Published March 11, 2025, 9:01 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1zqJVjgyNnLJB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/4475006266058920 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6qgxw0-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-3112025-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html https://rumble.com/v6qgxu6-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-3112025-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-03-11-lawful-defense-john-tatar:3 Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar
Good morning. Welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg, and it is the eleventh day of March twenty twenty five. And welcome to our show today. And today we have Tater Tuesday with John Tater and Lawful Defense. And we have a lot to talk about today, considering everything that's been going on. I did a post this morning on the blue scandal and the five funded the five entities that have been funding them. and how much has gone into political campaigns. I think this is really going to blow up. In fact, I might know something about what was going on in the state of Michigan, and I think it's going to be a really interesting month going forward. Welcoming in my buddy here, John Tater. Mr. Tater, how are you this morning? I'm good. I'm always good. I love interviewing lots of people, but it's really fun for me when I get to actually just be here with my buddies. It's one of those things where you just kind of relax and you talk about things like real people. I'm not having to take in quite so much information because we're already on the same page, which is kind of fun. So, thanks for bearing with me here with my couple week break. I was busy with a couple of actually investigations, which might have something to do with The stuff going on in Michigan, and I think it's going to get real interesting real quick behind the scenes. We do things publicly, but then sometimes we also work on projects behind the scenes. Last, we're going to talk about that tomorrow. I got voted in as chairman of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which is the Constitution Party in the state of Michigan, which John is also a member of. And I think we're going to see some fun changes there. I started making them last night in a meeting we had, and we've got a lot going on. So it's going to be fun. It's going to be fun. And see what's happening here. equal opportunity political hater, but I'm an American who loves Americans. I just don't like the parties. I really think that it's a vehicle, but the things need to be retooled and the taxpayers party is going to continue on its direction of being a purist and not taking the PAC money or the dark money because it should be illegal and it should be designated as an enemy of the United States of America, not the tax respect, but any party that takes foreign money should be struck from the record, in my opinion. Oh, you're absolutely right. Which brings to mind the very important part is once we get rid of the parties, which we will, I hope, We have to go to the parties. Then people will have to go out and look at the candidates individually and pick the candidates because they're not a member of a organization, a group, a party. And that's that's the that's the trick that we have. You become a Democrat and therefore, or a Republican, and therefore you vote for a Republican because he's a Republican. Rather have a Republican than a Democrat. Lesser of two evil nonsense that exists. Not what the person is all about. Not what the individual talks about, but what the party talks about. Well, I want you to think about it. We're either following an elephant or a jackass. I mean, but, I mean, think about that. It's like even – I'm kind of like perplexed at this, really. You know, you're either a pack animal going in as a herd in one thing where don't, don't, don't, don't. Grab somebody by the tail. Grab them by the ass and follow them, or you're a jackass on the other side. So I don't know what to say about this, but – it is well put thank you exactly well put thank you exactly what people do they follow the jackass or they follow the out Yeah, it's either. And think about, seriously, what do they grab? They grab the tail of another elephant. Okay, I'm not going to be grabbing the ass of another person in politics. I'm just going to say that right now. I think for myself and so do you, so we're going to do something. But I don't know. Well, there's a lot of good people that are trying their best to do things, but the – The Trump suit really isn't thinking for themselves a lot of time. It's following the people on the top of the party instead of, you know, blazing a trail and saying, you know, guys, this is not going to go this direction. You know, we got a problem here. We started out this morning because we were just chatting before we got on, which I absolutely love John. OK, everybody out there. John is. done more to advocate me on what I didn't know about the constitution than any single singular person out there on the planet, which I really appreciate him as his military background as a Colonel. And not only that, but as a history teacher. So he is in fact a history teacher. And I think that this is where we're falling down on the United States is what we don't know. And we're not taking the time to do the hard work, which it takes not headlines, but the hard work in really figuring this thing out. And I've kind of committed myself to this, a lifelong pursuit at this point in time and knowing what actually happened. And so I got, I got, uh, um, in contact with somebody who was up in Canada and also an ex-prime minister up there. And it's been really interesting, the conversations we've had on what's real happening in Canada, including the fact that the border is absolutely non-existent. People are coming in from the South, running up through Canada, getting papers and turning right around and coming back in the United States. And the reporter receives a lot of them are Saudis. So... I think we need to think this thing through just a little bit. It's not just Saudis. I'm not just pointing them out. I'm going to point everybody out who comes out illegally. But that northern border that we have is absolutely porous. And when you look at the two biggest people up there who are, it's Minnesota. Minnesota's got a real problem because you've got Ilhan Omar, the Somali who said that she's defending Somalia. I'm not okay with this. No, she's not. She's a criminal. Doug Burgum, who was instrumental in selling land to the Chinese around our military bases, not a fan, not a fan at all, right? And also working with his buddy, Bill Gates. So I've got a lot of question about the Trump appointments, but I'm letting them work through it, hoping that they're controlled assets at this point in time. I'm going to be mouthy about it because I'm not OK with it. Right. And we'll see how it we'll see how this thing packs out. And I think that the good guys are in control. There'd be a lot of us already unalive if if they weren't in control. who have spoken out on this, we would have things like Arkansiding accidents all over the place. And so I'm fairly positive on the whole thing. But let's talk about what I think is happening with President Trump right now. And it goes back to something called the unitary executive theory. OK, I'm going to read you this and then we're going to discuss it. The unitary executive theory is a principle in American constitutional law that argues the president possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. Advocates of this theory believe that the president holds the ultimate authority over the executive branch officials and agencies insuring a more centralized and streamlined executive power. The theory is rooted in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the powers and responsibilities of the president. Proponents argue that this article grants the president broad unilateral control over the executive functions, including the power to hire and fire executive branch officials. direct their actions and issue executive orders. Yeah, that's what's supposed to happen. And that is the separation of powers. The president has the ability to run that executive branch and in my opinion, hire and fire whoever he sees fit to run that branch and having the legislature approve his choices, I'm kind of wondering how this is even possible or how that got put into place. So I'm kind of a fan of this. What say you, John? Well, if we go back in history a little bit, we go back to the seventies where they brought in the administrative branch of government. And screwed up everything. Which are the bureau rats. um you said official in in your speech there in your in your uh I was reading I was reading I understand but they're not official there's no such thing as an official in office they're public functionaries we got to go back to the original language that we had back in the when Norton was brought on board. Norton talks about these public functionaries. They're not officials. They're not leaders. They're not what else, what other things do the news media call them? Officials, leaders, you know, I can't even think of all of the nonsense that goes on out there, but they are public functionaries. They have a function in government and that's all they do. And so as long as we don't look at them as officials, and as long as we don't look at them as leaders, then we take on the role of who we are. We are the leaders, we are the people, we are the officials. All laws come from us. All rules and regulations come from us. And they are the rules and regulations that control these public functionaries. And where do we hear that? That's in Downs v. Bidwell. Downs v. Bidwell says we're the sovereign, not the government. Government isn't sovereign. Government has no sovereign immunity of any kind unless they stay within their job description. That's it. So... How many times do we argue about these people in court or we argue about these people in public and they say they're sovereign? They're not sovereign. They're hired by us. We are the leaders. We hire these servants and they are supposed to follow our direction, not the other way around. Instead, we become, as you say, grabbing the tail of the elephant and following the elephant around or the jackass. We are the leaders and we have to go back to the original intent of the constitution and why it was set up. So that brings me to the very important question. What form of government do we have? Do you want to answer some of these? Or if you don't want to, then just shake your head and I'll continue. I'll give that one a go, okay? And realizing that John is going to tater me and go, you're wrong at some point in time, but that's all right. I have a lot to learn, so there you go. So we have a constitutional republic. Okay, we just have a republic, a constitutional republic, that's okay, you can say that, but we have a republic. And a republican form of government is what, in distinction to the other form which the other people think we have, is a democracy. What's the difference between the two? difference is that somebody who uses the word democracy is a low iq for this but that's okay we'll go on and so um a republic a republic actually defends the rights of individuals where a democracy is mob rule so like if all of us decided at one point that that we don't like the color red and ban the color red nobody can you know fifty one percent can determine that that red is off the books, no more red anymore, right? Where a republic is you have representatives that represent to have your voice heard. So it actually is more stable, and it defends the rights of all people, not just a quick vote. And democracy is very unstable. Let's just say that with our – fake news out there fake stream news and now we've got usa that's been funding five thousand of our podcasters and influencer which makes us look really good because we have not taken any money we do this for free right and uh I don't I don't know I think I think I had like ten dollars that Rumble gave me as a kickback or something like that. Just I don't even know how I got it. I didn't sign up for it. All of a sudden said, you've got ten dollars in your car. I'm like, OK, I guess I guess that's the way it works. I don't know. But but we don't take any money. Right. When you look at a democracy, if the fake stream media went out there and did a headline campaign with their brainwashing mechanism and their programming mechanism, we could literally have the United States go, yeah, I think we want to nullify the Constitution. I think we want to nullify blah, blah, blah. And we could use it. They could use that against the things we believe in, destroying everything. You can't do that. You've got to have a more longer game process, and a republic ensures that, including the rights of the individual. The democracy does not. That's pretty good. Let's say that we have a hundred people. We live on an island. We have a hundred people. And in a democracy, we're going to have a democracy first. In a democracy, we're going to have fifty plus one vote on any issue. You pick the issue, I don't care what it is. So fifty plus one vote on that particular issue. And so that issue is passed and everybody must follow that fifty plus one person. Now suppose two years later, or maybe a year later, maybe six months later, two of those people die that are on the fifty plus one side. So we take a vote again. Now the vote swings in the other direction because now it's forty nine plus one that ends up winning the battle. So the whole philosophy changes. then we'll suppose it happens again now we have a birth and now that birth person can vote so back to the fifty plus one so this would be a seesaw kind of government back and forth which it is our government is a seesaw government uh take a look at what went on in michigan with the last three uh amendments that we voted we voted on that was a that was a nonsense vote take take the Illegal. It was an illegal, unlawful vote. That is correct. Take the nineteen sixty three Constitution, which was voted on by one tenth of one percent of the populace. We shifted a whole lot of laws, rules and regulations based on the nineteen sixty three Constitution. That Constitution is a fraud. It's a fraud upon the the Republic. Now, why? What's the purpose of hiring a representative? I mean, why would we want to do that to represent what we choose to have our government act like or do or what we want our government to behave like? Why would we want a representative to represent us in a body of government? versus we the people have the right to vote what would be the benefit of a representative well we have a voice and you have somebody that represents you to the body to look at consider and to vote on not that you have to have the uh majority vote of the population am I am I close to where you're close you're close in in a representative uh government where we hire representatives If we don't like what they say or do, we get rid of them through a voting system. Of course, the voting system has to be a legal system, not the one that the Democrats in the deep state have been running. But we have an opportunity to take a lot of office because they're not doing their job. What their job is, we've spelled out what their description is, what they can do, what they can't do. And it's limited. They have a limited ability to what they can do in Congress. And they have a limited ability to what the president can do or what the judicial system can do. Those are job descriptions. And they swear an oath. to that job description when they take that office, that oath of office. So that has to also be intact and be powerful too. And that's what I attack whenever I go to court against the public functionary, that they violated their oath of office. When they violate their oath of office, they lose any immunity that they think they might have. because they have stepped outside their duties and they have become a renegade basically as Obama, as a renegade. He has stepped beyond his legal authority and his legal duties. So he no longer has any immunity. He is stripped of that immunity. And which case talks about that? That's ex parte young. Ex parte young says if you step outside your judicial or you step outside your duties, your official duties, you are stripped naked and will suffer the consequences. So what do you think about Benson's little stunt where she announced that she's running for governor in a public building? Well, if that, and I don't know if she can, I don't think she has the ability to do that. I don't think she can run for office if she's in the old office. It's like a good point. She's using her time and energy as a public functionary to run for another job. I don't think she can do that. Well, I believe it's a campaign finance violation of some sort. There's a whole bunch of violations. There's all sorts of violations. She's being paid for a specific job, and now she's trying to get another job. She needs to resign from her position and run for the new office. And not announce from a public building. Same thing, yeah. She can't just sit there in her office and say, well, guys, I'm sitting on my throne here, and guess what? I'm sitting on my throne, I'm an incumbent, and guess what? I'm running again. And see, I got the plaque on the wall behind me to prove that I have some sort of special superpowers as a criminal politician, which she is. Well, that's why people need to understand what our forms of government are and why we have what we have. And that is the crux of our whole system that has been corrupted over the years by language, by the media, by public functionaries that are in office. that think they can get away with it because, you know, I'm elected. I stand above everybody else. No, they're below everybody else. They're below me, all of these public functionaries, including the president, because he works for me. I don't work for him. Okay, so what are the three branches of government that we have? Executive, legislative, as well as judicial. And what is the function of the, let's start with the judicial. This is going to be a full-on test today, isn't it? Yeah, let's start with the judicial department because that's the one that seems to be causing all of the trouble and the riff with the president right now. What is the function of the judicial department? The function of the judicial department is to make judgments on whether things comply with the law. That's pretty good. Okay. Whether they're constitutional or not, because the law may not be constitutional. And this is where I see them falling down, is that they're not challenging any of these unconstitutional laws. None of them are. And I think that this is the first step. It would be for me, as if I were running for governor, would be to order a semi-full of pens, a whole semi-full, because that's what it's going to take to nullify all of these laws that they've put in, their pretended legislation. Okay, so let's go back to the judicial department. What other function do they have? I'm going to just let you roll with this because I'm not sure exactly where you're going. You got it. They are responsible to adjudicate conflict. If I have a conflict with you over whatever... You know, you're infringing upon my property. You've taken my lawnmower, whatever. They are to adjudicate those differences. And their function has to do that. There are people that have filed cases in court, and the courts refuse to take their cases. I don't even understand that. How can a court system, how can a federal court or a local state court refuse to take your case? They have to take your case. They have no choice. The clerks of the judicial system that fail to take a case are committing acts of usurpation. They are violating their oath of office as a clerk. They have to take the case. It has to go in front of a judge and the judge has to make a ruling on it or in front of a jury. That has to be done. But there are courts out there, Novi is one of them, that refuses to take cases because, well, it's a little, I mean, a little shaky. You're going after a particular judge in the Novi court system. We can't have that. No, that's exactly what you're supposed to be doing. You're supposed to be taking on all cases. You have no choice as a judicial system. So judicial system is set up to decide whether something is constitutional or not and adjudicate the differences for the public. Well, and the problem is right now in Michigan, I think we have a ninety eight percent judgment. The only cases are they're taking on. It's a ninety eight percent money judgment. So these these can take eighteen percent, put it in the retirement fund. Well, regardless of the corruption that's going on behind the scenes, and we know there's a lot of it going on. What is the fun? And then but we can't we can't break through the. The crux of it, if we can't get our voices heard in court, if we find a judge that's violating the law, and I'm going to talk about mine in a little bit, violating the law, we need to go after that judge. And we can't have a court system that says, well, we can't do that because we're picking on one of our buddies here that says, Hey, if that buddy violated the law, that buddy needs to go to jail, period. And pay back the crime or whatever he has to do. He has to make things right. He has to settle it. So, okay, so we kind of beat up on that system pretty hard. Can the legislative branch and the executive branch and or either or tell the judicial system that they're wrong? I don't believe they can because that violates separation of powers. Very good. That's exactly the correct answer. They have no authority. unitary executive theory which gives the each branch is equal and they you know so yeah go ahead yeah that's exactly correct no other branch can affect or change the uh judicial system or fix the judicial system what happens if a judge is corrupt can the legislature fix that problem it has to go back to we the people to remove them correct No, it can go to the legislature. They can remove them and the executive branch can do what? The executive branch can put forth their name to the prosecution, prosecutional system. President Trump can turn around and say, hey, Judge so-and-so is violating the law and here it is. now we're going to go to the judicial now we're going to go to the department of justice who's going to go to the fbi and they're going to do a criminal investigation on this judge and if this judge has broken the law then yes then the responsibility of each and every american if we see somebody breaking the law we all have that right oh yes yes but the problem is we're not as We have to go through the process. We have to go through a lawsuit. We have to go through the agonizing. We have to pay fees and fines or fees in order to have this happen. We have to invest our time and our energy to have this happen. A lot of people don't want to invest that time and energy. Some don't have that time and energy because they're working, trying to keep their ends to meet. So that doesn't rely, we can't rely upon the individual person to do it. So we have to rely upon our government setup in order to make it done. But of what we got, we gotta have a correct FBI, not a criminal FBI. We have to have a correct Department of Justice, not a criminal Department of Justice, even though based on Norton versus Shelby County, these departments do not exist. They do not exist because they have no constitutional authority to exist. We do not have a federal police department called the FBI. We do not have a Department of Justice. because it is not constitutional. It was brought on board by Grant through an act, so it doesn't exist either. But we have to deal with what we've got at the moment and fix the process with what we have and either go and get a constitutional authority for these alphabet agencies or get rid of them. I like the second option there. That sounds really good. There's somebody posting in the chat, and Moose McGrew, I saw destroyers flying over Michigan. Prayer is needed. Hey, can you elaborate on that? You know what? I'm going to give you my phone number. Give me a call after we're off the broadcast at And yes, it is my phone number, and I do pick up the phone. All right. He says, what's over Michigan? I saw destroyers fly over Michigan. Prayer is needed. I'm not understanding that. Yeah, so I think destroyers are kind of like water in the water, so not sure how they fly over Michigan. Yeah, I don't know. There may be destroyers speaking on some sort of airplane, but anyway. It could be like the drones. Yeah, we'll go out there. All right, the judicial department is sacred by themselves, basically. They have ways, we have ways of regulating them. That's through Congress, that's through the president. But they are individual, set up by themselves. How about the president? Does the president have the absolute authority in the executive branch to do whatever he wants to do? No, there's laws that govern it. Oh, he said it's comets. okay keep going and give me a call please but anyhow back to the track here so uh yeah okay uh does the president have the absolute authority in the executive branch to do what he wants to do No, he's got laws and policies. He's got a job description. Well, yes, but within his job description, does he have the authority to run the executive? Could he eliminate the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, Department of whatever? Well, within his right, his or her right to eliminate whatever is in the executive branch. The executive officer, whether it's the governor at state level or the president at the federal level, which should be cut about ninety percent out of the federal government needs to be cut down, return the powers of the states. But yes, they have the ability to run that branch and cut and cut and cut and cut. He can eliminate everything. He could be standing alone. He doesn't need anybody behind him. He doesn't need anyone. Doesn't that sound like a perfect scenario at this point in time, since they're all a bunch of liars, cheats and thieves and criminals, you know, it's like, it's like for real, for real. Yes. He has the authority to stand alone. Yes. Let's keep a couple of secretaries and administrative assistants. and flush the rest of these people who have broken the law. There's some good people in there, I'm sure, but you'd have to really look for them. Yes. And at the moment, again, I say we have to deal with what we have. So he's using the DOJ and the FBI and so on and so forth to help him out. And he's hiring the right people to be involved in those departments. But he has the absolute authority to get rid of all of it. Absolute authority. He is the only person in office that the entire United States votes upon, and he has the total authority to run the executive branch completely. And nobody, the legislature or the judicial branch, have any control over what the president does unless he steps outside his constitutional authority. That's it. His constitutional authority is well-defined. So if he's within the Constitution, he has the right to do whatever he wants to do. That's his job. That's why we hired him. That's why we hired him as our servant, not as our leader, as our servant. The entire government is a service contract. Yes, it is. And I mean, you have to frame it that way. This is like this is like having somebody come and do in your landscaping. If they don't do it right, you get a different landscaper, correct? You know, let's say let's just say if somebody comes on your property, a bad landscaper and decides to dig up all your flowers and your trees and give it to you, say, I don't know, Ukraine or something like that. Would you fire or would you just kind of stick with this? That there is the question right there. Now, what is the legislature? Crooked. We know that, but what was their job? Who are they? They're to make laws, and they're the only ones that can create laws. Who is the most powerful branch of the three? The legislature is. Absolutely. And what power do they have? The most important power of the entire government. The most important power. I'm going to let you answer that to see where you're going on this. Tater it. This is a tater. The power of the purse. Because without the power of the purse, which is the power to allocate funds, Nothing will happen. President will be out of a job, so will the judicial department. They have the power to regulate all of the departments by funding. That is the power. That is the most important power that they have. Do they exercise it? Well, they exercise it to be corrupt. The billions of dollars that have gone out are the responsibility of the executive branch. Now, I'm hoping that once President Trump reveals all of these criminals that are in there, Pocahontas, Biden, Schumer, you name it, all of those people, And the funding and where the funding went, they're the ones that used that money or taken that money and put it in the wrong spot. They're the ones that are going to prison. Whether they pocketed the money or not, that money was allocated by them for a particular purpose. It didn't go for that purpose. They're violating the law. And they should be in prison. Can't the executive branch also eliminate the spending of it? I mean, they do the budget, but it's the executive branch that actually funds things. So, I mean, if a governor or president wanted to say, okay, you people are absolutely incompetent. So guess what? We're going to just shut the tap off here until you decide to follow the law. That is what Reagan wanted to bring forth called a line item veto, where he could veto particular parts of the bill. The problem is that the legislature puts together the funding. The president says this is what we need to run these departments. And the legislature says, okay, here's the money allocated for those departments. And then the president can go down, yeah, I don't want to fund this particular department. And he can line item the veto, he can line item the veto that department or whatever. But that was the purpose of the original setup of the legislature was to be able to control the rest of the government through funding. which makes sense. Now, what are the two houses of the legislature? The House of Representatives and the Senate? And the Senate. Right. What's the purpose of the Senate? Not anymore. I'm talking about original. What's the original intent of the Senate? Not what it's doing now, because what it's doing now is totally corrupted. Federally, it was to represent the states. That's right. And they were supposed to be appointed by the House of Representatives, not a direct vote of the people, to my knowledge. Not the House of Representatives, but the legislature of the particular states. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. That's right. I'm sure you knew what you were saying. I knew what I was saying and misspoke it, but yes. And so, yeah. So the point being is that they were never supposed to be a direct vote. So it turned it into, you know, because the representatives of the state can remove them if they're not representing the state. Now the Senate's got way more power than I think it ever intended to be. But that's true of everything in the government right now. There's way more power that they've taken, they've usurped. That's all of them instead of staying in their lane a little bit and serving the people. It's to create these huge power structures, and that's why we have a political industry rather than go in and serve and go home. You don't need to make a job out of it. If you can't make a job on your own, you have no business being in politics. This is the slop fund of government in Washington. There's slop, and it's in all the states, the same thing. because we don't have the three branches of government operating individually as the state constitution of Michigan says they have to. And as the federal constitution of the United States says they have to, we have a slop organization. They go back and forth. They're in all kinds of departments. They stick their fingers and noses everywhere. And so we don't have individual branches of government running the country like we had intended by the basis of the Constitution, the three branches of government. We vote these people based on on their looks based on how they speak or what they say not what they do not on their actions but what they say oh it sounds good he sounds like he's gonna do what we want him to do oh he's so oh he's such a got such great presence in front of the public oh he's such a wonderful person all that crap. It's a flirt fest in Michigan. I'm telling you what the last election was a flirt fest. You know, you had the Bobsy twins there that were flirting with all the women. And then, then, you know, I don't know. And Dixon was flirting with all the guys. I had one guy that came up to me and said, he wouldn't even be in the same room with him because she was, every time she came up to him, she was like all over him. He's like, I'm married. I don't want any part of this. And it's like, you know what? And, and it was it's it's like it's really a shame you should think about this is these people would you want somebody in a bank or protecting who you invest with, acting the way these people act, I would not. There's no way that in the whole world that I would absolutely have somebody that was part of a flirt fest managing my money. Hate to say it, but whores be whores. And that's just the way it is. There's no way. And it's a bad metric to... to evaluate people based on that. I'm going to go back to what you said. It's not about what they say. What have they done? What have they done? Right now, I'm going down some of the people that have said they're going to run for governor looking at the candidates. Do you realize that we have yet another developer in sheep's clothing that has come forward who has tacked that person's self on to another person who is should never be in politics and and I'm going to tell you what once a person lies to me I don't forget that sort of thing and so we're going to be putting out some information that's going to be a little painful for people but I don't really care because I want my country back that's right and that's what we need to do we need to bring these people forward we need to know who they are we need to see them visibly as far as what kind of people they are and will they follow the Constitution and will they follow their oath of office. But that brings me to their oath of office, which is probably the most important thing that has been overlooked and people like Dershowitz, for example, he's an idiot. But Dershowitz says, everybody knows who Alan Dershowitz is, right? He's an attorney. Alan Dershowitz says everybody breaks their oath of office. It's no big deal. He is one of the... Without cussing and using a whole bunch of bad words, he's one of the sloppiest attorneys in the system. He doesn't read the case law. He doesn't know anything. He's an idiot. Let's go back to the core of the problem here. The core of the problem here right now is there's a book out there that's three felonies a day. Every single one of us, because of how convoluted the book alleges that every single one of us is in violation of three felonies a day. because of the way that the pretended legislation that's there so that they can target people and harass them. It's nothing to do with the law. So if he says that, he's probably kind of right because of the lack of actually dealing with nullification of their pretended legislation. That has to that has to come first, because every single person out there right now is breaking the law in one form or another. It's sort of like it was sort of like what happened with the Bible. The Bible, God gave us ten commandments. The Jews added six hundred forty eight more laws. So you were they were saying, which law do you which law do you follow? Because they if they followed one, they were breaking another one. That's why they were asking clarification all the time. And so, I mean, we're in the same spot. I mean, it's nothing new under the sun. We've gone right back to making self-serving laws to protect certain people and not others. And every one of them needs to go until we get back to what worked. Okay. I'll buy that as a good argument. Okay. Thank you. I didn't get tatered on that one. So what am I doing specifically to kind of bring the Republic to the forefront? I filed a lawsuit against three judges who would not give me back my four hundred dollar filing fee because I did not get justice in the court. First judge And I'm going to mention their names because I need everybody out there to know who these judges are. If you're in front of them, they're criminals. They're not judges. They're criminals in black robes. But one in particular is Nugent. He's out of Ohio. Probably not too many people run into him from Michigan. But my case was shifted to him because... It was filed against several other judges in Michigan, and they wanted to get it out of the Detroit area and send it somewhere else, so they sent it to the Sixth Circuit. They sent it to Nugent, and the guy that sent it to Nugent was Guy Cole. He's the appeals judge in Michigan on the Sixth Circuit. He's another criminal. But he sent this criminal case, he sent this case to Nugent because he figured Nugent would be able to dismiss it, which he did. He dismissed it basically by saying, I'm in prison, I'm incarcerated. And because I'm incarcerated and I didn't pay my filing fee, he's ruling against me. And if I take this to appeal, it would be seen in bad faith. And they probably sanctioned me. So I didn't take it to appeal. But that was their theory. That was what Nugent said. I was incarcerated, never was in jail. And I paid my filing fee, which I approved by a check. And I approved by the check being cashed and so on and so forth. And he still ruled against me. So I put him on the list and I put Cole on the list because I sent letters to Cole and Cole ignored it. Cole didn't do anything. He was the appeals judge that sent it to Nugent and he didn't even look into it, didn't care, didn't care, didn't do anything. So I filed a lawsuit against those two judges and it went to Yonker in your area, Grand Rapids. And Yonker said, hey, I didn't file a federal question. I didn't ask a federal question. The federal question is, what is a federal question? Violating the Constitution, is that a federal question? If that isn't a federal question, I don't know what is a federal question. So now I filed a case against the three of them. And I sent it back to Detroit. And lo and behold, five judges recuse themselves from the case. And I'll give you the reason they recuse themselves. They use this. This is called twenty eight USC four fifty five a if you wanted to look it up. But it says and it says any judge, justice, judge or magistrate, judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. OK, USC what? U.S. twenty eight U.S.C. four fifty five a twenty eight U.S.C. What was it for four fifty five little a. Okay. Let's see if it'll come up. Actually, like just see a law. Why, you know, is, are you not asking the question of why? So why would they think that their impartiality. Well, maybe because they're impartial to the judge. I only know one of the judges that disqualified themselves, and that was Nancy, what the heck is her name? I can't think of her name off the top of my head. Because I was in front of her at one point. Because she was a judge in one of my cases. So, okay, I could understand her, but the other ones I'd never heard of, so... Here's some more of the disqualifiers, though, too. I mean, there's all kinds of them. Personal bias, prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning proceedings. Private practice, he served as a lawyer in a matter of controversy, blah, blah, blah. Served in a governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor, material witness concerning the proceedings. There's a lot. So the question is, is what specifically did they disqualify themselves for? This is interesting. Moose McGrew said, we shut down a minute, maybe wind's blowing. You know, we have other channels too, other than Facebook. Then Facebook, which I call fake book because I was fake. Brandenburg News Network dot com. You'll find us there live. That's the most reliable because we own it and we can keep everything up there. But also there's two Rumble channels as well as my ex account. and two tour nodes, and I don't know, kind of all over the place. But if it goes out on you, do go to BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com, and that should stay up. Okay, so getting back to my case, because we're running out of time. I don't know how long you want to keep me on. You're it this morning. You are the man of the moment, the man of the day. Here's John Tater right there. He's going to move, you know. Well, anyway. As of yesterday, I filed a notice to the clerk to put them in default, the three of them, because twenty-one days have passed, a week and a half ago, I think, a week ago anyway, and they did not answer the complaint. They did not ask for an extension of time. Now, these are judges. Oh, by the way, Two of the green cards came back because I sent them with green cards. The one green card that didn't come back was Cole's, the appeals judge. He did not send his green card back. Now I wonder why. Did he get upset? Did he tear it up? Did he say, oh, my God, he's going after me. I don't know. Whatever. He ripped it off. I don't know. Why did I not get a green card back from this guy? This guy's an appellate judge way up at the top there. He's supposed to be following the law. He doesn't even follow the law for himself. Something as simple as sending a green card back. This guy's a criminal. What law? We don't got no stinking laws. That's how their attitudes are, right? They think that they're above the law. Well, I got news for them. They're not. So they are now, as of yesterday, I filed a notice for for default on the three of them, which means basically the clerk's going to put in a notice or default them. And at that point in time, they have two choices. One, let it go into default. Let the judgment be held based on the merits of the case, in which case I will go after them financially, or they will have to plead neglect, but they still have to answer the complaint. They still have to, before they can say excusable neglect, they have to answer the complaint. So I'm wondering if they go and try to set the default aside, which they can do, how Yonker is going to say, well, you know, I didn't understand his federal question or his federal question was wrong or whatever, whatever, whatever. How he's going to get away with that or how Nugent is going to say, well, you know, I didn't know Tater wasn't in jail. I thought he was. How he's going to answer those complaints. How are they going to come back with what kind of answer? So I think that they are hiding, basically, because they really can't answer the complaint. And they really have nothing to argue against that complaint. So they're probably going to let it go into default. And then what happens? Well, then I'm gonna go for collection. And what are you asking for? Well, per judge, four million dollars plus the filing fee times three, because for fraud, you get triple damages. So that's twelve hundred dollars. So four million, twelve hundred dollars per judge is what I'm looking for. There you go. Well, let's see how this plays out. I wish you well on this because this is honestly the way that we're going to have to write things in the state of Michigan is we're going to have to sue these people individually. And it's going to take a bunch of us doing this, which I would like to ask everybody that wants to become involved to actually look at the US Taxpayers Party because I started writing revolutions last fall. and we've got a group of us now that are working on when I sent one out yesterday to change the name of the party to the Constitution Party, which Jessalyn Benson refuses to do on what basis? There is none. She just says, well, there's nothing that's in the statute that says that I have to change it. It's like you have to change it because if it's not in there, you don't just get to make a decision on what you do and what you don't do. Did you write her a letter? explaining those things to her we're working our way through this right now I did write a letter originally you you probably still have that letter somewhere laying around yeah I'm sure I'm sure we do but we we decided to do a resolution and then it's gonna it's gonna get a little interesting after this but this isn't the only one we have to we have to move forward on this and not just talk you know it's like I'm really tired of the political party sitting around just talking, but no action. It is like I'm done. I'm done with the talk. You know, everybody has to do something, not just talk, not just worship this knowledge that we have. Knowledge is great. We have to we have to study. We have to evaluate. We have to study. I'm not going to take away from that. But that's like that's like learning to crawl before you walk. OK, we got to get up and we've got to walk and then we've got to run. And so If we want to take things back, if we want to make things better for our posterity, we're going to have to do something. And that process is what we've been focusing on here with John and how to do the things that are necessary to take the United States back. And I think this is going to be an interesting time to be alive. If you... you got to write the letter in such a way that you point out that the law is not on her side, but on our side, that Norton versus Shelby County says an unconstitutional act is not a law. And she is performing an unconstitutional act by not allowing you to switch your party. Uh, and, and you spell out that, uh, if she doesn't do her job, which is, uh, change the party name as requested and you send her three letters and then you file a lawsuit against her, but not as a party, as an individual of that party. And you can have four or five other party members with the same lawsuit, just change a few comments in there and all file that same lawsuit against her. You'll get her attention. Would you like to see the file or the resolution we made? Well, you could bring it up if you want. The resolution is okay because that's an internal argument. It's a start. I mean, this is a start. And that's why I started doing resolutions. It's a start and it's for a group of people who want to take a stand on something. But once again, it's the start of the process. And so since nobody's doing anything out there of addressing these things, other than just playing the popularity card, I decided to start writing resolutions. I'm not the best at anything, but I'm just willing to try. So there you go. That's my disclaimer. Resolution to change the name of the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan to the Constitution Party of Michigan. So whereas US taxpayers party of Michigan is currently affiliated with the FEC recognized national party known as the constitution party, which I love it when the Republicans say we are the party of the constitution, but that's all they ever say. They don't quote the constitution. They just say it. Whereas aligning the state's party name with that of the national party will promote consistency. and reduce voter confusion. Whereas in nineteen ninety-nine, the National U.S. Taxpayers Party officially changed its name to the Constitution Party to better reflect its commitment to the U.S. Constitution. Whereas following the nineteen ninety-nine change, All state affiliates, except those in Texas, Nevada, Michigan, and California, adopted the new name. Whereas in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut in nineteen eighty-six, the Supreme Court struck down the Connecticut law requiring primary voters to be registered as party members. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Remember this Republican Party of Michigan. Republican party of Connecticut allowed independence to vote in their primaries and argue that the statute violated the first and fourteenth amendment rights. The court agreed ruling the statute burdened the party's freedom of association. Whereas the democratic party versus the Wisconsin. La Follette, the Supreme Court ruled that party politics have the right to determine their own rules and procedures, including the selection of delegates and conduct the primaries without undue interference from the state. This case established the principle that political parties have a degree of autonomy in managing their internal affairs, which by extension should include the right of the party by vote of its members to change your name to filing a certificate similar to the process of changing party officers, which is true. Whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution agrees the right to freely associate, which includes the political party's autonomy in determining its name, identity, and internal operations, the refusal to honor the name change constitutes an unconstitutional restriction of this fundamental right. Whereas the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from applying inconsistent standards when addressing political party designations by allowing other state affiliates to adopt the Constitution Party name while denying Michigan the same. The Secretary of State is unequally and unjustly applying election law. Whereas Article I, Section V of the Michigan Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and assembly, including the right to associate under a chosen political identity, the Secretary of State's obstruction of the party's name change violates the spirit of this constitutional guarantee. Whereas James Madison in Federalist No. X emphasized the importance of political factions as an expression of popular liberty, stated that political associations are vital to the democratic process. The state's Interference in this matter contradicts, contradicts the principle by impeding the parties, legitimate organizational decisions. Whereas federalists in over-fifty-one Madison warned of the dangers of unchecked governmental power. The Michigan secretary of state persistent obstruction of the lawful name change demonstrates an overreach of administrative authority. Yeah. You are not overreach. Yeah. You weren't there. So you got to show up on the Monday meetings. So there you go. We'll get it, though. Overreach of administrative authority undermining the democratic principle of self-governance. Where is, in Michigan, the Secretary of State has previously denied every request to change the party's name, resulting in the continuous use of the U.S. Taxpayers Party in the state. Where is, in Michigan, there is no statute governing the changing of a political party's name, nor defined process for doing so. Whereas the Secretary of State of Michigan is ignoring the precedent set by other states, which did allow the state party to change its name through filing a certificate in the same manner as political or as party officers changes. Whereas Michigan Secretary of State used lack of funds and resources in the twenty twenty election to illegally justify the failure to validate signatures on absentee ballots, thereby setting a precedent that will ignore existing election law to suit partisan purposes, and whereas resisting the U.S. Taxpayers Party's request to permit the name change to the Constitution Party is likewise a partisan purpose. Therefore, be it resolved that the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan hereby formally demands the Michigan Secretary of State recognize and process the change of its name to the Constitution Party of Michigan to match the national affiliate, which was done in other member states without the requirement of petition signature collection and verification that the party maintains existing ballot access subsequent to the name change. Be it further resolved that the Michigan Secretary of State shall uphold the oath of office to protect and enable the rights of we the people to carry out business as we deem necessary and not obstruct us. Be it further resolved that those who have been involved in subverting the will of the people and usurping authority never granted harassing Americans and violating the rights of any individual of these United States of America shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Remember that statement. Be it fully resolved that the copies of the resolution be transmitted to the governor of Michigan, secretary of state and members of the Michigan legislature and other relevant public functionaries to express the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan's instruction of public functionaries on protecting the United States' free and fair political process and upholding the rule of law according to the protections of our constitution. Signed the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan and adopted February, twenty-two, twenty-twenty-five. And this was sent out to every member of the legislature, the clerks, the media, as well as the executive branch of Michigan. And so that did go out. So we'll see what these guys actually do with it. We got a lot of, I received as the chairman of the party, I received a lot of automated responses. And so we'll see where this goes. Okay. In the future, when you write Such documents, I think you need to put your authorities on there by using Pacific States, for example, Norton versus Shelby County. Of course, the language, you can't use overreach. There's no such thing as overreach. That's horse racing. It's got to be usurpation. We've got to bring the language of Norton out in every single possibility that we can. that they're not doing their de jure duties, that they're usurping authority never granted to them and that kind of stuff. Because when we bring out the appropriate language, then we will be in control of the narrative, we'll be in control of what's going on. If we can continue to use their language, first of all, overreach is not You can't find it in the law books and you can't find it in Black's Law Dictionary. It doesn't exist. That term doesn't mean anything. It's a nebulous word, that nebulous term that has no legal meaning to it. Usurpation does. If you usurp authority, that's in violation of your oath of office. That's criminal. That you can be fined for, that you can end up paying money damages for. But overreach... It doesn't mean anything. That's why they have diluted the language over the years, and we have bought into their language because, well, you know, that's what the news media says. But that's not the lawful words that need to be used and to need to bring these criminals into focus and under control. And until we do that, until we change the language, until we bring about the language and bring about our authority, which we have. You know, years ago when we were in courts, and I was part of that too, but, you know, twenty, thirty years ago, before we really understood what was going on, we would go to court, we would file our documents, and the judge would say, yeah, you've got a great narrative here, but you've got no authority behind it. No court cases, no laws, no nothing. It's just your story. And so based on that storytelling, now we've learned to go with authority behind it. Now they're stuck. They don't know where to go. Well, I think that's a good way to even book on this whole show here today. The fact is, is that, you know, we're only stewards of God's world and we should be doing the right thing. There's an ultimate law here that needs to be followed. And then there's the law, you know, as you go down in the structure, God is on top. We are the stewards of his world. And the law, as well as the governance, is under all of this to serve the said, you know, what's above it. And the problem is, is they've kind of stepped out of line. And now we've got like a complete, you know, disruption or removal of both God as well as the people. And this is what we're going to have to reset in a correct, and I don't mean a reset, okay? But we're going to have to reorder the process. And And the political people who can't get it right, that there is a service contract to we the people. We the people are on a, I'm going to just say it, I'm on a work visa from God here on this earth. And he's the boss. It's his world. And he set it up. He made the natural laws to govern us and what is supposed to be done. And all of us need to be paying attention to that if we want to live in peace. I agree. so there there we go I mean that's that's the order of things and if we can't get that right we're going to continue to have the same nonsense going on this comes down to an individual choice of what are we willing to stand for, and it's an ethics question. All of these ethics questions that need to be run through, and that can only happen on an individual basis. And quite honestly, if you're not talking to God Almighty about it, you're making up the rules as you go. You're just like Jonathan Brader in the Board of Elections, who's just making up things on the fly. And so it's important to understand the natural law that was given by God and everything underneath that falls from there. Jonathan Brader is violating his oath of office. That's where you need to go. Well, he already did it. And then as president, ex-president of Eric controlling the voter rolls, you wonder why things are off the rails and having him admit, admit in a hearing that we're just making up policies on the fly. Are you kidding me? He's a usurping authority. It was never granted. That's where you go. That's exactly it. So there you go. So what else do you want to end on this, John? This was a great show. I'm glad we got back to the basics on this because I always miss it when we don't come back and re-review the stuff that we've gone over. Well, it's important for everybody to understand why we have the kind of government we have and what a republic is. And we need to push forward our philosophy of the republic and listen to these public functionaries who talk democracy. We don't want them in office. First of all, they don't know what kind of government we have. If you go ever get the chance to go to a forum where a public functionary is standing and saying and giving a speech and he uses the word democracy, that's where we need to zero in. What are you talking about? What country are you from? We don't have a democracy in America, do we? And see how he responds to that. Go after the he or her. When I'm saying he, I mean I'm using that generically. It could be a she too. I don't think we have any its in office right now. We probably do some of them still in Washington that they're getting rid of. But anyway, we go after them for their use of their language. If they're, if they're talking overreach, what are we in a horse race? You know, bring them start embarrassing these people up on the platform. So they, they themselves learn the language, right? Because if they don't know the language, they're continuing the, the, uh, masquerade that we've been putting up with all these years, because they don't know any better. They're stupid. And we're putting them in office. We're putting them in charge of running particular government. We're giving them the power. We're giving them the guns and the bullets. And we're allowing them to make laws, rules, and regulations. And they're stupid. They're stupid people. We don't want to use it against us. That's the there is the problem is that we've got kind of a dual dual system going on and we're part of theirs. You know, Moose McGrew, who I believe that's Logic Roberts, who's considered a good friend. I love you, Logic, says a nineteen ninety seven private Democrats party. heard to say we will do away with God. Of course. That's been the goal from the beginning. This war that we're in is a spirit war. Way before then. Way before, way before, way before then. In the sixties, they were talking about that. Because I remember taking religion out of schools, taking prayer out of schools. And I remember all of that stuff. And that was when I was a little kid, that was going on. So, And that has been, and I'm sure it was going on long before I was there. Okay, Moose's Logics friends. So give me a call when we're off here at six one six four three zero four four one zero. So, yeah, well, I think about the audacity of people saying there is no God. Really? Have you really thought this through? That takes a lot of time. of faith to believe in that direction because you know it's like have you ever been able to make something out of nothing no so we're it's like it's like you you don't yeah the bank does that all day long they make something out of nothing they just like print it okay so You're funny. You're very funny. It's illogical, and it's really not somebody who has ever really made a very intelligent assessment of whether God exists or not. If you go through what really, instead of just listening, oh, you're going to be your own God? Good luck with that. What can you change? Nothing. If you could, you probably would have fixed the system, but the system is completely messed up. And Moose McGrew said, thank God for Trump. I would agree with that. I love President Trump and what the team has done. Things aren't exactly as they appear ever. Never take things at face value. Good guys aren't going to sit here and announce exactly what they're doing because then the bad guys would know what they're doing and get in there. That would be like spy versus spy. Remember those cartoon books? Yeah. Always fighting. I used to think they were hilarious when I was a kid, right? Yeah. I remember that. Well, we will have our Wednesday night meeting this Wednesday. If you can, if you want to become involved, please give me a call at seven, three, four, nine, six, eight, four, seven, one, five, go to our magnificent Republic. There will be an, a site as to how to get involved with our, with our, um, uh, I don't, it's not a podcast with our, with our zoom, or you can text me and I'll send you a, um, invite specifically, and I'll put you on our mailing list. So get involved, learn more about what's going on. We have some people from your organization, from Brandenburg News Network from California now that are showing up. We have one from New Mexico, John, he's always there. He's a regular. Myra from California is becoming a regular. We have people from up north. All over the place. Get involved because that's the way you're going to learn how to deal with the system. You're going to not become a victim of the system, which is what they want you to do. There, I just put USTPM as ustaxpayersparty.org. And you can also go to Brandenburg News Network. You like my new toy? I've got my new toy up and working the banners. So it's like a new skill. You learn a new skill every day. So now I've got banners, see? So you can go to John. Or you can go to you can go to Magnificent Republic or John Tater to Yahoo dot com or U.S. to PM dot org for the United States. U.S. taxpayers party in Michigan and or W.W.W. that Brandenburg News Network dot com. See, we've got all these resources. It's amazing. So with that said, I wish everybody a wonderful week. Yeah, let's go ahead and end this here. Hang on a minute. Let me turn off my banners here. Hang on. I got to turn it off. Okay, there we go. So let's say a prayer first, and then we'll go. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for John and all the wonderful knowledge that he's brought forward to help educate us on what we missed over our lives. And also just learning how to take the United States back because all power is in the hands of the people that was granted by God. God gave us this wonderful country. You gave us this wonderful country. And we're just so thankful that you have been with us every step of the way and that you're leading us out of the captivity that we've been in. And I really do believe that. I believe that for the faith of one, you will save this nation. And so we all need to focus in on you, help us to open our eyes and get our focus correct and our priorities correct, putting you first above all things, seeking your direction before we take off in a direction to seek your direction for us, for our country, to be helpful in our communities, our families. And we know that you're always good, that you will always answer our prayers, not always the way we want, but there's gonna be an answer there and it will be the best answer. Our faith isn't in what we see or hear. It's our faith is in you no matter what at all times. We're so thankful for you. You've been a great friend to us and we want to be a friend to you, our Heavenly Father. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. And with that said, here we go, boys and girls, go to ding, ding, ding, ding, brandenburgforgovernor.com. He's our best non-conceder who's ever not conceded in the history of the United States of America. And I would like to have a discussion with the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump, who was the rightful president in the twenty twenty election and continues to be the rightful president of the United States, perhaps commander in chief. if one frames it as being a military mission that we're on right now, which is very possible. But at any rate, we're going to continue to fight forward. And we all need to be standing together in this as brothers and sisters, as one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And it doesn't matter what party you're on. We're here to defend each other's rights. And to stand together as one family, not a fractured family, not identity politics family, one family. We're Americans. And that's the only thing that has a place in our government is we're Americans. And so we and we should stand together. So at any rate, God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Have a great day and be those patriots that we know that can be doing something, not just talking, catering people when you need to. You're wrong. and welcoming people in with hospitality and being a force for good here. Have a great day, and we'll see you tomorrow. Liberty Essentials are on tomorrow, and I've got a Jay Sixer that's going to be on tomorrow talking about what life is like after the release from their illegal incarceration as political prisoners in the United States, and we're going to be talking about this. I think the Jay Sixers should be in charge of prison reform. They'd be perfect, right? Somebody commits a violent crime in prison. Guess what? That should be deserving of a death penalty right there. We're done. We're just done. I may be a little hard line on this, but they're already in for a reason. They commit crimes of violence in prison. They are just, they're done. Okay. So, but we're going to be talking about some of this tomorrow. Have a great day and make the world a better place. Thanks, John. So long.