. Chapter XLI. They must adhere to the law of the land. And they're not doing it. This is a total breakdown of what they're attempting to do. Under part four, sham, alter ego, illusionary trust risk, what the document says, calls itself irrevocable, yet gives the grantor unilateral powers to amend, restate, revoke, replace trustees, and direct distributions. Well, irrevocable is defined within the trust pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. How many codes and statutes are there? There's millions of them. What do they do? They change the definitions of words from one set of codes and statutes to the next. Well, who granted them sole authority over definitions of words? If you want to change the definition of a word within your document, you have the ability to do so. You have every right to do so, provided you put what the definition is in your document. So if you're going to change what the definition of dog is, make sure you have what you are claiming the definition of dog is in your document. So it's spelled out, it's clear, it's transparent. And that's what we do. We put the definition. We change the definition of every vocable, and they don't like it. They want a monopoly over the definitions. The Bar Association is attempting to monopolize the definitions of words to adhere to administrative law and not the law of the land. Who has the higher equitable delegated authority to determine the language used in a private trust agreement? That is you. That is the grantor. The grantor has the ultimate authority to do that, and you can delegate that authority to the trustee for the protection of the trust. The trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to the trust, its contents, and the beneficiaries. And the trustee has the authority to do what is necessary to protect those assets and protect the rights of the beneficiary. That's what their job is. She says why this is risky. If the grantor retains effective ownership control, courts can treat the trust as a grantor's alter ego or illusionary disregarding the form for creditor tax or family law purposes. For estate tax, retained powers commonly trigger inclusion. Now my response to that is the grantor He has another trust in this case with no blood relation to any man or woman, trustee or beneficiary. If the court attempts to enforce the ultra-ego-illusionary claim, it violates Article I, Section X of the Michigan Constitution. And regarding creditors, again, see C-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR-CFR- She says how this plays out. Creditors and tax authorities reach trust assets as if owned outright by the grantor. Estates include trust assets set up. Rules may apply differently than intended. regarding creditors, again, false CFR, one zero six point three eight. It violates Article One, Section Ten of the Michigan Constitution. It also violates the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Where does a judge have the ability to just walk in and say, you know what, we're going to take those assets and we're going to do this with that and we're going to do that. I'm sorry. When they take, when the government takes your personal property under the taking clause, they must give you just compensation. And the probate courts are not doing that. They're stealing assets with no compensation. They're violating the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is an act of deprivation of unalienable rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the step-up rules are not a law. Mitigation. The attorneys claims here that decide internationally, grant or trust control, but accept tax estate consequences versus non-grantor, limit control, adverse party approvals, removal, I'm sorry, remove unilateral amendment powers. If asset protection is a goal, use independent institutional trustee and limit grantor powers. Really? Why demand that all public functionaries act de jure at all times? Why are the attorneys, courts, and banks arguing against the U.S. Constitution and refusing to abide by the law of the land? Here, they're putting it in writing. They're showing you. Part five, beneficiaries hidden on the key. Now, in my trust, I have what is called the key. What is it? The key is a document that oversees who the trustees are of all my trusts, who the beneficiaries are of all my trusts. It has what the assets of each trust is. This one person is the overseer of all the trusts, and the key is the Please, for that documentation to be kept in, okay? It is not something that is public. These are private trusts. A private trust does not divulge specific information. So what the document says, she says, beneficiaries are not named in the instrument. They appear only on a secret key held by another trust or trustee. Third parties can't see it. Why would a third party need to see who my beneficiaries are? Beneficiaries are not named in the instrument because it's a private trust. The key is the internal security mechanism, the key specific information secured in private from the outside third parties. It's a security system. Why this is risky? Trusts generally require definite beneficiaries ascertainable from the instrument or pursuant to an incorporated writing. Secrecy can cause indefiniteness, funding failures, and refusal by bank title companies to rely on certification. Well, the part where it says, or pursue it to an incorporated writing, that is what the key is. We've met that requirement right there. Refusal by a bank title company would result in federal lawsuit for discrimination, violations of Article I, Section X of the Michigan Constitution, and federal banking laws. When they're claiming that they're going to deny you, that's discriminatory. They don't have the right. Remember, the bank didn't hire you. You hired the bank. They're a corporation. They're a company. You're hiring them to perform a specific job. They didn't hire you. They didn't come to you and say, hey, we're going to hire you to put your money in our bank. No, I'm coming to them and asking them, here's what I need you to do with my funds. How this plays out, financial institutions decline accounts or distribution without evidence of beneficiary identity. Disputes over who is or isn't a beneficiary challenges to trustee authority. Again, refusal by a bank or title company will result in federal lawsuit for discrimination, violation of Article I, Section X. obstruction of commerce, interfering with interstate commerce and federal banking laws, and more. The bank has a fiduciary responsibility to the trustee, or I'm sorry, to the trust trustee, and can be held liable and accountable for obstruction of the trustee's functions. The bank can't just unilaterally change the trust terms and conditions of what the obligation of the trustee is. Can't do it. Under the mitigation part, She goes, name the beneficiaries or a determinable class in the instrument or in a schedule expressly incorporated by reference that can be shared under an NDA. All right. I hate, I'll get on that rampage here in a minute. Use a certification of trust for third parties while producing beneficiary proof as needed. Well, first off, NDAs are not enforceable. Case in point, the Michigan International Speedway case. Okay, that case right there destroyed waivers and NDAs. People don't understand that. They're not enforceable. You cannot sign away your rights prematurely. Can't do it. And that's what those do. So they're unenforceable. Beneficiaries will always remain private in a private trust. There's absolutely no reason why any outside third party needs to know as to whom the beneficiary is, including a bank. Yeah, because they're looking for a way to claw the money back every single step of the process. Yes. Now. My screen is opposite. So when I look over here, I'm looking at a separate screen. So I'm not ignoring you. No, that's fine. That's fine. I'm dual screening here also. Yeah, everything is backwards on the camera here. So part six, banking, KYC, AML. encounter party friction what the document says third parties are not permitted to inquire declares itself foreign immune bars disclosure of key rejects uh rejects administrative oversight now note what does kyc stand for it stands for know your customer aml stands for anti-money laundering let that sink in for just a moment Is a set of regulations, policies, and procedures implemented by financial institutions combat illicit financial activities, including money laundering? Wasn't that an oxymoron? They're asking you to divulge this information supposedly to prevent money laundering. Isn't that what they're doing? When is a bank ever able to loan on its own credit? They can't. Federal law prohibits. The money that you get from a bank isn't the bank's money. It's your money. Because you're the creditor. You sign the promissory note, they go to the Treasury Department, and all they're doing is filtering that money through them, claiming they're giving you a loan. You're borrowing your own money. And then they go, well, here's the payment schedule. You're paying us so much in a month with interest. They're double dipping. People got to wake up. There is no delegation of authority that grants any third party to inquire into a private trust agreement. A trust stipulates its own jurisdiction, i.e., foreign trust agreement. Administrative law is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. Marbury v. Madison. We have the U.S. Supreme Court supposedly looking at Humphreys this next session, and they're supposed to make a determination by June to overturn it. It's a blow to the administrative rules that they've been enforcing on everybody. So why is this risky, she says? Banks, broker-dealers, and title companies must perform a KYC or an AML, beneficial ownership and source of funds checks. If refused, they must decline the relationship or file an SAR. Note, an SAR stands for Suspicious Activity Report. It is a document that financial institutions must file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN. whenever they suspect illegal activity such as money laundering or fraud. Well, guess what? They don't have any delegation of authority. It's a usurpation of authority, i.e., in order to be Shelby County. These departments and agencies have no authority, period. They're created by codes or statutes or executive orders. They're de facto from the get-set. And A lot of this comes out of the Patriot Act and is being run through and controlled by the Homeland Security. So they're getting to the point now where if you do a six hundred dollar transaction, the bank is going to report to them what you are doing with your money. If you go to the bank and take out five hundred dollars today and five hundred dollars tomorrow, they're going to file an S.A.R. because, oh, we got some hanky panky going on here because they took out two transactions of five hundred dollars apiece this is how bad it's getting this is how bad there's prying into your day-to-day activities and your life and manipulating your money because it's going to get especially when they go digital what do you think is going to happen when things go digital wake up people oh i don't think they should take out another five hundred dollars a day denied push of a button oh you want to take out some money to buy a gun denied sorry Wake up. How this plays out, accounts not open or closed, wires or transfers blocked, escrow agents refuse closings, vendors, insurers, property managers, payroll refuse to contract. There you go. She's saying it right there. Now, the refusal by a bank or title company will result in a federal lawsuit for discrimination, violation of Article I, Section X of the Mission Constitution, obstruction of commerce, interfering with interstate commerce, federal banking laws, and more. The bank has, again, a fiduciary responsibility to the trustee and can be held liable and accountable for obstruction of the trustee's functions. That's where the fee schedule comes in. They don't want that fee schedule in there. Take that fee schedule out of here. You can't hold us accountable for telling you what to do and what not to do. Oh, yes, I can. Mitigation. Mitigation. Here's what she says. Prepare a bank-ready certification package. Certification of trust, trustees, IDs, EIN letter, governing law clause, beneficiary verification under an NDA, powers and limitations, and copies of relevant pages on request. Upon request? Will I take orders from the bank now? Avoid language that forbids ordinary compliance. This is pretty shocking. This is shocking. Yes. Yeah. Here we have the bank's playbook. This is what they're doing to people. I have it in their writing. Now, the response to that, trustee ID for signer status only. If you're a trustee as a signer of the account, if a trust has a bank account, that's the only time you need to show your ID. The only time. Again, the governing law is God and the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. The beneficiary is not required information, and ordinary compliance is administrative and repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. Now, the next part, consumer law, wet ink contract, right of rescission. What the document says, treats all parties as consumers, demands wet ink contracts for any obligations since tiller rescission and FDCPA remedies, wildly. Well, in my response, all parties is a consumer pursuant to U.S. Code-U.S. Code-U.S. Code-U.S. Code-U.S. It's pursuant to U.S. Code. These are federal laws that are in place. They've been in place for I don't know for how long. We have the right to do this. These are the obligations that they're supposed to be following. And they're trying to invoke their rules and regulations and violate your rights. Your right of rescission is in black and white, cemented in federal law. And they are bound to follow it. She says, why this is risky. TILA rescission FDCPA protections are narrow. They don't cancel ordinary tax obligations or most commercial debts. Courts routinely sanction frivolous reliance on these theories. Really? Well, tax obligation is voluntary, last I checked. And tax obligation is lawfully tendered by way of a ten ninety nine OID process. All debts are that of the United States under Proclamation twenty thirty nine and twenty forty. and not a theory, see Bankruptcy Act of nineteen thirty three. So if you read the Bankruptcy Act of nineteen thirty three, you're going to see that what they're claiming is a theory is fact. How this plays out? Motions denied, possible sanctions, fees for bad faith litigation tactics. Really? Court must prove jurisdiction for the terms of the trust and the Michigan Constitution. Any sanctions or fees is lawfully tendered according to Montgomery Ward v. Eugene Glaser, there's your coffee beans. Pay the court in coffee beans. You're going to do things lawfully. Judge, do you have a problem with me doing things lawfully? They don't dare say no. Mitigation. Remove blanket rescission consumer language. Rely on fact-specific defenses where applicable. Reserve dispute resolution rights while acknowledging equitable law. Well, the removal of the right of rescission cannot be waived. The federal laws, in part, is cited above, which is the guiding Constitution. But they don't want that. Part eight, no contest or forfeiture. What the document says, anyone contesting or even opposing validity forfeits all rights and is removed from the key permanently. In my trust, if I have a beneficiary... who tries to contest the trust, who tries to cause problems with the trust. Guess what? They're out. As a beneficiary, they just lost their rights because that's, as the grantor, my choice. I don't need things being dragged through probate court or anything else. This is very simple. As a beneficiary, you are being gifted something, okay? Don't cause problems for everybody else. And sure as hell don't cause it to the point that the probate court is going to pillage and pirate everything and nobody gets nothing. That's just stupid. So my terms of the trust indicate that a beneficiary who causes problems loses their beneficiary status. Well... uh here i have no outside third party as a constitutional or any other form of delegate authority to change the terms and conditions wishes or intent of the grantor within a trust agreement courts like jurisdiction or probable cause to interfere for no entity has suffered a harm damage or deprivation of rights so a beneficiary causes problem and causes a harm to the trust by removing them as beneficiary does not cause them a harm they were physically injured. There's damage. There's no damage. No property was damaged. And they sure as hell weren't deprived of any of their rights. The fact that I named them as a beneficiary to begin with is my choice. I didn't have to name them to begin with. If they're going to abuse that position, I'm sorry, you're out. She says, why this is risky. No contest clauses are construed narrowly. Some challenges, fiduciary breach, accounting, validity for undue influence, capacity, may be protected. Overbroad language invites litigation. Really? Well, no outside third party has the constitutional or any form of delegated authority to change the terms and conditions, wishes, or intent of the grantor within a trust agreement. And again, courts lack jurisdiction, probable cause to interfere. It says how this plays out. Beneficiaries litigate whether their claim triggers forfeiture. Court may blue pencil or decline to enforce. Oh, wait a minute. Again, no outside third party has constitutional or any form of delegate authority to change the terms and conditions of the trust. The court's like, again, jurisdiction. And for the judge to blue pencil? Well, that violates Article I, Section X of the Constitution. It's obstruction of commerce, interfering with interstate commerce and federal banking laws. Judge can't just say, well, I'm going to change the terms and conditions of the trust. No. Where does that authority come from? I think I'm lost here, Mike. I went forward. I'm not seeing where I was at. I'm on mitigation on Part VIII. All right. There we go. Sometimes my clicker doesn't work good. Okay. So the mitigation, tailor the clause to recognize standards, enforceable unless probable cause exists. Carve out good faith fiduciary breach in accounting request. Again, recognize standards of administrative law which no equitable remedy is available. Courts lack jurisdiction or probable cause to interfere for no entity has suffered a harm, damage, or deprivation of a right. Part nine, duration, rule against perpetualities, RAP. What the document says, aims to continue indefinitely and roll over to new grantor beneficiary. Well, what this trust does, it gives the option for this trust to continue beyond the grantor. The way it's structured, the way it's put together, it can go beyond RAP. the initial grantor. Well, these are called like forever trusts or perpetual trusts or what's the other one? I'm blanking out on it right now. But you look at people like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds or any of these big families. Well, generational wealth continues right on down the line. How do they do that? They set them up in a series of trusts. And they put these generational trusts together. Well, they're trying to say, well, you can't do that. You're not allowed to do that. Well, wait a minute. First off, no law prohibits you from doing so. And again, if there's no law, federal or state, that prohibits you from doing so, then where does the authority lie? The authority lies in the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment grants you that authority to create a generational situation. So they don't have a say in the matter. She says, why is this risky? Even where states have modified or abolished RAP, administration and tax consequences exist for perpetual vehicles. Choice of loss, it disclaims, may fail in administration, occurs in a state with limits. Again, administration, administration, administration. Well, private trust status is lawful and not subject to administrative laws or acts of usurpation by public functionaries, Norm v. Shelby County, Downs v. Bidwell, for the Constitution was framed for ages to come. The Constitution is a trust indenture. It was created to go on for what? Ever. There's no deadline. There's no expiration date. So their whole argument goes out the window on that alone. I'll be right back, Mike. Sure. Now, how this plays out, she says, court applies statutory duration. Trust may be reformed to comply, tax treatments. Well, courts are bound by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, James B. Boise, and in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that all state courts, including state Supreme Courts, are bound by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. They can't just unilaterally change the way things operate and are done. No, can't do it. Mitigation, add a complaint, perpetuality savings clause, and consider intended GST planning, allocation exemptions, non-skip trust with a tax advisor. I don't need a tax advisor. Where's the delegation of authority to ignore, usurp, or violate the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court? They don't have it. Part ten. Formalities, notarized, cross-referenced trusts. What the document says, uses an unusual juror, references other trusts, M-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A It requires the signer to swear or affirm the accuracy. Why would they want that removed? The structure and security protocols is unique to this private trust, no different than any other government or corporation. Every government corporation has their own security systems in place, don't they? Sure do. Why can't we? Because if we put that in place, they can't pillage it. Now she goes on, why is this risky? If those subsidiary trusts are not executed, inconsistent, or unavailable, the parent trust may be operational paralyzed. A typical notarization language can also create evidentiary friction. Really? Well, there is no risk. This is an assumption and presumption with no factual basis. So how this plays out, according to her, Banks and counterparties demand re-executions or certified copies, time-sensitive transactions, stall. No, they don't. Whom specifically is the counterparties? And what authority do they have over the trust as an outside third party to the trust? And as far as certified copies of pertinent information can be released that is not protected or scrutinized by security protocols. So they don't have the ability to say, well, I want to see all these documents. No, sorry. I've used it many times where I've gone into court, judges demanded information. I said, judge, I'd love to give you that information, but you don't have a security clearance. What? What do you mean? Well, judge, this information is under security classification and you do not have a security clearance to ascertain this information. They back off every single time because they know they don't have the authority. Mitigation, ensure every cross-reference trust exists. is internally consistent and is easily producible under an NDA. Consider re-execution with standard acknowledgement language and clear schedule of exhibits. Really? Well, NDAs are, again, not enforceable. The internal workings of the trust is of no concern of the bank or the counterparties, whomever they may be, Standard acknowledgement language is administrative and unconstitutional. The banks and attorneys rely on Humphrey Executor v. United States, that's the case I was speaking about earlier that the U.S. Supreme Court right now is looking to overturn. In conjunction with the Administrative Procedures Act, otherwise known as the APA, as the basis to mandate their rules and regulations. The APA, again, is unconstitutional. Take the time to go look that up. Maybe we'll cover that next week. Part eleven. Litigation, sanctions, and reputation. What the document says. Directs trustees to challenge the constitutionality of the federal rules of civil procedure and make broad, sovereign assertions. Uh-oh. There it is. There it is. Sovereign. Well, let's open that can of worms, shall we? First, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure created December twenty of nineteen thirty seven. Sorry, the phone call came in. Created December twenty of nineteen thirty seven are rules proclamated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act of nineteen thirty four and can never be law. They can't create laws, they're rules. It says so, they're rules. Rules that obstruct the terms of the trust or obstruct and deprive unalienable rights is to be challenged every time. The FRCP can never be enforced as a law. No contract exists that binds the trust and parties to the FRCP. Rules can never amend the Constitution. Okay, I've many times gone to court and judged, you're not following the court rules. Hey, judge, you're right, because I'm not contractually bound to follow your court rules. You're a corporation. Those are your rules. Those aren't my rules. You show me a white ink contract where I agree to those terms and conditions, I'll agree with you right now. But if you can't produce a contract, you can't show where I'm contractually bound to follow your rules, then I'm not bound by them. Oh, they get pissed at me every time I do that one. Regarding the sovereign assertions... In the context used here is an act of bias, discrimination, slander, and false light. Bank policies now come into question. There's a violation of Norton v. Shelby County, eighteen eighty-six. Violation of Downs v. Bidwell, nineteen oh one. Violation of the intent of Congress of May third, nineteen forty. Violation of public law, volume fifty one, chapter one eighty three, page one seventy eight of nineteen forty. Violation of thirty six U.S. Code one oh six violation of thirty six U.S. Code one oh eight violation of approximately eighty five proclamations issued by the president of the United States of America from Franklin Delano Roosevelt all the way to Trump. She says why this is risky. Courts view such positions as frivolous. Pushing them can trigger Rule XI or similar sanctions and undermine credibility in any legitimate dispute. Well, really? This is an admittance by this attorney and this bank that the courts have a predetermined view of the outcome of any case brought before it. This indicates that the courts are biased. Prompting automatic disqualification pursuant to twenty eight U.S. Code four five five in conjunction with the Seventh Circuit in Taylor v. O'Grady, nineteen eighty nine, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court of nineteen ninety four. Read those cases. Read those statutes. Mitigation remove constitutional challenges unrelated to underlying dispute, use conventional legal arguments and comply with procedural rules. Really? Courts and banks are not above constitutional challenges. Constitutional legal arguments is what bar attorneys require to keep jurisdiction under administrative law. Court rules are not a law, nor is blind consent ever granted. All rights at all times is reserved and retained pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Now she puts in here, quick wins you can now do. Now this is according to key bank attorneys. She wants the removal of categorical tax-exempt and foreign state claims. Name the beneficiaries. Add a standard governing law clause, i.e., Michigan, and perpetuity savings clause. Acknowledge banks and counterparties. Never mentions who the counterparties are. Right to perform reasonable diligence. Clarify whether you want grantor or non-grantor treatment and rewrite powers accordingly. Well, here's what I have to say to that. The requested changes to the trust made by the bank and attorneys is a usurpation of authority. Said requested changes demonstrate acts of bias, discrimination, slander, and false light. Said requested changes demonstrate contractual duress and looks to obstruct commerce, interfere with the International Commerce Act. Said requested changes state that God and the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, has no authority in banking. Said requested changes state that the courts have a predetermined outcome of any case that does not comply with their administrative rules. Said requested changes violate public law, the Michigan Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, presidential proclamations, and deprive you unalienable rights, which is a crime. If this is the intent of the bank, then the public needs to know this information. Further, when the banks monetize signatures and sell and trade applications, i.e. promissory notes, on the market without the consent of the signer, that is fraud. When a bank claims to have loan money via a credit card, mortgage, or any other form of loan without disclosing that the alleged borrower is actually borrowing their own money, that is fraud. The question now becomes, in what fashion should we move forward in commerce? This is my response back to them for what they had sent to me. And this should be something that everybody should study, take a look at, understand. Your banks are not doing you any favors. They're really not. When you put money, when you deposit money, you're loaning them money. And what are they giving you in return? Point, what, zero, zero, one percent? Really? And they're out there monetizing your signature. They're using and divesting those funds and other things and making money off of it. They're stealing from you. How much plainer can I make this? They're stealing from you. You need to get control over your assets in all areas, at all levels. Challenge your bank. Challenge them. Put all your accounts into a trust and make sure that they understand what their obligations are as a fiduciary in that matter. I think we ran a little long today. That's okay. I enjoyed just sitting here listening and going through the documents with you, actually. So there's quite a few comments in the chats. One is judicial theater and the sixty-three Michigan constitution made our township ward republics mere administrative branches of the state. The whole entire thing is upside down right now, and I think it's really good for everybody to understand exactly how far we have floated away from the original intention of the United States of America, the republic. Yeah. Let's just put it this way. The republic needs a good car wash, okay? It's got a bunch of crud and mud and crap all over it. We need to wash it away. and these are the steps you can take to start washing that away you start holding them accountable if your bank says you know what we're not going to allow you access to your account immediately file a file a notice to them and and challenge them right away and get ready to go to federal court on this they don't have the authority to do that none whatsoever And you challenge them using everything that we've spelled out here. Violation of Article I, Section X. Violation of the right of rescission. Whatever it may be. Whatever the situation deems. The federal laws are applicable to the banks. Period. And people got to start enforcing. They got to wake up to what's going on. Their own money is being used against them. They don't realize it. They're losing money. And every time you're out there dealing with these mortgage companies and whatnot, you're borrowing your own money. You're the creditor. Read the Bankruptcy Act of it spells it all out right in there. It says that the credit of the nation, the credit of the people is what backs the Federal Reserve. Well, that's you people. That's every man and woman here. But they don't want you to know that. They make you the debtor. They make you believe that you are a debtor. You're not. Challenge it We're going to court next week, the twenty fifth federal court, Detroit. Guess what's on the chopping block? The bank has to prove who the creditor is. They've already admitted who it is. It's my dad. They cannot produce the wedding contract or even a copy of it. They've got the wrong account numbers. they filed the case against my grandfather who's been dead for twenty six years. What? Yes. Their exhibits that they filed with the court had been altered and tampered. And we can prove it. Then, oh, they did me a big favor. It wasn't even my birthday. It's not even Christmas. But they did me a big favor. They challenged the fact that, well, he doesn't have a license to practice law. Really? Oh, thank you for opening that Pandora's box because now we hit them with a list of things, including the fact that a bar attorney representing a corporation is committing the act of fraud in the sense that they cannot, oh man, I just blanked out, unauthorized practice of law is what it's called. A corporation cannot Attorney cannot represent a corporation. The fact that there is no such thing as a license to practice law. They have to prove that. You know what their response to our motion was regarding the licensing? Well, here's a website. Go to the Bar Association. That was their response. Literally. So they got a real problem on their hands. They've opened up Pandora's box. So we may actually get to where the courts are going to have to admit there is no license to practice law again. Now, what do you think is going to happen now if that happens? What happens to every single case? What happens to every single pretend judge that's sitting on the bench right now? They get removed or prosecuted abroad. every single court case is void from to now because under article six section nineteen to sit the bench you must have a license to practice law that's what the constitution of michigan says and that's if we actually agree that the is enforceable which we know it's not but let's use it against them let's use it against them they would declare it's valid okay you know what i'll accept that Because you don't have a license that avoids every single court case. Welcome to your nightmare, people. You're all about the collapse of the system. There it is. Yeah, right there. The Bar Association is responsible now for collapsing the system because of their fraud. I yield. I love it. I absolutely love it. I appreciate all the work you've put into this and the time you've taken to teach everybody so much more about how far away from what this was intended to be and how far off the rails, anything that's in the injustice system is. It is really a horrible thing. When you get in it and you fight in it, even for a little while, like I have, it can be really, really sobering. It's sobering. And you have to really, you have to be prepared for that level of evil that is set against people because it's not about justice. It's not about fairness. There isn't anything about it that is good. I have not thus far seen anything that was even remotely good except for the criminal conviction that we just got on the signature gatherers in the And I'm hoping that this rolls a little further and goes up to the puppet masters that are sitting above things, too, because they're there. But I got a feeling that a lot of this is just to hide behind, so we'll see. Okay. Yeah, it's not going to happen quick. It's going to take time, but you have to stay the course. Right. Right. That's it. There you go. Well, let's say a prayer and we'll go on about our day today, but thank you for this. This is awesome. I love listening to the stuff you've written up. This is, it's, it's really fun. I think it's fun for all of us who sit here and, and there's always these neat little twists and turns that educate all of us. And I just love it. So dear heavenly father, thank you so much for Mike and for John and I'll be, wonderful patriots out there that are fighting for the United States of America. We ask for your favor upon us on the work of our hands, on the effort that we've put into fighting the corruption and the evil that's out there. Please uphold us and give us your strength and encouragement today that there is light at the end of the tunnel with all of this fighting. Sometimes it becomes so heavy and so overburdening that that it feels like it's taking forever, but we know that everything happens in your time. We ask that you would, once again, like I said, encourage everyone, give us the strength to walk the path that's ahead of us. We love you so very much. We want to be your friend, not, you know, not just, you know, ask you for things, but we want to be your friend also and let you know that we love you. Let's have a great day today. And, uh, and continue to walk forward in truth, honesty, justice, and for your will on earth as it is in heaven. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. So, do you want to tell people where to find you? Right now, we have the American Equity Group on Thursday nights from seven to nine. That's wonderful. uh you can go to um american eg at proton.me uh and request a uh the link to the zoom uh the zoom uh presentations for uh thursday nights it's open whoever wants to come in take a look at what we're doing uh we cover a variety of different things uh so every week is something different usually and uh We welcome everybody. Come get educated. We'll show you things you've probably never seen or heard before. Well, and I think when we see this, it's pretty clear that our country has been invaded and that there was a coup. There is a coup going on right now to overthrow the United States of America. It's been going on for a long time. They've done it by death by a thousand cuts right now, and we have to get in the game and push back every single person. The thing that I keep hearing and I've heard it in the chat here today several times is that you try to tell people who are in the area that danger is here and they've got to fight it, but they don't do anything because it's not directly affecting them at the moment. Well, guess what? This is directly affecting every single one of us. You just might be like the frog in the pot of water that's halfway to be boiled right now, but the boiling... it's going to affect, it has affected all of us and it's going to continue to affect all of us. So we really need to get in the game and learn this stuff. Anyhow. Okay. Thanks for being here today. I'm going to do that part of the show. Ding, ding, ding. Go to BrendaBurfordGovernor.com because I'm definitely going to see it or not, because even in the history of the United States of America, and I'd like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump. Cowboy boots, I wear them all every day, so I wear them better than we talk about real stuff. And then we bring Mike in to also, you know, throw truth into the meeting, and it would be fantastic. So with that said, thanks for being here today, Mike, and all the work you do. And to everybody who's been out there listening, and I've been watching your stuff. If you want me to put your comments up on screen, I can do that if you post to X or Facebook. That's the only places that I can post comments to. So like on Rumble, I see a lot of people on Rumble, like Curtis is on Rumble, lots of text messages. comments there. That's fantastic. But I can't move those to the screen if you want them to be seen. So but I'm thankful for everybody being here today. And with that said, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Make it a great day. It's a choice every day. And hang on, Mike, and I'm gonna end the stream.