In this episode of the Radio Ranch, hosts Roger Sales and Brent Winters engage in a lively discussion about various topics, including the complexities of the U.S. legal system, the concept of jurisdiction, and the historical context of common law. They delve into the differences between common law and equity, emphasizing the importance of understanding due process and the role of juries in the American legal tradition. The conversation also touches on the influence of religion and culture on law, highlighting the significance of the Bible and natural law in shaping legal principles.
The hosts also explore contemporary issues such as the administrative state, the role of federal and state courts, and the challenges posed by the regulatory environment. They discuss the historical evolution of legal systems, the impact of equity on common law, and the ongoing tension between state and federal jurisdictions. Throughout the episode, the importance of understanding legal fundamentals and the historical context of laws is emphasized, providing listeners with a deeper insight into the American legal landscape.
[00:00:00]
Unknown:
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymyboost.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by Fatphix, p h a t p h I x, dot com. Visceral fat is weighing your body down. It's causing sluggish response of your organs, and it's gotta go. It's gotta go. It's gotta get rid of it. You just gotta. And also iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com. Thank you, and welcome to the program.
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:28] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. Yep. And so would we, and we're gonna at least try and do that again today. Here is the Friday edition on the March. Roger Sales and Brent Winters is already with us today. We're it looks like we're missing Francine. I don't know how Brent's gonna do without his producer. Anyway, Brent Winters and myself is my is Prince, are you there, sweetie?
[00:01:55] Unknown:
No. That was me.
[00:01:57] Unknown:
I oh, I thought that was Francine saying, no. I'm here. Okay. Well, we'll miss her if she doesn't make it. And, but we do have her her producee. She's the producer. He's the producee. That would be one Brent Winters. Always happy to do a show with Brent on these Friday editions, and it is I think I said the twenty first. And that's kind of an important day for me personally anyway, long time ago. And, here we go off. We need to get mister Beaner to who's been having mucho technical challenges lately, but I don't think he will here, to go over the, list of folks that help us extend our reach and maybe reach out and touch you. Who knows? Anyway, Paul goes over that so we give them proper credit and and respect of helping us in our little project here, don't you, Paul?
[00:02:52] Unknown:
You do that. Yes. I do. And Yes. I do. And Yes. I do. Watching.
[00:02:56] Unknown:
Well, I live by the local Saporandi.
[00:02:59] Unknown:
Here's Jamie. Just a second. I'm gonna leave this part to him. I mean, update. So steps to report Rex for violating a court order. Okay. Obtain the video. David and Berg secure a copy of the live stream. Take care of that.
[00:03:13] Unknown:
Right. Okay. Rex got a court order. Go ahead. Alan, you were unmute. Alan, you were unmuted, and please stop sending the video feed to Zoom. You're burning up bandwidth. So we're not gonna read it.
[00:03:26] Unknown:
How are Alan's hands? That's what I wanna know. How are his hands doing? Oh, well, I don't know. He might be having He must be doing pretty good. He's got other stuff coming in here. So, anyway Yeah. Go ahead if you would, Paul.
[00:03:38] Unknown:
Alright. Let me technical
[00:03:40] Unknown:
trouser stuff here.
[00:03:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you know, I I live by the, the moniker in Moda Sapper, and I have never letting a computer see me sweat.
[00:03:53] Unknown:
So we'll Okay. Well, that's good. Don't don't fear those things.
[00:03:58] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. No. Because, a computer is like a rabid dog. If you show it that you're afraid of it, it will attack. So Well, I don't know. Just saying. Anyway I think that might be. Speaking of, getting on with the radio program, we are on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, from across the drink. He did not have a show yesterday, and I'm hoping that all is well with him. And, I'm just hoping that I'm just just saying that we should probably send prayers Paul's way, just in case.
[00:04:40] Unknown:
So, well, now you got me all concerned and stuff. Is he alright? Do you know? Did you get any feedback? Is this his wife? What's going on? Do you have any idea?
[00:04:49] Unknown:
I don't know. It really could be anything, so that's why I'm just saying. Keep Paul in your prayers always. Okay. Paul and family. Always. Yeah. I agree. Because, you know, he he has stresses just like the rest of us and every little bit helps.
[00:05:08] Unknown:
He's got more than the majority of us. Go ahead. He
[00:05:12] Unknown:
certainly is more than his share. We're on +1 0690 in Chicago, for the first hour alongside radiosoapbox.com. And we're also on eurofoak radio dot com. Thanks to pastor Eli James. We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. It was my little pet project. And WDRN productions and the net family of broadcast services brings us homenetwork.TV, freedom nation TV, go live TV, and stream life Tube. So our website is thematrixfacts.com. And, we are connected to a free conference call conference room with room for a thousand people. So if you wanna join us on the show, you're more than welcome. The link is on the website.
Okay. Connect via dial up home phone, smartphone, tablet, or computer. Mhmm. It's a cake.
[00:06:21] Unknown:
Okay. Well, we're waiting on them. Thank you. Thank you, mister Paul. Brent, you get your find your audio yet?
[00:06:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I think. There you are. Hey, buddy. How you doing? Alright.
[00:06:32] Unknown:
And we, of course, greet everybody that's out there. We don't know who we're talking to. No. Things expanded to where we're broadcast probably all over the world, maybe further. I don't know. So we just talk and and, maybe he will say something worthwhile. I had an idea though, Roger. I wanna run this by you. Okay. Okay. Now what's what's what they say in our national debt is now? Do you know? 37,000,000,000,000
[00:07:01] Unknown:
or thereabouts. Okay. Well, I got a solution, I think. Now you tell me That's the 11 that's the 11 of the Pharisees, though, but go ahead.
[00:07:09] Unknown:
Well okay. So they've been printing all this money since, 1913 Christmas Eve or whenever it was or '19 whenever they started printing all this money for not
[00:07:21] Unknown:
That was '33. We did have backing of gold for for notes, you know, up until March at thirty three, and that's when it all switched.
[00:07:34] Unknown:
Okay. And then we had backing,
[00:07:36] Unknown:
with silver up until my time. I remember Well, we had silver in the coinage, but the bills were now backed by our future labor collateralized. You know, this is very interesting, Brent. I know you know a lot about, monetary system, but this one, little factoid, most people I find don't know.
[00:07:54] Unknown:
Notes are loaned into circulation, but currency I mean,
[00:07:58] Unknown:
coinage is spent into circulation. There's no usury attached.
[00:08:03] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Okay. So but, the notes I remember had silver backing when I was a kid. Well, they did. They and Kennedy, that's what Kennedy was putting out was those $2 ones, I think. Yeah. Well, I had a bunch of bills, from the nineteen sixties, early nineteen sixties that were $1 bills that were silver certificates. Yeah. That's probably true. Okay. So anyway, but they've been printing all of this money and it not backed by nothing. So we're up to 37,000,000,000,000. Why don't why don't we just print $37,000,000,000,000 in bills and pay off our debts? Yeah.
I mean, isn't that what they've been doing to us? Of course. And they would turn around and say, we don't want all this worthless paper. And we'd say, well, that's what you loaned to the government. The government just saying we'll pay it back with the same worthless paper you gave us. So what are you complaining about? Now wouldn't that work?
[00:09:01] Unknown:
Oh, I'd rather tell them that the whole thing's fraudulent and just make it make them eat it all.
[00:09:09] Unknown:
Well, that's kinda what you're doing when you just print up a bunch of paper and give it to a minute.
[00:09:13] Unknown:
I guess, in a sense.
[00:09:16] Unknown:
Wow. That's what they're doing to us. Been doing it for decades. Yeah. I'd say just make out some notes and or they they've been loaning money to the US government. So US Government, if they want, can print it up and give it back to them. That's the end of that. I used to say when I was a political animal, people be talking back then, it was I think the debt was something like 4,000,000,000,000. That's what people said, which is so astronomical you can't fathom. But now it's 37,000,000,000,000. And I'd say, number one, I don't tell me who we owe this to, and I'll believe it. I don't believe it. If you're gonna tell me that we owe it to the Federal Reserve Bank or the Chinese, I don't care.
Let them come and get it. There's no crime to not being able to pay your debts. That's why we have bankruptcy. So, leave us alone. I don't wanna hear more about it unless you any of you that are complaining about it, people stand up and talk about it. I'd say any of you that are standing up and talking about it, if you can tell me who we and then none of them could ever tell me who we owed it to. So I said, let's forget it. I didn't
[00:10:24] Unknown:
sign off They like to say, well, we owe it to ourselves.
[00:10:30] Unknown:
Well, okay. Well, if that's true, of course, a contract with yourself is a legal impossibility a legal impossibility. So I guess that does away with that argument. So, yeah, let's just forget it. And, of course, they're using that to try to keep everybody in stitches and make them pay taxes, I guess. It is or something. Go and pay the taxes, and then, you're if you don't pay the taxes, you're part of the problem. Well, I don't know if that's true either. Matter of fact, I don't believe it is. I believe, though, it's the other way around. But that was just my idea, Rod.
I'm not the dumbest man in the world, and I'm not the smartest man in the world, but, I'm somewhere in between, but I think that, I can figure some of it out. I don't need bankers to figure it out for me or Not really. Economist. You know, they you know, they're the who was it? Harry Truman. I was saying this yesterday. He when he was president, he was said he was looking for a one armed economist with one with one arm. You remember that?
[00:11:36] Unknown:
No. But I like it. Is he related to a one armed bandit?
[00:11:41] Unknown:
Yeah. No. I need a that's that's that's a good guess. I need a one armed economist because every economist I have to advise me, I ask them a question. They say, well, on the one hand, if you do this, you get this. And on the other hand, if you do that, you get that. But they never tell me what the best thing is to do. I need one with one one arm and go hold out one hand, and then that's the only option we got. Well, of course, they were just guessing about things they didn't know what they were doing. I liked Harry. Don't get me wrong. Right. I read I read his book, but Harry had gone whole hog into the, left wing stuff.
As nice a guy as he was, he was sucked in. You know, the political boss in, Kansas City put him in office, made him president. His name was, po It started with a p? Yeah. Yeah. Poltergast or something or Pendergast. Pendergast.
[00:12:41] Unknown:
Okay.
[00:12:42] Unknown:
Oh, Pendergast. And he had an office out there where the Missouri River met up with, what was that other river there? It come down from the South. I forget, but it's two big rivers. Oh, shucks. It's not coming to me. But, anyway, it's, they call it the bottoms because it was in the bottoms. You know? Right. And bottoms was where he had his office, and the bottoms wasn't in Kansas City proper. It was kinda off the side, but little two little two story building there. It didn't amount to much. And from that two story building, he ruled Kansas City and a whole lot of other things that people didn't know about. And he, of course, Harry wanted to be president earlier than he was, really able to do it.
And, Pendergast said, no, Harry. You're not ready. Pendergast understood politics even though I don't know he'd ever been in political office, but he had it wired from the top to the bottom. And he said, when you're ready to be president, I'll let you know. It was the Kansas River and the Missouri. That's what it was. A little place where we come together. River.
[00:13:57] Unknown:
The Kaw, K A W. The Kaw Oh, okay. Well W. The East Bottoms, the West Bottoms. Yeah.
[00:14:07] Unknown:
We have two cities. Right. But the West East. Yeah. That's I I that that's I you hit hit the nail with your head. That go ahead.
[00:14:17] Unknown:
You Oh. We have cities. Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. And, their downtowns are just right across the state lines from each other.
[00:14:32] Unknown:
Yeah. And the bottoms were on the Kansas or on the Kansas side, if I remember. Right? I've seen them. But,
[00:14:40] Unknown:
the fender. Call the bottom I'm from Kansas City. What we call the bottoms are on the Missouri side. You have the East bottoms and you have the West bottoms. But the even the West bottoms are on the Missouri I see.
[00:14:55] Unknown:
I yield. Oh, both of them you're saying. Oh, okay. Well, there we get it straight from the from the inhabitant of Kansas City, but Pendergast was, absolute emperor in Kansas City. He controlled all the liquor, illegal liquor, all the all the hookers, the biggest thing probably, and all the politician, the police forces, and he's the one that the, Harry started in politics in independence, which is not a suburb, kind of, but it's out there. And Harry got in the county office, and then eventually, he became
[00:15:33] Unknown:
a United States Senator and vice president and president. I went gas. Pardon? Harry. That was Harry Truman. Did I say the wrong thing? No. No. I was just relating. I thought you were talking about Pendergast, and you said all that. I thought it was Harry. Go ahead. Glad you I'm glad you yeah. Because I may have misspoke.
[00:15:51] Unknown:
But, Harry Harry became president. And when Pendergast passed away, Harry was in house. And he traveled back to Kansas City and attended the funeral. And we don't know for sure, but that may have been the reason he lost the election the next time around because because he was heavily criticized. Everybody knew Pendergast was a mobster. And and when he said to the press, and when they criticized him, he said, Pendergast was my friend, his family. His family needs friends around when when, when their father and husband passed away, and I'm going to the funeral. He wasn't gonna let politics get in the way. Well, that that was a good side of Harry Truman. Yeah. That's an interesting side.
I gotta stop away for just a second, Brent. So I'll be back in just a second. I'll go talk to my landlord lord here. Okay. But he also, of course, was good friends with a when he got out of out of the army in World War one, came home. He went into business with, a Jewish fellow. I forget his name. And they started a Heberdasher store. I figured the Jewish fellow had the money, and Harry was supposed to run the thing. Well, as it turned out, and I don't know all the details, but the business went under, and Harry went under with it. Harry tried a lot of things. See, Bess Bess was, from over independence, and, of course, he wasn't. She lived outside of town. Her family had farmal.
Nobody would affirm it. Nobody in the family would farm it. So Harry went to farming it early on. And somebody asked him after he got in the White House, said, how does a man like you never been educated formally? Oh, you got out of high school, but you never been educated otherwise. How is it that you get to be president of The United States? And he said, well, if you'd spent as many hours staring at the north end of a southbound mule, you would understand. But he attributes that for all of his deep thought staring at the north end or the south end of a northbound mule.
It'd be the same thing, I guess. When you turn around to the end of the field, it's the other way around. Or if you're in east, west throughs, it'd be east and west. But it when you're staring at that part of the mule, you get you have time to think about things, and you're staring for hours and hours and hours. And, of course, you're smelling whatever comes out of the south end of the northbound mule too, which periodically will occur. That was Harry Truman. Well, I'm, I'm aware that the world is falling apart. Europe is falling apart. As we watch, They're going down.
They won't let go of their stupidity. Those in America that are of the same persuasion will not let go of their stupidity. Electricity in Germany is in the neighborhood of four times higher than it is in The United States because we have a not we have not yet gone whole hog into, wind power and solar power like they have in Germany. So our economy is still up. I hope we see the light to the stupidity of not using the resources that we have to make life decent and affordable and prosperous. And by the way, the coal is not dirty to burn anymore because the scrubbers that developed, scrub the dirt out of the smoke now.
We call them scrubbers. They aren't really scrubbers. All it amounts to is little spraying of mist into the smokestack with certain chemicals in it plus water to drive the the dirt out of the smoke before it gets out into the atmosphere. But then on the other hand, when we did have smoke in the atmosphere, I don't hurt us any. Matter of fact, we were more healthy then than we are now for a lot of reasons. You know, there's something to be said for allowing a man to, pursue his ambitions and see reward for his labor. There's something to be said about the health that it produces in the human body, and there's something to be said about the sicknesses that are produced in the human body when a man has nothing but toil and moil for nothing. Matter of fact, the Bible emphasized with the words it uses that eve the evil one, the evil empire work on discouragement.
They want men discouraged so that they will die young and not give them any trouble. And the way to do that is to have them toil and moil, and those are the kinds of word that the Bible uses, toil and moil without reward. As a matter of fact, the word toil toil means to labor without reward. That's what it fundamentally means. And we we with the slavery of income taxation like the Israelites in Egypt are increasingly toiling in his work without hope. Increasingly, that's what's happening. Oh, there are a few to get on top of it, but that's all a matter of usury in most cases.
Or that using of usury or the influence of it somewhere in the mix. Roger, are you back? I'm back. Oh, well, Roger, I'm wondering what it is you've been talking about all week because I'm sure that whatever you've been talking about all week is what's on people's minds.
[00:22:08] Unknown:
Well, we're talking about some of the things going on with the events of this week. They haven't been, you know, overly dramatic. Some of them, of course, are the Tesla backlash is incredible. And some of the you of the swatting should have been going on. I'm sure you are. Right? Just like woah. With the what? Swaddings. No. Well, there's a whole it's been going on for a while. They did it to Marjorie Taylor Greene twelve times, and they finally caught the guys in DC. But what they do is they go in to use sophisticated spoofing of numbers and whatnot, and they call in emergency situations to local police departments of this latest SWAT swatting has been over a number of people.
And one of the common denominators, it seems, is that everyone was very critical about, Ukraine. But they've hit, all the Infowars people, I think, and others that aren't associated with that all over the country, actually. And they just call in this report and say, well, Brent has just killed Sue, and he's working on killing all his grandchildren. And so, obviously, the cops get this report. They come out there. They don't know any different. And they come out there full bore, and and and and it it, affords really confrontations that, where the police are confronting the people they're supposed to be protecting, you know, and and and vice versa. And none of them have come to a hair trigger situation yet, but it's been real close.
And, there's been a number of those, and they have already, I think, like, I guess, the Tesla people, they've caught a few of those at. They're already talking twenty year minimum and, prison terms and terrorist charges. And if they can catch these other guys, which I have a feeling is probably coming out of England through a v VPN in Ukraine, but but I don't have any proof of that. But, anyway, that's one of the main things been going on. Got a lot of people's attention this week. The, of course, yesterday, mister Trump, got rid of the Department of Education, which is a bold and welcome move from many on both sides of the aisle.
You know that we are the forty fifth lowest in the world in our quality of our education for our students. Uh-huh. And yet we spend more on it through this National Association of Education than any other country in the world. So that got, kinda tipped back over, and we talked a little bit about that, although that just happened yesterday in the afternoon. Mhmm. So, that that kind of stuff, really. Mhmm. We,
[00:25:08] Unknown:
what's driving anonymous anonymous calls. People are calling in. Right? Yes. That is a Yes. I well, I've been subject to that. I know what that is. Swatting is what they call it now. They weren't calling it that when I was subject to it fifteen years ago, but I've been subject to it. My family has been subject to it. Yep. Subjected to it. No. It's ugly. Of course, it's ugly. But that's what the evil empire does. They want to destroy everything, everybody, and they're clever. They're evil, and they're dirty. They're rotten. They're low. You notice that we don't do that to the other side. No. No. But they do that to us. You better be ready. This is war. And if you don't know the lay of the land, then you can really get hurt. Go ahead, Robert. They they've they've declared that terrorism now.
[00:25:54] Unknown:
So anybody that does get caught gets, as we go forward here, they may they may get caught. We'll see. Get slapped with a terrorism charge on top of twenty year minimum, I think.
[00:26:06] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:26:07] Unknown:
So at least they're setting up things to, do right. I'd like to thank Pam Bondi is getting her feet on the ground a little bit more. Some people think she's in way over her head. We'll see. And, you know, all in all, it's just, well, it looks like they're starting their revolution. And with this swatting thing, it looks like that's the advanced team, and we'll see where the rest of it comes and goes. Mhmm. Well,
[00:26:38] Unknown:
Pam Bond is on in over her head, and there's no way it can be other any other way. Right. Anybody anybody put in that position
[00:26:47] Unknown:
is over their head. I would agree with that. Yeah. Boy, would you love to have seen Matt Gates in there, though? You can understand why they didn't want him in that position. What happened? Why is that? I didn't watch. Matt Gaetz, he's the little he was a congressman last term from, actually, from the adjacent from where I'm from. He's over in the western part of the Florida Panhandle.
[00:27:10] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:27:11] Unknown:
Destined for Walton in Pensacola. Comes from I don't know how his family made their wealth, but evidently, he comes from a wealthy family somewhat. And he's a real firecracker in congress. You know? And they, floated him for attorney general. And, boy, I I the the bad guys almost jumped out of their pants. Uh-huh. And they've set him up with some kind of one of these into, Israeli indiscretion, false flag kind of thing. So there's some kind of a blight on him with an underage girl or something. It appears to be through a Jewish tax collector. They in Florida, they have tax collectors at every county. And one of this guy that was the county, tax collector was a Jew, and this whole thing came out of that. I just don't know all the details, but they blinded him. Let's just say that.
And, and the reason is because they don't want his ass in that position.
[00:28:10] Unknown:
Well, you know, it's axiomatic. Let's just be upfront with the information. To be United States' Attorney is, a tool is to be a tool of whoever puts you in that position to crush their political opponents. That's what it is. Yeah. I have never seen it be anything else. Yeah. And to do the political will, go after the people that will make the man in office, the president in this case, more more popular. That's what it is. And that that becomes very dangerous, of course. And, people like, oh, these two two governors, bang bang from Illinois. I just went to prison. Oh, George Ryan Mhmm. And, Rob Blagojevich.
[00:28:59] Unknown:
And the one that's up there now needs to go for twice the length.
[00:29:04] Unknown:
Yes. And then the Pritzker. Yeah. And whether or not they'll get at him, I don't know. He's coming off like he's a tough man. He certainly doesn't look like a tough man. He's coming off that way and no class at all. But I think he's worth, He's got hutspah. He's got hutspah. Yeah. He's worth billions of dollars, you know, banking family. They what? No. They they own the Hilton hotel chain, I believe. Oh, that too, probably. I don't know. Yeah. Probably, that's it. I I don't know. I just know he's got a lot of money. Okay. I didn't know that, Roger. Well, that explains that. In other words, you just buy your way in the office. Sure. Which is easy to do if you got got the money. Most people don't. But if you ever get in, get people behind you and you can get the money, the money will keep coming. They'll keep you there, you know,
[00:29:50] Unknown:
pretty much. Oh. Yeah. Who's the guy that's he's in the house. He's been real controversial lately. Trump has even said he's gonna primary him, and he wants to run for a Mitch McConnell seat as the senate. I I Oh, he's the congressman that's so vocal. Oh oh, man. They they're all over him. Yeah. He's the only one that won't take Israeli army and doesn't Mafi. Mafi. Thank you. Doesn't have, an Israeli he had Mossad handler in his office and all that kind of stuff. So but he has beaten them four times in a row, and got four I think they spent four times as much money as he did, and he beat them every time.
So, so the question is now is he gonna stay in that position and ride that for a fifth time, or is he gonna go ahead and roll the dice big time and go, after the senate seat? We'll see. But they're all over him, of course.
[00:30:48] Unknown:
I like that. What is his latest like what he has said, which is you must go through congress to declare war, president Trump.
[00:30:58] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. That's part of it with this all this stuff. And, anyway, he's had a little bit of a high profile lately. He's a real good guy. I think they showed us he had Yeah. The pussy. Said something about he was doing an interview with Tucker Carlson, said somebody's Christmas card. And I I think he had all of his family there with instruments, and then he did another shot, I think, where they all had AR fifteens or something. Yeah. Anyway, he's a pretty good guy. Seems to be.
[00:31:34] Unknown:
Well, you know, just to put him on the map for people, this guy, I think he's from the adjacent to the Tug River. It's right up in there somewhere, but the Tug River is the river between, if I remember right, Kentucky and West Virginia. And that is the location of the
[00:32:01] Unknown:
and Hatfield feud. Oh, the the Hatfields and the McCoys?
[00:32:05] Unknown:
Yeah. And one of them one of the family was on the West Virginia side, see, and the other family was on the Kentucky side of the tug.
[00:32:14] Unknown:
Oh, he's right up in there. Maybe he's away. Oh, he's not right there, but he's close by. He made a comment about that, and he was talking about the Middle East. He said, well, we have these little skirmishers, and they last for a couple hundred years. These guys have been doing it for thousands.
[00:32:30] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Man, you know, people from from that area down the Ohio Valley, clear down the Mississippi, and because people just follow the river as they came west. You know? They would go in the church on Sunday morning all over that area, and they'd bring in their rifles, their long guns, and one family had sat on one side of the little church house. The other family had sat on the other side, and they'd put their rifles, lean them up against the pews in the aisle No. In case anybody got too mauled or threatened. And that was part of the culture.
And I didn't realize, of course, I didn't grow up in that long ago where they did that kind of stuff. But, you know, families do carry grudges. But, if you read the book, this was what the book that, Sam Clemens said was his best book. Not Tom Sawyer. That was a good book. Huckleberry Finn, Puddendalehead Wilson, all those books. But he wrote a book called Life on the Mississippi.
[00:33:37] Unknown:
Yes.
[00:33:38] Unknown:
And he had long narratives in there of huge of the families that lived up and down the river and how intense and awful and bloody it was and how they did go to church together and do those things. But he he's talking about a culture that came from the old country that had to do with what they called in the Hatfields and the McCoys. This is a part of their culture. Two, the blood feud. The blood feud is something that came with them to the new world, and it's, a way of enforcing, men's responsibilities in a world where there are no police forces. And it had been part of the culture for centuries, and it had rules. It wasn't just haphazard, but by the time they got to America, the rules started to disintegrate and it became less ordered and less fair. That's the way to say it, I suppose.
You know, dueling as that was part of that culture too that came to America from the old country. Dueling had precise rules. You just didn't go at it without without having people standing by to make sure you didn't follow the rules because the idea was, well, that to be a fair fight, we don't know what truth is until the fight is fair. And so men did those kind of things. But, of course, with the advent and that was called battle by trial, by the way. Our common law called that battle by trial. No. I'm sorry. I got it backwards so you'd remember to hope. Trial by battle.
That was called trial by battle. And increasingly over the centuries, men moved to the first or the second option, which was, battle by trial before the jury. But all the rules remained the same.
[00:35:36] Unknown:
You had to serve no opponent party. That goes all the way back to the jousters and stuff, doesn't it, from the future? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Of oriental.
[00:35:44] Unknown:
Yeah. And that was one of the you could choose your weapons, choose your method. Jousting was such a big sport. Jousting was such a big sport in the old country. I was reading about jousting during the days. Well, I see that was during the days of, oh, King John and Richard. You know, during the days of Magna Carta Uh-huh. They were they were civil war. I mean, that was in the throes of the hot part of the war when Magna Carta was signed or not signed, but sealed. People couldn't write back then, so nobody signed it, but it was it was sealed.
And right in the midst of this awful bloody war, a jousting contest occurred in the center of England, and they shut down the whole blasted war so everybody could come and watch the jousting contest. Wow. I mean, that was bigger than football and basketball
[00:36:39] Unknown:
and all that. That was the sporting event of all sporting events, and I guess. That was what the goal of the country. Go ahead, Roger. I guess having a horse running at that speed with that long thing and hitting the other guy in the chest, I guess.
[00:36:52] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, it but it's very strict rules. You know, they had a barrier, a a partition between them so they could end each other. And they had had to, they had to both commence their charge at the same time. Yeah. And it was it was a skill. A guy could get killed, get killed. As a matter of fact, of course, they were armored so heavily that usually it was more a matter of getting knocked off your horse. But people, once in a while, get killed, but that those contests were just sporting events as dangerous as they were. But if you had a dispute with somebody about land, and that was the only wealth there was, was land, and that's what the disputes were always about, you could you could have, trial by battle to decide who who, prevailed and had rights to the land and the prophets they're from.
But that got pretty And the fair maiden that was involved usually. Oh, yeah. And I don't know all those real I wish it's called chivalry, and that was a part of the system. At at bottom, it was all about land, all about the differences between men and women, and how men are supposed to treat women. Yeah. That maybe you know something about that, Roger, that you could then lighten us. I don't know. I just remember. And when I watched all the movies, they'd always take the camera and shoot it up at the female there and the the daughter of the gang or whoever it was. Yeah. Well, there's always a woman involved. Yeah. Just like us, we're always fighting over women. Yep. It's true. Yeah. What's the use? What's the use of anything if there's not a woman involved? I think most men would understand that. My father told me all the time I was growing up, he said nothing, but nothing ever happens in the world.
But there's not a woman behind it, and he would so he would cite the battle of Troy the Battle of Troy. Yeah. Remember the woman behind the battle of Troy? Of course. Yes. Helen Helen of Troy. Right? Helen. Yeah. Helen. That that that battle occurred because it was all about a woman and, and and it came down to the disrespect. See, that's chivalry. Disrespect of the position of the woman, and they were willing to kill and fight over it. Well, that's the way God made the whole system. We're not supposed to show disrespect for women, But in America, we've made that, our chief ambition
[00:39:23] Unknown:
is to show disrespect. How about in the animal world with, either those big rams, mountain ram, like, gull sheep or those bighorn sheep or the moose, and they get the two males and they just square off and you can hear those, those horns clash for miles.
[00:39:40] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Yeah. No question. They're fighting over the girls, I suppose, but we've taken it to another level with this chivalry thing, and it's it's a matter of we were my brother and I were talking about, the tribes of Israel and, the foreigners when they went into the land. One of them, one of the boys, one of the big shots of this foreign country, seduced, his daughter. That's the tribe of Benjamin. Was it? I don't remember which tribe it was. And so, that made her brothers mad. And, they has to plot to kill everybody in the whole blasted, city that was there.
And they told him and this guy came, the father to the boy that seduced the girl came to, Jacob. Yeah. It was Jacob. And, now I'm getting the story together, and Jacob, the for the nation of Israel, the 12 tribes, and said, look. Here's what happened. My boy's in love with your girl, and he seduced her. Chances are she's pregnant. So my suggestion is they get married. And, that's a good suggestion, by the way. Matter of fact, that's the law of God. And when that happens, just you're supposed to marry the girl. No questions. That's you get her pregnant, you're responsible, you marry her. And you're responsible for the child, and that ends the matter. That's the law of God, from the law from the Bible, from the law of Moses.
Oh, we, of course, shotgun wedding. Well known have been well known event in America. Well, that's right. Marry the girl. Well, that's what this man did. He came and said, well, the only thing to do here, it happened. We can't unring the bell. What's done is done. Well, we just need to get married. And so they decided to do that, but, the her birth the brother's a girl wanted revenge. And that's that's against the law of God in that case. They had done everything properly given the circumstances. So they said, well, okay. You guys, we'll just intermarry with you and we'll all be friends, but you gotta get circum is first.
You gotta be like us. They said, look. We like your idea. We like your God. So, yeah, we'll get circumcised. That's the sign of the covenant with your God, and and everything will be hunky dory, and we'll our two nations will mix our blood, and we'll be friends. And I'm not saying that was right, but they were being they were trying to get along. So they submitted the circumcision, and when the when they thought that they were sore enough and they couldn't fight, they attacked them and slaughtered them, the Israelis. Or no. Not the Israelis. That's different. The Israelite. The Israelites.
Israelites are not Israelis and vice versa. That's,
[00:42:37] Unknown:
one like for you to think so, though. Yeah. That's a fraud. But but
[00:42:42] Unknown:
that's what happened. And they they, that was the wrong thing to do, but it's all about we're going to defend the honor of our sister. Well, too late. God's law says no. At this point, what you're supposed to do is this, and they weren't willing to go. Supposed to defend her own honor? Well, she's got she has a responsibility
[00:43:01] Unknown:
in it. Yes. She does.
[00:43:02] Unknown:
Yeah. By the way, the Bible says if she is being raped, she's to scream. And if she doesn't scream, she has no consent. Yep. Yeah. Well, that's what the law says, whether or not she liked it or not. That's not god said we gotta draw the line as a matter of evidence. If you, scream, then you got a case. But I noticed when, for example, when they went up when all, Supreme Court justice said he he grabbed some yell on the buttocks or something. I don't remember what it was. Something boys do, you know, at a when he was in college or something. Frat party. And she came yeah. Girls, if you're dumb enough to go to a frat party, that's what's gonna happen. Don't complain.
That's what frat you you don't know that? Don't be stooped. Come on. I think that's the reason some of them go there. Yeah. Yeah. On the other hand. So comes up twenty to thirty years later, whatever, and it's complaining. No. It's over. You you didn't scream. And then I had a guy write me. I didn't I was trying to get along with people. That was back when I was on the Internet and people were chatting, and they were saying, well, this one guy said, well, he was a teacher when I was in school. He said, well, I used to teach that area, and I know that he's in a he's in a privileged class. There are rich people, and he'll get away with it. And I so is she. That's why she was in the same college he was. She's in a rich class, and she'll she's living in that world. I'm not feeling sorry for her. Her dad had plenty of money to go after him if he did something he shouldn't have done. Of course, whether or not he grabbed her, who knows? I mean, the guys around who how could if she gets grabbed on the behind I mean, get real, girls, boys, and turn around and and act like nobody's you know, the boys are acting like they didn't do anything. On and on the madness goes. But Yeah. If you're gonna be in those places, girls, you're gonna get your buns grabbed. Don't don't complain about it. Just get out of there and don't go back. You don't want
[00:45:05] Unknown:
yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Joe, go ahead, buddy. I like your place, by the way. Joe sent me a picture of his recent snowstorm and, lovely pictures. I love that little rabbit, and, what a nice looking place, Joe.
[00:45:20] Unknown:
Thank you.
[00:45:23] Unknown:
Most of you've heard of an attorney by the name
[00:45:30] Unknown:
By what? Now you're clipping just a little bit. Joe, what was his name? So what's his name? Do you remember ever remember the
[00:45:38] Unknown:
Steven Jones.
[00:45:40] Unknown:
Didn't ring a bell with me necessarily. International
[00:45:43] Unknown:
thing. He he represented Timothy McVeigh.
[00:45:47] Unknown:
Oh, well, he was a trial lawyer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oklahoma.
[00:45:52] Unknown:
And he told me, this isn't hearsay. This is what he told me, that he represented a client client one time who had been charged with rape. And, while on the witness stand, the the girl who had allegedly been raped, he was questioning her and going through all the gory details of everything. What happened? He said, after all this ensued and
[00:46:25] Unknown:
was over with, what did
[00:46:31] Unknown:
you you did? Case closed. So that goes to the same room. Well, we I didn't clip.
[00:46:41] Unknown:
You clipped out. She may need to repeat that.
[00:46:46] Unknown:
Okay. The woman who had been allegedly raped was being questioned by Jones on the witness stand, and, he had her go through all the gory details of the alleged rape. And, he's
[00:47:17] Unknown:
Oh.
[00:47:18] Unknown:
Sure. So that goes that that ties right in with what you're saying, Brent.
[00:47:22] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure does. Yeah. And it's matter it all comes down to a matter of what is good evidence and what isn't. The Bible tells us what is acceptable evidence and what isn't. Our common law has observed centuries what is reliable and what isn't, and we have rules of evidence. And some evidence is and we'll get and the court should let it before the jury. Other evidence is not reliable and should not be let before the jury because it's more confusing than helpful in many cases. And rules are pretty pretty well attested. Well, all of life comes down to evidence.
Every move you may every thought you have has to do with evidence. Yeah. And it isn't like you've got to be taught about evidence and what it is. You you learn about it as you get older, but it is nice to read what other people have learned about it. Roger, you said something.
[00:48:18] Unknown:
No. I'm just sitting here thinking. I'm I do want to say something, though, about something I heard yesterday, but go ahead with finish up what you're talking about. Go ahead. No. Well, I was, a lot of times in the afternoon, especially we're been in our winter season here. So even though it looks like we're going into the spring, we've got sun in the morning lasting a little bit more in the afternoon, and then it'll still pop up with some thunderstorms. So I'll go out and eat some lunch or something, get a little nappy there and come home and lay down. I'll put, like, something on like Alex, you know, an hour of Alex or something and and listen to it. Doze off a little bit. And so I was doing that yesterday.
And, after the guy that posts these segments takes the spots out for one thing, and then he backs it up with another program. So it'll run right through from an hour of Alex onto another program. Oh, I'm in there dozing in and out, and it's a female. And, and I she said some interesting things, and and and I wanted to see what she was talking about. So I got up and came back in to back it up a little bit, and it was Candace Owens. Now you know who Candace Owens is, Brent? Yeah. She's a black reporter or something, ain't she? Yes. Very attractive black lady, and she's got a new, she's got a husband of new baby and all that and all that that she was on over there, Ben Shapiro's daily wire. And she started getting uppity about, about the tribe there. And they kicked her off, and they got this running feud going now.
So, anyway, she's listen. She's a sharp cookie. Okay? And so she's saying some stuff earlier on about the guy that I can't remember his name that founded the Mossad and something about his son and she was going into these stories. She's got a weird name. I can't remember it. Anyway, she leads on to a and she's bringing everything out of the Jewish newspapers, Herets and the other newspapers and all these is don't call me anti Semitic. This is from here. You know? And she shows you the source. Good move. Okay. And so she gets to the back of the store of this hour there. And I'm telling you this because some of you are gonna go wanna look this up and listen to it. Okay? And and, she was reading out of a magazine called Omni.
Omni magazine, which is published and printed in in Israel and in New York. And, the and it's mainly for the Orthodox Jew community. And there was an article in there on how this one guy that founded the Mossad double crossed both the Dulles brothers and the Rockefeller brothers and was incredibly influential in getting Israel voted on in the United Nations. Boy, now this is a story right here. Okay? And this is from this magazine. Alright? I I I may not have all the details right, but I think I'm pretty close. K? And you can go look it up. It was in probably can't go at candaceowens.com, probably yesterday's podcast.
Okay? But, so what happened was the Rockefellers were selling oil to Hitler during World War two. They're interested totally in money. They don't care about the war, and they go to the Dulles brothers who are brothers, of course, who started the CIA. And, they were very skilled attorneys at setting up dummy companies and hiding something like the Rockefellers selling oil to Hitler, and they did. Yeah. And so the problem they had was the Dulles brothers had a sister, and the sister married a Jewish professor. And the family got so much backlash for that that the husband, the new Jewish professor husband, committed suicide.
And the sister always blamed that on them. And so because she was the sister, she had access to go in and take photos or copies of all the shell companies they'd set up and how the money was being laundered back to the Rockefellers. And she and she went and gave that to the guy that was the Jewish guy that started the Mossad. And he went to both the Rockefellers and the Dulles brothers and co opted both of them with that and got the UN to vote Israel in on the petition in '48. Now that's a hell of a story right there, folks. When they double crossed both the Dulles brothers and the Rockefellers.
So please don't take my word for this. Go go look at it because that's a hell of a story right there. K? So just go to she she's got the magazine. She shows it to you on the screen, all that, And it would be probably yesterday's day before is Candace Owens. But is that not a story or what?
[00:53:46] Unknown:
Oh, man. That's what goes on, though, all day, every day behind the scenes that kind of intrigue, confusion, infighting.
[00:53:54] Unknown:
And all we and her point that led up to all that was that the Israelis were always bribing somebody Well, sure. To get with what they want. And she brought that out as the final example. And, boy, that was a hard hitting story to me yesterday.
[00:54:11] Unknown:
Oh, sure. I but I was talking yeah. Yeah. Was it yesterday? I were teaching the class on, Christian nationalism. And sometimes I I'm pretty good at rabbit trails if I'm relaxed enough, and I get on them. And we got to talking about it it comes back everything come back to a half a dozen fundamentals, just a half a dozen. And one of them is loyalty. Loyalty. The other one is trust, and those are two different things, by the way. And it not they're not even close to being the same thing, but they're important, both of them. But loyalty is indispensable to having any sort of decency in life.
And loyalty loyal violations of loyalty at common law are the violations that we should pay attention to today. There's two categories. There's well, treason is the violation, and there's grand treason and petty treason. Mhmm. Grand treason is is against the sovereign, whether it be the sovereign of creation as grand treason, disloyalty. And then there's treason against the earthly sovereign where you live. All of us, if we're Americans, we reside within the boundaries of a particular sovereign state of the union. The states have laws against treason, each of the states.
And in those cases, the, the penalty traditionally has been death. And, of course, treason against The United States is another sovereign that we're we're, connected to here in America. And the penalty there may be death also. Should say, like in, UMCJ U U uniform code at u m UCMJ. Yeah. Yeah. That's how you say it. And it the penalty would say, in most cases, all over the UCMJ, that the penalty is death or as a court martial may direct. So that's kinda the way the reason is. Yeah. Somebody gonna say something? Paul is.
[00:56:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Got about two minutes left before we drop out of, our, platforms. You gotta talk about commonlawyer.com.
[00:56:46] Unknown:
Alright. This is, oh, this is Brent Brent Allen Winters. I'm here with mister Roger Sales. I like the name Roger Sales Radio Ranch, and you can look up Roger too. But you can look me up at, www.commonlawyer.com, and you can find the links that will let you listen to us seven days a week, different platforms, different times. Church on Sunday, Winters Inn or, in church. In church is connected with the law school Winters Inn. You can take law school courses there, all the traditional courses or a lot of them. Evidence is a big one, by the way. We taught Evidence. That course lasted fifty some weeks.
And, of course, we have courses on, trust law, contract law, the sheriff at common law, the bill of rights, and we're right now teaching a class. We have one more session. You can join these classes. And if you don't join them when they're going on, all these classes are in the can. You can go watch them and listen to them. And when you do that in appreciation of a donation of some says there, we want to provide you with something. We don't wanna just take money. That doesn't make us feel nice. We wanna feel good too, so we provide books and the winterized translation of the Bible. A common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, the Hebrew, the Chaldean, the Greek, and, those are the original tongues, by the way. No. Anything else is less than the original tongues. People ask me, well well, what translate what what language did you translate it from? Well, the only the one it was written in or the ones it was written in, and you can do that. Well, we still have those. We have those manuscripts by the thousands.
These are evidences, by the way. That's what manuscripts are, and the Bible is the best evidence of what God said. You wanna know what God said? Well, we got the evidence of it. He's seen to putting it down and it passes all the rules of evidence, and you can take that course too. You can also get the x, comparative law of text, excellence of the common law, comparing and contrasting the law of the land with the law of the city on every continent and in every age, from the founding, the settling of the city of Babylon up till the present. Go to commonlawyer.com. Roger, give your website too. Well, they're,
[00:59:14] Unknown:
coming through to us through there is the matrixdocs.com, and we've got other folks that have done stuff on the side to help other students get through some of the complexities of this. And, so all that information is there thanks to one Paul Beener. Didn't used to be there like that. It is now. And, so, and we're right here waiting for you. I was, thinking as we're getting started, the Spanish word for wait is esparro.
[00:59:44] Unknown:
And so I think b o u s m Chicago. Thanks for joining us for the first hour, and radiosoapbox.com, thank you for being here as well.
[00:59:52] Unknown:
Ciao. Yep. Thank you. And so when you're taking wait in Spanish, you take a verb, your wait, and it's waiting, I n g, then it's always or endo. And I think here, it's Esperanto. And that means hope also, by the way, but that's waiting.
[01:00:10] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[01:00:12] Unknown:
So, let's see. What was I I was I was gonna tell you, you mentioned how important evidence is. I don't think I've ever told you about my IRS story, have I? I don't think I've ever told it to the audience, hardly. So I think you have. You wanna do that? Well, I can take a yeah. Yeah. So, I'm sitting there. I'm you know, I never had a tax problem till I met John and Glenn. And it wasn't very long after I met them. I had a pretty big one. I have to laugh about it. And so I was full of piss and vinegar, you know, at that stage, especially. And, so the I was very active. And, here here's an interesting thing. Here's a sideline, Brent.
So one of my students was they were a couple. She owned a blood testing lab, and he was a Canadian chiropractor. And they're just super folks. And she was, she was one of those gals that just didn't take no for never mind. You know? And, so she gets into a, a match with them, and she ends up suing suing Equifax for screwing up her credit. And so they do depositions. Right? And Yeah. So she's in a deposition with Equifax, which is there in Atlanta. And, and the first question was, does Roger Sales write your letters? And she gets she gets real indignant. She said, I'll have you know. I write my own letters. Thank you very much.
So Yeah. Anyway, that was the kind of ripples I'd made in the pond there. So it wasn't very long till the individuals representing Satan got on me with a summons for books and records. I love Oh. Oh, I'm Philippine vinegar enough to fight them. You know? And so, I do up what everybody said was a real good job of writing a brief and all that. And, I had a couple folks helping me, of course. And so I go to, turn that in, and they schedule, I'll be darned if they don't schedule a hearing. And then I had forgotten to serve The US Tax Guy, I think, in DC. I'd forgotten a certificate of service in one of them. And so they came in and tried to, get it knocked off of the docket there. And, and I went to the Cobb County Law Library, came up with a case, and said that now this that's all form and no substance, especially with somebody like me, a pro per. So, they went ahead and left it. It's already been scheduled. We're gonna have it. Well, you you probably know, but, whenever they're gonna try a tax hearing or trial, they bring in a tax specialist from the Department of Treasury. It didn't from DOJ.
And so they brought this little old Jew guy in and, all about five foot four and, you know, the all the typical characteristics. And the IRS gal is a real cute little black gal. Her and I probably got along pretty good, you know, except I got her on the stand for four and a half hours, and never I could not get any evidence in because I just didn't know all that procedure. So I'm telling y'all for this point that there's an there there there's an outlet for you to learn about evidence right there, Brent Winters. Well, Winters Inn, because I didn't know anything about it. And therefore, I got it I I'm literally had her on the stand for four and a half hours.
Boy, she didn't like me at all. Okay? And, I never got one piece of evidence in, but it was in that period of time, unfortunately, right after that, that I really realized what's going on over there with, with these, regulations. I think Ralph Winterout was on the same track I was on. We didn't coordinate on this at all. We both kinda stumbled into it, ourselves. And you know you know about regulations, Brent. You got statements of policy. You got interpretive. You got substantive. Substantive, of course, the only ones with general applicability. The other two only apply internally.
Well, the what happened was I started going back and and doing some my friend was hammering this regulation and administrative state into my head at the same time. And so I was trying to research that, and I stumbled on the fact that those interpretive regulations, which only apply to the interagency, were the only in that was the regulation they were trying to enforce on me with statues for eviction records. And I traced it back, internal revenue code of 1954. You can't get further back than that, by the way, and in tracing regulations.
And, came to the opinion it was an interpretive regulation, but I had already had the hearing, so I couldn't appeal it and introduce it as new evidence. And it was very frustrating to me, but I have come to conclude that all those IRS regulations, I'll bet you they have never published a substantive information with notice of comment. Uh-huh. I'll bet you a whole bunch of money that they never have, and they're running that whole scam on interpretive regulations just like the CDC was running the mass scam during COVID.
[01:05:54] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[01:05:55] Unknown:
So I don't know. I have a question. IRS if you get an IRS case, Brent Uh-huh. Check that on whatever they're coming after you with on the regulation, and you just see if that didn't interpret it. Because I would be willing to bet everything I own that it is. Sherry, what what's your in info? Now Sherry used to work for the individuals representing Satan, didn't you, sweetie?
[01:06:17] Unknown:
Yes. But it's been a long time ago. I've recovered, but more importantly, learned more about, statutes, codes, and regulations since then. And so in the regulation is where the penalty is defined. Now the statute might put forth, hey. You can't do this. You can't do that. But the regulation is what controls the penalty. Is that not correct, Brent? The right. The regulation controls the penalty.
[01:06:53] Unknown:
So I we understand what you're saying. I've never heard it put that way before, so my mind is kinda working on what you were saying, Sherry. So go because I look at, like, 1.1 dash one a. They're 26, and it doesn't it lays out the jurisdictional reach, but there's no penalty there. I guess that's further back. But that's where my mind was going. That's why it wasn't responsive. So go ahead. That's interesting, though.
[01:07:25] Unknown:
Right. The penalty resides within the regulation. And if there is no penalty within the regulation, who cares if you follow the statute or not? And I would like you to speak to that, Brent. I yield.
[01:07:43] Unknown:
Well, I like to say, or I have told people, they'd say, well, what does the law what is the tax law? And I say, well, the tax law is whatever the IRS says it is. Don't be looking at the books. That won't make any difference. And then then when you think I'm kidding, then when you get to court I don't. I'm laughing because it's true. It's true. Yeah. Then when you get to court and they try to get after you, then the US attorney will argue any penalty they wanna argue. And they if the judge doesn't think it's lawful, he'll stay so. But if the judge doesn't know any better or doesn't doesn't care, he'll he'll grant it. I was in court once, and, the US attorney said, about the, the fellow that was on trial said, the judge will make a motion that all of his income be forfeited for the rest of his life.
Now I know you're probably saying, Brent, I don't believe you. No. That's exactly what happened. All of his income forfeited to the federal government for the rest of his life over it was just a minor minor accusation. But they hated him so much. That, of course, the judge in that case wisely said, no. I'm not gonna do that. But see, they've got confidence to ask for such ridiculous stupid things, and sometimes they get it. That's what's been going on. Hutzpah.
[01:09:11] Unknown:
It's not confidence. It's hutzpah.
[01:09:14] Unknown:
And let and that the Roger probably said it right. That's best defined, to use an example of what he just said of, a young man or woman murdering both of his parents Yes. And then going into court and begging for mercy because he's an orphan. Yeah. Said, no. I couldn't have killed my parents. I was adopted. Yeah. All that kind of stuff. In other words, they're just willing to do anything. Oh, yeah. And no shame. No shame at all. Yesterday in watching that Candace Owens thing,
[01:09:47] Unknown:
she had a guy up there that was over the Wikipedia operation when it first opened in a room full of people. I don't know how many it was. They panned the room. There's a lot in there. And these were all these Jewish kids that they were gonna put over watching different parts of Wikipedia to make sure it's edited correctly.
[01:10:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. It's real good. Yeah. I'll tell you. He's like, wait.
[01:10:16] Unknown:
You didn't answer the question. And, the penal code my god. Penalty. And
[01:10:23] Unknown:
so he's trying to get there, Sherry.
[01:10:26] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Oh, I know. Long way around the bush. I appreciate your stories, Brent. Are you Yeah.
[01:10:34] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you go ahead. I don't you I wanna know listen. You're the one that was there. Yeah. You're the one that brought it up with your evidence, Sherry.
[01:10:44] Unknown:
Yeah. Because, well, I don't think I've ever heard that before. That's why I was curious.
[01:10:50] Unknown:
Okay. Well, isn't there a difference in the regulations, Roger? What regulations apply to whom?
[01:10:58] Unknown:
Correct? Well, there's a whole there's a whole bunch of differences in the regulations because that's the up until this last term of the Supreme Court, that was that Chevron, deal which allowed them to interpret the the the ruling back in, I think, the seventies, Brent, was that the regulatory agency are the experts, and they can change the interpretation of that statute any way they want. They're the enforcement arm. The the agencies Yeah. See, there weren't agencies before Roosevelt because there weren't serves. We didn't have public policy. We had law.
After that and by the way, I I came on this, Brent, while thinking, before the, Jeff Rentz appearances. The administrative start was the bankruptcy of '33. Because it says in black at black the bankruptcies of 1933 was the start of the administrative state. There weren't agencies before that. We were under the constitution and God. As they switched it, they started having regulations. And the first ones were issued by the secretary of the treasury. It says it right there in blacks.
[01:12:18] Unknown:
Well, they first had And the thing is
[01:12:21] Unknown:
The implementing regulations Hold on. Sherry, hold on just a second. Let me finish, please. Before that, there was no secretary of the treasury. There was a treasurer of The United States, and there were no regulations. So those regulations entered at that time are ground zero for the administrative state. It's all grown from there. Now, Sharon.
[01:12:46] Unknown:
And and may I just say they're called implementing regulations. What regulation implements the statute? And is that statute at large? And the penalty Well okay. Well, hold on a sec. Where the penal code is derived from, your punishment.
[01:13:08] Unknown:
Okay. Well, then there's, there's there's some further, discovery that needs to be named on your thinking here was are those implementing penalty regulations. Did those are those substantive regulations? Because they have to be substantive to have general applicability. So if they're laying out some sort of potential penalty there, does that implementing regulation have to be notice and comment? But to make it all set say yes. That's due process. I yield. But I could all I want all those three days. Okay. I'm I'm anxious to hear what Brent has to say, and he's anxious to tell us. Go ahead, Brent.
[01:13:48] Unknown:
Well, this is my conclusion, and there's a technical term for all of what she just said. It's not because she she was saying what is what people hold in government. It's not that she's responsible for doing making a test, but the technical term is gobbledygook. It's meaningless. No. Listen. If you can't say, here's the standard, that's it. The rest of it is trash, double speak speak mirrors, and it is meaningless. It is not law implementing regulations, regulations. Yep. Law comes first. That is hogwash.
[01:14:27] Unknown:
It is.
[01:14:28] Unknown:
Because either it's this or it's that. Is there a law? That's why I say, my experience, whatever they say is law is law, and that's the way they want it. And that's why all this gobbledygook You got it. Is part of the culture.
[01:14:41] Unknown:
You know, if my not talking about you. Hold on a second, Julia. My supposition is right here on these regulations, Brent. Yeah. What's that? Almost everybody that's ever been charged or or or harmed by and have all been harmed under the auspices of regulations that are only intended for the Internal Revenue Service. Julie, what have you, talk about travesty. Julie, what have you got to add here?
[01:15:09] Unknown:
Well, just that, I do believe that the republic is being restored. I'm not sure if you're aware that Trump just changed the name of Washington DC to Washington DA.
[01:15:22] Unknown:
No. I hadn't heard that.
[01:15:24] Unknown:
So it's District Of America now. He changed the Gulf Of Mexico to the Gulf Of America. So I think that now he Right. Are going through a chapter 11 reorganization. And I do believe that's also why he's, getting rid of the federal government a lot and getting rid of these agencies. They're not needed anymore. They'll be replaced by AI. And then with just all of the spending Mhmm. At certain agencies, those can be abolished, and that stuff should be done down at the state level anyway. But Right. I thought that was interesting. So now we're District Of America.
[01:15:58] Unknown:
I have not heard that, Julie. Julie lives right outside of DC in Virginia there, Brent, one of our newer students. And, right, she's seven houses down from Amy Cohen and Barrett. How about that? I I'm trying to get her to go down there and pick it and protest a little bit.
[01:16:15] Unknown:
I've already done that. Oh, man.
[01:16:18] Unknown:
Well, that's all that all that all those exec or regulations, all these fancy words again that are meaningless. What are they? Well, they're just executive orders. They're not orders to me. They're orders to the people who work for government. That's what executive orders are. The executive's orders to those working under him, whether it be the chief of staff, the military forces, the FBI, see all the people. A couple million people work on maybe three, they say now. That's how fast it's grown. Yeah. You know, when, war between the northern and the southern peers of the states began, there were about about 600, if I remember right.
600 federal employees. Is that right? No. No. 6,000.
[01:17:05] Unknown:
Yeah. 6,000.
[01:17:06] Unknown:
Right. 6,000. At the end of that war, four years later, there were about 60,000, and it's been growing ever since. And when I ran for office back, thirty some years ago, they tried it. They'd all we're gonna shut the government down. That was, I remember, 800,000 federal employees. And now they're saying there's three three million.
[01:17:29] Unknown:
Oh, for goodness. Beyond
[01:17:30] Unknown:
the growth of the population. Yeah. And executive orders are to them, not to me. Correct. That's called regulations,
[01:17:39] Unknown:
Telling them how to handle the law. Roger, go ahead. You wanna say something? Well, I was just gonna say this is the deep state or these hold on, Joan. The deep state or all these agencies to me, they've grown up since 1933. Remember, they had, what was it, thirteen years of turmoil because they didn't have a guidebook. And that was in 1946 after w w two, big mistake too, that they passed the title five five five two, the Administrative Procedures Act, which is their guidebook. But this is their deep state you're talking about is the unelected bureaucrats. They're unelected. They're appointed, and they have the power.
It's been called back a bit recently. Thank goodness. Where they can take any legislation properly passed by the house, the senate, and, the president signs it, goes through the whole chain, filters down to them, and they get to reinterpret that because they're supposedly the experts, and that applies as public policy now to the serfs. It's not law. It's public policy. And thank god this last supreme court, last session had got this big Chevron deference and addressed, I think, in at least two or three cases, Brent, the overreach of the administrative state and bringing them back into line. As I said earlier, up to that point from the seventies, the idea from the court had given them was that they're the experts, they're the administrative agency over the subject matter, and they get free will to do that statute any way they wanted.
Now that's been cut back. And I would remind you the two cases, I think, that brought this forward last term, Brent, you'll remember it. We talked about it. At the time, it's really important, seems like to me, was the SEC was appointing their own administrative judges in their administrative courts. People go through administrative appeals. But the more egregious one I guess that's probably the most because of what's at stake. But the fishing boat, maybe I just relate to it more, Chris. But if you're a commercial fisherman, you had to have a a government appointee on your boat the whole time you were fishing out there to make sure you adhere to regulations.
That's bad enough. The other rub, the salt in the wound was they made you pay for it.
[01:20:17] Unknown:
So those two things brought what's going on? Right.
[01:20:20] Unknown:
Okay. Well, hold on. We had Jones sitting there waiting. So I but I just wanted to get off on that tangent. That's my view how the regulatory state is, and it's the deep state. This is where all the all the lifelong appointed bureaucrats for the bad guys are. I mean, I'd remind you, Brent, you probably don't know this, but in that William t McFadden book, 31 speeches of William t McFadden between '31 and '33. And in one of them, his statement is they control every office, every important office here in Washington. That that was almost a hundred years ago. Yeah. K. Now, Joan, what do you what do you have to add?
[01:21:02] Unknown:
Yeah. The executive orders are just for government employees.
[01:21:07] Unknown:
They're for cabinet level. Okay. The first
[01:21:13] Unknown:
okay. Go ahead. And then they and then whoever those executive orders are meant for, they enforce them against the people.
[01:21:23] Unknown:
Right? That's right. Executive orders are to to the ones under his command. That includes all the bureaucracies and all of the military. For example, as commander in chief, when he says bomb bomb these people that are drones that are ships, which he recently did in the Red Sea. Well, that was an executive order, an order from the executive to those that are that work for him and are under his control and authority. And so regulations are executive orders. You see, they use all these words, and people think, oh, that's something it's all hogwash. Bottom line, what does the constitution of The United States say? Pardon me. I'm not lecturing you, and I appreciate your question. I just get exercised over the stupidity, of of of what the government, the evil, what they do. But there are three branches of government, the executive, that's the president's in charge of that one, the legislative, congress is that one, and then the judicial, that's the Supreme Court of the United States, and the other courts that congress has for forms underneath.
Now the executive branch has no power to make law. The constitution of The United States article one begins by saying, upfront, all legislative power shall be in a congress of the United States. And it is. And then for a president, he he gives an executive order, and then congress passes a law, which they've done, and says every executive order the president gives is law. That's essentially what they've said. They don't have jurisdiction to say that that's unconstitutional. Why? Because the constitution says they can't say that. That's how this has worked. Remember that back to fundamentals and everything arises up of this fundamental. There are only three branches of government and neither one of those three branches has any authority ultimately to tell the other one what to do. Oh, they can tell them what to do, but they can't force them to do it.
That's really what it boils down to, three separate and coequal branches of government. Then you say, well, who's in charge of the government? Well, then the jury makes the final decisions in individual instances. Now the three branches are coequal. Nobody has authority to tell the other one what to do. How could they? They all took an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States. They didn't take an oath to support and defend the Supreme court. We didn't, they didn't, none of nobody in government takes an oath. I'm going to support and defend the president. No, no, no, no. They do that in other countries. Not here. Now everybody in government takes an oath to a set of laws, our common law tradition of government, and we've written it down in the constitution of The United States and every state has done pretty much the same thing with their state constitutions.
So the regulatory state is a new animal that the effervescent beginnings of it began during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. He loved governor, and it began then in a very small way. By the time you get to his cousin, his cousin, t, Theodore FDR, not Theodore, but FDR. Thank you, Roger. But time he he he comes full blown, unapologetic. The president is the emperor, and that's what he was. And he did whatever he wanted, and the congress was foolish enough to just rubber stamp everything that emperor wanted to do. And we haven't gotten over it since. I'm trying to. The courts have even said didn't complain.
The courts have even said, yes, regulate our law. Well, I don't care what the courts say, and I don't care what the president says, and I don't care what the Congress says. My loyalty and your loyalty, friends, neighbors, and kin, is to the common law tradition as our constitution of The United States expresses it about government. Our constitution of The United States doesn't say much. It just says here's how government is supposed to operate. There's nothing in our constitution about tort law, contract law, trust law, family law, none of that. No. It's only here's how government is supposed to operate. The processes that is supposed to follow. That's our common law process, due process. Not want this to be done, not a list of laws, but the fairness of the way it's supposed to be done. That's what our common law is, and that's what our constitution is. It's all about how, not what.
[01:26:18] Unknown:
How is How do you choose who's to be president of The United States, not who is to be president? Roger, go ahead. Sherry's chomping at the bit to get something in here. She's hard to Yeah. Hard to hold back. You need to put a little more of a halter on her. Sherry, what you got, sweetie?
[01:26:35] Unknown:
Well, at the two branches that put forth orders, the judiciary and the executive. And, and so I find it ironic not ironic. But who has jurisdiction over what? And so when the court puts forth orders, it only applies to those who they have jurisdiction over. Correct? Yes. And if we acquiesce to their jurisdiction, that's where we, the people, go wrong. We don't know who we are.
[01:27:10] Unknown:
Well, that's true. You know, Sun Tzu said, if you don't know who you are and you don't know who your enemy is, you got no chance of winning any battle.
[01:27:23] Unknown:
Well, let's let's let's hasten that. There's times, of course. The courts have jurisdiction, and we as responsible, responsible inhabitants of our states and our country Mhmm. We have a duty to respond properly.
[01:27:38] Unknown:
Okay. Can we can I play We're not roll? Split some here? We're under law here in America. That's why we have freedom. Go ahead, Ron. I I just wanna split hairs a little bit because there are two types of jurisdiction. I can understand the difference. So you're talking about subject matter, the judge that's there over that county and has subject matter jurisdiction over the highways in that county, theoretically. Now Yeah. Yeah. And and the other one, of course, is persona. And we deal with persona, and we don't bring out and at least bring out where people can understand there's a difference with subject matter jurisdiction.
And now somebody might be looking at just the word jurisdiction, and one of you is looking at subject matter, and the other is looking at personum. Well, you're gonna have a little bit of a difference.
[01:28:28] Unknown:
Well, certainly. But either way, it's jurisdiction. Just jurisdiction over this or jurisdiction over that. It might be a good idea just to say again what is jurisdiction, and I've hammered out different definitions in my mind and looked at other people's. And here's I'm gonna give you my conclusion of simplest way to describe it, the true and all cases. Jurisdiction is the right to
[01:28:50] Unknown:
act respecting a given matter. I think that's good. Jurisdiction.
[01:28:55] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. I think that's a good one. Go ahead. Hey. Let's let's work with that one. Jurisdiction is the right to act respecting a given matter. I have a right to act respecting my wife. My wife has a right to act respecting me. I have a right to act respecting the education of my children. I have a right to act respecting defense of my life, liberty, and property. I have a right to act respecting my tongue whether I want to remain silent under the fifth amendment or speak under the first amendment under the protection of those amendments. I have rights. What are rights? They are rights to do something.
And jurisdiction means I have a right to act within a certain boundary, a certain scope of authority, and all of life is made up of separate jurisdictions. And by the way, those separate jurisdictions all come from the same source, which is the creator of all things. They are delegated down. And these separate jurisdictions that God himself, Romans chapter 13 verse one, alright, which means that's Anglo Saxon for jurisdiction, alright, all jurisdiction is from God, period. And therefore, he is the controller of it and the definer of it, and he has delegated it to men. And that delegation that he has made of the spheres, the different spheres of jurisdiction is the kingdom of God that the gospel records talk about over and over and over. What is kingdom? Basilea in the New Testament.
Malukkah in the Old Testament Hebrew. What is that? That is God's arrangement of his delegated rights. That means delegated authority. That means delegated duty. Your duties are your rights. That is your jurisdiction. Courts have jurisdiction over certain matters and a certain way of doing things, and we are to respect that. And they are to respect our jurisdiction when we assert our fifth amendment. And this it gets intricate. And to see that with your eyes, the Bible says, you can't even see it unless you've been born of the spirit of above from above. And I have observed that to be true of men. They can't even see it. It's not there. And if you don't have that and you can't see that, you will live a restless miserable life because we, as men, as creatures, God has made us to honor other men. That means be respectful of their right to act, respecting their property and their their duties.
And we are to defend, and every man is to defend his jurisdiction because with the delegation of jurisdiction from God comes inevitably the duty to defend it. At the same time, courts have a duty to defend their jurisdiction, to force compliance where they have true law. We have a duty to defend our jurisdiction, to protect our wives. Our wives have a duty to protect our children and even their husbands if need be. We have a duty, actually, yes, toward our neighbor. Do not covet. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery, and do not murder your neighbor. That's a jurisdiction.
Well,
[01:32:19] Unknown:
I'm about burnout, so I'm glad you piped. Well, before you launch off, Sherry, I wanted to thank you Brent for bringing that down to the familial level. I had never really thought that through at that to that depth before on that just that one thing. Jurisdiction is very interesting. You opened my mind with that a bit, and I thank you. Sherry, what do you got to add here, babe?
[01:32:40] Unknown:
Yes. Jurisdiction is important. Who controls what and where? So my question is to you, when the courts aren't, adhering, honoring, showing deference to a man's jurisdiction, Where do we go?
[01:33:01] Unknown:
His obligation at that point, again, come back to the bible. What what happened in the bible when those things happened? We'll just go, for example, we have 17 books of the prophets in the older testament. 12 shorter prophets, five longer ones. In those cases, by the time the prophet arrived upon the scene, it was all over, but the crying. It was too late and they pronounced judgment. That's what prophets do. They pronounce judgment. They read the law of God. They say, well, the law of God says, if you do this, you get this. If you do that, you get this. They looked around and said, woah, Neli. We're doing that. Therefore, we get this. We get the curse, and then they told people. But sometimes, there are times when the blessing, the good spell instead of the bad spell came. But in all instances, when the courts do not follow proper jurisdiction, when they go beyond the scope of their proper jurisdiction, you made the comment, well, the question is always who controls what, who has control no. It's not who controls. It is who has the right, the jurisdiction to control. There are a lot of people controlling a lot of things they have no right to control because they have raw force for sure. Problem. But let's get back to what we speak. What is jurisdiction? It is the right, but it is the lawfulness of that control. That's what jurisdiction is. The word jurisdiction could be translated into lawfulness in the Bible. You can take those words in the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament translated lawfulness. Well, that means right in Anglo Saxon. Jurisdiction in Latin, notice how long the word is, but it all comes down to the same thing, the right to have that control, the right to act. And what do you do?
Well, our common law tradition says you do have what's called freedom of speech and freedom of petition. When you I tell my clients, when you file a paper in court and the court is not responding lawfully, you still have a duty to say it. It's called the office of prophecy. What is the office of prophecy? It is the responsibility, the duty to speak when things aren't right. And by the way, let me add this. The end result of you saying the truth and saying it intelligently and properly, the end result of that is not your affair. The end result, god says, is my affair for my reasons and my glory.
The Bible says that judgment be not afraid be not afraid of the face of any judge or any man because the judgment, the passing of judgment belongs to Yahuah, not you. Know your respond what is your jurisdiction? See? Comes back to jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction is your duty to act or refrain from acting. The duty to speak or refrain from speaking, that's your jurisdiction. The outcome, that's not your jurisdiction. I've said to judges on many occasions. They get frustrated, intimidated, haven't got any confidence. They begin to act stupid. And I've said to them, judge, judge, don't say that.
Demeaning himself in the court, don't say that. We're counting on you to make the decision. We don't get paid to make the decision. You get paid to make the decision. You have that responsibility. And if you make the wrong decision, and I think it's the thing to do or I want to make a point of it, I'll appeal it. If that court makes the wrong decision, I'll try to appeal it again. If it doesn't come out what I believe is lawful, then I'll look for another angle. Impeachment of judges, for example. That's part of our cost common law tradition that we need to resurrect real quick. Hot topic right now. And there's not yes. It is. But there's nothing questionable nothing to debate for crying out loud. Mean. Just impeach them. That's all. You don't like them? Get rid of them. I heard Barnes say several times that the judgeship
[01:37:15] Unknown:
is the only position that all you need to do is cast a dispersion on their character and actions, basically. I don't remember exactly how you phrase it, but you don't have to catch them, with their hands in the cookie jar. You just have to think that they did get their hands in the cookie jar with two or three planes and two or three mansions and what all.
[01:37:40] Unknown:
Bad behavior, it says, for a judge. You know what? Okay. The behavior offends you, that's in the constitution of The United States for federal judges. You just don't like his looks? Well, get rid of him. Well, you to know that they're they can't stay there as long as they want. Their behavior would be different. And then you've got the difference on where they congress appointed them. Where did they get going from the confirmation and stuff, or were they like a magistrate? Somebody just threw them in there. So there's all kinds of these little,
[01:38:10] Unknown:
ways to look at this that are gonna have impacts on these decisions. This a big, big thing Trump's gonna have to deal with is that they need 14 votes in the senate. That's the deal. All all of it comes to that right there. Yeah. Yeah. Roger. That's our tradition.
[01:38:28] Unknown:
But we we should understand jurisdiction in the simple ways that we need to understand it and recognize that jurisdiction, I call it, the holy of holies. You can raise jurisdiction according to our common law at any time during, before, or after a proceeding happens. And if a jurisdiction wasn't there, you can have the whole thing thrown out if the courts see it your way. Right.
[01:38:54] Unknown:
Larry was trying to get in here. Larry. I'm sorry, but that is hilarious,
[01:39:00] Unknown:
Brent, that if the courts recognize, their lack of jurisdiction and then they'll adhere to it, that's the problem we're having. They're taking control of it all. I yield. Ego's ego's
[01:39:14] Unknown:
get in the way there sometimes too, Larry.
[01:39:18] Unknown:
Oh, Larry's hesitating. Oh, go ahead, Hillary. Go ahead. Can you hear me?
[01:39:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, Roger, earlier, you mentioned there's two jurisdictions, persona and subject matter, but we've discussed before that there's actually three. There's territorial. And I I want Brent to go over that one more time real quick. And if he could give me an example, first of all, is territorial jurisdiction, does that only have to be proved in federal court, or does it have to be proved in state courts? That's the first question. And the second question is If if if you're in federal court and it was established that the court had subject matter jurisdiction and personum jurisdiction, but they did not have territorial, how would the, attorney argue that? Like, what would they say to the court and, along the lines of, well, the court has subject matter and it has personum, but it does not have territorial.
[01:40:21] Unknown:
How how would that be laid out? Or But let me give you a real life Alright. Our student our students have very fertile minds. Go ahead, Brent. Thank you. Let me give you a real life example. I was involved in a murder case one time that had to do with, an Indian reservation. And, what happened was they two men and a woman were in a pickup truck. And one man was in the back seat and a woman, another woman, a man in the front seat, and they were from two different tribes. One of the tribes was a federally recognized tribe. The other tribe was a tribe of long standing, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not recognize that tribe, had never recognized it. It. Well, the man that, belonged to tribe that, no the Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't recognize had a pair of scissors, and he's commenced to stabbing the man driving the truck.
And he stabbed him to death in the about their head and shoulders type thing. Well, that was bad enough, but dog gone it. Now we're that that was, that comes down to subject matter and in person in person. Now let's talk about the federal courts. The federal courts don't have jurisdiction over a man that is, the as as a as a tribal member who's not a member of a recognized tribe. And this guy would belong to tribe that wasn't recognized, the guy that committed to kill him. The woman was witness to it. She testified. Well, that so we've got that problem. That's called, in persona or, yeah, in persona. And then he got subject matter jurisdiction. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction over murder?
Well, that's subject matter. See? Okay. That's all state. That's all state crime. Yeah. Now we got yeah. But that's right too. We got that. But it could be state. It could be federal. So it came down to this, the road they were driving on. What a case. The road they were driving on was the road that separated the engine reservation from the non reservation land. Yeah. So now what are you gonna do? So you got a jurisdictional dispute about were they on the reservation, which gives federal courts federal jurisdiction or not on the reservation?
Or were they getting ready to slide off and they were on the ditch on one side and not the other side? See, these are all fact questions. Then you got the other questions, not a federally recognized tribe. If it's not a federally recognized tribe, then the federal courts wouldn't have subject matter, jurisdiction over the the the man and the murderer. Oh, this that's just the tip of the iceberg of the problems. Well, all these things were argued out in federal court, and the court, whether federal or state, state, has the power, the duty has jurisdiction. What's this?
That in every court in America, federal or state, has jurisdiction in the first instance to decide whether or not that court has jurisdiction. That's axiomatic. Yes. Everybody knows anything about jurisdiction. They ought to know that. So the court says, well, I think I have jurisdiction or the court says, I don't have jurisdiction. Remember in the Bible, Jesus Christ was before, somebody who was a pilot for on the first go round. And, pilot had said, well, why are you coming to me for? Or territorially. Territorially, I'm the I'm the under governor. I'm the under emperor. That's what a governor was. An under emperor to the Roman emperor down here in this, jurisdiction, Judea or whoever it was. And, you're up there. And I would only have jurisdiction if the other guy jurisdiction if the other guy wasn't available, but I just got wind that he just came back. So I'm I'm not gonna take jurisdiction over your case and refer it up there. It's a hot potato. I don't wanna do it anyway. I'll get in trouble.
This this is a tough case. So he got rid of your addiction. Yeah. But you but you see, this is this is not something you can just say, okay, here here's cut and dried. Here it is. It's all it's cut and dried according to the facts. But as our common law tradition, always, everything is driven by the facts, not by the law. We don't have lawsuits in America. That's a misnomer. In a common law country, you have fact suits. We do not ask the jury, give us the law. No. No. We tell the jury, give us the facts. Who done it? Where did he do it? How did he do it? Oh, with a pair of scissors? What's his name? What tribe does he belong to? What road was he on? Was he on the left side of the road in the ditch on the reservation side when he did it, or was he veering over the right side of the road? You got all that kind of stuff. Let me give you another example before any questions come up. A well known example, if I may, Roger, after you No, please. It's fascinating, Brent. Go ahead. You remember, Deep Throat?
Oh, yeah. Deep Throat, the movie. Well, was that a case that should have been when they when they came after them? Was that a case that had to be in the federal courts or in the state courts? Oh, Did the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the first amendment protections of, freedom of speech and freedom of expression? A filthy movie, of course, or was it a state court? Well, it was a state court problem. It was a state court problem. I believe it was New Jersey and the state courts until one of the lawyers brought up a fact nobody had ever thought of before. The b and that was one, they proved that one of the distributed copies of that film had been transported from one place in New York to another place in New York, but in order it was, by the way, in the luggage compartment of a Greyhound bus.
It was in the luggage department compartment down below of a Greyhound bus, and it was in New York going to another place in New York. But in order to get there, they took a little sidetrack to to avoid traffic down into New Jersey. Now that's interstate commerce. That's the largest jurisdiction who has exclusive jurisdiction if they want it over interstate commerce. Obviously, the federal courts, according to the constitution of The United States. That's how these things play out and they're fact driven in a common law country and the rest of the world, they're law driven. In other words, whatever the law giver wants them to be, that's what's gonna be. But here in America, we try to follow the way we go about deciding who gets to decide is fact. And that's what happened in that case, and that's kind of analogous in the mat to the matters of tarot raw territoriality to this, tribal case I'm talking about a murder. Yeah. Raw territoriality.
Is it on the reservation, or isn't it on the reservation? We're teaching a class on Christian nationalism. Yesterday, sheriff Darleaf and I, sheriff he's been sheriff for five in his fifth term, Barre County, Michigan. And he makes the point again, I have raw territorial jurisdiction in my county with some well known exceptions. He has townships in his county and in his county in Michigan, the townships have authority according to their charter to hire police officers. Well, if he, if he thinks it's needful, he goes to the township police officers and he deputizes them as deputies of his county so that if they're pursuing in hot pursuit of a, criminal suspect, they can go from one township to another township throughout the county.
I also am familiar with I I mentioned this yet yesterday, a large in Indian tribal reservation. And I know when I'm there and I'm in the grocery store, I see tribal police and I see the sheriff depart. And I got to talking to one of them one time. I said, how do you got do you guys work together? Oh, yeah. We usually deputize the tribal police so that they can help us when we need them to. Otherwise, they're stuck on the reservation. But I know, and I've been arrested on an Indian reservation before near a place, an Indian tribe that has always had a hard time dealing with white men. That was near Santa Rosa, New Mexico.
I got arrested there, and I didn't know if I was gonna get out of there alive or get out of jail at all. They had a real animosity for us boys that look white. And so, it got kinda touchy, but they had raw territoriality as you were mentioning a while ago in your question. Within the raw territorial boundaries of their of their reservation there near Santa Rosa. So that's what I give you, real life examples. I hope that helps. Oh, gee. I I'd like to ask a question. You're talking territorial.
[01:49:00] Unknown:
A state can't have territorial jurisdiction over territory, can it? Isn't that exclusively the federal government?
[01:49:08] Unknown:
No. Each state has raw territorial jurisdiction to exert its police powers within the boundaries of that state.
[01:49:17] Unknown:
Of that territory.
[01:49:18] Unknown:
Oh, well, the territory. Yeah. I mean, if there's a territory within there. And remember at common law, every parcel of land that has a different jurisdiction, a different set of people that have a right to act, courts, the governor, who else, whatever, or the sheriff in his County that constitutes a two dimensional closed polygon, a two dimensional closed polygon, the state of Illinois state of Colorado state, Oklahoma state of Texas, their polygons on, as it were, but
[01:49:52] Unknown:
two to miss Missouri state, Illinois state, and their meets and bounds are put forth in their constitutions.
[01:50:00] Unknown:
They're terrible. Well, as I just said, as I just said, the those states have jurisdiction that is the right to act for their police powers within those territorial boundaries. That's raw territoriality, and you just made my point. Their constitutions have defined it. But don't forget, it was the Congress of the United States that okayed the boundaries of those states. And within those states then, within that Congress or constitution of The United States says Congress has that right to act to okay the formation of states and dictate their boundaries. They've screwed some of them up real bad, by the way. Case in point case in point, the Panhandle Of Oklahoma, Congress, by a miss bubble, didn't put that in any territory or state for a long time. Can you imagine?
So they finally ended up attaching it to Oklahoma. That's why it sticks out there like that. That was a mistake.
[01:50:56] Unknown:
And the boot were you in Missouri? Continuation.
[01:51:03] Unknown:
So they have territorial boundary. They have the meets and bounds of the state. But then after that, the constitution comes in. Who has authority? The executive, the judicial, and the legislative branch. Well, legislative coming first. I said that kinda backwards. But what I'm saying is just because the editorial is there, doesn't mean that they have the jurisdiction per the constitution
[01:51:36] Unknown:
via the state or the federal. Are you? Well, it depends upon who you're talking about, whether they have the right to act. But the government of your state, wherever you are, has authority to exert the police powers and force the the the subject of the police powers within the boundary of your state. Also, if they want to hail somebody into court within the boundaries of your state, they have raw territorial jurisdiction to do so if they decide that they have that jurisdiction in that particular case. Yes. Absolutely.
And to say that they can't come and get somebody whom they've decided they have jurisdiction over is, well, that's just silliness. No. They do. They have jurisdiction to decide the courts, for example, have jurisdiction to decide whether or not they have jurisdiction, as I said a while ago. And if they think they do and decide they do, then they'll send the sheriff after you and they'll drag you into court. That's what'll happen. That's the way our common law has all been. That they decide
[01:52:39] Unknown:
and not the people. Say it again? I I don't know how do you overcome when they decide. How does the people Well, you have you have
[01:52:50] Unknown:
you have tools of law, processes that the law provides that you can use to challenge that. That's what it is, and that's called due process. You can challenge it by petition, by motion orally. You can challenge it on the basis of subject matter. You can challenge it on the basis of maybe some fact, like I was given the example of the tribal members. We challenged all those things. The feds don't have jurisdiction. This poor guy, by the way, that well, poor guy. I shouldn't say that. He stabbed somebody to death. But he was tried in the state courts first. And after state courts got done with him, the feds came along and said, we got jurisdiction now. And we came back and said, now, wait a minute. He's already got a life sentence and you want to try him again. Okay. We get it. You're a separate sovereign, but you have not as the federal government recognized the tribe is a member of you have no in person, no personal jurisdiction over his body. That was the argument. See, plus a couple other things, but they wanted it. They wanted it. See, the branches of government, the three branches, and then the feds and the state, they're constantly pushing as hard as they can to defend their own jurisdiction. That's the nature of government. That's why I said a while ago, each state of our union has three branches of government. It's not public. No. No. We we aren't we aren't we don't have re we're not a republic in America, and our states are not republics.
We have republican form of government, but that doesn't mean we're a republic. We aren't. We're a common law country with a common law government in every state. And with that, we have the three branches of government are constantly at a perpetual Mexican standoff. Nobody is ultimately in charge except here and there when it bobs forth, and that's the way we like it. Run for your life from people that say, I'm tired of government fussing and fighting, and they should be concerned about the American people. Run for your life from those kind of people. No. Our government, common law government is supposed to keep government fighting with one another. There's be adversarial. They're supposed to be fighting as long as they're fighting as James Madison said.
James Madison called the framer of our US constitution. As long as they're fighting, it will distract them more, and they'll leave us alone. That's the whole idea, friend. And that and all of
[01:55:15] Unknown:
this I wouldn't agree with that principle, Brett, except for they're fighting against the people now. They're conspiring with each other
[01:55:23] Unknown:
to do us harm. And You still need to agree. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. You still need to agree with that principle. Don't say I would agree with that principle, but no. No. No. The principle is true. That's God's form of government. That's what he has given us. Correct. Whether or not whether whether or not men whether wait. Wait. No. Don't talk when I'm talking. Whether or not men are evil is another question. Clearly, they are. That's what you're complaining about. But don't complain about the way God has established government. That's the way the best thing he has for us, and he wants us to use it. And the problem is the problem is not government. The problem you and me not asserting what the truth is. That's always been the problem. I will. I can buy that.
[01:56:10] Unknown:
Go ahead. I'll buy that. I'll buy that a %, Brent. Larry, you got had something to say?
[01:56:17] Unknown:
Yeah, Brent. So in the Indian case, the the federal court cannot establish territory or they were having trouble establishing territorial jurisdiction. Is that what you were saying?
[01:56:30] Unknown:
Yes. They in order to have jurisdiction over his case, they had to establish territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and they didn't have either in
[01:56:41] Unknown:
So is that what the is that what is meant when you, you know, you read in the, the rules of the federal courts that they are courts of limited jurisdiction?
[01:56:53] Unknown:
Is that what that pertains to? Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up. Let's let's talk about this overall. All state courts in America, this is our constitutional arrangement under our United States constitution. All state courts and all states are courts of unlimited jurisdiction in this sense. If they have if they they can hear any subject matter, any case, if they decide they have subject matter jurisdiction. And when it comes to state courts, if something comes before them they never heard of before, they have a duty to take it. They can hear federal cases, constitutional cases, any case is we call that unlimited jurisdiction.
Mhmm. The federal courts have a very, very limited jurisdiction. Limited to what? Limited to whatever the constitution expressly gives them jurisdiction over and no more. And that's not very much, like I say, family law cases are not something you see in federal court before the Roosevelt administration. The federal courts didn't have a whole lot of business at all. The only things they really decided were admiralty cases because the constitution gives that. There are exclusive jurisdictions. Admiralty, no state court does has any jurisdiction over admiralty cases.
No state court has any jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. Our constitution of The United States lodges that subject matter jurisdiction exclusively in the federal courts. Roger, you start to say something? Oh, no. I was just thinking out loud. Well, that so there is the end of the program. So go go ahead. Go. Yeah. Well, we're again. But, yeah, limited jurisdiction and unlimited jurisdiction, and it is true. For all the bad things we say about and we see the federal courts do, and they do a lot of crazy things. But they're pretty jealous about trying to get rid of cases because they don't have jurisdiction. I'll say that for them. They wanna get rid of cases. And if they can find a way and say, we don't have constitutional jurisdiction over this case, they'll throw it out. That's subject matter jurisdiction. The standard is, our federal courts and this is what the federal courts have said. This is the language they've used. They've said, we have jurisdiction over matters arising under arising under the constitution of The United States.
[01:59:19] Unknown:
That's it. Yeah. And there's also a thing in state court. I guess if they're listening to something that might have federal attributes, you can remove cases to to federal court out of state court too. Yes. But they have to rise under the constitution of The United States. Okay. Okay. Yeah. It comes back to that. So I drive a follow-up after the whistler. Okay. Well, alright. Well, for the people that are listening on the regular receptive devices, that means you're gonna miss it. Sorry. We'll, say thank you, Brent, as always, and your expertise and experience and knowledge is
[02:00:01] Unknown:
well, it's always welcome around here. It may not be welcome in some of your courtrooms, but it's always welcome here, Brent. I I I feel privileged that you allow me to say, and all the listeners allow me to say what I say. I do believe it's important, but I get, I get passionate about it. It's important beyond all things, jurisdiction. As the lady said a while ago, it's important beyond all things.
[02:00:26] Unknown:
Well, my my take on that is what gives that man over there the power to make man made laws and not only attach them, but enforce them on me.
[02:00:36] Unknown:
Well, I would say what gives him the right. I see your point. We call it power, but, really, it's just you have the jurisdiction, the right. Yep. No. That's it. So Yeah. Anyway, I think we're, cut off if Paul were not Paul. Correct me, but it sounds like the
[02:00:51] Unknown:
the distant faint music has dropped out from under us there in the background. So at that point, I think we turn to Larry and go, okay, Larry. We're off the air.
[02:01:01] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, so with the case with the Indian, so while they were arguing whether they had jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction, Could the state come in and, take, you know, take over also? Like, you'll have two two courts, the federal court and the state court attempting to prosecute the case, or does one does the state have to wait till the federal is done determining whether it has jurisdiction before it can act?
[02:01:35] Unknown:
It doesn't have to do that's called and the there are two sovereignties, and and they're trying to get along, and the states and the feds try to get along. They'll it's called the doctrine of comity, c o m I t y. And what that means is, well, we'll wait till you prosecute this fellow for murder, then we'll take a go at him. And that you you you kinda say, well, I'll let you go first. No. The feds could have come and taken jurisdiction first, but they didn't in that case. They probably didn't even hear about it until it came up in the federal court said, well, we didn't know that happened. Then they wanna come in when they're done. But, there's nothing in our constitution. Well, there is in our common law. You see, our common law tradition informs our constitution. Our constitution is a brief. It doesn't explain hardly it it doesn't explain anything.
It doesn't define anything. The only thing it describe defines is treason, and it does that for an important reason because if it didn't, it would be abused to crush political enemies, but it defines it. And, that's important that it says, of course, just as an example, it says, aid and comfort to the enemy. That's how it defines it. Well, if that's true, who's the enemy? Who gets to decide who the enemy is? Well, I say Hamas is the enemy. I think Israelis are the enemy. Well, who gets to make that decision? Well, the answer is the constitution says the that the Congress of the United States gets to make that decision by declaring war.
And so there is no such a treason such thing as treason without a declaration of war. See, but we're accusing people of treason. Of course, that's a popular patriot mantra. It's he committed treason. I'm saying, well, we gotta declare war first. You don't even know who the enemy is. And if you don't define those things, here's how treason will be used. It will be used to crush your political enemies. That's what Thomas Jefferson did when he was president. He tried to make sure and get Aaron Burr hung because he was his political enemy. Didn't work. He tried it. He wanted him dead. That's how vicious politics gets. Tom Jefferson was wrong in that case. He was using his political position to murder, trying to murder those he didn't like politically.
Well, he did some other good things. I'm just paint pointing out he's a mere mortal too. We are not a government of men. God help us. We don't trust men. We don't trust government. No. We trust God. That means trust his will, trust his law. That's what we're after. And we don't take an oath to the president. We take an oath or to the supreme court. We take an oath to a set of laws, which is the expression of some of a law giver. That's what that is, and that's what our common law tradition is. And in every state, it's the same thing. So now it's those are important questions. If the feds would have taken jurisdiction first, it's all who takes first. For example, we talked to class at Winters Inn on the sheriff.
The sheriff, has jurisdiction over the posse. He can, by law, in every state and, union, far as I know, in every county where there is a sheriff, There are a few that don't have them, but he has authority under law to grab any member of the militia, 20 years old and above at common law, unless the state statute says something otherwise, which wouldn't be right, but there are some to do and the federal the feds do too. The statute for the militia, males, it says, above age 21, I believe. No. 18. That's the federal statute for the the militia, the the president mustered. But who has power to muster the militia or call a militia money on to help him? Well, the sheriff has power. We call that the posse.
The governor of your state has a power well, as Roger, I pointed out to Roger, I should be I'm doing the same thing I've complained about, authority. The sheriff, the governor of your state has authority to, call out a militiamen, and the president of The United States has authority to call out a militiamen. Well, Well, what if the president of The United States calls out a militiamen, but the sheriff's already got him, in service on the posse? Well, the sheriff trumps the president at that point. Yeah. But what if the governor calls him out before the sheriff calls him out in the posse? Well, the governor has jurisdiction at that point. That's our common law tradition, but our institution does not say that. But that is our common law tradition, and we follow it that way. Go ahead.
[02:06:01] Unknown:
Go ahead. Brent, have have you ever seen they call it a mockumentary, not a documentary, but with an m. It's called population zero. Have you ever seen that?
[02:06:14] Unknown:
No. Well, may have, but I don't know. What's it about? Population zero. What's it about?
[02:06:19] Unknown:
Well, a professor at one of the law schools called it the perfect crime. This this guy killed deliberately, went to the part of Yellowstone, I think is in the Idaho corridor of the park, And purposely went and shot three young men. He walked into the ranger station and told them what he did, and then he shut up, and nobody could ever prosecute him.
[02:06:46] Unknown:
I don't I I I have a hard time accepting it. I'm not complaining and saying you aren't telling the truth. I think you probably, of course, are. I'll assume that, but I I can't imagine that being true. If a man commits murder, he committed murder. Somebody's got jurisdiction. Best. Well, then somebody's then somebody's got jurisdiction.
[02:07:04] Unknown:
The only time that Well, they couldn't set a jury. They they couldn't set a jury.
[02:07:11] Unknown:
Well, why not?
[02:07:13] Unknown:
There was nobody residing in that area. That's the Well, then that this this thing is about. Well, then then then some judge would have authority
[02:07:22] Unknown:
to hold a trial.
[02:07:24] Unknown:
If it's either state or state
[02:07:27] Unknown:
Believe me. They tried. If if you if you watch the documentary
[02:07:33] Unknown:
I have a hard time accepting that or believing it, but I I do wanna watch it. I'm sure that it said that. People say a lot of crazy things to make money, and Roger will attest to this. Documentaries and mockumentaries are they're put out there to make money, and the things they say in them are to create moral outrage because that's how you make money. You don't make money by telling the truth. Let's get real here, friends. What I'm saying here isn't making me any money. I can attest to that. Stories. You tell people an outlandish stories, they'll buy your your stuff, and they'll send you money. That's the way that works.
[02:08:06] Unknown:
But, anyway, hey. Hey, Brent. Here's what I want do. Please please drop the link in so I can go watch it. Yeah. Send him over if you can or send it to him in email. Yeah. Okay. There's two or three of you like to want to say something. Joan, I'm gonna tell you to Okay. Hey, Brent. Larry's on hold on, Joan. Is Larry on the same thread, or is it something different?
[02:08:29] Unknown:
No. It's it's still another one more follow-up.
[02:08:33] Unknown:
Okay. Joan, just hold on.
[02:08:36] Unknown:
So, Brent, if the, let's just say the I don't and I don't remember if you if you said it, or not, but let's just say the Indian was prosecuted in the federal court, and he was found guilty of murder. Can can he still be tried in the state court afterwards or would that be double jeopardy? And if he isn't if he isn't, tried in the federal court in in the sense that the federal court cannot determine whether they have territorial jurisdiction, I guess what you're saying is the state court has a duty to take over the case, and they will prosecute it. So those two things.
[02:09:22] Unknown:
Is there a federal crime is there a federal crime for murder, Brent?
[02:09:26] Unknown:
Oh, sure. Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. If you murder somebody in a federal courthouse or a Alright. On federal territory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The enclaves, you know, or a military base or something. But, double jeopardy does not apply generally speaking, does not apply to two separate sovereignties. The states are separate sovereignties from the general government in Washington DC. So, yeah, you get tried for a crime. I was, aware of a of a deal. I wasn't a part of it, but I knew the judge. And and, he, the, the state had prosecuted a woman for methamphetamine.
How do you say methamphetamine? Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine. Right. Fancy words. If it's not Anglo Saxon, I can't pronounce it. But, it's true. I've learned that about myself. But they convicted her, took her children away from her Mhmm. Threw her in state prison for two years. During that time, she got with some kind of a program, got cleaned up, got out, did her, court supervised time, cleaned her life up, and got her children back. Got her children back. It was a success story. Doesn't happen real often, but it happens. And then the feds said, okay. Now we're gonna have a go at you.
And they drag her into federal court. And, yeah, judge's name was Gilbert. I remember now. And they said, we're you know, we've indicted her grand jury, and now we're gonna we're gonna send her to prison. And he said, well, not well, I'm judge. You're not going to. She did her time. She cleaned up her life. This is this is contrary to the purposes of the law. The law is the the whole idea behind it is that we want folk to get better. We don't want to destroy them unless we have to. And they said, well, that's too bad, judge, but double jeopardy doesn't apply here. We're separate sovereignties. You know that. You're a federal judge. He said, I do know that. I just can't do it. I'm not gonna do it. They said, well, if you don't do it, we're gonna take you to the appellate court, and we're gonna force you to do it. They said, fine. You do what you wanna do, mister US attorney, and I'll do what I could think I ought to do.
So they went to the federal court or the appellate court. Appellate court came back and said, well, obviously, that's right. They're two separate sovereignties. You got the double jeopardy does not in this case. And so they ordered him to do it. So judge the judge just, said, well, I'm not going to. And he recused himself from the case. And somehow through the processes of government, another judge was was appointed who would do it, and they did it. That's the unique and different situation we live in America here. I don't think it ought to be that way, or we've never adjusted that. That's ugly. That's ugly. It's very ugly. And that's why double jeopardy is a common law doctrine that goes back for centuries.
And it's put in our constitution because it's part of our common law tradition, and it's a good thing. It applies in the state courts. And then all the little tiny questions, our constitutions of our states and our our federal general government don't answer these kinds of questions. Well, at what point, does, double jeopardy attached to the case? Well, the courts have pretty consistently said once the jury is impaneled, if the case just drops after that, well, you can't do it again, but you have to get to the point you impanel a jury, for example. That's what most important little things might know. Go ahead. Alright.
[02:13:01] Unknown:
Joan?
[02:13:04] Unknown:
Yes. Yes. For Brent, would you say that God inspired the constitution or and or that the constitution is a Christian document?
[02:13:15] Unknown:
Well, the answer to the first question is no God. The the put it this way. The constitution of The United States is not of equal equal dignity with the Bible. Yeah. It is not of equal dignity with the Bible. That's the way a lawyer would say it. Equal legal dignity as a standard of law. But it is our observations that have been tested over centuries that have proven to be the way things are. And they aren't gonna change the observations I make of things in creation called physics, called natural law physics. That's what natural law ought to be defined as. Just the way things are, the laws that govern all the matter and all the material in this created world from the moon, the sun, and the stars down to the water flowing here in the ditch beside my house, they all operate according to very precise, unbendable, unchanging, unavoidable rules. Yeah. Well, we observe those, and our observations are worth something, but it's not the Bible. No. No. The Bible is where God pours his truth through the personality of a man while preserving his personality, while preserving his vocabulary, his ability to communicate, preserving him. So we know it's his writing at the same time preserving what he pins from heirs of fact.
Errors of fact. For example, everything the Bible says, this is the doctrine of inerrancy. It's centuries old. Jesus Christ made it clear. What everything the Bible says was said and done was said and done just the way the Bible says it was said and done, and nobody's ever been able to prove otherwise. But that doesn't mean everything the Bible says was said and done ought to have been said or done. There are a lot of things the Bible records that was said and that was said and done. That was the wrong thing to do and the wrong thing to say, matter of fact, downright evil, but the Bible records the facts of everything. No error of fact. And that's what Jesus Christ said every jot and every tittle, every little part of it. It's all true.
So the constitution of The United States is not like that. Matter of fact, the those that ratified our constitution, namely the militiamen of the several states, they, ensured that there would be in there provisions to amend it or change it. Yeah. That's acknowledgment that it's not the Bible for crying out loud. Yep. Yep. I went to that debate.
[02:15:48] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. Somebody. I think it's do you have any
[02:15:51] Unknown:
is that Annette peeping through there?
[02:15:54] Unknown:
Right. Yes. It is. Brent, go ahead and finish that thought. You're you're on to something. So say continue, please. I was gonna tell I was gonna tell a story, Annette, about this fella. The way I tried to set up a trial down in Southern Missouri and Ozarks, and a lot of people came. And it was, he, we wanna put the constitution of The United States on trial, and I was arguing that it is, it's good law. And he was arguing that it's an antichrist document. His name is Ted Weiland. And he said wrote a big thick book that, constitution of The United States fundamentally, by claiming that it is the supreme law of the land supreme law of the land. He said the people that framed it and drafted it wanted it to trump the Bible.
I said, no. That's not true. Of course, that's I mean, you really think that was their intent. Of course, the phrase law of the land is a is a common law phrase that comes from our common law tradition from centuries and centuries and centuries ago. We lifted it out of Magna Carta, the year 12/15. We stuck it in article six of our constitution. The supreme law of the land, that's our jurisdiction. What's the law of the land? That's our common law. What's our common law? It is the way we do things, not the outcome standards, do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, and murder. That's god's jurisdiction to decide the outcome standards. That's not our jurisdiction. It's not our jurisdiction, for instance, to say you can't transport, manufacture transport, and sell alcohol alcoholic beverages.
That's not our jurisdiction. God never gave us that jurisdiction. It's not in the Bible. I can't see where God has given mankind the jurisdiction to make decisions about that. That's an outcome standard. What does he give us jurisdiction to do? He gives us jurisdiction to it to scream and holler and say that ain't fair. That ain't due process. That ain't right. We're going about it all wrong, judge. My client didn't have a chance to bring his evidence in. My client didn't have a chance to say what he wanted to say to petition the court. He wasn't given enough time. He wasn't given a right to trial by jury. That's a process question. That's our jurisdiction, and God clearly has given us that jurisdiction.
And when we ratified our constitution of The United States, we were acting within the jurisdiction God gave us. You go to the 10 so called commandments. What do you got? Outcome standards. There's nothing there about process. Don't murder your neighbor. Don't commit burglary. That's an outcome standard. That's god's jurisdiction. That's not ours. That's why I said a while ago, god says to us, be not afraid of the face of any man as a juryman, for example, that's what he's talking about because the outcome, the judgment belongs to the Lord himself, not us. That's not our business. That's his business.
Man does not have jurisdiction over outcome. And the evil empire constantly is talking about outcome. What outcome based education. Well, if you're, if you're stressing outcome, you're talking about trying to achieve a certain result. What are you going to end up doing as a mere mortal? You're going to end up justifying anything to achieve that outcome. Anything screaming and hollering and saying people are racist. We gotta have this. We gotta have this outcome. We gotta have this many men and boys and girls. That's outcome based. They don't care what the reason they think. That's the result that's important. You see? I say they don't care about the result. No, they do. They want a certain outcome. Mussolini's done. Mussolini, El Duque.
The only thing he wanted in life was to be loved by everybody. He loved it. He achieved it finally. And he said, anybody who's against that, that's ultimate say anybody who's against people liking me or gets in my way of being liked, or trying to get people to like me. What did he say? I want these men tried and shot. That's what called, that's called outcome based government. What's the difference between the law of the land and the law of the city, our common law and the civil canon laws of Rome that govern every country in the world, including the two largest so called Christian groups in the world, the Orthodox church and the Roman church. What, what governs Outcome based.
Process doesn't matter. You go into court or go into tribunal in those all the countries of the world. What matters? We must reach the result that the government has said we must reach. That's the only thing that matters. What matters if you go into court in America? Well, hopefully, and it does happen. We don't stress results. Really, we don't. No. No. We stress process. We we're we're concentrating on trying to stay on a course of process. Well, the first thing you do in this trial is you give notice and an opportunity to be heard. The second thing you do is you have all the hearings. The third thing you do is to make sure the jury is empaneled right before the trial, not before the trial, long before the trial, but right before the trial, and we shove them right in there. We don't give them time to be bribed bribed.
See, that's all a matter of process. We sequester the jury. We don't allow the jury to look at any evidence, but what was presented at trial. All those little things. It's little or not little. They're big. If you follow the right course, you cookbook the thing in fairness. You don't have to worry about the result. The result will be reliable. Common lawyers all over America for over two hundred years now, and we're still saying it. Good process, reliable result. Not enough process, not good process. The result is not reliable. Let's do it again. What does it say about the jury? Article seven of our cons or amendment seven of our constitution.
It says that right to trial by jury, you know, is a constitutionally protected right, as long and it's not overturnable. The facts the jury decides are not overturnable. No, sir. That's the final arbiter of right and wrong except, it says, according to the course of what? Our common law. In other words, if our common law wasn't followed, process wasn't proper, you impaneled the jury one day and then you'd start the trial the next day. No. No. You gotta go back and do it again. No jurisdiction there. Didn't follow the process. Let's go back and try it again. Brent? Yes. Go ahead.
[02:22:22] Unknown:
I've been asked to ask I've been asked to ask you this question.
[02:22:26] Unknown:
Can you talk book? I do have several questions, but but go ahead. I just don't wanna be forgotten.
[02:22:33] Unknown:
I won't we won't forget you. Okay. Yeah. If you want, you'll relax. Go ahead, Skip.
[02:22:40] Unknown:
The book, The Basura.
[02:22:44] Unknown:
What's the name of it?
[02:22:46] Unknown:
The book, The Beshora, e e s h o r a.
[02:22:52] Unknown:
What's it about? About the Hebrews. Yeah. Yeah. But what what's what's the conclusion? What's the book about? What are they trying to show? Haven't read it? I'm I'm asking for a friend in the chat.
[02:23:08] Unknown:
Oh, I see. As Well, they told me now the book, the for sure. It it's the original Dead Sea Scrolls is my understanding of it, Brent.
[02:23:20] Unknown:
Well, the oh, I I see. Well, of course, to say the original Dead Sea Scrolls, I would just say the Dead Sea Scrolls. That would be redundant to say the original Dead Sea Scrolls. There's only there's only one dead set of Dead Sea Scrolls. Well, Okay. I know I Well, I know what is saying is that there have been different,
[02:23:39] Unknown:
versions put out. And then I'm sure there are. They're always your original.
[02:23:46] Unknown:
Oh, oh, I see. Well, here's what you don't know in those cases, and I I speak about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I could tell you what my experience has been with them, then you say, well, I see where you're coming from. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, when you have documents that come out of archaeology like that, William Foxwell Albright, who were the preeminent Middle East Archaeologist when those scrolls were discovered. He's from John Hopkins University. He's the one that authenticated them. He authenticated them. I know of nothing. The ones that were discovered, I know of nothing. I know of nothing, in his reputation that would give anybody any pause or doubt that whatever he said about them is probably sincere and honest and true.
The, when I say authenticate, I mean, he's the one that said, yeah. They are as old as people say they are, which means two or three centuries before Christ from the Essenes in the hills around the Dead Sea and, the caves where they were stored there. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from a sect of religious people called the Essenes. They I'm pretty sure of that. And they did preserve books of the Bible, but they preserved a whole lot of non biblical writings that are just goofy. That's true too. But but it helps helps us understand how they use words. They're not worthless even though they're fantasy or whatever they are. It helps us understand how they use the Hebrew words at that time and what was going on in history at that time. Do you begin to get a feel for that?
But what what I'm saying to you is do not these people that pop up and say, I've got the truth on this subject. No. They wanna make money. Who we kidding? And they'll say outlandish things. And if they say outlandish things, people will buy it, and they will make lots of money because it is moral outrage and outlandishness that makes money, always. And so I'd be very suspect whatever it says, but that's all I know about it. Let's go back to the lady from Texas that was wanted to ask another question.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
Well, I have I have a number of questions. I started out with one, and it grew. Okay. The first one is, do you know the style of that federal case against the lady, federal, drug case against the lady that went through, the the state triader, and, she went through that process, and then this federal came after the state. You do you know the style of that?
[02:26:22] Unknown:
The what? Where can we look at? The style the style No. I can tell you I can tell you, the district it was in and the judge. Would that help?
[02:26:34] Unknown:
Yes. Yes, sir.
[02:26:36] Unknown:
Okay. The judge's name, I believe, if I remember right, was Gilbert, g I l b e r t, is my best remembrance. And it was in the Southern District Of Illinois. And that and I think it was at a place called Benton, which is in Franklin County, but it it may have been in East Saint Louis, Illinois. I don't remember for sure, but my my best guess has been. And the reason I say that is just for in in general, meth cases, meth is a country boy's drug. Crack cocaine is a city boy's drug. So the crack cocaine cases would would more likely be in East St. Louis, Illinois, and the meth case most likely in the mountains of, Southern Illinois.
[02:27:28] Unknown:
What what about what year was that?
[02:27:32] Unknown:
Oh, shocks, boy. Time flies. I you know, didn't I remember right. Your name is Joan?
[02:27:39] Unknown:
Oh, Annette. Annette.
[02:27:41] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. No. I'm sorry. Forgive me. My mind's racing. I know I know who you are. I recognize your voice by now, and I know you're from Texas. I'm trying to do a recovery here, Annette. But, the time let me think.
[02:27:57] Unknown:
Probably Roughly.
[02:27:59] Unknown:
Yeah. Roughly. It had been before 02/2010, but I'm not dead sure about that.
[02:28:05] Unknown:
Okay. And, why has that this not been challenged? Because this is stands at a front to what is justice. This is injustice. So Yeah. Has it do you know if anyone has challenged this or has,
[02:28:22] Unknown:
Well, judge I Well, judge judge Gilbert did everything he could do with do within his power within his jurisdiction, I should say, to challenge it, and I like him for that. Yeah. That doesn't seem real normal, frankly. Well, it sounds character. It gives character. Yes. And it's refreshing to hear, but his colleague didn't miss a beat, said, I'll take it. You know, that that depresses you. But Okay. But he Thanks for that. Yeah. I got a Right. Why is go ahead. Somebody's gonna say There's nobody to defend her. Yeah. Well, why why hasn't it been challenged? Yeah. No.
This is a this is our tradition. It's the, the idea of sovereignty is not negotiable. And I suppose we just say, wow. And like, justice Holmes of the U S Supreme court once said, sometimes the law is an ass. Yes. Right. It's just an ass. Yeah. They say, how do you overcome this? But who's really who's really the the problem here? Is it the system? No. It's the drug user that's a problem. And we got her straightened up, and that was good. She straightened up herself. That's the way that works. And everything was Okay. Hunky, Tory.
[02:29:42] Unknown:
But let's I just listen to me.
[02:29:45] Unknown:
Okay. I'm gonna let you comment. I wanted to say something.
[02:29:48] Unknown:
I just say, oh, no, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just didn't want to get run.
[02:29:53] Unknown:
No, go ahead, Brent. In general, for all of us, the breaking of true law will take us further than we wanna go, and it will keep us a whole lot longer than we want to stay. And that's what happened in that case. Just keep in mind, God's sovereign, and he's not a respecter of persons. And he's, he's rough, very rough. He could have stopped all that if he wanted to, but he didn't. So what do we say? We do all we can. Listen, be satisfied that God has given you the jurisdiction you have just to believe what you believe and say what you say. And don't get caught up in thinking you're going to change the results. That's not our purviewer jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is to, we have the, we have the authority of testimony.
We're called to be witnesses and the office of prophet at different times. What is the office of prophet? It is to just say the truth to other men. That's what it is. No. It's not to foretell the future. It's to say the truth. That's what the word in the Old Testament, Navi'im, Navi' in the singular. In the New Testament, prophetess. These are I call them I translate law talker. Law talkers. That's what we are. We wanna know the standard of God himself, and we want to tell other people what it is. That's what he wants us to do. Go ahead.
[02:31:18] Unknown:
Oh, this is.
[02:31:21] Unknown:
I do have more. Come on, Becca. I I have a question,
[02:31:25] Unknown:
regarding, well, first of all, I know that you think that we are we are all under natural law. Right?
[02:31:34] Unknown:
Well, we're all under saying. In the sense that we all live in this created world, and we better follow its laws, or we we will be, killed or maimed.
[02:31:45] Unknown:
So in order to do to, carry on in the common law and to to like, if you are wanting to be under under natural law and carry on in the common law and ask, how you know, if you're being, trespassed on using your natural right, for example, to travel in the automobile. How would you, how would you how would you ask the prosecutor or judge to establish jurisdiction?
[02:32:27] Unknown:
Well, here's the first thing that I think is important that with that particular question. And when you ask a question or anybody ask a question, I am in a unique position, and I'm thankful that I can respond to it, how I think is fit and raise the points that I think need to be raised. And I may not even answer your question, but I'm thankful that you brought it up because it may bring something to mind that I think needs to be stressed. So I'll I'll try to respond to it, though. I do want to. Yeah. I would ask you to about that. Your common law. Yes. I would ask you, and I don't want you to answer it. I'm just posing the question for you to you and to for you to think about it and everybody else to think about it. All you folk are screaming and hollering about the right to travel.
Can you identify how that is a valid jurisdiction, a valid right to act respecting traveling? In other words, where does that come from? Can you point to something in the laws of nature, in nature, and in the laws of nature's God, the Bible that says yes. Because if you don't have that, you have no I can. Well, wait. Wait. You can tell me in a minute if you wanna answer. I can give you some input. I just yeah. If if you don't have that in your mind, you will not have what it takes to persevere in your conviction. You won't have conviction. You won't have any. You may think you may have a preference. It may be real strong, but it's not conviction. Now somebody was gonna volunteer and ask her. Do you wanna volunteer and answer? I I can I throw can I throw one in? Yeah. Well, Roger, you you can do whatever you want. Can I Anytime? Roger, after you, can I please share something too?
[02:34:11] Unknown:
Well, there there's a bunch of you chirping here. Hold on. Blackstone Locomotion.
[02:34:17] Unknown:
But okay. And I would say that's good, but Blackstone is just another mortal like you that may be more weak and what you see my point, Roger. Yes. I do. I just wanted to throw that in the ring. I'm glad you did. Were you gonna say something?
[02:34:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, what about, the difference between commerce and personal use traveling. And,
[02:34:38] Unknown:
when you're in commerce, you're you're Oh, wait a minute, Erica. He asked for, the the law
[02:34:46] Unknown:
and not Wait a minute. Hey. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo
[02:35:05] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:35:07] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead. So, Gary, you're a busy work.
[02:35:11] Unknown:
We were working we were talking about, establishing jurisdiction, and when you went under common law and under natural law. So everybody travels because that's their your right to do so, under God. Right? Under our creator, we have that natural right to do that. So now Well, I we do
[02:35:34] Unknown:
what we do have that right. My question is, how do you know? Can you point to something in the true revelation of law that says that that is a right that god has delegated to you? A duty. A right is a duty. A right to act. Right. Okay. Go ahead with your comment.
[02:35:51] Unknown:
So so I was thinking I'm like, okay. So it's it's it's a personal private thing that you're doing and, compared to working working in commerce and participating with the public, the federal system. So you're you're gonna have to follow their rules there. But when you're doing your own private personal, you know, traveling, then, you know, that's where people are trying to establish their jurisdiction with the man made law.
[02:36:24] Unknown:
Well, of course, disagree with that. No. That's not right. No. When you travel when you travel, you buy gasoline from one state to the next. You buy food. You're part of interstate commerce. This is a misnomer of the patriot community, has been for a long time. Is there a difference between commerce and noncommerce? Yes. But not not not in the under our constitution. When you're traveling, you're participating in commerce. Go to, for example, Heart Of Atlantic. Oh, just to make the point. I'm not saying the the Supreme Court is the final word on this matter, but they have observed this. Heart of Atlanta Hotel, a US Supreme Court case from back in the civil rights days, used to be when, people that were of color, in other words, of the what we used to call the Negro race. I wanna be clear. There's Caucasians.
We're not white either. We're all different colors. Us Caucasian folks were born blue, then we turn red, and then we then we turn white, then we get sunburned and turn reddish again, and then we get tan and turn brown. I mean, we're we're color we got more colors than anybody. But the folks up in Virginia, up and up up north, they travel their relatives back down south. And, when they do so and I've talked to the some of them that used to do this as kids my age, their mother would pack all sorts of food and boiled eggs and sandwiches because they knew they couldn't stop at a restaurant anywhere from Virginia South and get anything to eat. Yep. Because they because of segregation.
Yep. And they knew they knew they had there had to be how? They took blankets and pillows because they often would be in a place. They couldn't get in a hotel or a motel. So a case came before the Supreme Court called Heart of Atlanta Hotel. It was, people like that who brought suit against the hotel in Atlanta because they wouldn't let them stay there. And, the Supreme Court of the United States the Supreme Court of the United States says traveling, and They didn't say it in these very words, but if so facto, you are in the stream of interstate commerce
[02:38:30] Unknown:
when you go I can I can see that viewpoint? Can I give you Yeah? Can I give you an example of of a code that California has for, traveling a difference between personal use and, commerce?
[02:38:44] Unknown:
Well, I'd rather you didn't because I know what they say. I know that that's what they say. I know that. I'm telling you under the constitution of The United States, what the Supreme Court of the United States has observed, and I don't disagree with them. Yeah. And regardless of what the states say, and they make those distinctions, let's get to the point. Let's get to the bottom line. A bunch of a bunch of legislators in California don't know their backsides from the $17 sunbonnet. I think that's clear. California of all places. So let's don't talk about what a bunch of goofy politicians say. Let's talk about why you know You know you have the right to travel. It's not because of something in some state legislature's, book someplace. No. No. I'm I'm asking.
[02:39:28] Unknown:
It's in the scripture, and we are right. Woah. Woah.
[02:39:32] Unknown:
Woah. Woah. Boy, I'll tell you, Brent, this is a bunch here. Yeah. That that I mean, I'm I'm I'm encouraged. No. Stop. I'm encouraged by your enthusiasm, but we're trying to keep order, and you're helping. But let me keep talking a little. I wanna get to the point here. I wanna ask the ultimate question. I I know all about state statutes. You could read it to me. I've read them before. They're all the same. They make a distinction between commerce and private. We're talking about the right to travel that we're saying the constitution of The United States protects. And all the all the minutiae of the state laws doesn't really concern me. I don't care. And the reason I don't care is if I ever went into court on this subject, I wouldn't mess with that. I go straight to the constitution and then I'd say, why does the constitution say this? And if I don't know why the constitution says it, then I don't have any conviction on the matter. And that's what I'm trying to get to, but I don't want to hide the ball. So I think it maybe it'd be a good time now to tell you why at common law, we have the right to travel. This is a common law doctrine. That's why we say it's constitutional.
Our constitution is a brief of common law government. Our constitute our constitution of The United States is not law. It's an it's what men agreed with law at that time. There are Christian men across the board. Nobody make fun of the Bible back in those days. They didn't make fun of the Bible in America when I was a kid. That'd be that'd be that'd be personal suicide. It'd destroy your reputation. Well, they didn't either. And they knew why that that's part of our constitutional understanding. They knew why they complained in the declaration of '76 that the king of England with his cronies and parliament told them that they could not go West of The Alleghenies.
They knew that was a limitation on their right to enter new lands, their right to travel on impulse. And if you wanna read about how convicted they were about that, go to the Internet and type in the over mountain men. Mhmm. The over mountain men. Mhmm. They went over the mountain. They cleared land. They built cabins. They had their families. And then they got word from, a Highlander officer of the British army. His name was Ferguson. He sent him a letter and said, you either come back across like the king commands, or I will come arrest you, and we will hang you, cut you down, cut your guts out. We'll burn your guts in front of your face, each of you, and then we will cut your body into little pieces, put them in buckets, ship them back to England to be disposed of at the pleasure of the crown. That's called being hung, drawn, and quartered. That's what he said. And the open mountain men Roger.
North Carolina Great. Thank you.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
North Carolina. That further than that. Call that Brent. There's something going on. They're totally he's talking. You guys are all having a conversation in the background, please.
[02:42:29] Unknown:
Yeah. And, they said we're not gonna do this. He have just threatened to murder us. And at common law, we have a right to travel and to enter, as they used to say then, enter new lands. God what's the foundation of that? Where does that come from? Of course, they went and they went after, Ferguson and they killed him and they killed almost everybody in his command over 200 men. They called him before he called them. George Washington said, if I had just a few divisions, like the over mountain men, this war would have been over a long time ago. They were ticked. Of course they were ticked, but why? Because they said they couldn't go into new lands. Okay. Why is that?
It's because God has established with mankind, a trust settlement. And he said it this way in his first expression, that all of the Bible is an expanding explanation of the Creator's trust settlement with mankind. That's where it comes from. And what does he say? Simply, this is not complicated. What did he say to grandma and grandpa, Adam, and Eve?
[02:43:36] Unknown:
He said forth and multiply.
[02:43:38] Unknown:
Yeah. You be fruitful, multiply, and then what was the next phrase? Anybody remember? Be fruitful, multiply, and scatter over the faces of the land. Right. If the government comes along and says you don't have the right to travel upon impulse, that's a violation of the most fundamental law that God has ever given to mankind. Cool. He God wants us to scatter. And when they the federal government says you can't go into national forest and you can't go into state forest and you can't No. That's a violation of the law of God, my friend. Roger. I love that. I love that, Brandon. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Woah. That's why we should have that conviction. And that's They're hard to hold back, Brent. They're very hard to hold back at times. Well, I'm happy about that. Yeah.
[02:44:31] Unknown:
Who's Roger? Roger.
[02:44:34] Unknown:
Yeah. Are you wanting are you wanting is your belly, grumbling, and are you you wanting I'm past I'm past I'm past that stuff. That's why. Yes. So it was thank you for the show today. I do have a question of Brent when you leave. Thank you.
[02:44:49] Unknown:
Alright. I I'll what? No. Sorry. No. You guys don't get to decide when Roger leaves. I've got something to say. Annette was talking to Brent, and then Mirka interrupted Annette, and Sherry was interrupting Mirka. Now if we can all just settle down They're a bunch of people on the line. Person that's supposed to be talking at the time they're supposed to be talking, I think we can get through this. It's very difficult. I do have something that I have to say to Roger before he leaves. So, guys, get your stuff straightened out so I can have the floor. Yeah. Yes, please, Paul.
[02:45:25] Unknown:
Paul, go ahead. Go ahead, Paul.
[02:45:28] Unknown:
Alright. I don't have all the details. I don't know the backstory because, because, discretion has been requested. However, Paul English and family are going through something difficult. Send prayers to them for strength, peace,
[02:45:47] Unknown:
and comfort. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for letting us know. I've if he missed a show yesterday, I knew something was wrong. So thanks for that update, and I hope we'll all comply with saying a few good words in their direction. Yeah. For those of you who don't know, Paul's wife has dementia at a very early age. She's got two early twenties boys, but they've got responsibility over over her, and it really puts a strain on him at times.
[02:46:20] Unknown:
So, anyway, just so you know. Roger also was it Gary up in,
[02:46:25] Unknown:
He's he's better. He was with us this week. Good. Good. He's not well yet, but he's better, it appears.
[02:46:33] Unknown:
Well, I'm thankful.
[02:46:34] Unknown:
Fair enough. Him.
[02:46:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, hey. Listen. I appreciate y'all. It's more fun doing this and knowing you're you're engaged than it is. You're not, but let us pull you up once in a while. You can't say they're not interested. No. That's right. Hey, Brent. I have two more two more things if I could.
[02:46:53] Unknown:
Uh-huh. First off, I think that Ted Wallen and you interview would be or or y'all's interaction would be in for I I'm interested in it. Do you know if, it's available to to watch?
[02:47:08] Unknown:
It's available to watch. I think you can find it on the Internet. I think I have, but my microphone for most of it was shut off. We were Whoever
[02:47:17] Unknown:
whoever mic it did a really poor job of setting that up, and Brent was, like, very difficult to hear the dialogue.
[02:47:25] Unknown:
You know, maybe. If I could talk him into it. But ever since that time, I've not been able he hasn't been real receptive, but and to my my communications, but maybe I could get him on and interview him again. I did interview him once before. Mhmm.
[02:47:43] Unknown:
I know Ted. I've had meals, broke bread with him several times, and really nice guy.
[02:47:49] Unknown:
Well, let me say this about Ted because I don't want people to get any wrong impressions. Ted studies the bible hard. He's one of the few men I know that do. He really does try to fair it out for himself what it says, and he teaches it. And I don't doubt his sincerity. Yep. But on that point, we disagree. And, that's that's the way that should go. Right?
[02:48:13] Unknown:
Well, let me plug his let me plug his opus here for a second if some of y'all aren't familiar with Ted's work. He's written a number of books. But the one that had the greatest impact on me is is titled God's Yesterday, Today, and Forever. And he does a comparison of of the Jewish side and then the Gentile side. And the whole book is laced with that past the first five chapters. And if you're not really biblically familiar with things, you may wanna read through chapter six and the end and then go back and read the first five. You might get more out of them that way. But it's got a glossary. Any word you want, an antisemite or where else, and he's got a glossary of those words. You can go back and reference what what, quote they came from, who said it, all that stuff. It's a it's a really powerful book in that area.
[02:49:18] Unknown:
So what, Brent, while you were going over what is our, in court, our duty, you know, like, to say, hey. This is unfair and all that, and what's not our do you know, what's not our part, I it kinda brought me back to a thought that I've had, and you can find this on, the docs under recent. It's the Tax Exempt Foundation. It's, it's a from the House of Representatives Special Committee, Investigation of Tax Exempt Foundations. And, it goes into, like, talking about how, there's been, like, a revolution. Oh, oh, it's it's a okay. So let me just kind of read a little bit. Over the past fifty years, swift and changes have occurred in this country. Now, this was written in, like, '50, four.
In the function and activity of the federal government. Skipping down to third paragraph, among these is an increasing participation of the federal government in education, slum clearance, education, health, power generation, subsidies of agriculture, science research, wage control. Ding ding. Anyways, mortgage. It goes on a little bit more. Most, have not all of well, anyways so so, basically, it's saying it's these tax exempt that are writing the laws that's causing the changes that's reducing the people's, ability to or or, you know, increasing the the the federal government's powers over the people is in in essence.
What what kind of comes to mind is if if if tax exempt, which is the function of rich over the poor, it that's how I see it, and they're writing laws to increase their powers over the people, wouldn't that in court become a a, a weapon against the people? Well, I'm not saying it the way I wanna say it. But, hopefully, it gives you enough there to and maybe this is for another day that, you know, when when, the rich causes laws over the to oppress the poor oppress the people that they're supposed to serve, that's an injustice.
[02:52:09] Unknown:
But maybe another day you could talk about that. I yield. No. But that's that. No. That's absolutely true, but it's it's, going on now. That's it's it's going on for centuries. When our country started, it was the rich folk in England, namely the parliamentarians and their, arm of trading called the British East India Company, had included the crown that were oppressing the colonies economically. And, we had been free before that for three kings. They left us alone, and then all of a sudden they saw, hey. These people over there in America are rich, and we were. Our lifestyle over here was much better than anybody in England by and large because they left us alone. That's one of the greatest proofs of government just getting out of people's lives. Prosperity will result. That's who we were when we started, and they were envious and jealous. And they wanted us to milk keep milking the cow over here, and they wanted us to send them all the milk. That's what it boiled down to. Then all the other things I'm talking about, but came down to the common law tradition and monopoly. They had a monopoly on trade. They would didn't want us to trade with anybody, but they were rich.
They were rich and had power to control the laws that were being pumped out of the legislature, the parliament. And it is a subject that we could talk about more, but I understand what you're saying. I do see it. I was told when I was in law school by, professor named Nelson. I think he teaches at Pepperdine now, but he's he's old by now. But he said, just remember, boys, remember, you go up against a bank or an insurance company, all the laws are written to favor them, and you're gonna have a hard hill to climb. It'd be like pushing a rope uphill on the ground.
He said, and he said, the reason the laws were written for them because they're tax exempt, the, the funds of insurance companies, make money on interest and investments that is not taxed. And this done for public policy reasons. They don't want the they say, wait. They don't want the insurance companies to go under in case of a catastrophe, and so they pass legislation. Then the the banks have legislation of congress say the Federal Reserve Bank, which is really the banks in America, everybody has to count out of them, all the banks. Law says court cannot audit. No one can audit the Federal Reserve Bank.
So they're controlling things. That's all true. What is our defense against it? It is our common law tradition. Do we even know what it is? Can we define it? Do we know how to use it? The answer is no. No. No. The lawyers don't know the difference between the law of the land and the law of the city, the canon civil laws of Rome. They even write books and say they're all the same. I've read the books. They don't know what they're talking about. Comparative law, we call it, is not even required to be taught in the law schools anymore. So we do know the difference except in one state, and that's Louisiana. It's required to be taught in the law schools in Louisiana, which isn't even it's the only non common law jurisdiction in the country, But they want their boys to know the difference down there, so they they teach it. They're a canon civil law jurisdiction like Quebec because of the Roman church and the French influence there. So there we are. Yes. It's our duty. Justice Scalia said one time, he said a lot of things that were fascinating. He said people, when I go and I travel and I speak, people say, well, you're supposed to represent us as Americans. He said, what? The Supreme court you think is your representative?
Number one, the Supreme court doesn't represent anybody. Number two, if you want to look at it that way, just consider what is most of America? Protestant. Are there any Protestants on the court? No. It's split between the Jews and the Catholics like me. That's not representative, he says. Well, is he right? Of course, he's right. Why is it the federal branches are that way too? Don't tell me that religion does not dictate the way you think. It does. That's the heart of who you are and your deepest convictions. Who was it? Cornelius Mantell, a professor at Princeton University for years, the foremost proponent of the reformed Christianity in the world, grew up on a dairy farm in Northwest Indiana.
What did he say? What was the conclusion of his life? Here's it. Here it is. The greatest Protestant theologian in the world up and through until about '28 up into the eighties. What did he say? He said, culture. He said, culture is religion externalized. Culture is religion externalized. You wanna know what the culture of Mexico is or what's their religion? It's externalized. They love dictatorship. That's why they have a a government down there and not three branches of government like we do. But what about America? What's our culture? Well, our culture has been fundamentally protestant. That's a fact of history. That's not an argument. That's just a fact.
Well, therefore, our culture is a expression. Culture externalized an expression of our culture, what we deem worthy to cultivate. You go to China, you go to Japan. What's culture? It's internalized. What is it? Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism. They eat the manure from cows. That's their culture. They have recipes. They serve it up in the restaurants. They fix it a certain way. That's a filthy, stupid, dangerous culture, but that is their religion externalized in India and Pakistan and those places. Our culture is different because our culture is religion externalized. And so if you wanna be a part of the solution, ask yourself, what is the religion that has made us some great and has enabled us? It is the common law tradition of Christianity, which is the only tradition of common law there is. Go ahead, Annette.
[02:58:02] Unknown:
I I I was just letting everyone else else know I yield. Okay.
[02:58:08] Unknown:
Yeah. No. I'm an ex in line if you don't mind.
[02:58:12] Unknown:
I know that we we need to get it so you take a ticket like the driver's license station or something. That's
[02:58:18] Unknown:
right. I have a number. We'll try. Oh, okay. May I So Oh, wait. So when you said when you said, please tell me, where, the law of the almighty has given us, the ability to travel, you took it back further. Said was, go forth and multiply. He didn't say scatter, but go forth and multiply. But what I was gonna take it back to was Moses and going to Pharaoh, let my people go. You don't have authority over them because they needed to travel to the, feast.
[02:59:06] Unknown:
My point. My point was the Bible teaches that it started in the beginning when he said, be fruitful and scatter, and that's what the Hebrew word means. And then throughout the Bible, he reiterates that, and you have pointed out and you have well pointed out that some of those reiterations, the theme never stops.
[02:59:23] Unknown:
That's our whole point of being down here to plan. What? The principle came from the almighty and then his people, principle. And that was No. They don't.
[02:59:37] Unknown:
No. They don't adhere. No. They don't adhere to his principle, but they're supposed to. Well, most of the we have that's why we have in Genesis 11, God scattering people at the Tower Of Babel again, because they're fighting the simple command of their maker. But, yeah, that's the theme. You and you pointed out some good examples of it. Yeah. Who's next? Somebody said they're up.
[03:00:02] Unknown:
This is Larry.
[03:00:04] Unknown:
Hey, Larry.
[03:00:06] Unknown:
Hey. There's a it sounds like based upon what you're explaining for the last hour that the common law is still available to us in the courts, but Roger is always teaching us that, I think the courts are courts of equity and, or contract courts and you have to invoke common law. But by the by the way you explain things, people are getting due process because that's that's what the common law is all about, getting due process, and due process is taking place in the courts. So if it is a court of equity, would you say that the it is it's it could be a court a common law court at the same time because they are getting due process.
[03:00:58] Unknown:
That's correct. And equity is equity follows common law or as lawyers say, equity follows law. Equity is subservient to law. Wait. Law is short for common law in our English speaking world. And so, yeah, equity is always there. It has to be equity is part of our common law tradition. It's a very specific part. We could talk more about that, but don't get caught up. Don't get caught up. This is patriot more patriot mythology. Oh, these are courts of equity. Well, of course, they have equity jurisdiction. That's what a common law court has. It also has a law, but where there is no remedy at law, the courts, according to our common law, repair to equity to try to find a remedy. But that's a long subject. I don't I think it's a I think it's a distraction to get off on that subject the way people do. Let's just talk about our common law. What is it? It's due process. That's one way you said it. So what's due process?
Well, we could define it this way. It's the process that is due and owing. The course of process that is due and owing to all concern. We follow a certain course. Jesus Christ did not say I am a list of laws. No. No. He said I'm all about process. He said it this way. I am the way. I I am the way, John fourteen six. And he says that over and over. The word Torah, we translate it law. Well, what does it mean? It means the way pointed out with the index finger. In the verb form, it means what's your what the the path you follow, the path, the course you get on. The Puritans understood this. Pil John Bunyan wrote pilgrims pilgrims laws. No. No. It wasn't laws. Pilgrim's progress. And it's all about a man that finds a narrow path to get on, and he tries to stay on it to get to the celestial city, the New Jerusalem. But he analogizes because the Bible does. It is the ways and the paths. It's not we're not to be concerned with the outcome. We are to be concerned with concentrating on moment by moment, day by day, living our life the way the way God says to live it. I'm talking to my mother. My father will be 95 99 here pretty soon. My mother is pretty close, and she is dis disappointed me as of two days ago that I wasn't speaking to her in a way that made her feel comfortable.
Was she right? I she's the final decider of that, not me. So I just said I just said to her, I just texted her. I said, mom, by the way, if you think I need slapped in the chops the way you did when I was 16, I'll hold still or somebody can hold me and, just let me know when to be there and you can do it. Well, what was I trying to communicate to her that I was gonna do what she said? No. I was trying to communicate to her that I'll do more to try to show her respect in a way that satisfies her. It's the way I go about life that God's interested in, not the outcome. That's his business. I live my Christian life according to the Bible. I'm a need to try to live it moment by moment from faith as it says to faith.
The way my attitude toward other men, my attitude toward God. What does God want? What was the course he wants us to follow? We're talking here about the things of God. And so I'm Roger and I are in charge of the way we go about that. And that's really as important or more important than what we say. And, of course, I'm always saying, well, let's try to get some order here. And Paul says, well, let's have let's do it this way so everybody gets a chance to see how important that is. How can all your ideas in your mind, your collectiveness of thought come out unless we have some kind of order that works. Again, that's our jurisdiction.
And right here, it's my jurisdiction along with Roger and Paul helps, and you can help too to help us keep that order so that this will be more profitable for all concerned. I'm not as concerned much about the outcome of this discussion as I am that it pleases God the way we go about it, the order, you see. Listen. We've been in Clown Town. I have one more comment and then yeah. We've been in Clown Town for many years. Obama, Biden, everywhere we look, as one fellow says, all we can see is clowns on unicycles. Disorder. Chaos.
God, the Bible says, is not a god of disorder. He is a god of order, and he his people are to reflect that in what they do. And so yes. Go ahead.
[03:05:31] Unknown:
Yeah. Just two more things, and I'll I'll I'll mute to listen. So we we were discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and it was determined that the federal courts don't use common law. So do you agree with that? And then the second question is, we had a caller call in a couple of days ago, and he is caught up in some kind of Hebrew Christian Hebrew Christian movement or something. And he's claiming that all the Hebrews were black, that Moses was black. And I was wondering if you can comment on that.
[03:06:09] Unknown:
That's, the Bible doesn't support that. Talk about that. I'll start with that question. Talk about that is to miss the point of the Bible. The but it is important that we recognize race is race is not a matter of skin color. Race is a matter of your ancestors. Now I know often skin color and is indicative in many way, but that's not really what the bible that's not the way the Bible presents it. The bible presents it according to your ancestors, number one. And know that that's not a relevant point. Was Moses that's just not relevant. And the bible is not clear on that point. It's pure speculation.
From my study, I'll give you my testimony. I don't know everything. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but neither am I the dumbest. And I've had my bury my head buried in the Bible, my brain buried in the Bible for well over forty decades very intensely, and I don't see that's true. No. I don't. And I've known men that have taught that. That's true. The second question was, is or, yeah, is are are federal courts common law courts or is the common law gone? No. Our federal courts are common law courts. The machinery is all in place. And to say otherwise is to become part of the problem.
All you're doing is playing into their hands. Oh, no common law here? Yeah. And we go back and people quote silly things like, Erie Tompkin Railroad, see, Erie versus Tompkin. I see. Who what what was that guy? Thompson versus Erie Railroad. That's what was it. And the comment was made there that they say the comment that was made there, the common law does not apply in our federal courts. Well, what they were saying is and you gotta go back and just read the case. It's really easy. What they're saying is we used but here's what they said. They said, there is no federal common law. Well, what do they mean by that? What they meant by that listen to me close.
That was in the nineteen thirties coming up to the forties. What they meant by that was this, and they said so. When a when two people from two different states get into a federal court and our constitution, by the way, allows that. It's called diversity jurisdiction, where one fellow is from one state, another fellow is from another state, and neither one of them wanna get sued in the state courts of the other man's state because that would be unfair. The federal courts say we can take jurisdiction and there's a a neutral forum. Well, always until, Tompkin Tompkin versus Erie Railroad, always before they had the they said that the was a a federal law that the feds the federal courts would decide how to decide the case, and they wouldn't ask anybody else.
Well, Tom conversion railroad, Ernie, area railroad said this. I think one fellow was from Pennsylvania, and, yeah, the other fellow was from New York. And they said, here's what we're gonna do from now on. We're not gonna go to the federal cases and the federal precedents and the federal courts to decide these kinds of cases where two people are from two two different states. Now we're gonna choose one state or the other, and here's how we're gonna make that choice. And here are the principles of our common law we're gonna use to make that choice. That that case through power back to the states, that's what it did.
And so it was a good thing. It's called choice of law, choice of law between two sovereignties. How do you handle that? And they said, we we have ways of doing that, and we're gonna choose. For example, I write a trust document. And, I'm saying if I did, I have. I've written trust indentures, then there's a problem. And one beneficiary lives in one state and the property's in another state. Some of the properties in one state and some of the properties in another state. Well, how do you decide which state courts have jurisdiction over a problem? Well, there are rules at common law that guide us so we can make that decision, and the courts will make that decision. It's that kind of a principle. No. Our our our, federal courts are common law courts. Let me give you some reasons how I know that. Number one, we use a 12 man jury.
That's by the command of the constitution in states. If you got a jury, 12 man jury and I'm talking. I'm giving personal testimony. I've been tried in the federal courts by a 12 man jury and was sprung by a 12 man jury. I'm all I'm all for, the common law, and I'm all for saying the common laws into the federal courts, and the jury sprung me. Judge was really mad, really mad. Prosecutors were beside themselves. One lost, his position as a US attorney over it. That really happened. Doesn't always happen right, but in that case, it happened right. Also, the right to remain silent, the right to free speech, those are all matters in our common law, our federal courts. Those are common law doctrines.
The right the right to an indictment by a grand jury. You can't get into federal court as a criminal defendant unless grand jury has indicted you. That's our common law. There are no grand juries in the rest of the world. That's common law institution. So no. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've been to federal court lots of times. No. We follow follow the common rules of evidence that Congress statute put them in a statute, the rules, but those are the common rules of evidence that they put into a a statute. We follow all that.
We can impeach federal judges and we've done it in America. We need to do it more. No. No. All that's common law doctrine. So, no, that's not true. Nuh-uh. That does that help? Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:11:40] Unknown:
Yeah. I just wanted to be clear that that it I called it a mockumentary for a reason. It's not fact, but it's based on law where, legal professors have said the scenario that's portrayed in there is possible. You could actually do murder in this country somewhere and not be able to sit a jury in order to adjudicate it.
[03:12:06] Unknown:
Well, we'd have to see it. An exam at common law, speculation is not allowed. If I can't come up and as our constitution says, in order for a court to have jurisdiction, a federal court, this a common law doctrine. It's been around for centuries. The controversy has to be real. The parties have to stand and just life, liberty, or property, or a combination thereof, or the court doesn't even have jurisdiction. You can't go into a court a federal court and say, I wanna know how the court would rule if this, this, this, and this were true. They'll just throw you out and say, we don't do that. Well, our our the constitution and our common law requires a real contra a real fight a real fight over life, liberty, or property.
And if they're in a fight over it, we can't take it. Yeah.
[03:12:51] Unknown:
You know, Brent, one of the guys I like to read when it comes to, you know, common law versus equity is Roscoe Pound because he was born in 1870, and he died in 1964. Throughout his life, he saw the changes that happened, and he's basically saying the equity has gotten more rigid than common law ever was.
[03:13:17] Unknown:
It it has, and it it is governed by the rules of evidence of common law, and it has been brought in been brought to heel, so to speak, under our common law traditions of evidence. But it all has has always been around for centuries, and it all has always been true that equity follows law. Equity follows law. A long history, it takes, how many years of just reading and reading to come to grips with what equity really is. I say that, and maybe I'm just stupid, but it took me a long time, and I worked at it for a long time. I'm comfortable now. But, you know, they don't call it reading law for nothing. You gotta just read and read and read. Oh, yeah.
[03:14:00] Unknown:
Yeah. At at one point, they were very careful about it because they would they would make a decision in, say, common law, but then they would follow it up with equity and keep them separate. Well, now it's, you know,
[03:14:16] Unknown:
it is the rules. I yeah. Not very long ago, well, in all the state courts I knew, we had two divisions in our state courts, chancery and law. Chancery is another word for equity. And we had two different divisions, and and we even sometimes had two different judges judges. And equity had to do with matters of fiduciary trust, family law, marriage and divorce, adoption, trust in estates and wills. That's fundamentally what it was. But now the legislation in almost all the states and it's not a bad thing, and it used to be this way in England, then it went the other way. Now it's come back again, but it's all good. A judge can take jurisdiction over either if he thinks it's necessary.
He can take off his law hat, and he can put on his equity hat. I recently, well, not too long ago, tried a case that had to do with trusts, and that's equity, but the bank was involved and the bank wanted didn't want it in trust. I was arguing that they had had taken on the duties of trustee. Well, I didn't want that. They wanted to look like they had taken on the duties of contract, which is arm's length to say, so what do you do? I said to the judge, judge, we got to decide what law, what the relationship is here, or we don't know what body of law to apply. If the body if you do do what they want, we're gonna have to impanel a jury. That's law. That's, that's contract.
And that's where all banks wanna stay because they don't wanna care about other people. See? But if you get them in, trust but there's a trust problem here. We're arguing that the bank, took on the office of trustee and got this guy to trust him, and then they screwed him. That was the whole, like, the whole theory of the case. And it should have been tried. We should have had a jury. He denied a jury, but on the other hand, in that particular case, we would have bored a jury to death and they would have probably ruled against it.
Oh, there's a lot comes in in our common law, in our common law tradition. There's it's about us. It's not about what the government wants. It's not about we gotta reach the outcome the government wants. No. We go into court and fight. There is no trial in the rest of the world. There is no trial, just a tribunal. That's all. That means you can go in and the lawyers and the judge decide what to do with the case. And there there trial trial by jury is a fight. It's trial. It's a battle by trial as I was saying before. It's a fight. It's from the tradition of trial by battle at common law. It's from the tradition of dueling. That's what we do in court. What's that?
[03:16:58] Unknown:
What's that? What are the facts? What are the facts? The facts or whatever the Jewish says? The fact. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. When I'm talking about Well, wait a minute. It's one No. No.
[03:17:12] Unknown:
No. I'm not waiting. I'm not waiting. When I talk, everyone else stops or we can't do this. That's the way it works.
[03:17:21] Unknown:
Well, if you take a pause, and you know I answered it. Are you? Stop.
[03:17:26] Unknown:
Good. The facts are what the jury says they are in our common law tradition. The jury is the decider of fact. That's the job and the jurisdiction of the jury. And we we don't have lawsuits. As I said a while ago, we have fact suits. We call them lawsuits, but they aren't. We don't ask the jury what the law is. If they wanna decide, they can, but they're not even they don't even think about it, and they don't wanna tell us. Because once they decide the facts, that pretty much ends the case. The law will be obvious. That's how that works. Now if there's another question you wanted to ask, but I wanted to get that out of the way first.
Was there another question you wanted to ask?
[03:18:06] Unknown:
Well, I just wanna say that who puts forth the facts and it comes back to who has what position. So you have your two adversaries, your, plaintiff and your defendant, and then the judge who is supposedly neutral. I know those things change depending on what the matter is before them. But the jury can only decide facts that are put forth by each party, and the same with a judge. Well, let's just stop right there. That.
[03:18:50] Unknown:
Stop right there. Stop right there.
[03:18:51] Unknown:
We're talking about standards. I'm not talking about any particular case. Let me say it this way. The most powerful position in the universe among any people are the ones that have the final arbitrary power to decide the facts of any particular instant case. God is the final arbiter of right and wrong in his universe. That means he decided the facts. And nobody he doesn't have to explain them, and nobody has the authority to question. And amazingly, in our common law tradition, we've been delegated authority down here on land, and the jury is in the same position. They decide the facts.
We don't have any right to question those facts, and they have no obligation to explain anything they've done. There is no appealing from the decision on the facts from the jury. That's the most powerful position down here on land, and we call that the lawgiver, anciently called the lawgiver. The lawgiver is the final arbiter. That means you don't have to give a reason. The final arbiter of the facts and individual instances from whose decision there is no appeal. That's the jury down here on land. That's God over his whole creation. That's what we need to know, and that's the way we need to approach everything. And we don't need to riddle what we're doing, for example, here with a whole lot of just stuff that obscures the fact of the matter in this case. And the fact of the matter is that's our common law tradition, and that's what God authorizes. And that's why Jesus Christ and paneled 12 men, 12 men to destroy to decide the facts of who he is, his identity, and deliver their verdict.
And he just grabbed 12 men he just grabs 12 men standing around that didn't amount to anybody, anything in anybody's eyes, and we do the same thing today in our common law tradition, and they don't do it anywhere else in the world. And it works real well. Yeah. That's what love for you. Is who purports
[03:20:58] Unknown:
who puts forth the facts for that jury Obviously,
[03:21:03] Unknown:
obviously, obviously, the parties put forward evidence, and the jury decides the facts on the basis of the evidence. That's the way our common law tradition works, and God has ordained it. And to know that standard and to push forward and to say, this is what we gotta do. This is due process. This is the way we go about it is our duty. You need to be doing it. Correct. And I need to be doing it.
[03:21:28] Unknown:
Correct. I I just wanted to say it's up to us to put forth the facts of the matter, and we cannot, oh, we have to do that. Put it forth. But also, speaking to the adversarial sides and the judge is supposed to be neutral, instead of the judge giving a fourth, terms and conditions for the jury to decide, if he's neutral, then he cannot do anything except for, listen to the arguments for both sides. Correct?
[03:22:14] Unknown:
Oh, sure. The jury. We we have juries because we don't trust judges. That that's not too hard, is it? We have juries because we don't trust judges to be fair and unbiased, and they need to hear that more often. I mean, that's so blatantly obvious. I'm amazed that it isn't said by judges themselves. Look. The jury is here because I'm not to be trusted with this case. That's exactly right. That's why we do that. Somebody else had another question. Somebody
[03:22:43] Unknown:
Hey, Brent. It's, Larry in Jacksonville. Two things. So if if somebody, is is has to appear in court, let let's just say it's a civil matter, debt collection matter, whatever, and and they don't, invoke their right to a trial by jury, it's automatically waived, and they get a bench trial. What kind of court would that be considered where the judge decides? Is that just a plain old court of equity? It it's no longer a common law court in that sense? Oh, no. If you opt if you opt for the judge instead of the jury, it's still a common law trial.
[03:23:23] Unknown:
All the rules of the common law apply, but that's up to you. You know, sometimes it's better to opt for the judge. Better. Depends upon the issues. Sometimes it just depends upon where you live. It depends upon all sorts of things. But if you don't demand a jury trial and your first opportunity to respond, you may not get one. And you don't make a motion for a jury trial. You demand it. It's called a jury demand. Why? Because of my my call, nobody else's to demand a jury. And you put it right on the front of the pleading when you first opportunity to opportunity you have to respond.
[03:24:00] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. And one more thing. You've gone over this in the past, and I'd like you to just take a few minutes to reiterate your position on it. There's still a lot of talk on on the after shows of the Radio Ranch about there is a there is a difference between a jury trial and a trial by jury. And what they're saying is their students saying, oh, you must have a jury, a trial by jury. Don't call it a jury trial because you you're not gonna get the same thing. Can you speak on that one more time, please? Well, probably probably the judge wouldn't know the difference, but I agree the proper
[03:24:40] Unknown:
way to say it is trial by jury. That's the proper way to say it. And it's important that we say things properly so we communicate properly. That's not that's like a guy said to me one time, I was, he was from, just North Of Memphis down there along the river. He had a real deep I called the old river accent. And I said, well, you know what? Just like I was talking to him. I said, just like, Daniel in the in the lion's den. Daniel in the lion's den. And he said, when is there it weren't no lion's den. I said, well, what was it? He said, it was a den of lions. Is there a difference? Yeah. But I got to thinking about it. He was right. There's proper English there. It it wasn't a lion's den. A lion's den may or may not have lions in it, but a den of lions has lions in it. And if you say jury trial, that's a little bit different and stress is something a little different than trial by jury. And historically, the pleading at your first response, you would say, and I demand a jury trial demand went this way in the early days. So I'm talking a few centuries ago. And I demand that I, that this case be put upon the country.
Trial by your country. That's jury trial at common law. Well, what's trial by your country? That meant trial by 12 men, 12 militiamen, members of the militia of the country. That's jury trial. Two duties of a militiamen, to defend the law of the land by willingness to serve on the jury and to defend the land itself by willingness to take up arms against enemies foreign and to bend the law of the land by enemies domestic. And that's why we have that oath, enemies foreign and domestic willingness to serve, to pick up arms and defend the land.
Number two, willingness to serve on the jury in defense of the law of the land. And to defend the law of the land is to defend the land. And to defend the land is to defend the law of the land. That's God's way, w a y, of going about justice. Brent? Well yeah. Go ahead.
[03:26:56] Unknown:
Yeah. There this is the testimony of a Christian woman. She she felt that it was her duty to go on the jury, and she said the first thing she had to do is be very careful to get on the jury because they were trying to make sure that they had people on that jury that were going to agree with everything that they were saying, and she didn't think that was fair. So she really went out of her way to get on the jury, first off. Then when she gets on the jury, part of the judge's instructions to her are to say if there's a, a word that that you don't know the definition of, he restricted them from looking up the meaning of the word.
I mean,
[03:27:42] Unknown:
this is not right. But touch what? Why is that not right?
[03:27:48] Unknown:
Why shouldn't she know what a word that's being used to convict or show a man innocent the meaning of it?
[03:27:56] Unknown:
Well, here it is. Here's the reason for that, and it's always been this way. That's nothing new. When you impanel a jury, you're not impaneling experts. That's the whole idea behind it. Like the bible says, first Corinthians chapter six, empaneled the least esteemed among you. To do what? To decide the fate of rich people's money and lives. That's what. Can you imagine how much more decent the world would be if every rich man, every rich man thought possibly some poor nobodies would be deciding his fate in life? How much nicer he would be to everybody?
What a beautiful, beautiful thing trial by jury is. I know little towns. I'm from a little place, little towns. Every lawyer that tries cases is very his whole life, very, very careful not to offend anybody. Because one person on the jury could throw your whole case. You see, what a system. God has done this. God said, and I cease to be amazed at the wisdom of the law of God. But coming back to your question, here's the principle behind what you're talking about. We take the juror as he is on the spot. And once we get him in paneled, we don't let him look at anything.
We don't let him change. Oh, this is a murder case. I gotta go look up the law of murder. We don't want that. No, we want to take him as he is. We're not looking for experts or men that have educated themselves and prepared themselves to serve on a jury. Matter of fact, we guard that so zealously that we empanel the jury and immediately I mean, within five minutes, the trial starts sometime ten minutes. We don't want them to have time to go think about anything. We want to take them as they are. We don't if we wanted experts, we would just ask the lawyers and the judge to decide the case. We don't trust them. We trust folk.
What a wonderful, beautiful arrangement. So no. I see why. And I was involved in the case one time where that happened. And there was a English, a British immigrant on the jury who had been naturalized as a citizen. And they got in an argument in the jury room and had to do with extortion. Got an argument in the jury room about what extortion is and what is the definition. And, of course, this Brit was saying, well, that's not the way they define extortion in England. Well, that wasn't true, but that everybody, of course, when people get on the jury that they wanna think they're some kind of lawyers, you know, and destroy the whole thing. And that's what that's what happens when you want people to be lawyers. We don't want them to be lawyers. We want them to be men just like they are.
And we want them to understand and feel things that lawyers don't understand and feel. That's why Jesus Christ impaneled the least esteemed among his nation. The people that didn't have formal educations, we know that. The book says so. They were fish they were fishermen, and they were the least esteemed. And anyway, this Brit smuggled Right. Knowing that this Brit smuggled a legal dictionary into the jury room to try to teach Americans what true extortion was according to the English, the Brits. And what happened was a long trial was thrown out because this juror did that.
The long trial was thrown out and had to start all over again. Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:31:36] Unknown:
So what if the prosecution is using words to hide the, actual, guilt of, what is actually happening in the court setting. That could be easily done.
[03:31:51] Unknown:
Well, this is, an adversarial tradition. We go into court and fight about stuff like that. That's what can be done. There are many ways to do that, to bring it to the attention of the judge. If the judge doesn't pay any attention, I've had that happen too. Then what do you have? Well, you have post trial motions. You have appeal. You have a lot of things. You can get rid of the judge, but whatever it takes. But we're, this is the tradition that God has given us. That's a good one. If we know it and know that it's a fight, our tradition is adversarial. That means we fight the law of the city that got in Canon laws of Rome that govern the rest of the country is you've heard this word, inquisitorial.
Inquisitorial. There is no jury. There's just torture. And then the government decides what they're gonna do with you. That's really what it boils down to, to varying degrees. Sometimes it's not that noticeable, but there certainly is never a fight. It's never adversarial. There is never any combat in the court. There is never and here's not another thing they don't have. They don't have any cross examination. None. The greatest surety of truth in our common law tradition at trial is not the oath. That'd be silly. People don't pay any attention to that cross examination.
That's the surety of truth. And then the, it can be used very skillfully. Of course. Well, I'm glad you're asking these questions, but let me say this. I like to talk about it sometimes. Of course it keeps it at the top of my mind. Your questions are all good. You're getting to the heart of the matter. I certainly do recommend the book excellence of the common law, a comparative law text of 958 pages. It's like sliced bread. You can go to any section, pick out the subject you want, and read it. And you don't have to read the whole book. Just start picking out sections. And it's all about our common law tradition, comparing and contrasting our common law tradition with the law of the city, the law of the land, with the law of the city. And these questions you're asking about, they're not only answered in that book, but they're fleshed out in pretty much fullness.
I don't know that I, I took the inspiration to write that book from a man from the fourteenth, thirteenth and fourteenth century, sir, John Fortescue, who wrote a book, something like that. But he, he didn't approach it exactly like I did. And that was a book that was used for centuries to answer the kind of questions you're talking. He put it in a format. He put it in a format that was him answering the questions of the future king of England. They were both exiled in France to keep from getting their heads chopped off. And he wanted to teach the future king of England about the common law. And he started out by saying, well, you don't have to know everything about it. We don't want you to be an expert, but you certainly need to be familiar with the fundamentals. And that's what I'm trying to do here. Just get to the fundamentals. Cause once you know those, if you don't know the fundamentals, like most Patriots, they're just haphazardly going around. They don't have a clue what they're doing saying the constitution says this. Well, it says it's the supreme law of the land, but, that means it trumps the Bible. Crazy stuff like that from otherwise smart people who are very intelligent. What are these and want to talk about? I have a right to travel. Well, why?
I mean, if you can't say why from a religious conviction of God himself, forget it. You, you, you don't, you won't have enough conviction. You don't have any conviction. You just have a preference. I wanna travel. It becomes a selfish thing at that point. It's not what god wants. It's what you want. Now I'm not trying to criticize anything that we have here, but you see my point. We need to know what god wants. And the common law tradition tells us go ahead.
[03:35:25] Unknown:
I was gonna chime in on the right to travel thing with, like in Texas and the Old West, it little man's horse was, five to fifteen years. And in other places, if you had a bad personality, they probably hung you.
[03:35:39] Unknown:
Yeah. That's true. Of course. Of course. Why did they hang the witches at,
[03:35:45] Unknown:
in Massachusetts? It was a life or death matter to travel, and I think it still is, Brent. And, you know, it's just badly damaged. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo
[03:36:08] Unknown:
So Yeah. If the point isn't made through the Bible, then you don't have any conviction. And just saying I think it is means nothing because none of us are so I I'm not instructing you. I'm just I'm just I'm I'm just trying to get to the fundamental here. None of us are givers of law. None of us are the source of law. But if we can't find what the source of law has said, we're just wasting our time. It will never work. It will never come to any lasting effect is my point. If we don't know why it's important this right to travel go ahead.
[03:36:43] Unknown:
Is there any, is there, is there some, stuff in the UCC that would help people? Like, I guess that's my point. Should should we be looking at the UCC?
[03:36:58] Unknown:
No. Well universe There's nothing wrong with the UCC applied properly to merchants. That's what it's for. But the none of us have enough time to look at all that. What we should be focusing on, I focus on it, by the way, is the two volumes that god has given us, like the future king of England, sir sir John Fortescue Fortescue and William Blackstone, his commentary said, an an Englishman doesn't wanna be an expert on the law, but he better understand the fundamentals of our common law tradition. That's what I'm interested in, and I'm still interested in it. The UCC is nothing more than the codification of contract law, common law applied to merchants. That's all. To try to reach, to try to put procedures in place that enable us to move quickly if you're a merchant so that our economy will keep flowing quickly if you're a merchant. And that's important.
No, don't worry about the UCC. That's more Patriot mythology. That's more a distraction. What God wants us to know here's another thing. If you think that there's some bad law out there, don't look at it. Don't look at IRS law. I know people that have devoted their lives to studying the IRS code. All that is looking counterfeit baloney. Why don't you devote your life, I would say, to what God said, your evil gift to the law? That's lasting, and that will bring deep satisfaction to the soul, my friends. The law of God, said King David, is perfect. It is perfected. And then he says, converting, turning around the soul of man.
That's power, friends. I want to look at what is powerful in my life, and I want you to too. So the two volumes, the laws of nature and the laws of nature's god, the laws of nature unwritten, meant to be observed in creation, the way things are, and they aren't gonna change. Our common law tradition is a significant slice of that. And then the laws of nature's god, says William Blackstone. That phrase means the Bible. That's what that phrase has always meant in our common law tradition. That's what it means now. Our declaration of 76 says the laws of nature, and the laws of nature is God. If you aren't if you don't have your head in the Bible every day to some degree and are paying attention to what's around you and how the world works, our common law tradition, the laws of this natural world, then you're part of the problem. You're not the solution.
And none of us will ever learn at all, but we need to stay with it. Well, I'm gonna go because I'm getting so tired. I can't talk anymore. And you folk, all of you, I say again, thank you very much because all of you are engaged, and that's what we like. But you're so engaged. You're you're running ahead of me. I can't keep up. That's better than you. You, Brent? I'm being
[03:39:47] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent.
[03:39:48] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Thank
[03:39:50] Unknown:
you, ma'am.
[03:39:52] Unknown:
Oh, somebody had a somebody said something at the end here. I just got I just have a closing comment, not really a question. I was listening to this judge in Texas, and he's pretty famous on YouTube. He's really light. He's pretty fair. And so he got one of these guys in the in front of him that a defendant that had to appear in court because he was caught driving without a license and insurance, and he was trying to make the argument, well, I'm sovereign. I don't need to have a license. And, and he says, well, what do you the judge says, what are you basing that on? And he said, I have the god given right to travel. And the judge agreed with him, and the guy looked kind of puzzled.
And the judge went on to explain, you see those two legs that you have on your body? You have the right to go anywhere you want. But as long as you're in my state, you're gonna have a license, and you're gonna have insurance in case you get in an accident and damage someone else's, you know, you know, property. And he said, I'm not gonna grant you bond because that's gonna be a condition of your bond. And if you show up in my court again, I'm gonna put you in prison. Very interesting.
[03:41:07] Unknown:
Yeah. So, what he was saying was I take it what he was saying was, yeah. You have the right to travel. What's that got to do with sovereignty? And it nothing. The right to travel is a delegated from a sovereign, god himself. It's a responsibility that when you feel the impulse, you get up and go because that's what he commands. And we will feel that impulse as long as we still can go. But what the sovereignty I have a right to travel because I'm a sovereign. That's silly talk. Who said you were sovereign? Where do you get that? Do you have a source of law that says that? I'd he'd be hard pressed to find one. Sovereignty is an absolute. I'm not sovereign. I'm I'm a creature of God, a creation. That means he has created me. That means I'm responsible to whoever made me. He's the sovereign, and God has delegated data sovereignty down here on land, and it doesn't belong to me.
Sovereignty is an absolute term, and that's another patriot mythology kind of a thing. You won't find that in law anywhere that I know of, and you might find it. That doesn't mean that, somebody's statement, that doesn't mean it's true. Men are not the final deciders of what law is. God is. That's sovereignty. And, we have delegated limp what we call limited sovereignty, less an ex oxymoron. There's no such thing as limited sovereignty. We don't have a word in English for it. Why? Because we're a Christian tradition. Our language doesn't even have a word for limited sovereignty because there isn't such a thing. That's why. But we still try to use that limited sovereignty idea and say, well, we try to work with it because all of us have limited jurisdiction, you see. All of us. Because everything down here on land belongs to god.
And if what is down here on land is not limited by the true sovereign, then we will think we have no limits, and we will act that way, and we will destroy ourselves. We will destroy ourselves. There has to be a limit or we think we're God, and that will destroy us. And it's going on all around me. I watch it right now in the patriot community and out. I'm not going there. No, sir. Well, thank you very much again and appreciate you. I I did enjoy the all of this, and, it gets my mind going. I'm thinking about how to get the points across, but please, I have you're asking the questions, and you're bringing raising the the the the subjects that I address in the book, come, excellence of the common law, and I address it even further in five volumes in, the winterized translation of the Bible from the original tongue, the 35,000 footnotes and over 200 appendices talking about all these kind of things, tracing major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context of the Bible.
I appreciate you, and and we're praying for for Paul, and we're praying for Greg up north. And I'm praying for all of you. Listen to me. I'm praying for all of you that God would protect you and your parents and your children and your grandchildren from physical harm, spiritual evil, and false doctrine, above all things false doctrine. And we ask these things and the authority the authority of the Lord, our Lord, Jesus the Christ. Amen. Again, appreciate you. Hope yeah. Hey. Come with from California.
[03:44:35] Unknown:
What's that? From California, Brett. This is Washington California. Oh, Chris. Chris. Yes, Chris. Thanks. Yeah. Chris, go ahead. Port I've got a couple I've got an important thing. You know, Michael, what's the name, Michael? J. Michael j. Michael j, which will be on the show following you on Sunday.
[03:45:01] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Michael j is
[03:45:03] Unknown:
yeah. Michael is in serious trouble. We've talked on the phone. We talked about this lady that he wants to help, but more importantly, he's about to die. He's got infection in bone. He's got infection in the bone of his jaw, and he told me all the trouble he was having. I couldn't sleep, and he couldn't find anybody that would do the work, that all the dentists turn him away. I found a, I found a an oral surgeon that will accept his Medi Cal and do all the work he needs done, and now he won't talk to me. I was gonna drive him right there, and he was gonna go. We had an appointment. I've had this happen with three other people that I've known who died because they went into sepsis in their body, and there was nothing that the hospital could do.
And, he needs to take this seriously. He's not gonna be around much longer, maybe a week or two. He's at the end of the line, and I would like you or somebody to get in touch with him and try and talk some sense into him that he needs to go to a to a to the oral surgeon and let them do the work they need to do to save his life. Did he just did he just find out about this? No. He's known about this for a while, and he's been dancing around on it. And his time is coming to an end. Oh, I see. He's he's told me the whole he's told me the whole story, which is why I jumped in because I know a lot about this. And so I found him a dentist. He said he couldn't find one. And I found him one, and I'm willing to take him there for his treatments.
All he needs to do is say yes and take some time off and do it. Okay. Well, he's he's gonna he's gonna be gone. We're gonna we're gonna be looking at a funeral here.
[03:46:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you live close by him, I take it. Yes. Yeah. Well, thanks for letting me know. Maybe I'll talk to him Sunday.
[03:47:01] Unknown:
We usually do. That would be good. We'll see. On on the other hand on the other hand, I hear a lot of talk about the Jews and the Gentiles, and I don't hear a whole lot of talk about the Israelites because we're still here also. There's some interesting scripture I've been looking at trying to track down what's happened here. And, and it says in Genesis 48 that it says in verse 16, the angel which read this is Israel speaking. The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be named on them. And the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
And then it's and then, so the name Israel was transferred to the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh, not anybody else. Then in Genesis, 49, at number 22, Joseph is a fruitful bow, even a fruitful bow by a well whose branches run over the wall. The archers have sorely grieved him and shot at him and hated him, But his bow abode in strength and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob. From fence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel. Then we have down in verse 26. The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills. They shall be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren. That was Joseph that was separated from his brethren.
So I see Joseph as being the, the chosen tribe or Ephraim and Manasseh being the chosen tribe, not not Judah. Now we have another thing too in both Matthew and Luke in the lin and in the lineage. We have the lineage goes all the way up to Mary, but never touches Mary. It touches Joseph, but Joseph is not the father of Christ. And furthermore, Mary was not from the tribe of Judah. She was from the tribe of Levi. So there's no connection from Judah to the Lord
[03:49:50] Unknown:
as far as I can see. What I think what I think might be helpful, I recommend it. Roger mentioned this a while ago. Get Ted Weiland's book on that subject, and maybe he'll give you some more clues. He's a pretty good writer, and, he studies hard. I'm on that subject, especially. He is very important to him. So I would suggest and then if after you read it, come back and tell us what you found out, if it helped any.
[03:50:19] Unknown:
Yeah. What was the title of that book?
[03:50:22] Unknown:
I don't remember. Just look up look up Ted Weiland, w e I l a n d, and then see the books he he wrote, and you'll see the see that book there. You'll recognize it by the title. Sure. Okay. Great. Something. Like God's chosen people. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks again. God's chosen people. You, Chris. God's chosen people. Thank you. Appreciate you. We'll talk again. May I? May I
[03:50:51] Unknown:
I wanna apologize to you. Yeah, I wanted to apologize you for you, Brent. Chris called me a troublemaker, and I was asking some personal questions, and I apologize. I didn't wanna get personal. I respect your privacy. But I do have one question. You travel all over the country, and you deal with judges. Now there's something called the Masonic Lodge and Masons. Do you is it your opinion? I'd love your opinion on do you think some of these judges are masons? And if they are masons, they take an oath, and that oath is probably to the masons and not to the judgeship.
So I I'd love your opinion. Thank you very much for your time. I love you.
[03:51:37] Unknown:
Well, let's do this. Yeah. I've I got things I could say about that. But when we come back next week, if you raise that question, Joe, the fellow that spoke first today, Joe from down Oklahoma Yeah. He he knows quite a bit about that. And I would you if you raise that question, we might get him to respond to it, maybe from some inside information. So try to remember that, and then we may we could talk about it more then. But I'm I'm counting on you to bring it up because I might not remember. We might get sidetracked.
[03:52:16] Unknown:
Okay. I respect that. Okay. Thank you, Brent.
[03:52:19] Unknown:
Where do you live? And I'll
[03:52:21] Unknown:
I live in the beautiful state of not state, but I live in Oregon on the East Side Of The Cascades.
[03:52:31] Unknown:
I'm overlooking the mountains right now, but they're a little close. Well, I know you, don't I?
[03:52:37] Unknown:
No. You don't know me.
[03:52:39] Unknown:
We haven't known each other for years.
[03:52:42] Unknown:
No. No. Sorry. I've been I've been on the the Radio Ranch for about two and a half years, and my name is Steven, but I go by Sketch.
[03:52:53] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. If no. I I'm not that's right. I don't know you, but you sound like somebody I know. Well, yeah, we'll talk to you maybe next week then and bring that up.
[03:53:03] Unknown:
Okay. And I hope you accept my apology for asking you a personal questions about your litigation with The US.
[03:53:10] Unknown:
Well, let me put it this way. Let I I didn't know that anybody offended me. And when you said that, I said, I can't remember you offending me. And, of course, I accept your apology, but, I don't demand that other people apologize to me. I demand that they just give me assurances they won't do it again. I don't even remember you doing that, but that's
[03:53:29] Unknown:
okay. No worries. I can't I was a Yeah. I was apologizing to Chris, I guess. Thank you. I Oh, okay. We'll be talking then. Thanks. Bye.
[03:53:39] Unknown:
Have a good one, Brett.
[03:53:41] Unknown:
Okay. Bye bye.
[03:53:43] Unknown:
Yep. I just wanted to say, you know, this this equity thing is it's very complicated because it's it's one of those things where I you you wanna believe that the intention was good, bring it in because the common law was too strict for a lot of people. You either were or you weren't, and there wasn't any any in between, and they would bring inequity to try to be fair about it. But if you read guys like Roscoe Pound, who, like I I think I said earlier, he he was born in 1870, and he died in 1964. He saw the effects of of of equity on the system.
And if I can put words in his mouth, I guess, if you wanna sum up, and he's got tons of books, tons of articles that you can read about the subject. And, basically, I I would say he's saying that that strictness of the common law has been far surpassed by equity. And I believe it's the road to it it it became, of course, the rules of federal procedure in time, and I believe that's the new world order, precursor to international law that will all be under for some, maybe not so distant future. And it's a creeping, ugly thing that if you look at it within your lifetime, you really probably aren't getting a very good idea of, of its effect on our system.
And, of course, the first the first ten amendments are in common law, and everything thereafter is inequity. Anyway, so I just leave it at that. Roscoe Pound, check them out.
[03:55:43] Unknown:
Hey, Samuel. The new world order is a code word for the Zionists' desire to rule the world because they think they are the chosen people, and they have God on their side. It's not gonna happen. God is done with them. He he made that known back in seventy AD when he ended the old covenant system and dispersed the Jews and destroyed everything. This new world order thing is just not gonna happen. You're just gonna have nations.
[03:56:16] Unknown:
I hope you're right. You know, there's a book, written by Gary Wayne, and it's about 800 pages. It's called the Genesis six conspiracy. And I summed that book up like this. There was a new world order before the flood. God put an end to it. And right after the flood, they started a new one, and those bloodlines are healthy and well and trying to get back to it. That's according to him with an awful lot of evidence. Whether they can succeed or not, I know this this what Trump is doing is hard to figure. I mean, it looks like he's trying to make an allegiance, even at the cost of Europe with, the Soviet Union.
And I think he's also asked some people to say to help him in the Middle East. I hope it's for good and not as a, a person who wants to restore, you know, that place from river to river, there's no way that's happening without tremendous amount of death and conflict.
[03:57:30] Unknown:
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:57:36] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymyboost.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by Fatphix, p h a t p h I x, dot com. Visceral fat is weighing your body down. It's causing sluggish response of your organs, and it's gotta go. It's gotta go. It's gotta get rid of it. You just gotta. And also iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com. Thank you, and welcome to the program.
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:28] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. Yep. And so would we, and we're gonna at least try and do that again today. Here is the Friday edition on the March. Roger Sales and Brent Winters is already with us today. We're it looks like we're missing Francine. I don't know how Brent's gonna do without his producer. Anyway, Brent Winters and myself is my is Prince, are you there, sweetie?
[00:01:55] Unknown:
No. That was me.
[00:01:57] Unknown:
I oh, I thought that was Francine saying, no. I'm here. Okay. Well, we'll miss her if she doesn't make it. And, but we do have her her producee. She's the producer. He's the producee. That would be one Brent Winters. Always happy to do a show with Brent on these Friday editions, and it is I think I said the twenty first. And that's kind of an important day for me personally anyway, long time ago. And, here we go off. We need to get mister Beaner to who's been having mucho technical challenges lately, but I don't think he will here, to go over the, list of folks that help us extend our reach and maybe reach out and touch you. Who knows? Anyway, Paul goes over that so we give them proper credit and and respect of helping us in our little project here, don't you, Paul?
[00:02:52] Unknown:
You do that. Yes. I do. And Yes. I do. And Yes. I do. Watching.
[00:02:56] Unknown:
Well, I live by the local Saporandi.
[00:02:59] Unknown:
Here's Jamie. Just a second. I'm gonna leave this part to him. I mean, update. So steps to report Rex for violating a court order. Okay. Obtain the video. David and Berg secure a copy of the live stream. Take care of that.
[00:03:13] Unknown:
Right. Okay. Rex got a court order. Go ahead. Alan, you were unmute. Alan, you were unmuted, and please stop sending the video feed to Zoom. You're burning up bandwidth. So we're not gonna read it.
[00:03:26] Unknown:
How are Alan's hands? That's what I wanna know. How are his hands doing? Oh, well, I don't know. He might be having He must be doing pretty good. He's got other stuff coming in here. So, anyway Yeah. Go ahead if you would, Paul.
[00:03:38] Unknown:
Alright. Let me technical
[00:03:40] Unknown:
trouser stuff here.
[00:03:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you know, I I live by the, the moniker in Moda Sapper, and I have never letting a computer see me sweat.
[00:03:53] Unknown:
So we'll Okay. Well, that's good. Don't don't fear those things.
[00:03:58] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. No. Because, a computer is like a rabid dog. If you show it that you're afraid of it, it will attack. So Well, I don't know. Just saying. Anyway I think that might be. Speaking of, getting on with the radio program, we are on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, from across the drink. He did not have a show yesterday, and I'm hoping that all is well with him. And, I'm just hoping that I'm just just saying that we should probably send prayers Paul's way, just in case.
[00:04:40] Unknown:
So, well, now you got me all concerned and stuff. Is he alright? Do you know? Did you get any feedback? Is this his wife? What's going on? Do you have any idea?
[00:04:49] Unknown:
I don't know. It really could be anything, so that's why I'm just saying. Keep Paul in your prayers always. Okay. Paul and family. Always. Yeah. I agree. Because, you know, he he has stresses just like the rest of us and every little bit helps.
[00:05:08] Unknown:
He's got more than the majority of us. Go ahead. He
[00:05:12] Unknown:
certainly is more than his share. We're on +1 0690 in Chicago, for the first hour alongside radiosoapbox.com. And we're also on eurofoak radio dot com. Thanks to pastor Eli James. We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. It was my little pet project. And WDRN productions and the net family of broadcast services brings us homenetwork.TV, freedom nation TV, go live TV, and stream life Tube. So our website is thematrixfacts.com. And, we are connected to a free conference call conference room with room for a thousand people. So if you wanna join us on the show, you're more than welcome. The link is on the website.
Okay. Connect via dial up home phone, smartphone, tablet, or computer. Mhmm. It's a cake.
[00:06:21] Unknown:
Okay. Well, we're waiting on them. Thank you. Thank you, mister Paul. Brent, you get your find your audio yet?
[00:06:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I think. There you are. Hey, buddy. How you doing? Alright.
[00:06:32] Unknown:
And we, of course, greet everybody that's out there. We don't know who we're talking to. No. Things expanded to where we're broadcast probably all over the world, maybe further. I don't know. So we just talk and and, maybe he will say something worthwhile. I had an idea though, Roger. I wanna run this by you. Okay. Okay. Now what's what's what they say in our national debt is now? Do you know? 37,000,000,000,000
[00:07:01] Unknown:
or thereabouts. Okay. Well, I got a solution, I think. Now you tell me That's the 11 that's the 11 of the Pharisees, though, but go ahead.
[00:07:09] Unknown:
Well okay. So they've been printing all this money since, 1913 Christmas Eve or whenever it was or '19 whenever they started printing all this money for not
[00:07:21] Unknown:
That was '33. We did have backing of gold for for notes, you know, up until March at thirty three, and that's when it all switched.
[00:07:34] Unknown:
Okay. And then we had backing,
[00:07:36] Unknown:
with silver up until my time. I remember Well, we had silver in the coinage, but the bills were now backed by our future labor collateralized. You know, this is very interesting, Brent. I know you know a lot about, monetary system, but this one, little factoid, most people I find don't know.
[00:07:54] Unknown:
Notes are loaned into circulation, but currency I mean,
[00:07:58] Unknown:
coinage is spent into circulation. There's no usury attached.
[00:08:03] Unknown:
Uh-huh. Okay. So but, the notes I remember had silver backing when I was a kid. Well, they did. They and Kennedy, that's what Kennedy was putting out was those $2 ones, I think. Yeah. Well, I had a bunch of bills, from the nineteen sixties, early nineteen sixties that were $1 bills that were silver certificates. Yeah. That's probably true. Okay. So anyway, but they've been printing all of this money and it not backed by nothing. So we're up to 37,000,000,000,000. Why don't why don't we just print $37,000,000,000,000 in bills and pay off our debts? Yeah.
I mean, isn't that what they've been doing to us? Of course. And they would turn around and say, we don't want all this worthless paper. And we'd say, well, that's what you loaned to the government. The government just saying we'll pay it back with the same worthless paper you gave us. So what are you complaining about? Now wouldn't that work?
[00:09:01] Unknown:
Oh, I'd rather tell them that the whole thing's fraudulent and just make it make them eat it all.
[00:09:09] Unknown:
Well, that's kinda what you're doing when you just print up a bunch of paper and give it to a minute.
[00:09:13] Unknown:
I guess, in a sense.
[00:09:16] Unknown:
Wow. That's what they're doing to us. Been doing it for decades. Yeah. I'd say just make out some notes and or they they've been loaning money to the US government. So US Government, if they want, can print it up and give it back to them. That's the end of that. I used to say when I was a political animal, people be talking back then, it was I think the debt was something like 4,000,000,000,000. That's what people said, which is so astronomical you can't fathom. But now it's 37,000,000,000,000. And I'd say, number one, I don't tell me who we owe this to, and I'll believe it. I don't believe it. If you're gonna tell me that we owe it to the Federal Reserve Bank or the Chinese, I don't care.
Let them come and get it. There's no crime to not being able to pay your debts. That's why we have bankruptcy. So, leave us alone. I don't wanna hear more about it unless you any of you that are complaining about it, people stand up and talk about it. I'd say any of you that are standing up and talking about it, if you can tell me who we and then none of them could ever tell me who we owed it to. So I said, let's forget it. I didn't
[00:10:24] Unknown:
sign off They like to say, well, we owe it to ourselves.
[00:10:30] Unknown:
Well, okay. Well, if that's true, of course, a contract with yourself is a legal impossibility a legal impossibility. So I guess that does away with that argument. So, yeah, let's just forget it. And, of course, they're using that to try to keep everybody in stitches and make them pay taxes, I guess. It is or something. Go and pay the taxes, and then, you're if you don't pay the taxes, you're part of the problem. Well, I don't know if that's true either. Matter of fact, I don't believe it is. I believe, though, it's the other way around. But that was just my idea, Rod.
I'm not the dumbest man in the world, and I'm not the smartest man in the world, but, I'm somewhere in between, but I think that, I can figure some of it out. I don't need bankers to figure it out for me or Not really. Economist. You know, they you know, they're the who was it? Harry Truman. I was saying this yesterday. He when he was president, he was said he was looking for a one armed economist with one with one arm. You remember that?
[00:11:36] Unknown:
No. But I like it. Is he related to a one armed bandit?
[00:11:41] Unknown:
Yeah. No. I need a that's that's that's a good guess. I need a one armed economist because every economist I have to advise me, I ask them a question. They say, well, on the one hand, if you do this, you get this. And on the other hand, if you do that, you get that. But they never tell me what the best thing is to do. I need one with one one arm and go hold out one hand, and then that's the only option we got. Well, of course, they were just guessing about things they didn't know what they were doing. I liked Harry. Don't get me wrong. Right. I read I read his book, but Harry had gone whole hog into the, left wing stuff.
As nice a guy as he was, he was sucked in. You know, the political boss in, Kansas City put him in office, made him president. His name was, po It started with a p? Yeah. Yeah. Poltergast or something or Pendergast. Pendergast.
[00:12:41] Unknown:
Okay.
[00:12:42] Unknown:
Oh, Pendergast. And he had an office out there where the Missouri River met up with, what was that other river there? It come down from the South. I forget, but it's two big rivers. Oh, shucks. It's not coming to me. But, anyway, it's, they call it the bottoms because it was in the bottoms. You know? Right. And bottoms was where he had his office, and the bottoms wasn't in Kansas City proper. It was kinda off the side, but little two little two story building there. It didn't amount to much. And from that two story building, he ruled Kansas City and a whole lot of other things that people didn't know about. And he, of course, Harry wanted to be president earlier than he was, really able to do it.
And, Pendergast said, no, Harry. You're not ready. Pendergast understood politics even though I don't know he'd ever been in political office, but he had it wired from the top to the bottom. And he said, when you're ready to be president, I'll let you know. It was the Kansas River and the Missouri. That's what it was. A little place where we come together. River.
[00:13:57] Unknown:
The Kaw, K A W. The Kaw Oh, okay. Well W. The East Bottoms, the West Bottoms. Yeah.
[00:14:07] Unknown:
We have two cities. Right. But the West East. Yeah. That's I I that that's I you hit hit the nail with your head. That go ahead.
[00:14:17] Unknown:
You Oh. We have cities. Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. And, their downtowns are just right across the state lines from each other.
[00:14:32] Unknown:
Yeah. And the bottoms were on the Kansas or on the Kansas side, if I remember. Right? I've seen them. But,
[00:14:40] Unknown:
the fender. Call the bottom I'm from Kansas City. What we call the bottoms are on the Missouri side. You have the East bottoms and you have the West bottoms. But the even the West bottoms are on the Missouri I see.
[00:14:55] Unknown:
I yield. Oh, both of them you're saying. Oh, okay. Well, there we get it straight from the from the inhabitant of Kansas City, but Pendergast was, absolute emperor in Kansas City. He controlled all the liquor, illegal liquor, all the all the hookers, the biggest thing probably, and all the politician, the police forces, and he's the one that the, Harry started in politics in independence, which is not a suburb, kind of, but it's out there. And Harry got in the county office, and then eventually, he became
[00:15:33] Unknown:
a United States Senator and vice president and president. I went gas. Pardon? Harry. That was Harry Truman. Did I say the wrong thing? No. No. I was just relating. I thought you were talking about Pendergast, and you said all that. I thought it was Harry. Go ahead. Glad you I'm glad you yeah. Because I may have misspoke.
[00:15:51] Unknown:
But, Harry Harry became president. And when Pendergast passed away, Harry was in house. And he traveled back to Kansas City and attended the funeral. And we don't know for sure, but that may have been the reason he lost the election the next time around because because he was heavily criticized. Everybody knew Pendergast was a mobster. And and when he said to the press, and when they criticized him, he said, Pendergast was my friend, his family. His family needs friends around when when, when their father and husband passed away, and I'm going to the funeral. He wasn't gonna let politics get in the way. Well, that that was a good side of Harry Truman. Yeah. That's an interesting side.
I gotta stop away for just a second, Brent. So I'll be back in just a second. I'll go talk to my landlord lord here. Okay. But he also, of course, was good friends with a when he got out of out of the army in World War one, came home. He went into business with, a Jewish fellow. I forget his name. And they started a Heberdasher store. I figured the Jewish fellow had the money, and Harry was supposed to run the thing. Well, as it turned out, and I don't know all the details, but the business went under, and Harry went under with it. Harry tried a lot of things. See, Bess Bess was, from over independence, and, of course, he wasn't. She lived outside of town. Her family had farmal.
Nobody would affirm it. Nobody in the family would farm it. So Harry went to farming it early on. And somebody asked him after he got in the White House, said, how does a man like you never been educated formally? Oh, you got out of high school, but you never been educated otherwise. How is it that you get to be president of The United States? And he said, well, if you'd spent as many hours staring at the north end of a southbound mule, you would understand. But he attributes that for all of his deep thought staring at the north end or the south end of a northbound mule.
It'd be the same thing, I guess. When you turn around to the end of the field, it's the other way around. Or if you're in east, west throughs, it'd be east and west. But it when you're staring at that part of the mule, you get you have time to think about things, and you're staring for hours and hours and hours. And, of course, you're smelling whatever comes out of the south end of the northbound mule too, which periodically will occur. That was Harry Truman. Well, I'm, I'm aware that the world is falling apart. Europe is falling apart. As we watch, They're going down.
They won't let go of their stupidity. Those in America that are of the same persuasion will not let go of their stupidity. Electricity in Germany is in the neighborhood of four times higher than it is in The United States because we have a not we have not yet gone whole hog into, wind power and solar power like they have in Germany. So our economy is still up. I hope we see the light to the stupidity of not using the resources that we have to make life decent and affordable and prosperous. And by the way, the coal is not dirty to burn anymore because the scrubbers that developed, scrub the dirt out of the smoke now.
We call them scrubbers. They aren't really scrubbers. All it amounts to is little spraying of mist into the smokestack with certain chemicals in it plus water to drive the the dirt out of the smoke before it gets out into the atmosphere. But then on the other hand, when we did have smoke in the atmosphere, I don't hurt us any. Matter of fact, we were more healthy then than we are now for a lot of reasons. You know, there's something to be said for allowing a man to, pursue his ambitions and see reward for his labor. There's something to be said about the health that it produces in the human body, and there's something to be said about the sicknesses that are produced in the human body when a man has nothing but toil and moil for nothing. Matter of fact, the Bible emphasized with the words it uses that eve the evil one, the evil empire work on discouragement.
They want men discouraged so that they will die young and not give them any trouble. And the way to do that is to have them toil and moil, and those are the kinds of word that the Bible uses, toil and moil without reward. As a matter of fact, the word toil toil means to labor without reward. That's what it fundamentally means. And we we with the slavery of income taxation like the Israelites in Egypt are increasingly toiling in his work without hope. Increasingly, that's what's happening. Oh, there are a few to get on top of it, but that's all a matter of usury in most cases.
Or that using of usury or the influence of it somewhere in the mix. Roger, are you back? I'm back. Oh, well, Roger, I'm wondering what it is you've been talking about all week because I'm sure that whatever you've been talking about all week is what's on people's minds.
[00:22:08] Unknown:
Well, we're talking about some of the things going on with the events of this week. They haven't been, you know, overly dramatic. Some of them, of course, are the Tesla backlash is incredible. And some of the you of the swatting should have been going on. I'm sure you are. Right? Just like woah. With the what? Swaddings. No. Well, there's a whole it's been going on for a while. They did it to Marjorie Taylor Greene twelve times, and they finally caught the guys in DC. But what they do is they go in to use sophisticated spoofing of numbers and whatnot, and they call in emergency situations to local police departments of this latest SWAT swatting has been over a number of people.
And one of the common denominators, it seems, is that everyone was very critical about, Ukraine. But they've hit, all the Infowars people, I think, and others that aren't associated with that all over the country, actually. And they just call in this report and say, well, Brent has just killed Sue, and he's working on killing all his grandchildren. And so, obviously, the cops get this report. They come out there. They don't know any different. And they come out there full bore, and and and and it it, affords really confrontations that, where the police are confronting the people they're supposed to be protecting, you know, and and and vice versa. And none of them have come to a hair trigger situation yet, but it's been real close.
And, there's been a number of those, and they have already, I think, like, I guess, the Tesla people, they've caught a few of those at. They're already talking twenty year minimum and, prison terms and terrorist charges. And if they can catch these other guys, which I have a feeling is probably coming out of England through a v VPN in Ukraine, but but I don't have any proof of that. But, anyway, that's one of the main things been going on. Got a lot of people's attention this week. The, of course, yesterday, mister Trump, got rid of the Department of Education, which is a bold and welcome move from many on both sides of the aisle.
You know that we are the forty fifth lowest in the world in our quality of our education for our students. Uh-huh. And yet we spend more on it through this National Association of Education than any other country in the world. So that got, kinda tipped back over, and we talked a little bit about that, although that just happened yesterday in the afternoon. Mhmm. So, that that kind of stuff, really. Mhmm. We,
[00:25:08] Unknown:
what's driving anonymous anonymous calls. People are calling in. Right? Yes. That is a Yes. I well, I've been subject to that. I know what that is. Swatting is what they call it now. They weren't calling it that when I was subject to it fifteen years ago, but I've been subject to it. My family has been subject to it. Yep. Subjected to it. No. It's ugly. Of course, it's ugly. But that's what the evil empire does. They want to destroy everything, everybody, and they're clever. They're evil, and they're dirty. They're rotten. They're low. You notice that we don't do that to the other side. No. No. But they do that to us. You better be ready. This is war. And if you don't know the lay of the land, then you can really get hurt. Go ahead, Robert. They they've they've declared that terrorism now.
[00:25:54] Unknown:
So anybody that does get caught gets, as we go forward here, they may they may get caught. We'll see. Get slapped with a terrorism charge on top of twenty year minimum, I think.
[00:26:06] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:26:07] Unknown:
So at least they're setting up things to, do right. I'd like to thank Pam Bondi is getting her feet on the ground a little bit more. Some people think she's in way over her head. We'll see. And, you know, all in all, it's just, well, it looks like they're starting their revolution. And with this swatting thing, it looks like that's the advanced team, and we'll see where the rest of it comes and goes. Mhmm. Well,
[00:26:38] Unknown:
Pam Bond is on in over her head, and there's no way it can be other any other way. Right. Anybody anybody put in that position
[00:26:47] Unknown:
is over their head. I would agree with that. Yeah. Boy, would you love to have seen Matt Gates in there, though? You can understand why they didn't want him in that position. What happened? Why is that? I didn't watch. Matt Gaetz, he's the little he was a congressman last term from, actually, from the adjacent from where I'm from. He's over in the western part of the Florida Panhandle.
[00:27:10] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:27:11] Unknown:
Destined for Walton in Pensacola. Comes from I don't know how his family made their wealth, but evidently, he comes from a wealthy family somewhat. And he's a real firecracker in congress. You know? And they, floated him for attorney general. And, boy, I I the the bad guys almost jumped out of their pants. Uh-huh. And they've set him up with some kind of one of these into, Israeli indiscretion, false flag kind of thing. So there's some kind of a blight on him with an underage girl or something. It appears to be through a Jewish tax collector. They in Florida, they have tax collectors at every county. And one of this guy that was the county, tax collector was a Jew, and this whole thing came out of that. I just don't know all the details, but they blinded him. Let's just say that.
And, and the reason is because they don't want his ass in that position.
[00:28:10] Unknown:
Well, you know, it's axiomatic. Let's just be upfront with the information. To be United States' Attorney is, a tool is to be a tool of whoever puts you in that position to crush their political opponents. That's what it is. Yeah. I have never seen it be anything else. Yeah. And to do the political will, go after the people that will make the man in office, the president in this case, more more popular. That's what it is. And that that becomes very dangerous, of course. And, people like, oh, these two two governors, bang bang from Illinois. I just went to prison. Oh, George Ryan Mhmm. And, Rob Blagojevich.
[00:28:59] Unknown:
And the one that's up there now needs to go for twice the length.
[00:29:04] Unknown:
Yes. And then the Pritzker. Yeah. And whether or not they'll get at him, I don't know. He's coming off like he's a tough man. He certainly doesn't look like a tough man. He's coming off that way and no class at all. But I think he's worth, He's got hutspah. He's got hutspah. Yeah. He's worth billions of dollars, you know, banking family. They what? No. They they own the Hilton hotel chain, I believe. Oh, that too, probably. I don't know. Yeah. Probably, that's it. I I don't know. I just know he's got a lot of money. Okay. I didn't know that, Roger. Well, that explains that. In other words, you just buy your way in the office. Sure. Which is easy to do if you got got the money. Most people don't. But if you ever get in, get people behind you and you can get the money, the money will keep coming. They'll keep you there, you know,
[00:29:50] Unknown:
pretty much. Oh. Yeah. Who's the guy that's he's in the house. He's been real controversial lately. Trump has even said he's gonna primary him, and he wants to run for a Mitch McConnell seat as the senate. I I Oh, he's the congressman that's so vocal. Oh oh, man. They they're all over him. Yeah. He's the only one that won't take Israeli army and doesn't Mafi. Mafi. Thank you. Doesn't have, an Israeli he had Mossad handler in his office and all that kind of stuff. So but he has beaten them four times in a row, and got four I think they spent four times as much money as he did, and he beat them every time.
So, so the question is now is he gonna stay in that position and ride that for a fifth time, or is he gonna go ahead and roll the dice big time and go, after the senate seat? We'll see. But they're all over him, of course.
[00:30:48] Unknown:
I like that. What is his latest like what he has said, which is you must go through congress to declare war, president Trump.
[00:30:58] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. That's part of it with this all this stuff. And, anyway, he's had a little bit of a high profile lately. He's a real good guy. I think they showed us he had Yeah. The pussy. Said something about he was doing an interview with Tucker Carlson, said somebody's Christmas card. And I I think he had all of his family there with instruments, and then he did another shot, I think, where they all had AR fifteens or something. Yeah. Anyway, he's a pretty good guy. Seems to be.
[00:31:34] Unknown:
Well, you know, just to put him on the map for people, this guy, I think he's from the adjacent to the Tug River. It's right up in there somewhere, but the Tug River is the river between, if I remember right, Kentucky and West Virginia. And that is the location of the
[00:32:01] Unknown:
and Hatfield feud. Oh, the the Hatfields and the McCoys?
[00:32:05] Unknown:
Yeah. And one of them one of the family was on the West Virginia side, see, and the other family was on the Kentucky side of the tug.
[00:32:14] Unknown:
Oh, he's right up in there. Maybe he's away. Oh, he's not right there, but he's close by. He made a comment about that, and he was talking about the Middle East. He said, well, we have these little skirmishers, and they last for a couple hundred years. These guys have been doing it for thousands.
[00:32:30] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Man, you know, people from from that area down the Ohio Valley, clear down the Mississippi, and because people just follow the river as they came west. You know? They would go in the church on Sunday morning all over that area, and they'd bring in their rifles, their long guns, and one family had sat on one side of the little church house. The other family had sat on the other side, and they'd put their rifles, lean them up against the pews in the aisle No. In case anybody got too mauled or threatened. And that was part of the culture.
And I didn't realize, of course, I didn't grow up in that long ago where they did that kind of stuff. But, you know, families do carry grudges. But, if you read the book, this was what the book that, Sam Clemens said was his best book. Not Tom Sawyer. That was a good book. Huckleberry Finn, Puddendalehead Wilson, all those books. But he wrote a book called Life on the Mississippi.
[00:33:37] Unknown:
Yes.
[00:33:38] Unknown:
And he had long narratives in there of huge of the families that lived up and down the river and how intense and awful and bloody it was and how they did go to church together and do those things. But he he's talking about a culture that came from the old country that had to do with what they called in the Hatfields and the McCoys. This is a part of their culture. Two, the blood feud. The blood feud is something that came with them to the new world, and it's, a way of enforcing, men's responsibilities in a world where there are no police forces. And it had been part of the culture for centuries, and it had rules. It wasn't just haphazard, but by the time they got to America, the rules started to disintegrate and it became less ordered and less fair. That's the way to say it, I suppose.
You know, dueling as that was part of that culture too that came to America from the old country. Dueling had precise rules. You just didn't go at it without without having people standing by to make sure you didn't follow the rules because the idea was, well, that to be a fair fight, we don't know what truth is until the fight is fair. And so men did those kind of things. But, of course, with the advent and that was called battle by trial, by the way. Our common law called that battle by trial. No. I'm sorry. I got it backwards so you'd remember to hope. Trial by battle.
That was called trial by battle. And increasingly over the centuries, men moved to the first or the second option, which was, battle by trial before the jury. But all the rules remained the same.
[00:35:36] Unknown:
You had to serve no opponent party. That goes all the way back to the jousters and stuff, doesn't it, from the future? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Of oriental.
[00:35:44] Unknown:
Yeah. And that was one of the you could choose your weapons, choose your method. Jousting was such a big sport. Jousting was such a big sport in the old country. I was reading about jousting during the days. Well, I see that was during the days of, oh, King John and Richard. You know, during the days of Magna Carta Uh-huh. They were they were civil war. I mean, that was in the throes of the hot part of the war when Magna Carta was signed or not signed, but sealed. People couldn't write back then, so nobody signed it, but it was it was sealed.
And right in the midst of this awful bloody war, a jousting contest occurred in the center of England, and they shut down the whole blasted war so everybody could come and watch the jousting contest. Wow. I mean, that was bigger than football and basketball
[00:36:39] Unknown:
and all that. That was the sporting event of all sporting events, and I guess. That was what the goal of the country. Go ahead, Roger. I guess having a horse running at that speed with that long thing and hitting the other guy in the chest, I guess.
[00:36:52] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, it but it's very strict rules. You know, they had a barrier, a a partition between them so they could end each other. And they had had to, they had to both commence their charge at the same time. Yeah. And it was it was a skill. A guy could get killed, get killed. As a matter of fact, of course, they were armored so heavily that usually it was more a matter of getting knocked off your horse. But people, once in a while, get killed, but that those contests were just sporting events as dangerous as they were. But if you had a dispute with somebody about land, and that was the only wealth there was, was land, and that's what the disputes were always about, you could you could have, trial by battle to decide who who, prevailed and had rights to the land and the prophets they're from.
But that got pretty And the fair maiden that was involved usually. Oh, yeah. And I don't know all those real I wish it's called chivalry, and that was a part of the system. At at bottom, it was all about land, all about the differences between men and women, and how men are supposed to treat women. Yeah. That maybe you know something about that, Roger, that you could then lighten us. I don't know. I just remember. And when I watched all the movies, they'd always take the camera and shoot it up at the female there and the the daughter of the gang or whoever it was. Yeah. Well, there's always a woman involved. Yeah. Just like us, we're always fighting over women. Yep. It's true. Yeah. What's the use? What's the use of anything if there's not a woman involved? I think most men would understand that. My father told me all the time I was growing up, he said nothing, but nothing ever happens in the world.
But there's not a woman behind it, and he would so he would cite the battle of Troy the Battle of Troy. Yeah. Remember the woman behind the battle of Troy? Of course. Yes. Helen Helen of Troy. Right? Helen. Yeah. Helen. That that that battle occurred because it was all about a woman and, and and it came down to the disrespect. See, that's chivalry. Disrespect of the position of the woman, and they were willing to kill and fight over it. Well, that's the way God made the whole system. We're not supposed to show disrespect for women, But in America, we've made that, our chief ambition
[00:39:23] Unknown:
is to show disrespect. How about in the animal world with, either those big rams, mountain ram, like, gull sheep or those bighorn sheep or the moose, and they get the two males and they just square off and you can hear those, those horns clash for miles.
[00:39:40] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Yeah. No question. They're fighting over the girls, I suppose, but we've taken it to another level with this chivalry thing, and it's it's a matter of we were my brother and I were talking about, the tribes of Israel and, the foreigners when they went into the land. One of them, one of the boys, one of the big shots of this foreign country, seduced, his daughter. That's the tribe of Benjamin. Was it? I don't remember which tribe it was. And so, that made her brothers mad. And, they has to plot to kill everybody in the whole blasted, city that was there.
And they told him and this guy came, the father to the boy that seduced the girl came to, Jacob. Yeah. It was Jacob. And, now I'm getting the story together, and Jacob, the for the nation of Israel, the 12 tribes, and said, look. Here's what happened. My boy's in love with your girl, and he seduced her. Chances are she's pregnant. So my suggestion is they get married. And, that's a good suggestion, by the way. Matter of fact, that's the law of God. And when that happens, just you're supposed to marry the girl. No questions. That's you get her pregnant, you're responsible, you marry her. And you're responsible for the child, and that ends the matter. That's the law of God, from the law from the Bible, from the law of Moses.
Oh, we, of course, shotgun wedding. Well known have been well known event in America. Well, that's right. Marry the girl. Well, that's what this man did. He came and said, well, the only thing to do here, it happened. We can't unring the bell. What's done is done. Well, we just need to get married. And so they decided to do that, but, the her birth the brother's a girl wanted revenge. And that's that's against the law of God in that case. They had done everything properly given the circumstances. So they said, well, okay. You guys, we'll just intermarry with you and we'll all be friends, but you gotta get circum is first.
You gotta be like us. They said, look. We like your idea. We like your God. So, yeah, we'll get circumcised. That's the sign of the covenant with your God, and and everything will be hunky dory, and we'll our two nations will mix our blood, and we'll be friends. And I'm not saying that was right, but they were being they were trying to get along. So they submitted the circumcision, and when the when they thought that they were sore enough and they couldn't fight, they attacked them and slaughtered them, the Israelis. Or no. Not the Israelis. That's different. The Israelite. The Israelites.
Israelites are not Israelis and vice versa. That's,
[00:42:37] Unknown:
one like for you to think so, though. Yeah. That's a fraud. But but
[00:42:42] Unknown:
that's what happened. And they they, that was the wrong thing to do, but it's all about we're going to defend the honor of our sister. Well, too late. God's law says no. At this point, what you're supposed to do is this, and they weren't willing to go. Supposed to defend her own honor? Well, she's got she has a responsibility
[00:43:01] Unknown:
in it. Yes. She does.
[00:43:02] Unknown:
Yeah. By the way, the Bible says if she is being raped, she's to scream. And if she doesn't scream, she has no consent. Yep. Yeah. Well, that's what the law says, whether or not she liked it or not. That's not god said we gotta draw the line as a matter of evidence. If you, scream, then you got a case. But I noticed when, for example, when they went up when all, Supreme Court justice said he he grabbed some yell on the buttocks or something. I don't remember what it was. Something boys do, you know, at a when he was in college or something. Frat party. And she came yeah. Girls, if you're dumb enough to go to a frat party, that's what's gonna happen. Don't complain.
That's what frat you you don't know that? Don't be stooped. Come on. I think that's the reason some of them go there. Yeah. Yeah. On the other hand. So comes up twenty to thirty years later, whatever, and it's complaining. No. It's over. You you didn't scream. And then I had a guy write me. I didn't I was trying to get along with people. That was back when I was on the Internet and people were chatting, and they were saying, well, this one guy said, well, he was a teacher when I was in school. He said, well, I used to teach that area, and I know that he's in a he's in a privileged class. There are rich people, and he'll get away with it. And I so is she. That's why she was in the same college he was. She's in a rich class, and she'll she's living in that world. I'm not feeling sorry for her. Her dad had plenty of money to go after him if he did something he shouldn't have done. Of course, whether or not he grabbed her, who knows? I mean, the guys around who how could if she gets grabbed on the behind I mean, get real, girls, boys, and turn around and and act like nobody's you know, the boys are acting like they didn't do anything. On and on the madness goes. But Yeah. If you're gonna be in those places, girls, you're gonna get your buns grabbed. Don't don't complain about it. Just get out of there and don't go back. You don't want
[00:45:05] Unknown:
yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Joe, go ahead, buddy. I like your place, by the way. Joe sent me a picture of his recent snowstorm and, lovely pictures. I love that little rabbit, and, what a nice looking place, Joe.
[00:45:20] Unknown:
Thank you.
[00:45:23] Unknown:
Most of you've heard of an attorney by the name
[00:45:30] Unknown:
By what? Now you're clipping just a little bit. Joe, what was his name? So what's his name? Do you remember ever remember the
[00:45:38] Unknown:
Steven Jones.
[00:45:40] Unknown:
Didn't ring a bell with me necessarily. International
[00:45:43] Unknown:
thing. He he represented Timothy McVeigh.
[00:45:47] Unknown:
Oh, well, he was a trial lawyer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oklahoma.
[00:45:52] Unknown:
And he told me, this isn't hearsay. This is what he told me, that he represented a client client one time who had been charged with rape. And, while on the witness stand, the the girl who had allegedly been raped, he was questioning her and going through all the gory details of everything. What happened? He said, after all this ensued and
[00:46:25] Unknown:
was over with, what did
[00:46:31] Unknown:
you you did? Case closed. So that goes to the same room. Well, we I didn't clip.
[00:46:41] Unknown:
You clipped out. She may need to repeat that.
[00:46:46] Unknown:
Okay. The woman who had been allegedly raped was being questioned by Jones on the witness stand, and, he had her go through all the gory details of the alleged rape. And, he's
[00:47:17] Unknown:
Oh.
[00:47:18] Unknown:
Sure. So that goes that that ties right in with what you're saying, Brent.
[00:47:22] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure does. Yeah. And it's matter it all comes down to a matter of what is good evidence and what isn't. The Bible tells us what is acceptable evidence and what isn't. Our common law has observed centuries what is reliable and what isn't, and we have rules of evidence. And some evidence is and we'll get and the court should let it before the jury. Other evidence is not reliable and should not be let before the jury because it's more confusing than helpful in many cases. And rules are pretty pretty well attested. Well, all of life comes down to evidence.
Every move you may every thought you have has to do with evidence. Yeah. And it isn't like you've got to be taught about evidence and what it is. You you learn about it as you get older, but it is nice to read what other people have learned about it. Roger, you said something.
[00:48:18] Unknown:
No. I'm just sitting here thinking. I'm I do want to say something, though, about something I heard yesterday, but go ahead with finish up what you're talking about. Go ahead. No. Well, I was, a lot of times in the afternoon, especially we're been in our winter season here. So even though it looks like we're going into the spring, we've got sun in the morning lasting a little bit more in the afternoon, and then it'll still pop up with some thunderstorms. So I'll go out and eat some lunch or something, get a little nappy there and come home and lay down. I'll put, like, something on like Alex, you know, an hour of Alex or something and and listen to it. Doze off a little bit. And so I was doing that yesterday.
And, after the guy that posts these segments takes the spots out for one thing, and then he backs it up with another program. So it'll run right through from an hour of Alex onto another program. Oh, I'm in there dozing in and out, and it's a female. And, and I she said some interesting things, and and and I wanted to see what she was talking about. So I got up and came back in to back it up a little bit, and it was Candace Owens. Now you know who Candace Owens is, Brent? Yeah. She's a black reporter or something, ain't she? Yes. Very attractive black lady, and she's got a new, she's got a husband of new baby and all that and all that that she was on over there, Ben Shapiro's daily wire. And she started getting uppity about, about the tribe there. And they kicked her off, and they got this running feud going now.
So, anyway, she's listen. She's a sharp cookie. Okay? And so she's saying some stuff earlier on about the guy that I can't remember his name that founded the Mossad and something about his son and she was going into these stories. She's got a weird name. I can't remember it. Anyway, she leads on to a and she's bringing everything out of the Jewish newspapers, Herets and the other newspapers and all these is don't call me anti Semitic. This is from here. You know? And she shows you the source. Good move. Okay. And so she gets to the back of the store of this hour there. And I'm telling you this because some of you are gonna go wanna look this up and listen to it. Okay? And and, she was reading out of a magazine called Omni.
Omni magazine, which is published and printed in in Israel and in New York. And, the and it's mainly for the Orthodox Jew community. And there was an article in there on how this one guy that founded the Mossad double crossed both the Dulles brothers and the Rockefeller brothers and was incredibly influential in getting Israel voted on in the United Nations. Boy, now this is a story right here. Okay? And this is from this magazine. Alright? I I I may not have all the details right, but I think I'm pretty close. K? And you can go look it up. It was in probably can't go at candaceowens.com, probably yesterday's podcast.
Okay? But, so what happened was the Rockefellers were selling oil to Hitler during World War two. They're interested totally in money. They don't care about the war, and they go to the Dulles brothers who are brothers, of course, who started the CIA. And, they were very skilled attorneys at setting up dummy companies and hiding something like the Rockefellers selling oil to Hitler, and they did. Yeah. And so the problem they had was the Dulles brothers had a sister, and the sister married a Jewish professor. And the family got so much backlash for that that the husband, the new Jewish professor husband, committed suicide.
And the sister always blamed that on them. And so because she was the sister, she had access to go in and take photos or copies of all the shell companies they'd set up and how the money was being laundered back to the Rockefellers. And she and she went and gave that to the guy that was the Jewish guy that started the Mossad. And he went to both the Rockefellers and the Dulles brothers and co opted both of them with that and got the UN to vote Israel in on the petition in '48. Now that's a hell of a story right there, folks. When they double crossed both the Dulles brothers and the Rockefellers.
So please don't take my word for this. Go go look at it because that's a hell of a story right there. K? So just go to she she's got the magazine. She shows it to you on the screen, all that, And it would be probably yesterday's day before is Candace Owens. But is that not a story or what?
[00:53:46] Unknown:
Oh, man. That's what goes on, though, all day, every day behind the scenes that kind of intrigue, confusion, infighting.
[00:53:54] Unknown:
And all we and her point that led up to all that was that the Israelis were always bribing somebody Well, sure. To get with what they want. And she brought that out as the final example. And, boy, that was a hard hitting story to me yesterday.
[00:54:11] Unknown:
Oh, sure. I but I was talking yeah. Yeah. Was it yesterday? I were teaching the class on, Christian nationalism. And sometimes I I'm pretty good at rabbit trails if I'm relaxed enough, and I get on them. And we got to talking about it it comes back everything come back to a half a dozen fundamentals, just a half a dozen. And one of them is loyalty. Loyalty. The other one is trust, and those are two different things, by the way. And it not they're not even close to being the same thing, but they're important, both of them. But loyalty is indispensable to having any sort of decency in life.
And loyalty loyal violations of loyalty at common law are the violations that we should pay attention to today. There's two categories. There's well, treason is the violation, and there's grand treason and petty treason. Mhmm. Grand treason is is against the sovereign, whether it be the sovereign of creation as grand treason, disloyalty. And then there's treason against the earthly sovereign where you live. All of us, if we're Americans, we reside within the boundaries of a particular sovereign state of the union. The states have laws against treason, each of the states.
And in those cases, the, the penalty traditionally has been death. And, of course, treason against The United States is another sovereign that we're we're, connected to here in America. And the penalty there may be death also. Should say, like in, UMCJ U U uniform code at u m UCMJ. Yeah. Yeah. That's how you say it. And it the penalty would say, in most cases, all over the UCMJ, that the penalty is death or as a court martial may direct. So that's kinda the way the reason is. Yeah. Somebody gonna say something? Paul is.
[00:56:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Got about two minutes left before we drop out of, our, platforms. You gotta talk about commonlawyer.com.
[00:56:46] Unknown:
Alright. This is, oh, this is Brent Brent Allen Winters. I'm here with mister Roger Sales. I like the name Roger Sales Radio Ranch, and you can look up Roger too. But you can look me up at, www.commonlawyer.com, and you can find the links that will let you listen to us seven days a week, different platforms, different times. Church on Sunday, Winters Inn or, in church. In church is connected with the law school Winters Inn. You can take law school courses there, all the traditional courses or a lot of them. Evidence is a big one, by the way. We taught Evidence. That course lasted fifty some weeks.
And, of course, we have courses on, trust law, contract law, the sheriff at common law, the bill of rights, and we're right now teaching a class. We have one more session. You can join these classes. And if you don't join them when they're going on, all these classes are in the can. You can go watch them and listen to them. And when you do that in appreciation of a donation of some says there, we want to provide you with something. We don't wanna just take money. That doesn't make us feel nice. We wanna feel good too, so we provide books and the winterized translation of the Bible. A common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, the Hebrew, the Chaldean, the Greek, and, those are the original tongues, by the way. No. Anything else is less than the original tongues. People ask me, well well, what translate what what language did you translate it from? Well, the only the one it was written in or the ones it was written in, and you can do that. Well, we still have those. We have those manuscripts by the thousands.
These are evidences, by the way. That's what manuscripts are, and the Bible is the best evidence of what God said. You wanna know what God said? Well, we got the evidence of it. He's seen to putting it down and it passes all the rules of evidence, and you can take that course too. You can also get the x, comparative law of text, excellence of the common law, comparing and contrasting the law of the land with the law of the city on every continent and in every age, from the founding, the settling of the city of Babylon up till the present. Go to commonlawyer.com. Roger, give your website too. Well, they're,
[00:59:14] Unknown:
coming through to us through there is the matrixdocs.com, and we've got other folks that have done stuff on the side to help other students get through some of the complexities of this. And, so all that information is there thanks to one Paul Beener. Didn't used to be there like that. It is now. And, so, and we're right here waiting for you. I was, thinking as we're getting started, the Spanish word for wait is esparro.
[00:59:44] Unknown:
And so I think b o u s m Chicago. Thanks for joining us for the first hour, and radiosoapbox.com, thank you for being here as well.
[00:59:52] Unknown:
Ciao. Yep. Thank you. And so when you're taking wait in Spanish, you take a verb, your wait, and it's waiting, I n g, then it's always or endo. And I think here, it's Esperanto. And that means hope also, by the way, but that's waiting.
[01:00:10] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[01:00:12] Unknown:
So, let's see. What was I I was I was gonna tell you, you mentioned how important evidence is. I don't think I've ever told you about my IRS story, have I? I don't think I've ever told it to the audience, hardly. So I think you have. You wanna do that? Well, I can take a yeah. Yeah. So, I'm sitting there. I'm you know, I never had a tax problem till I met John and Glenn. And it wasn't very long after I met them. I had a pretty big one. I have to laugh about it. And so I was full of piss and vinegar, you know, at that stage, especially. And, so the I was very active. And, here here's an interesting thing. Here's a sideline, Brent.
So one of my students was they were a couple. She owned a blood testing lab, and he was a Canadian chiropractor. And they're just super folks. And she was, she was one of those gals that just didn't take no for never mind. You know? And, so she gets into a, a match with them, and she ends up suing suing Equifax for screwing up her credit. And so they do depositions. Right? And Yeah. So she's in a deposition with Equifax, which is there in Atlanta. And, and the first question was, does Roger Sales write your letters? And she gets she gets real indignant. She said, I'll have you know. I write my own letters. Thank you very much.
So Yeah. Anyway, that was the kind of ripples I'd made in the pond there. So it wasn't very long till the individuals representing Satan got on me with a summons for books and records. I love Oh. Oh, I'm Philippine vinegar enough to fight them. You know? And so, I do up what everybody said was a real good job of writing a brief and all that. And, I had a couple folks helping me, of course. And so I go to, turn that in, and they schedule, I'll be darned if they don't schedule a hearing. And then I had forgotten to serve The US Tax Guy, I think, in DC. I'd forgotten a certificate of service in one of them. And so they came in and tried to, get it knocked off of the docket there. And, and I went to the Cobb County Law Library, came up with a case, and said that now this that's all form and no substance, especially with somebody like me, a pro per. So, they went ahead and left it. It's already been scheduled. We're gonna have it. Well, you you probably know, but, whenever they're gonna try a tax hearing or trial, they bring in a tax specialist from the Department of Treasury. It didn't from DOJ.
And so they brought this little old Jew guy in and, all about five foot four and, you know, the all the typical characteristics. And the IRS gal is a real cute little black gal. Her and I probably got along pretty good, you know, except I got her on the stand for four and a half hours, and never I could not get any evidence in because I just didn't know all that procedure. So I'm telling y'all for this point that there's an there there there's an outlet for you to learn about evidence right there, Brent Winters. Well, Winters Inn, because I didn't know anything about it. And therefore, I got it I I'm literally had her on the stand for four and a half hours.
Boy, she didn't like me at all. Okay? And, I never got one piece of evidence in, but it was in that period of time, unfortunately, right after that, that I really realized what's going on over there with, with these, regulations. I think Ralph Winterout was on the same track I was on. We didn't coordinate on this at all. We both kinda stumbled into it, ourselves. And you know you know about regulations, Brent. You got statements of policy. You got interpretive. You got substantive. Substantive, of course, the only ones with general applicability. The other two only apply internally.
Well, the what happened was I started going back and and doing some my friend was hammering this regulation and administrative state into my head at the same time. And so I was trying to research that, and I stumbled on the fact that those interpretive regulations, which only apply to the interagency, were the only in that was the regulation they were trying to enforce on me with statues for eviction records. And I traced it back, internal revenue code of 1954. You can't get further back than that, by the way, and in tracing regulations.
And, came to the opinion it was an interpretive regulation, but I had already had the hearing, so I couldn't appeal it and introduce it as new evidence. And it was very frustrating to me, but I have come to conclude that all those IRS regulations, I'll bet you they have never published a substantive information with notice of comment. Uh-huh. I'll bet you a whole bunch of money that they never have, and they're running that whole scam on interpretive regulations just like the CDC was running the mass scam during COVID.
[01:05:54] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[01:05:55] Unknown:
So I don't know. I have a question. IRS if you get an IRS case, Brent Uh-huh. Check that on whatever they're coming after you with on the regulation, and you just see if that didn't interpret it. Because I would be willing to bet everything I own that it is. Sherry, what what's your in info? Now Sherry used to work for the individuals representing Satan, didn't you, sweetie?
[01:06:17] Unknown:
Yes. But it's been a long time ago. I've recovered, but more importantly, learned more about, statutes, codes, and regulations since then. And so in the regulation is where the penalty is defined. Now the statute might put forth, hey. You can't do this. You can't do that. But the regulation is what controls the penalty. Is that not correct, Brent? The right. The regulation controls the penalty.
[01:06:53] Unknown:
So I we understand what you're saying. I've never heard it put that way before, so my mind is kinda working on what you were saying, Sherry. So go because I look at, like, 1.1 dash one a. They're 26, and it doesn't it lays out the jurisdictional reach, but there's no penalty there. I guess that's further back. But that's where my mind was going. That's why it wasn't responsive. So go ahead. That's interesting, though.
[01:07:25] Unknown:
Right. The penalty resides within the regulation. And if there is no penalty within the regulation, who cares if you follow the statute or not? And I would like you to speak to that, Brent. I yield.
[01:07:43] Unknown:
Well, I like to say, or I have told people, they'd say, well, what does the law what is the tax law? And I say, well, the tax law is whatever the IRS says it is. Don't be looking at the books. That won't make any difference. And then then when you think I'm kidding, then when you get to court I don't. I'm laughing because it's true. It's true. Yeah. Then when you get to court and they try to get after you, then the US attorney will argue any penalty they wanna argue. And they if the judge doesn't think it's lawful, he'll stay so. But if the judge doesn't know any better or doesn't doesn't care, he'll he'll grant it. I was in court once, and, the US attorney said, about the, the fellow that was on trial said, the judge will make a motion that all of his income be forfeited for the rest of his life.
Now I know you're probably saying, Brent, I don't believe you. No. That's exactly what happened. All of his income forfeited to the federal government for the rest of his life over it was just a minor minor accusation. But they hated him so much. That, of course, the judge in that case wisely said, no. I'm not gonna do that. But see, they've got confidence to ask for such ridiculous stupid things, and sometimes they get it. That's what's been going on. Hutzpah.
[01:09:11] Unknown:
It's not confidence. It's hutzpah.
[01:09:14] Unknown:
And let and that the Roger probably said it right. That's best defined, to use an example of what he just said of, a young man or woman murdering both of his parents Yes. And then going into court and begging for mercy because he's an orphan. Yeah. Said, no. I couldn't have killed my parents. I was adopted. Yeah. All that kind of stuff. In other words, they're just willing to do anything. Oh, yeah. And no shame. No shame at all. Yesterday in watching that Candace Owens thing,
[01:09:47] Unknown:
she had a guy up there that was over the Wikipedia operation when it first opened in a room full of people. I don't know how many it was. They panned the room. There's a lot in there. And these were all these Jewish kids that they were gonna put over watching different parts of Wikipedia to make sure it's edited correctly.
[01:10:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. It's real good. Yeah. I'll tell you. He's like, wait.
[01:10:16] Unknown:
You didn't answer the question. And, the penal code my god. Penalty. And
[01:10:23] Unknown:
so he's trying to get there, Sherry.
[01:10:26] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Oh, I know. Long way around the bush. I appreciate your stories, Brent. Are you Yeah.
[01:10:34] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you go ahead. I don't you I wanna know listen. You're the one that was there. Yeah. You're the one that brought it up with your evidence, Sherry.
[01:10:44] Unknown:
Yeah. Because, well, I don't think I've ever heard that before. That's why I was curious.
[01:10:50] Unknown:
Okay. Well, isn't there a difference in the regulations, Roger? What regulations apply to whom?
[01:10:58] Unknown:
Correct? Well, there's a whole there's a whole bunch of differences in the regulations because that's the up until this last term of the Supreme Court, that was that Chevron, deal which allowed them to interpret the the the ruling back in, I think, the seventies, Brent, was that the regulatory agency are the experts, and they can change the interpretation of that statute any way they want. They're the enforcement arm. The the agencies Yeah. See, there weren't agencies before Roosevelt because there weren't serves. We didn't have public policy. We had law.
After that and by the way, I I came on this, Brent, while thinking, before the, Jeff Rentz appearances. The administrative start was the bankruptcy of '33. Because it says in black at black the bankruptcies of 1933 was the start of the administrative state. There weren't agencies before that. We were under the constitution and God. As they switched it, they started having regulations. And the first ones were issued by the secretary of the treasury. It says it right there in blacks.
[01:12:18] Unknown:
Well, they first had And the thing is
[01:12:21] Unknown:
The implementing regulations Hold on. Sherry, hold on just a second. Let me finish, please. Before that, there was no secretary of the treasury. There was a treasurer of The United States, and there were no regulations. So those regulations entered at that time are ground zero for the administrative state. It's all grown from there. Now, Sharon.
[01:12:46] Unknown:
And and may I just say they're called implementing regulations. What regulation implements the statute? And is that statute at large? And the penalty Well okay. Well, hold on a sec. Where the penal code is derived from, your punishment.
[01:13:08] Unknown:
Okay. Well, then there's, there's there's some further, discovery that needs to be named on your thinking here was are those implementing penalty regulations. Did those are those substantive regulations? Because they have to be substantive to have general applicability. So if they're laying out some sort of potential penalty there, does that implementing regulation have to be notice and comment? But to make it all set say yes. That's due process. I yield. But I could all I want all those three days. Okay. I'm I'm anxious to hear what Brent has to say, and he's anxious to tell us. Go ahead, Brent.
[01:13:48] Unknown:
Well, this is my conclusion, and there's a technical term for all of what she just said. It's not because she she was saying what is what people hold in government. It's not that she's responsible for doing making a test, but the technical term is gobbledygook. It's meaningless. No. Listen. If you can't say, here's the standard, that's it. The rest of it is trash, double speak speak mirrors, and it is meaningless. It is not law implementing regulations, regulations. Yep. Law comes first. That is hogwash.
[01:14:27] Unknown:
It is.
[01:14:28] Unknown:
Because either it's this or it's that. Is there a law? That's why I say, my experience, whatever they say is law is law, and that's the way they want it. And that's why all this gobbledygook You got it. Is part of the culture.
[01:14:41] Unknown:
You know, if my not talking about you. Hold on a second, Julia. My supposition is right here on these regulations, Brent. Yeah. What's that? Almost everybody that's ever been charged or or or harmed by and have all been harmed under the auspices of regulations that are only intended for the Internal Revenue Service. Julie, what have you, talk about travesty. Julie, what have you got to add here?
[01:15:09] Unknown:
Well, just that, I do believe that the republic is being restored. I'm not sure if you're aware that Trump just changed the name of Washington DC to Washington DA.
[01:15:22] Unknown:
No. I hadn't heard that.
[01:15:24] Unknown:
So it's District Of America now. He changed the Gulf Of Mexico to the Gulf Of America. So I think that now he Right. Are going through a chapter 11 reorganization. And I do believe that's also why he's, getting rid of the federal government a lot and getting rid of these agencies. They're not needed anymore. They'll be replaced by AI. And then with just all of the spending Mhmm. At certain agencies, those can be abolished, and that stuff should be done down at the state level anyway. But Right. I thought that was interesting. So now we're District Of America.
[01:15:58] Unknown:
I have not heard that, Julie. Julie lives right outside of DC in Virginia there, Brent, one of our newer students. And, right, she's seven houses down from Amy Cohen and Barrett. How about that? I I'm trying to get her to go down there and pick it and protest a little bit.
[01:16:15] Unknown:
I've already done that. Oh, man.
[01:16:18] Unknown:
Well, that's all that all that all those exec or regulations, all these fancy words again that are meaningless. What are they? Well, they're just executive orders. They're not orders to me. They're orders to the people who work for government. That's what executive orders are. The executive's orders to those working under him, whether it be the chief of staff, the military forces, the FBI, see all the people. A couple million people work on maybe three, they say now. That's how fast it's grown. Yeah. You know, when, war between the northern and the southern peers of the states began, there were about about 600, if I remember right.
600 federal employees. Is that right? No. No. 6,000.
[01:17:05] Unknown:
Yeah. 6,000.
[01:17:06] Unknown:
Right. 6,000. At the end of that war, four years later, there were about 60,000, and it's been growing ever since. And when I ran for office back, thirty some years ago, they tried it. They'd all we're gonna shut the government down. That was, I remember, 800,000 federal employees. And now they're saying there's three three million.
[01:17:29] Unknown:
Oh, for goodness. Beyond
[01:17:30] Unknown:
the growth of the population. Yeah. And executive orders are to them, not to me. Correct. That's called regulations,
[01:17:39] Unknown:
Telling them how to handle the law. Roger, go ahead. You wanna say something? Well, I was just gonna say this is the deep state or these hold on, Joan. The deep state or all these agencies to me, they've grown up since 1933. Remember, they had, what was it, thirteen years of turmoil because they didn't have a guidebook. And that was in 1946 after w w two, big mistake too, that they passed the title five five five two, the Administrative Procedures Act, which is their guidebook. But this is their deep state you're talking about is the unelected bureaucrats. They're unelected. They're appointed, and they have the power.
It's been called back a bit recently. Thank goodness. Where they can take any legislation properly passed by the house, the senate, and, the president signs it, goes through the whole chain, filters down to them, and they get to reinterpret that because they're supposedly the experts, and that applies as public policy now to the serfs. It's not law. It's public policy. And thank god this last supreme court, last session had got this big Chevron deference and addressed, I think, in at least two or three cases, Brent, the overreach of the administrative state and bringing them back into line. As I said earlier, up to that point from the seventies, the idea from the court had given them was that they're the experts, they're the administrative agency over the subject matter, and they get free will to do that statute any way they wanted.
Now that's been cut back. And I would remind you the two cases, I think, that brought this forward last term, Brent, you'll remember it. We talked about it. At the time, it's really important, seems like to me, was the SEC was appointing their own administrative judges in their administrative courts. People go through administrative appeals. But the more egregious one I guess that's probably the most because of what's at stake. But the fishing boat, maybe I just relate to it more, Chris. But if you're a commercial fisherman, you had to have a a government appointee on your boat the whole time you were fishing out there to make sure you adhere to regulations.
That's bad enough. The other rub, the salt in the wound was they made you pay for it.
[01:20:17] Unknown:
So those two things brought what's going on? Right.
[01:20:20] Unknown:
Okay. Well, hold on. We had Jones sitting there waiting. So I but I just wanted to get off on that tangent. That's my view how the regulatory state is, and it's the deep state. This is where all the all the lifelong appointed bureaucrats for the bad guys are. I mean, I'd remind you, Brent, you probably don't know this, but in that William t McFadden book, 31 speeches of William t McFadden between '31 and '33. And in one of them, his statement is they control every office, every important office here in Washington. That that was almost a hundred years ago. Yeah. K. Now, Joan, what do you what do you have to add?
[01:21:02] Unknown:
Yeah. The executive orders are just for government employees.
[01:21:07] Unknown:
They're for cabinet level. Okay. The first
[01:21:13] Unknown:
okay. Go ahead. And then they and then whoever those executive orders are meant for, they enforce them against the people.
[01:21:23] Unknown:
Right? That's right. Executive orders are to to the ones under his command. That includes all the bureaucracies and all of the military. For example, as commander in chief, when he says bomb bomb these people that are drones that are ships, which he recently did in the Red Sea. Well, that was an executive order, an order from the executive to those that are that work for him and are under his control and authority. And so regulations are executive orders. You see, they use all these words, and people think, oh, that's something it's all hogwash. Bottom line, what does the constitution of The United States say? Pardon me. I'm not lecturing you, and I appreciate your question. I just get exercised over the stupidity, of of of what the government, the evil, what they do. But there are three branches of government, the executive, that's the president's in charge of that one, the legislative, congress is that one, and then the judicial, that's the Supreme Court of the United States, and the other courts that congress has for forms underneath.
Now the executive branch has no power to make law. The constitution of The United States article one begins by saying, upfront, all legislative power shall be in a congress of the United States. And it is. And then for a president, he he gives an executive order, and then congress passes a law, which they've done, and says every executive order the president gives is law. That's essentially what they've said. They don't have jurisdiction to say that that's unconstitutional. Why? Because the constitution says they can't say that. That's how this has worked. Remember that back to fundamentals and everything arises up of this fundamental. There are only three branches of government and neither one of those three branches has any authority ultimately to tell the other one what to do. Oh, they can tell them what to do, but they can't force them to do it.
That's really what it boils down to, three separate and coequal branches of government. Then you say, well, who's in charge of the government? Well, then the jury makes the final decisions in individual instances. Now the three branches are coequal. Nobody has authority to tell the other one what to do. How could they? They all took an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States. They didn't take an oath to support and defend the Supreme court. We didn't, they didn't, none of nobody in government takes an oath. I'm going to support and defend the president. No, no, no, no. They do that in other countries. Not here. Now everybody in government takes an oath to a set of laws, our common law tradition of government, and we've written it down in the constitution of The United States and every state has done pretty much the same thing with their state constitutions.
So the regulatory state is a new animal that the effervescent beginnings of it began during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. He loved governor, and it began then in a very small way. By the time you get to his cousin, his cousin, t, Theodore FDR, not Theodore, but FDR. Thank you, Roger. But time he he he comes full blown, unapologetic. The president is the emperor, and that's what he was. And he did whatever he wanted, and the congress was foolish enough to just rubber stamp everything that emperor wanted to do. And we haven't gotten over it since. I'm trying to. The courts have even said didn't complain.
The courts have even said, yes, regulate our law. Well, I don't care what the courts say, and I don't care what the president says, and I don't care what the Congress says. My loyalty and your loyalty, friends, neighbors, and kin, is to the common law tradition as our constitution of The United States expresses it about government. Our constitution of The United States doesn't say much. It just says here's how government is supposed to operate. There's nothing in our constitution about tort law, contract law, trust law, family law, none of that. No. It's only here's how government is supposed to operate. The processes that is supposed to follow. That's our common law process, due process. Not want this to be done, not a list of laws, but the fairness of the way it's supposed to be done. That's what our common law is, and that's what our constitution is. It's all about how, not what.
[01:26:18] Unknown:
How is How do you choose who's to be president of The United States, not who is to be president? Roger, go ahead. Sherry's chomping at the bit to get something in here. She's hard to Yeah. Hard to hold back. You need to put a little more of a halter on her. Sherry, what you got, sweetie?
[01:26:35] Unknown:
Well, at the two branches that put forth orders, the judiciary and the executive. And, and so I find it ironic not ironic. But who has jurisdiction over what? And so when the court puts forth orders, it only applies to those who they have jurisdiction over. Correct? Yes. And if we acquiesce to their jurisdiction, that's where we, the people, go wrong. We don't know who we are.
[01:27:10] Unknown:
Well, that's true. You know, Sun Tzu said, if you don't know who you are and you don't know who your enemy is, you got no chance of winning any battle.
[01:27:23] Unknown:
Well, let's let's let's hasten that. There's times, of course. The courts have jurisdiction, and we as responsible, responsible inhabitants of our states and our country Mhmm. We have a duty to respond properly.
[01:27:38] Unknown:
Okay. Can we can I play We're not roll? Split some here? We're under law here in America. That's why we have freedom. Go ahead, Ron. I I just wanna split hairs a little bit because there are two types of jurisdiction. I can understand the difference. So you're talking about subject matter, the judge that's there over that county and has subject matter jurisdiction over the highways in that county, theoretically. Now Yeah. Yeah. And and the other one, of course, is persona. And we deal with persona, and we don't bring out and at least bring out where people can understand there's a difference with subject matter jurisdiction.
And now somebody might be looking at just the word jurisdiction, and one of you is looking at subject matter, and the other is looking at personum. Well, you're gonna have a little bit of a difference.
[01:28:28] Unknown:
Well, certainly. But either way, it's jurisdiction. Just jurisdiction over this or jurisdiction over that. It might be a good idea just to say again what is jurisdiction, and I've hammered out different definitions in my mind and looked at other people's. And here's I'm gonna give you my conclusion of simplest way to describe it, the true and all cases. Jurisdiction is the right to
[01:28:50] Unknown:
act respecting a given matter. I think that's good. Jurisdiction.
[01:28:55] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. I think that's a good one. Go ahead. Hey. Let's let's work with that one. Jurisdiction is the right to act respecting a given matter. I have a right to act respecting my wife. My wife has a right to act respecting me. I have a right to act respecting the education of my children. I have a right to act respecting defense of my life, liberty, and property. I have a right to act respecting my tongue whether I want to remain silent under the fifth amendment or speak under the first amendment under the protection of those amendments. I have rights. What are rights? They are rights to do something.
And jurisdiction means I have a right to act within a certain boundary, a certain scope of authority, and all of life is made up of separate jurisdictions. And by the way, those separate jurisdictions all come from the same source, which is the creator of all things. They are delegated down. And these separate jurisdictions that God himself, Romans chapter 13 verse one, alright, which means that's Anglo Saxon for jurisdiction, alright, all jurisdiction is from God, period. And therefore, he is the controller of it and the definer of it, and he has delegated it to men. And that delegation that he has made of the spheres, the different spheres of jurisdiction is the kingdom of God that the gospel records talk about over and over and over. What is kingdom? Basilea in the New Testament.
Malukkah in the Old Testament Hebrew. What is that? That is God's arrangement of his delegated rights. That means delegated authority. That means delegated duty. Your duties are your rights. That is your jurisdiction. Courts have jurisdiction over certain matters and a certain way of doing things, and we are to respect that. And they are to respect our jurisdiction when we assert our fifth amendment. And this it gets intricate. And to see that with your eyes, the Bible says, you can't even see it unless you've been born of the spirit of above from above. And I have observed that to be true of men. They can't even see it. It's not there. And if you don't have that and you can't see that, you will live a restless miserable life because we, as men, as creatures, God has made us to honor other men. That means be respectful of their right to act, respecting their property and their their duties.
And we are to defend, and every man is to defend his jurisdiction because with the delegation of jurisdiction from God comes inevitably the duty to defend it. At the same time, courts have a duty to defend their jurisdiction, to force compliance where they have true law. We have a duty to defend our jurisdiction, to protect our wives. Our wives have a duty to protect our children and even their husbands if need be. We have a duty, actually, yes, toward our neighbor. Do not covet. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery, and do not murder your neighbor. That's a jurisdiction.
Well,
[01:32:19] Unknown:
I'm about burnout, so I'm glad you piped. Well, before you launch off, Sherry, I wanted to thank you Brent for bringing that down to the familial level. I had never really thought that through at that to that depth before on that just that one thing. Jurisdiction is very interesting. You opened my mind with that a bit, and I thank you. Sherry, what do you got to add here, babe?
[01:32:40] Unknown:
Yes. Jurisdiction is important. Who controls what and where? So my question is to you, when the courts aren't, adhering, honoring, showing deference to a man's jurisdiction, Where do we go?
[01:33:01] Unknown:
His obligation at that point, again, come back to the bible. What what happened in the bible when those things happened? We'll just go, for example, we have 17 books of the prophets in the older testament. 12 shorter prophets, five longer ones. In those cases, by the time the prophet arrived upon the scene, it was all over, but the crying. It was too late and they pronounced judgment. That's what prophets do. They pronounce judgment. They read the law of God. They say, well, the law of God says, if you do this, you get this. If you do that, you get this. They looked around and said, woah, Neli. We're doing that. Therefore, we get this. We get the curse, and then they told people. But sometimes, there are times when the blessing, the good spell instead of the bad spell came. But in all instances, when the courts do not follow proper jurisdiction, when they go beyond the scope of their proper jurisdiction, you made the comment, well, the question is always who controls what, who has control no. It's not who controls. It is who has the right, the jurisdiction to control. There are a lot of people controlling a lot of things they have no right to control because they have raw force for sure. Problem. But let's get back to what we speak. What is jurisdiction? It is the right, but it is the lawfulness of that control. That's what jurisdiction is. The word jurisdiction could be translated into lawfulness in the Bible. You can take those words in the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament translated lawfulness. Well, that means right in Anglo Saxon. Jurisdiction in Latin, notice how long the word is, but it all comes down to the same thing, the right to have that control, the right to act. And what do you do?
Well, our common law tradition says you do have what's called freedom of speech and freedom of petition. When you I tell my clients, when you file a paper in court and the court is not responding lawfully, you still have a duty to say it. It's called the office of prophecy. What is the office of prophecy? It is the responsibility, the duty to speak when things aren't right. And by the way, let me add this. The end result of you saying the truth and saying it intelligently and properly, the end result of that is not your affair. The end result, god says, is my affair for my reasons and my glory.
The Bible says that judgment be not afraid be not afraid of the face of any judge or any man because the judgment, the passing of judgment belongs to Yahuah, not you. Know your respond what is your jurisdiction? See? Comes back to jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction is your duty to act or refrain from acting. The duty to speak or refrain from speaking, that's your jurisdiction. The outcome, that's not your jurisdiction. I've said to judges on many occasions. They get frustrated, intimidated, haven't got any confidence. They begin to act stupid. And I've said to them, judge, judge, don't say that.
Demeaning himself in the court, don't say that. We're counting on you to make the decision. We don't get paid to make the decision. You get paid to make the decision. You have that responsibility. And if you make the wrong decision, and I think it's the thing to do or I want to make a point of it, I'll appeal it. If that court makes the wrong decision, I'll try to appeal it again. If it doesn't come out what I believe is lawful, then I'll look for another angle. Impeachment of judges, for example. That's part of our cost common law tradition that we need to resurrect real quick. Hot topic right now. And there's not yes. It is. But there's nothing questionable nothing to debate for crying out loud. Mean. Just impeach them. That's all. You don't like them? Get rid of them. I heard Barnes say several times that the judgeship
[01:37:15] Unknown:
is the only position that all you need to do is cast a dispersion on their character and actions, basically. I don't remember exactly how you phrase it, but you don't have to catch them, with their hands in the cookie jar. You just have to think that they did get their hands in the cookie jar with two or three planes and two or three mansions and what all.
[01:37:40] Unknown:
Bad behavior, it says, for a judge. You know what? Okay. The behavior offends you, that's in the constitution of The United States for federal judges. You just don't like his looks? Well, get rid of him. Well, you to know that they're they can't stay there as long as they want. Their behavior would be different. And then you've got the difference on where they congress appointed them. Where did they get going from the confirmation and stuff, or were they like a magistrate? Somebody just threw them in there. So there's all kinds of these little,
[01:38:10] Unknown:
ways to look at this that are gonna have impacts on these decisions. This a big, big thing Trump's gonna have to deal with is that they need 14 votes in the senate. That's the deal. All all of it comes to that right there. Yeah. Yeah. Roger. That's our tradition.
[01:38:28] Unknown:
But we we should understand jurisdiction in the simple ways that we need to understand it and recognize that jurisdiction, I call it, the holy of holies. You can raise jurisdiction according to our common law at any time during, before, or after a proceeding happens. And if a jurisdiction wasn't there, you can have the whole thing thrown out if the courts see it your way. Right.
[01:38:54] Unknown:
Larry was trying to get in here. Larry. I'm sorry, but that is hilarious,
[01:39:00] Unknown:
Brent, that if the courts recognize, their lack of jurisdiction and then they'll adhere to it, that's the problem we're having. They're taking control of it all. I yield. Ego's ego's
[01:39:14] Unknown:
get in the way there sometimes too, Larry.
[01:39:18] Unknown:
Oh, Larry's hesitating. Oh, go ahead, Hillary. Go ahead. Can you hear me?
[01:39:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, Roger, earlier, you mentioned there's two jurisdictions, persona and subject matter, but we've discussed before that there's actually three. There's territorial. And I I want Brent to go over that one more time real quick. And if he could give me an example, first of all, is territorial jurisdiction, does that only have to be proved in federal court, or does it have to be proved in state courts? That's the first question. And the second question is If if if you're in federal court and it was established that the court had subject matter jurisdiction and personum jurisdiction, but they did not have territorial, how would the, attorney argue that? Like, what would they say to the court and, along the lines of, well, the court has subject matter and it has personum, but it does not have territorial.
[01:40:21] Unknown:
How how would that be laid out? Or But let me give you a real life Alright. Our student our students have very fertile minds. Go ahead, Brent. Thank you. Let me give you a real life example. I was involved in a murder case one time that had to do with, an Indian reservation. And, what happened was they two men and a woman were in a pickup truck. And one man was in the back seat and a woman, another woman, a man in the front seat, and they were from two different tribes. One of the tribes was a federally recognized tribe. The other tribe was a tribe of long standing, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not recognize that tribe, had never recognized it. It. Well, the man that, belonged to tribe that, no the Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't recognize had a pair of scissors, and he's commenced to stabbing the man driving the truck.
And he stabbed him to death in the about their head and shoulders type thing. Well, that was bad enough, but dog gone it. Now we're that that was, that comes down to subject matter and in person in person. Now let's talk about the federal courts. The federal courts don't have jurisdiction over a man that is, the as as a as a tribal member who's not a member of a recognized tribe. And this guy would belong to tribe that wasn't recognized, the guy that committed to kill him. The woman was witness to it. She testified. Well, that so we've got that problem. That's called, in persona or, yeah, in persona. And then he got subject matter jurisdiction. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction over murder?
Well, that's subject matter. See? Okay. That's all state. That's all state crime. Yeah. Now we got yeah. But that's right too. We got that. But it could be state. It could be federal. So it came down to this, the road they were driving on. What a case. The road they were driving on was the road that separated the engine reservation from the non reservation land. Yeah. So now what are you gonna do? So you got a jurisdictional dispute about were they on the reservation, which gives federal courts federal jurisdiction or not on the reservation?
Or were they getting ready to slide off and they were on the ditch on one side and not the other side? See, these are all fact questions. Then you got the other questions, not a federally recognized tribe. If it's not a federally recognized tribe, then the federal courts wouldn't have subject matter, jurisdiction over the the the man and the murderer. Oh, this that's just the tip of the iceberg of the problems. Well, all these things were argued out in federal court, and the court, whether federal or state, state, has the power, the duty has jurisdiction. What's this?
That in every court in America, federal or state, has jurisdiction in the first instance to decide whether or not that court has jurisdiction. That's axiomatic. Yes. Everybody knows anything about jurisdiction. They ought to know that. So the court says, well, I think I have jurisdiction or the court says, I don't have jurisdiction. Remember in the Bible, Jesus Christ was before, somebody who was a pilot for on the first go round. And, pilot had said, well, why are you coming to me for? Or territorially. Territorially, I'm the I'm the under governor. I'm the under emperor. That's what a governor was. An under emperor to the Roman emperor down here in this, jurisdiction, Judea or whoever it was. And, you're up there. And I would only have jurisdiction if the other guy jurisdiction if the other guy wasn't available, but I just got wind that he just came back. So I'm I'm not gonna take jurisdiction over your case and refer it up there. It's a hot potato. I don't wanna do it anyway. I'll get in trouble.
This this is a tough case. So he got rid of your addiction. Yeah. But you but you see, this is this is not something you can just say, okay, here here's cut and dried. Here it is. It's all it's cut and dried according to the facts. But as our common law tradition, always, everything is driven by the facts, not by the law. We don't have lawsuits in America. That's a misnomer. In a common law country, you have fact suits. We do not ask the jury, give us the law. No. No. We tell the jury, give us the facts. Who done it? Where did he do it? How did he do it? Oh, with a pair of scissors? What's his name? What tribe does he belong to? What road was he on? Was he on the left side of the road in the ditch on the reservation side when he did it, or was he veering over the right side of the road? You got all that kind of stuff. Let me give you another example before any questions come up. A well known example, if I may, Roger, after you No, please. It's fascinating, Brent. Go ahead. You remember, Deep Throat?
Oh, yeah. Deep Throat, the movie. Well, was that a case that should have been when they when they came after them? Was that a case that had to be in the federal courts or in the state courts? Oh, Did the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the first amendment protections of, freedom of speech and freedom of expression? A filthy movie, of course, or was it a state court? Well, it was a state court problem. It was a state court problem. I believe it was New Jersey and the state courts until one of the lawyers brought up a fact nobody had ever thought of before. The b and that was one, they proved that one of the distributed copies of that film had been transported from one place in New York to another place in New York, but in order it was, by the way, in the luggage compartment of a Greyhound bus.
It was in the luggage department compartment down below of a Greyhound bus, and it was in New York going to another place in New York. But in order to get there, they took a little sidetrack to to avoid traffic down into New Jersey. Now that's interstate commerce. That's the largest jurisdiction who has exclusive jurisdiction if they want it over interstate commerce. Obviously, the federal courts, according to the constitution of The United States. That's how these things play out and they're fact driven in a common law country and the rest of the world, they're law driven. In other words, whatever the law giver wants them to be, that's what's gonna be. But here in America, we try to follow the way we go about deciding who gets to decide is fact. And that's what happened in that case, and that's kind of analogous in the mat to the matters of tarot raw territoriality to this, tribal case I'm talking about a murder. Yeah. Raw territoriality.
Is it on the reservation, or isn't it on the reservation? We're teaching a class on Christian nationalism. Yesterday, sheriff Darleaf and I, sheriff he's been sheriff for five in his fifth term, Barre County, Michigan. And he makes the point again, I have raw territorial jurisdiction in my county with some well known exceptions. He has townships in his county and in his county in Michigan, the townships have authority according to their charter to hire police officers. Well, if he, if he thinks it's needful, he goes to the township police officers and he deputizes them as deputies of his county so that if they're pursuing in hot pursuit of a, criminal suspect, they can go from one township to another township throughout the county.
I also am familiar with I I mentioned this yet yesterday, a large in Indian tribal reservation. And I know when I'm there and I'm in the grocery store, I see tribal police and I see the sheriff depart. And I got to talking to one of them one time. I said, how do you got do you guys work together? Oh, yeah. We usually deputize the tribal police so that they can help us when we need them to. Otherwise, they're stuck on the reservation. But I know, and I've been arrested on an Indian reservation before near a place, an Indian tribe that has always had a hard time dealing with white men. That was near Santa Rosa, New Mexico.
I got arrested there, and I didn't know if I was gonna get out of there alive or get out of jail at all. They had a real animosity for us boys that look white. And so, it got kinda touchy, but they had raw territoriality as you were mentioning a while ago in your question. Within the raw territorial boundaries of their of their reservation there near Santa Rosa. So that's what I give you, real life examples. I hope that helps. Oh, gee. I I'd like to ask a question. You're talking territorial.
[01:49:00] Unknown:
A state can't have territorial jurisdiction over territory, can it? Isn't that exclusively the federal government?
[01:49:08] Unknown:
No. Each state has raw territorial jurisdiction to exert its police powers within the boundaries of that state.
[01:49:17] Unknown:
Of that territory.
[01:49:18] Unknown:
Oh, well, the territory. Yeah. I mean, if there's a territory within there. And remember at common law, every parcel of land that has a different jurisdiction, a different set of people that have a right to act, courts, the governor, who else, whatever, or the sheriff in his County that constitutes a two dimensional closed polygon, a two dimensional closed polygon, the state of Illinois state of Colorado state, Oklahoma state of Texas, their polygons on, as it were, but
[01:49:52] Unknown:
two to miss Missouri state, Illinois state, and their meets and bounds are put forth in their constitutions.
[01:50:00] Unknown:
They're terrible. Well, as I just said, as I just said, the those states have jurisdiction that is the right to act for their police powers within those territorial boundaries. That's raw territoriality, and you just made my point. Their constitutions have defined it. But don't forget, it was the Congress of the United States that okayed the boundaries of those states. And within those states then, within that Congress or constitution of The United States says Congress has that right to act to okay the formation of states and dictate their boundaries. They've screwed some of them up real bad, by the way. Case in point case in point, the Panhandle Of Oklahoma, Congress, by a miss bubble, didn't put that in any territory or state for a long time. Can you imagine?
So they finally ended up attaching it to Oklahoma. That's why it sticks out there like that. That was a mistake.
[01:50:56] Unknown:
And the boot were you in Missouri? Continuation.
[01:51:03] Unknown:
So they have territorial boundary. They have the meets and bounds of the state. But then after that, the constitution comes in. Who has authority? The executive, the judicial, and the legislative branch. Well, legislative coming first. I said that kinda backwards. But what I'm saying is just because the editorial is there, doesn't mean that they have the jurisdiction per the constitution
[01:51:36] Unknown:
via the state or the federal. Are you? Well, it depends upon who you're talking about, whether they have the right to act. But the government of your state, wherever you are, has authority to exert the police powers and force the the the subject of the police powers within the boundary of your state. Also, if they want to hail somebody into court within the boundaries of your state, they have raw territorial jurisdiction to do so if they decide that they have that jurisdiction in that particular case. Yes. Absolutely.
And to say that they can't come and get somebody whom they've decided they have jurisdiction over is, well, that's just silliness. No. They do. They have jurisdiction to decide the courts, for example, have jurisdiction to decide whether or not they have jurisdiction, as I said a while ago. And if they think they do and decide they do, then they'll send the sheriff after you and they'll drag you into court. That's what'll happen. That's the way our common law has all been. That they decide
[01:52:39] Unknown:
and not the people. Say it again? I I don't know how do you overcome when they decide. How does the people Well, you have you have
[01:52:50] Unknown:
you have tools of law, processes that the law provides that you can use to challenge that. That's what it is, and that's called due process. You can challenge it by petition, by motion orally. You can challenge it on the basis of subject matter. You can challenge it on the basis of maybe some fact, like I was given the example of the tribal members. We challenged all those things. The feds don't have jurisdiction. This poor guy, by the way, that well, poor guy. I shouldn't say that. He stabbed somebody to death. But he was tried in the state courts first. And after state courts got done with him, the feds came along and said, we got jurisdiction now. And we came back and said, now, wait a minute. He's already got a life sentence and you want to try him again. Okay. We get it. You're a separate sovereign, but you have not as the federal government recognized the tribe is a member of you have no in person, no personal jurisdiction over his body. That was the argument. See, plus a couple other things, but they wanted it. They wanted it. See, the branches of government, the three branches, and then the feds and the state, they're constantly pushing as hard as they can to defend their own jurisdiction. That's the nature of government. That's why I said a while ago, each state of our union has three branches of government. It's not public. No. No. We we aren't we aren't we don't have re we're not a republic in America, and our states are not republics.
We have republican form of government, but that doesn't mean we're a republic. We aren't. We're a common law country with a common law government in every state. And with that, we have the three branches of government are constantly at a perpetual Mexican standoff. Nobody is ultimately in charge except here and there when it bobs forth, and that's the way we like it. Run for your life from people that say, I'm tired of government fussing and fighting, and they should be concerned about the American people. Run for your life from those kind of people. No. Our government, common law government is supposed to keep government fighting with one another. There's be adversarial. They're supposed to be fighting as long as they're fighting as James Madison said.
James Madison called the framer of our US constitution. As long as they're fighting, it will distract them more, and they'll leave us alone. That's the whole idea, friend. And that and all of
[01:55:15] Unknown:
this I wouldn't agree with that principle, Brett, except for they're fighting against the people now. They're conspiring with each other
[01:55:23] Unknown:
to do us harm. And You still need to agree. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. You still need to agree with that principle. Don't say I would agree with that principle, but no. No. No. The principle is true. That's God's form of government. That's what he has given us. Correct. Whether or not whether whether or not men whether wait. Wait. No. Don't talk when I'm talking. Whether or not men are evil is another question. Clearly, they are. That's what you're complaining about. But don't complain about the way God has established government. That's the way the best thing he has for us, and he wants us to use it. And the problem is the problem is not government. The problem you and me not asserting what the truth is. That's always been the problem. I will. I can buy that.
[01:56:10] Unknown:
Go ahead. I'll buy that. I'll buy that a %, Brent. Larry, you got had something to say?
[01:56:17] Unknown:
Yeah, Brent. So in the Indian case, the the federal court cannot establish territory or they were having trouble establishing territorial jurisdiction. Is that what you were saying?
[01:56:30] Unknown:
Yes. They in order to have jurisdiction over his case, they had to establish territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and they didn't have either in
[01:56:41] Unknown:
So is that what the is that what is meant when you, you know, you read in the, the rules of the federal courts that they are courts of limited jurisdiction?
[01:56:53] Unknown:
Is that what that pertains to? Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up. Let's let's talk about this overall. All state courts in America, this is our constitutional arrangement under our United States constitution. All state courts and all states are courts of unlimited jurisdiction in this sense. If they have if they they can hear any subject matter, any case, if they decide they have subject matter jurisdiction. And when it comes to state courts, if something comes before them they never heard of before, they have a duty to take it. They can hear federal cases, constitutional cases, any case is we call that unlimited jurisdiction.
Mhmm. The federal courts have a very, very limited jurisdiction. Limited to what? Limited to whatever the constitution expressly gives them jurisdiction over and no more. And that's not very much, like I say, family law cases are not something you see in federal court before the Roosevelt administration. The federal courts didn't have a whole lot of business at all. The only things they really decided were admiralty cases because the constitution gives that. There are exclusive jurisdictions. Admiralty, no state court does has any jurisdiction over admiralty cases.
No state court has any jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. Our constitution of The United States lodges that subject matter jurisdiction exclusively in the federal courts. Roger, you start to say something? Oh, no. I was just thinking out loud. Well, that so there is the end of the program. So go go ahead. Go. Yeah. Well, we're again. But, yeah, limited jurisdiction and unlimited jurisdiction, and it is true. For all the bad things we say about and we see the federal courts do, and they do a lot of crazy things. But they're pretty jealous about trying to get rid of cases because they don't have jurisdiction. I'll say that for them. They wanna get rid of cases. And if they can find a way and say, we don't have constitutional jurisdiction over this case, they'll throw it out. That's subject matter jurisdiction. The standard is, our federal courts and this is what the federal courts have said. This is the language they've used. They've said, we have jurisdiction over matters arising under arising under the constitution of The United States.
[01:59:19] Unknown:
That's it. Yeah. And there's also a thing in state court. I guess if they're listening to something that might have federal attributes, you can remove cases to to federal court out of state court too. Yes. But they have to rise under the constitution of The United States. Okay. Okay. Yeah. It comes back to that. So I drive a follow-up after the whistler. Okay. Well, alright. Well, for the people that are listening on the regular receptive devices, that means you're gonna miss it. Sorry. We'll, say thank you, Brent, as always, and your expertise and experience and knowledge is
[02:00:01] Unknown:
well, it's always welcome around here. It may not be welcome in some of your courtrooms, but it's always welcome here, Brent. I I I feel privileged that you allow me to say, and all the listeners allow me to say what I say. I do believe it's important, but I get, I get passionate about it. It's important beyond all things, jurisdiction. As the lady said a while ago, it's important beyond all things.
[02:00:26] Unknown:
Well, my my take on that is what gives that man over there the power to make man made laws and not only attach them, but enforce them on me.
[02:00:36] Unknown:
Well, I would say what gives him the right. I see your point. We call it power, but, really, it's just you have the jurisdiction, the right. Yep. No. That's it. So Yeah. Anyway, I think we're, cut off if Paul were not Paul. Correct me, but it sounds like the
[02:00:51] Unknown:
the distant faint music has dropped out from under us there in the background. So at that point, I think we turn to Larry and go, okay, Larry. We're off the air.
[02:01:01] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, so with the case with the Indian, so while they were arguing whether they had jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction, Could the state come in and, take, you know, take over also? Like, you'll have two two courts, the federal court and the state court attempting to prosecute the case, or does one does the state have to wait till the federal is done determining whether it has jurisdiction before it can act?
[02:01:35] Unknown:
It doesn't have to do that's called and the there are two sovereignties, and and they're trying to get along, and the states and the feds try to get along. They'll it's called the doctrine of comity, c o m I t y. And what that means is, well, we'll wait till you prosecute this fellow for murder, then we'll take a go at him. And that you you you kinda say, well, I'll let you go first. No. The feds could have come and taken jurisdiction first, but they didn't in that case. They probably didn't even hear about it until it came up in the federal court said, well, we didn't know that happened. Then they wanna come in when they're done. But, there's nothing in our constitution. Well, there is in our common law. You see, our common law tradition informs our constitution. Our constitution is a brief. It doesn't explain hardly it it doesn't explain anything.
It doesn't define anything. The only thing it describe defines is treason, and it does that for an important reason because if it didn't, it would be abused to crush political enemies, but it defines it. And, that's important that it says, of course, just as an example, it says, aid and comfort to the enemy. That's how it defines it. Well, if that's true, who's the enemy? Who gets to decide who the enemy is? Well, I say Hamas is the enemy. I think Israelis are the enemy. Well, who gets to make that decision? Well, the answer is the constitution says the that the Congress of the United States gets to make that decision by declaring war.
And so there is no such a treason such thing as treason without a declaration of war. See, but we're accusing people of treason. Of course, that's a popular patriot mantra. It's he committed treason. I'm saying, well, we gotta declare war first. You don't even know who the enemy is. And if you don't define those things, here's how treason will be used. It will be used to crush your political enemies. That's what Thomas Jefferson did when he was president. He tried to make sure and get Aaron Burr hung because he was his political enemy. Didn't work. He tried it. He wanted him dead. That's how vicious politics gets. Tom Jefferson was wrong in that case. He was using his political position to murder, trying to murder those he didn't like politically.
Well, he did some other good things. I'm just paint pointing out he's a mere mortal too. We are not a government of men. God help us. We don't trust men. We don't trust government. No. We trust God. That means trust his will, trust his law. That's what we're after. And we don't take an oath to the president. We take an oath or to the supreme court. We take an oath to a set of laws, which is the expression of some of a law giver. That's what that is, and that's what our common law tradition is. And in every state, it's the same thing. So now it's those are important questions. If the feds would have taken jurisdiction first, it's all who takes first. For example, we talked to class at Winters Inn on the sheriff.
The sheriff, has jurisdiction over the posse. He can, by law, in every state and, union, far as I know, in every county where there is a sheriff, There are a few that don't have them, but he has authority under law to grab any member of the militia, 20 years old and above at common law, unless the state statute says something otherwise, which wouldn't be right, but there are some to do and the federal the feds do too. The statute for the militia, males, it says, above age 21, I believe. No. 18. That's the federal statute for the the militia, the the president mustered. But who has power to muster the militia or call a militia money on to help him? Well, the sheriff has power. We call that the posse.
The governor of your state has a power well, as Roger, I pointed out to Roger, I should be I'm doing the same thing I've complained about, authority. The sheriff, the governor of your state has authority to, call out a militiamen, and the president of The United States has authority to call out a militiamen. Well, Well, what if the president of The United States calls out a militiamen, but the sheriff's already got him, in service on the posse? Well, the sheriff trumps the president at that point. Yeah. But what if the governor calls him out before the sheriff calls him out in the posse? Well, the governor has jurisdiction at that point. That's our common law tradition, but our institution does not say that. But that is our common law tradition, and we follow it that way. Go ahead.
[02:06:01] Unknown:
Go ahead. Brent, have have you ever seen they call it a mockumentary, not a documentary, but with an m. It's called population zero. Have you ever seen that?
[02:06:14] Unknown:
No. Well, may have, but I don't know. What's it about? Population zero. What's it about?
[02:06:19] Unknown:
Well, a professor at one of the law schools called it the perfect crime. This this guy killed deliberately, went to the part of Yellowstone, I think is in the Idaho corridor of the park, And purposely went and shot three young men. He walked into the ranger station and told them what he did, and then he shut up, and nobody could ever prosecute him.
[02:06:46] Unknown:
I don't I I I have a hard time accepting it. I'm not complaining and saying you aren't telling the truth. I think you probably, of course, are. I'll assume that, but I I can't imagine that being true. If a man commits murder, he committed murder. Somebody's got jurisdiction. Best. Well, then somebody's then somebody's got jurisdiction.
[02:07:04] Unknown:
The only time that Well, they couldn't set a jury. They they couldn't set a jury.
[02:07:11] Unknown:
Well, why not?
[02:07:13] Unknown:
There was nobody residing in that area. That's the Well, then that this this thing is about. Well, then then then some judge would have authority
[02:07:22] Unknown:
to hold a trial.
[02:07:24] Unknown:
If it's either state or state
[02:07:27] Unknown:
Believe me. They tried. If if you if you watch the documentary
[02:07:33] Unknown:
I have a hard time accepting that or believing it, but I I do wanna watch it. I'm sure that it said that. People say a lot of crazy things to make money, and Roger will attest to this. Documentaries and mockumentaries are they're put out there to make money, and the things they say in them are to create moral outrage because that's how you make money. You don't make money by telling the truth. Let's get real here, friends. What I'm saying here isn't making me any money. I can attest to that. Stories. You tell people an outlandish stories, they'll buy your your stuff, and they'll send you money. That's the way that works.
[02:08:06] Unknown:
But, anyway, hey. Hey, Brent. Here's what I want do. Please please drop the link in so I can go watch it. Yeah. Send him over if you can or send it to him in email. Yeah. Okay. There's two or three of you like to want to say something. Joan, I'm gonna tell you to Okay. Hey, Brent. Larry's on hold on, Joan. Is Larry on the same thread, or is it something different?
[02:08:29] Unknown:
No. It's it's still another one more follow-up.
[02:08:33] Unknown:
Okay. Joan, just hold on.
[02:08:36] Unknown:
So, Brent, if the, let's just say the I don't and I don't remember if you if you said it, or not, but let's just say the Indian was prosecuted in the federal court, and he was found guilty of murder. Can can he still be tried in the state court afterwards or would that be double jeopardy? And if he isn't if he isn't, tried in the federal court in in the sense that the federal court cannot determine whether they have territorial jurisdiction, I guess what you're saying is the state court has a duty to take over the case, and they will prosecute it. So those two things.
[02:09:22] Unknown:
Is there a federal crime is there a federal crime for murder, Brent?
[02:09:26] Unknown:
Oh, sure. Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. If you murder somebody in a federal courthouse or a Alright. On federal territory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The enclaves, you know, or a military base or something. But, double jeopardy does not apply generally speaking, does not apply to two separate sovereignties. The states are separate sovereignties from the general government in Washington DC. So, yeah, you get tried for a crime. I was, aware of a of a deal. I wasn't a part of it, but I knew the judge. And and, he, the, the state had prosecuted a woman for methamphetamine.
How do you say methamphetamine? Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine. Right. Fancy words. If it's not Anglo Saxon, I can't pronounce it. But, it's true. I've learned that about myself. But they convicted her, took her children away from her Mhmm. Threw her in state prison for two years. During that time, she got with some kind of a program, got cleaned up, got out, did her, court supervised time, cleaned her life up, and got her children back. Got her children back. It was a success story. Doesn't happen real often, but it happens. And then the feds said, okay. Now we're gonna have a go at you.
And they drag her into federal court. And, yeah, judge's name was Gilbert. I remember now. And they said, we're you know, we've indicted her grand jury, and now we're gonna we're gonna send her to prison. And he said, well, not well, I'm judge. You're not going to. She did her time. She cleaned up her life. This is this is contrary to the purposes of the law. The law is the the whole idea behind it is that we want folk to get better. We don't want to destroy them unless we have to. And they said, well, that's too bad, judge, but double jeopardy doesn't apply here. We're separate sovereignties. You know that. You're a federal judge. He said, I do know that. I just can't do it. I'm not gonna do it. They said, well, if you don't do it, we're gonna take you to the appellate court, and we're gonna force you to do it. They said, fine. You do what you wanna do, mister US attorney, and I'll do what I could think I ought to do.
So they went to the federal court or the appellate court. Appellate court came back and said, well, obviously, that's right. They're two separate sovereignties. You got the double jeopardy does not in this case. And so they ordered him to do it. So judge the judge just, said, well, I'm not going to. And he recused himself from the case. And somehow through the processes of government, another judge was was appointed who would do it, and they did it. That's the unique and different situation we live in America here. I don't think it ought to be that way, or we've never adjusted that. That's ugly. That's ugly. It's very ugly. And that's why double jeopardy is a common law doctrine that goes back for centuries.
And it's put in our constitution because it's part of our common law tradition, and it's a good thing. It applies in the state courts. And then all the little tiny questions, our constitutions of our states and our our federal general government don't answer these kinds of questions. Well, at what point, does, double jeopardy attached to the case? Well, the courts have pretty consistently said once the jury is impaneled, if the case just drops after that, well, you can't do it again, but you have to get to the point you impanel a jury, for example. That's what most important little things might know. Go ahead. Alright.
[02:13:01] Unknown:
Joan?
[02:13:04] Unknown:
Yes. Yes. For Brent, would you say that God inspired the constitution or and or that the constitution is a Christian document?
[02:13:15] Unknown:
Well, the answer to the first question is no God. The the put it this way. The constitution of The United States is not of equal equal dignity with the Bible. Yeah. It is not of equal dignity with the Bible. That's the way a lawyer would say it. Equal legal dignity as a standard of law. But it is our observations that have been tested over centuries that have proven to be the way things are. And they aren't gonna change the observations I make of things in creation called physics, called natural law physics. That's what natural law ought to be defined as. Just the way things are, the laws that govern all the matter and all the material in this created world from the moon, the sun, and the stars down to the water flowing here in the ditch beside my house, they all operate according to very precise, unbendable, unchanging, unavoidable rules. Yeah. Well, we observe those, and our observations are worth something, but it's not the Bible. No. No. The Bible is where God pours his truth through the personality of a man while preserving his personality, while preserving his vocabulary, his ability to communicate, preserving him. So we know it's his writing at the same time preserving what he pins from heirs of fact.
Errors of fact. For example, everything the Bible says, this is the doctrine of inerrancy. It's centuries old. Jesus Christ made it clear. What everything the Bible says was said and done was said and done just the way the Bible says it was said and done, and nobody's ever been able to prove otherwise. But that doesn't mean everything the Bible says was said and done ought to have been said or done. There are a lot of things the Bible records that was said and that was said and done. That was the wrong thing to do and the wrong thing to say, matter of fact, downright evil, but the Bible records the facts of everything. No error of fact. And that's what Jesus Christ said every jot and every tittle, every little part of it. It's all true.
So the constitution of The United States is not like that. Matter of fact, the those that ratified our constitution, namely the militiamen of the several states, they, ensured that there would be in there provisions to amend it or change it. Yeah. That's acknowledgment that it's not the Bible for crying out loud. Yep. Yep. I went to that debate.
[02:15:48] Unknown:
Go ahead, Roger. Somebody. I think it's do you have any
[02:15:51] Unknown:
is that Annette peeping through there?
[02:15:54] Unknown:
Right. Yes. It is. Brent, go ahead and finish that thought. You're you're on to something. So say continue, please. I was gonna tell I was gonna tell a story, Annette, about this fella. The way I tried to set up a trial down in Southern Missouri and Ozarks, and a lot of people came. And it was, he, we wanna put the constitution of The United States on trial, and I was arguing that it is, it's good law. And he was arguing that it's an antichrist document. His name is Ted Weiland. And he said wrote a big thick book that, constitution of The United States fundamentally, by claiming that it is the supreme law of the land supreme law of the land. He said the people that framed it and drafted it wanted it to trump the Bible.
I said, no. That's not true. Of course, that's I mean, you really think that was their intent. Of course, the phrase law of the land is a is a common law phrase that comes from our common law tradition from centuries and centuries and centuries ago. We lifted it out of Magna Carta, the year 12/15. We stuck it in article six of our constitution. The supreme law of the land, that's our jurisdiction. What's the law of the land? That's our common law. What's our common law? It is the way we do things, not the outcome standards, do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, and murder. That's god's jurisdiction to decide the outcome standards. That's not our jurisdiction. It's not our jurisdiction, for instance, to say you can't transport, manufacture transport, and sell alcohol alcoholic beverages.
That's not our jurisdiction. God never gave us that jurisdiction. It's not in the Bible. I can't see where God has given mankind the jurisdiction to make decisions about that. That's an outcome standard. What does he give us jurisdiction to do? He gives us jurisdiction to it to scream and holler and say that ain't fair. That ain't due process. That ain't right. We're going about it all wrong, judge. My client didn't have a chance to bring his evidence in. My client didn't have a chance to say what he wanted to say to petition the court. He wasn't given enough time. He wasn't given a right to trial by jury. That's a process question. That's our jurisdiction, and God clearly has given us that jurisdiction.
And when we ratified our constitution of The United States, we were acting within the jurisdiction God gave us. You go to the 10 so called commandments. What do you got? Outcome standards. There's nothing there about process. Don't murder your neighbor. Don't commit burglary. That's an outcome standard. That's god's jurisdiction. That's not ours. That's why I said a while ago, god says to us, be not afraid of the face of any man as a juryman, for example, that's what he's talking about because the outcome, the judgment belongs to the Lord himself, not us. That's not our business. That's his business.
Man does not have jurisdiction over outcome. And the evil empire constantly is talking about outcome. What outcome based education. Well, if you're, if you're stressing outcome, you're talking about trying to achieve a certain result. What are you going to end up doing as a mere mortal? You're going to end up justifying anything to achieve that outcome. Anything screaming and hollering and saying people are racist. We gotta have this. We gotta have this outcome. We gotta have this many men and boys and girls. That's outcome based. They don't care what the reason they think. That's the result that's important. You see? I say they don't care about the result. No, they do. They want a certain outcome. Mussolini's done. Mussolini, El Duque.
The only thing he wanted in life was to be loved by everybody. He loved it. He achieved it finally. And he said, anybody who's against that, that's ultimate say anybody who's against people liking me or gets in my way of being liked, or trying to get people to like me. What did he say? I want these men tried and shot. That's what called, that's called outcome based government. What's the difference between the law of the land and the law of the city, our common law and the civil canon laws of Rome that govern every country in the world, including the two largest so called Christian groups in the world, the Orthodox church and the Roman church. What, what governs Outcome based.
Process doesn't matter. You go into court or go into tribunal in those all the countries of the world. What matters? We must reach the result that the government has said we must reach. That's the only thing that matters. What matters if you go into court in America? Well, hopefully, and it does happen. We don't stress results. Really, we don't. No. No. We stress process. We we're we're concentrating on trying to stay on a course of process. Well, the first thing you do in this trial is you give notice and an opportunity to be heard. The second thing you do is you have all the hearings. The third thing you do is to make sure the jury is empaneled right before the trial, not before the trial, long before the trial, but right before the trial, and we shove them right in there. We don't give them time to be bribed bribed.
See, that's all a matter of process. We sequester the jury. We don't allow the jury to look at any evidence, but what was presented at trial. All those little things. It's little or not little. They're big. If you follow the right course, you cookbook the thing in fairness. You don't have to worry about the result. The result will be reliable. Common lawyers all over America for over two hundred years now, and we're still saying it. Good process, reliable result. Not enough process, not good process. The result is not reliable. Let's do it again. What does it say about the jury? Article seven of our cons or amendment seven of our constitution.
It says that right to trial by jury, you know, is a constitutionally protected right, as long and it's not overturnable. The facts the jury decides are not overturnable. No, sir. That's the final arbiter of right and wrong except, it says, according to the course of what? Our common law. In other words, if our common law wasn't followed, process wasn't proper, you impaneled the jury one day and then you'd start the trial the next day. No. No. You gotta go back and do it again. No jurisdiction there. Didn't follow the process. Let's go back and try it again. Brent? Yes. Go ahead.
[02:22:22] Unknown:
I've been asked to ask I've been asked to ask you this question.
[02:22:26] Unknown:
Can you talk book? I do have several questions, but but go ahead. I just don't wanna be forgotten.
[02:22:33] Unknown:
I won't we won't forget you. Okay. Yeah. If you want, you'll relax. Go ahead, Skip.
[02:22:40] Unknown:
The book, The Basura.
[02:22:44] Unknown:
What's the name of it?
[02:22:46] Unknown:
The book, The Beshora, e e s h o r a.
[02:22:52] Unknown:
What's it about? About the Hebrews. Yeah. Yeah. But what what's what's the conclusion? What's the book about? What are they trying to show? Haven't read it? I'm I'm asking for a friend in the chat.
[02:23:08] Unknown:
Oh, I see. As Well, they told me now the book, the for sure. It it's the original Dead Sea Scrolls is my understanding of it, Brent.
[02:23:20] Unknown:
Well, the oh, I I see. Well, of course, to say the original Dead Sea Scrolls, I would just say the Dead Sea Scrolls. That would be redundant to say the original Dead Sea Scrolls. There's only there's only one dead set of Dead Sea Scrolls. Well, Okay. I know I Well, I know what is saying is that there have been different,
[02:23:39] Unknown:
versions put out. And then I'm sure there are. They're always your original.
[02:23:46] Unknown:
Oh, oh, I see. Well, here's what you don't know in those cases, and I I speak about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I could tell you what my experience has been with them, then you say, well, I see where you're coming from. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, when you have documents that come out of archaeology like that, William Foxwell Albright, who were the preeminent Middle East Archaeologist when those scrolls were discovered. He's from John Hopkins University. He's the one that authenticated them. He authenticated them. I know of nothing. The ones that were discovered, I know of nothing. I know of nothing, in his reputation that would give anybody any pause or doubt that whatever he said about them is probably sincere and honest and true.
The, when I say authenticate, I mean, he's the one that said, yeah. They are as old as people say they are, which means two or three centuries before Christ from the Essenes in the hills around the Dead Sea and, the caves where they were stored there. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from a sect of religious people called the Essenes. They I'm pretty sure of that. And they did preserve books of the Bible, but they preserved a whole lot of non biblical writings that are just goofy. That's true too. But but it helps helps us understand how they use words. They're not worthless even though they're fantasy or whatever they are. It helps us understand how they use the Hebrew words at that time and what was going on in history at that time. Do you begin to get a feel for that?
But what what I'm saying to you is do not these people that pop up and say, I've got the truth on this subject. No. They wanna make money. Who we kidding? And they'll say outlandish things. And if they say outlandish things, people will buy it, and they will make lots of money because it is moral outrage and outlandishness that makes money, always. And so I'd be very suspect whatever it says, but that's all I know about it. Let's go back to the lady from Texas that was wanted to ask another question.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
Well, I have I have a number of questions. I started out with one, and it grew. Okay. The first one is, do you know the style of that federal case against the lady, federal, drug case against the lady that went through, the the state triader, and, she went through that process, and then this federal came after the state. You do you know the style of that?
[02:26:22] Unknown:
The what? Where can we look at? The style the style No. I can tell you I can tell you, the district it was in and the judge. Would that help?
[02:26:34] Unknown:
Yes. Yes, sir.
[02:26:36] Unknown:
Okay. The judge's name, I believe, if I remember right, was Gilbert, g I l b e r t, is my best remembrance. And it was in the Southern District Of Illinois. And that and I think it was at a place called Benton, which is in Franklin County, but it it may have been in East Saint Louis, Illinois. I don't remember for sure, but my my best guess has been. And the reason I say that is just for in in general, meth cases, meth is a country boy's drug. Crack cocaine is a city boy's drug. So the crack cocaine cases would would more likely be in East St. Louis, Illinois, and the meth case most likely in the mountains of, Southern Illinois.
[02:27:28] Unknown:
What what about what year was that?
[02:27:32] Unknown:
Oh, shocks, boy. Time flies. I you know, didn't I remember right. Your name is Joan?
[02:27:39] Unknown:
Oh, Annette. Annette.
[02:27:41] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. No. I'm sorry. Forgive me. My mind's racing. I know I know who you are. I recognize your voice by now, and I know you're from Texas. I'm trying to do a recovery here, Annette. But, the time let me think.
[02:27:57] Unknown:
Probably Roughly.
[02:27:59] Unknown:
Yeah. Roughly. It had been before 02/2010, but I'm not dead sure about that.
[02:28:05] Unknown:
Okay. And, why has that this not been challenged? Because this is stands at a front to what is justice. This is injustice. So Yeah. Has it do you know if anyone has challenged this or has,
[02:28:22] Unknown:
Well, judge I Well, judge judge Gilbert did everything he could do with do within his power within his jurisdiction, I should say, to challenge it, and I like him for that. Yeah. That doesn't seem real normal, frankly. Well, it sounds character. It gives character. Yes. And it's refreshing to hear, but his colleague didn't miss a beat, said, I'll take it. You know, that that depresses you. But Okay. But he Thanks for that. Yeah. I got a Right. Why is go ahead. Somebody's gonna say There's nobody to defend her. Yeah. Well, why why hasn't it been challenged? Yeah. No.
This is a this is our tradition. It's the, the idea of sovereignty is not negotiable. And I suppose we just say, wow. And like, justice Holmes of the U S Supreme court once said, sometimes the law is an ass. Yes. Right. It's just an ass. Yeah. They say, how do you overcome this? But who's really who's really the the problem here? Is it the system? No. It's the drug user that's a problem. And we got her straightened up, and that was good. She straightened up herself. That's the way that works. And everything was Okay. Hunky, Tory.
[02:29:42] Unknown:
But let's I just listen to me.
[02:29:45] Unknown:
Okay. I'm gonna let you comment. I wanted to say something.
[02:29:48] Unknown:
I just say, oh, no, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just didn't want to get run.
[02:29:53] Unknown:
No, go ahead, Brent. In general, for all of us, the breaking of true law will take us further than we wanna go, and it will keep us a whole lot longer than we want to stay. And that's what happened in that case. Just keep in mind, God's sovereign, and he's not a respecter of persons. And he's, he's rough, very rough. He could have stopped all that if he wanted to, but he didn't. So what do we say? We do all we can. Listen, be satisfied that God has given you the jurisdiction you have just to believe what you believe and say what you say. And don't get caught up in thinking you're going to change the results. That's not our purviewer jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is to, we have the, we have the authority of testimony.
We're called to be witnesses and the office of prophet at different times. What is the office of prophet? It is to just say the truth to other men. That's what it is. No. It's not to foretell the future. It's to say the truth. That's what the word in the Old Testament, Navi'im, Navi' in the singular. In the New Testament, prophetess. These are I call them I translate law talker. Law talkers. That's what we are. We wanna know the standard of God himself, and we want to tell other people what it is. That's what he wants us to do. Go ahead.
[02:31:18] Unknown:
Oh, this is.
[02:31:21] Unknown:
I do have more. Come on, Becca. I I have a question,
[02:31:25] Unknown:
regarding, well, first of all, I know that you think that we are we are all under natural law. Right?
[02:31:34] Unknown:
Well, we're all under saying. In the sense that we all live in this created world, and we better follow its laws, or we we will be, killed or maimed.
[02:31:45] Unknown:
So in order to do to, carry on in the common law and to to like, if you are wanting to be under under natural law and carry on in the common law and ask, how you know, if you're being, trespassed on using your natural right, for example, to travel in the automobile. How would you, how would you how would you ask the prosecutor or judge to establish jurisdiction?
[02:32:27] Unknown:
Well, here's the first thing that I think is important that with that particular question. And when you ask a question or anybody ask a question, I am in a unique position, and I'm thankful that I can respond to it, how I think is fit and raise the points that I think need to be raised. And I may not even answer your question, but I'm thankful that you brought it up because it may bring something to mind that I think needs to be stressed. So I'll I'll try to respond to it, though. I do want to. Yeah. I would ask you to about that. Your common law. Yes. I would ask you, and I don't want you to answer it. I'm just posing the question for you to you and to for you to think about it and everybody else to think about it. All you folk are screaming and hollering about the right to travel.
Can you identify how that is a valid jurisdiction, a valid right to act respecting traveling? In other words, where does that come from? Can you point to something in the laws of nature, in nature, and in the laws of nature's God, the Bible that says yes. Because if you don't have that, you have no I can. Well, wait. Wait. You can tell me in a minute if you wanna answer. I can give you some input. I just yeah. If if you don't have that in your mind, you will not have what it takes to persevere in your conviction. You won't have conviction. You won't have any. You may think you may have a preference. It may be real strong, but it's not conviction. Now somebody was gonna volunteer and ask her. Do you wanna volunteer and answer? I I can I throw can I throw one in? Yeah. Well, Roger, you you can do whatever you want. Can I Anytime? Roger, after you, can I please share something too?
[02:34:11] Unknown:
Well, there there's a bunch of you chirping here. Hold on. Blackstone Locomotion.
[02:34:17] Unknown:
But okay. And I would say that's good, but Blackstone is just another mortal like you that may be more weak and what you see my point, Roger. Yes. I do. I just wanted to throw that in the ring. I'm glad you did. Were you gonna say something?
[02:34:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, what about, the difference between commerce and personal use traveling. And,
[02:34:38] Unknown:
when you're in commerce, you're you're Oh, wait a minute, Erica. He asked for, the the law
[02:34:46] Unknown:
and not Wait a minute. Hey. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo
[02:35:05] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:35:07] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead. So, Gary, you're a busy work.
[02:35:11] Unknown:
We were working we were talking about, establishing jurisdiction, and when you went under common law and under natural law. So everybody travels because that's their your right to do so, under God. Right? Under our creator, we have that natural right to do that. So now Well, I we do
[02:35:34] Unknown:
what we do have that right. My question is, how do you know? Can you point to something in the true revelation of law that says that that is a right that god has delegated to you? A duty. A right is a duty. A right to act. Right. Okay. Go ahead with your comment.
[02:35:51] Unknown:
So so I was thinking I'm like, okay. So it's it's it's a personal private thing that you're doing and, compared to working working in commerce and participating with the public, the federal system. So you're you're gonna have to follow their rules there. But when you're doing your own private personal, you know, traveling, then, you know, that's where people are trying to establish their jurisdiction with the man made law.
[02:36:24] Unknown:
Well, of course, disagree with that. No. That's not right. No. When you travel when you travel, you buy gasoline from one state to the next. You buy food. You're part of interstate commerce. This is a misnomer of the patriot community, has been for a long time. Is there a difference between commerce and noncommerce? Yes. But not not not in the under our constitution. When you're traveling, you're participating in commerce. Go to, for example, Heart Of Atlantic. Oh, just to make the point. I'm not saying the the Supreme Court is the final word on this matter, but they have observed this. Heart of Atlanta Hotel, a US Supreme Court case from back in the civil rights days, used to be when, people that were of color, in other words, of the what we used to call the Negro race. I wanna be clear. There's Caucasians.
We're not white either. We're all different colors. Us Caucasian folks were born blue, then we turn red, and then we then we turn white, then we get sunburned and turn reddish again, and then we get tan and turn brown. I mean, we're we're color we got more colors than anybody. But the folks up in Virginia, up and up up north, they travel their relatives back down south. And, when they do so and I've talked to the some of them that used to do this as kids my age, their mother would pack all sorts of food and boiled eggs and sandwiches because they knew they couldn't stop at a restaurant anywhere from Virginia South and get anything to eat. Yep. Because they because of segregation.
Yep. And they knew they knew they had there had to be how? They took blankets and pillows because they often would be in a place. They couldn't get in a hotel or a motel. So a case came before the Supreme Court called Heart of Atlanta Hotel. It was, people like that who brought suit against the hotel in Atlanta because they wouldn't let them stay there. And, the Supreme Court of the United States the Supreme Court of the United States says traveling, and They didn't say it in these very words, but if so facto, you are in the stream of interstate commerce
[02:38:30] Unknown:
when you go I can I can see that viewpoint? Can I give you Yeah? Can I give you an example of of a code that California has for, traveling a difference between personal use and, commerce?
[02:38:44] Unknown:
Well, I'd rather you didn't because I know what they say. I know that that's what they say. I know that. I'm telling you under the constitution of The United States, what the Supreme Court of the United States has observed, and I don't disagree with them. Yeah. And regardless of what the states say, and they make those distinctions, let's get to the point. Let's get to the bottom line. A bunch of a bunch of legislators in California don't know their backsides from the $17 sunbonnet. I think that's clear. California of all places. So let's don't talk about what a bunch of goofy politicians say. Let's talk about why you know You know you have the right to travel. It's not because of something in some state legislature's, book someplace. No. No. I'm I'm asking.
[02:39:28] Unknown:
It's in the scripture, and we are right. Woah. Woah.
[02:39:32] Unknown:
Woah. Woah. Boy, I'll tell you, Brent, this is a bunch here. Yeah. That that I mean, I'm I'm I'm encouraged. No. Stop. I'm encouraged by your enthusiasm, but we're trying to keep order, and you're helping. But let me keep talking a little. I wanna get to the point here. I wanna ask the ultimate question. I I know all about state statutes. You could read it to me. I've read them before. They're all the same. They make a distinction between commerce and private. We're talking about the right to travel that we're saying the constitution of The United States protects. And all the all the minutiae of the state laws doesn't really concern me. I don't care. And the reason I don't care is if I ever went into court on this subject, I wouldn't mess with that. I go straight to the constitution and then I'd say, why does the constitution say this? And if I don't know why the constitution says it, then I don't have any conviction on the matter. And that's what I'm trying to get to, but I don't want to hide the ball. So I think it maybe it'd be a good time now to tell you why at common law, we have the right to travel. This is a common law doctrine. That's why we say it's constitutional.
Our constitution is a brief of common law government. Our constitute our constitution of The United States is not law. It's an it's what men agreed with law at that time. There are Christian men across the board. Nobody make fun of the Bible back in those days. They didn't make fun of the Bible in America when I was a kid. That'd be that'd be that'd be personal suicide. It'd destroy your reputation. Well, they didn't either. And they knew why that that's part of our constitutional understanding. They knew why they complained in the declaration of '76 that the king of England with his cronies and parliament told them that they could not go West of The Alleghenies.
They knew that was a limitation on their right to enter new lands, their right to travel on impulse. And if you wanna read about how convicted they were about that, go to the Internet and type in the over mountain men. Mhmm. The over mountain men. Mhmm. They went over the mountain. They cleared land. They built cabins. They had their families. And then they got word from, a Highlander officer of the British army. His name was Ferguson. He sent him a letter and said, you either come back across like the king commands, or I will come arrest you, and we will hang you, cut you down, cut your guts out. We'll burn your guts in front of your face, each of you, and then we will cut your body into little pieces, put them in buckets, ship them back to England to be disposed of at the pleasure of the crown. That's called being hung, drawn, and quartered. That's what he said. And the open mountain men Roger.
North Carolina Great. Thank you.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
North Carolina. That further than that. Call that Brent. There's something going on. They're totally he's talking. You guys are all having a conversation in the background, please.
[02:42:29] Unknown:
Yeah. And, they said we're not gonna do this. He have just threatened to murder us. And at common law, we have a right to travel and to enter, as they used to say then, enter new lands. God what's the foundation of that? Where does that come from? Of course, they went and they went after, Ferguson and they killed him and they killed almost everybody in his command over 200 men. They called him before he called them. George Washington said, if I had just a few divisions, like the over mountain men, this war would have been over a long time ago. They were ticked. Of course they were ticked, but why? Because they said they couldn't go into new lands. Okay. Why is that?
It's because God has established with mankind, a trust settlement. And he said it this way in his first expression, that all of the Bible is an expanding explanation of the Creator's trust settlement with mankind. That's where it comes from. And what does he say? Simply, this is not complicated. What did he say to grandma and grandpa, Adam, and Eve?
[02:43:36] Unknown:
He said forth and multiply.
[02:43:38] Unknown:
Yeah. You be fruitful, multiply, and then what was the next phrase? Anybody remember? Be fruitful, multiply, and scatter over the faces of the land. Right. If the government comes along and says you don't have the right to travel upon impulse, that's a violation of the most fundamental law that God has ever given to mankind. Cool. He God wants us to scatter. And when they the federal government says you can't go into national forest and you can't go into state forest and you can't No. That's a violation of the law of God, my friend. Roger. I love that. I love that, Brandon. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Woah. That's why we should have that conviction. And that's They're hard to hold back, Brent. They're very hard to hold back at times. Well, I'm happy about that. Yeah.
[02:44:31] Unknown:
Who's Roger? Roger.
[02:44:34] Unknown:
Yeah. Are you wanting are you wanting is your belly, grumbling, and are you you wanting I'm past I'm past I'm past that stuff. That's why. Yes. So it was thank you for the show today. I do have a question of Brent when you leave. Thank you.
[02:44:49] Unknown:
Alright. I I'll what? No. Sorry. No. You guys don't get to decide when Roger leaves. I've got something to say. Annette was talking to Brent, and then Mirka interrupted Annette, and Sherry was interrupting Mirka. Now if we can all just settle down They're a bunch of people on the line. Person that's supposed to be talking at the time they're supposed to be talking, I think we can get through this. It's very difficult. I do have something that I have to say to Roger before he leaves. So, guys, get your stuff straightened out so I can have the floor. Yeah. Yes, please, Paul.
[02:45:25] Unknown:
Paul, go ahead. Go ahead, Paul.
[02:45:28] Unknown:
Alright. I don't have all the details. I don't know the backstory because, because, discretion has been requested. However, Paul English and family are going through something difficult. Send prayers to them for strength, peace,
[02:45:47] Unknown:
and comfort. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for letting us know. I've if he missed a show yesterday, I knew something was wrong. So thanks for that update, and I hope we'll all comply with saying a few good words in their direction. Yeah. For those of you who don't know, Paul's wife has dementia at a very early age. She's got two early twenties boys, but they've got responsibility over over her, and it really puts a strain on him at times.
[02:46:20] Unknown:
So, anyway, just so you know. Roger also was it Gary up in,
[02:46:25] Unknown:
He's he's better. He was with us this week. Good. Good. He's not well yet, but he's better, it appears.
[02:46:33] Unknown:
Well, I'm thankful.
[02:46:34] Unknown:
Fair enough. Him.
[02:46:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, hey. Listen. I appreciate y'all. It's more fun doing this and knowing you're you're engaged than it is. You're not, but let us pull you up once in a while. You can't say they're not interested. No. That's right. Hey, Brent. I have two more two more things if I could.
[02:46:53] Unknown:
Uh-huh. First off, I think that Ted Wallen and you interview would be or or y'all's interaction would be in for I I'm interested in it. Do you know if, it's available to to watch?
[02:47:08] Unknown:
It's available to watch. I think you can find it on the Internet. I think I have, but my microphone for most of it was shut off. We were Whoever
[02:47:17] Unknown:
whoever mic it did a really poor job of setting that up, and Brent was, like, very difficult to hear the dialogue.
[02:47:25] Unknown:
You know, maybe. If I could talk him into it. But ever since that time, I've not been able he hasn't been real receptive, but and to my my communications, but maybe I could get him on and interview him again. I did interview him once before. Mhmm.
[02:47:43] Unknown:
I know Ted. I've had meals, broke bread with him several times, and really nice guy.
[02:47:49] Unknown:
Well, let me say this about Ted because I don't want people to get any wrong impressions. Ted studies the bible hard. He's one of the few men I know that do. He really does try to fair it out for himself what it says, and he teaches it. And I don't doubt his sincerity. Yep. But on that point, we disagree. And, that's that's the way that should go. Right?
[02:48:13] Unknown:
Well, let me plug his let me plug his opus here for a second if some of y'all aren't familiar with Ted's work. He's written a number of books. But the one that had the greatest impact on me is is titled God's Yesterday, Today, and Forever. And he does a comparison of of the Jewish side and then the Gentile side. And the whole book is laced with that past the first five chapters. And if you're not really biblically familiar with things, you may wanna read through chapter six and the end and then go back and read the first five. You might get more out of them that way. But it's got a glossary. Any word you want, an antisemite or where else, and he's got a glossary of those words. You can go back and reference what what, quote they came from, who said it, all that stuff. It's a it's a really powerful book in that area.
[02:49:18] Unknown:
So what, Brent, while you were going over what is our, in court, our duty, you know, like, to say, hey. This is unfair and all that, and what's not our do you know, what's not our part, I it kinda brought me back to a thought that I've had, and you can find this on, the docs under recent. It's the Tax Exempt Foundation. It's, it's a from the House of Representatives Special Committee, Investigation of Tax Exempt Foundations. And, it goes into, like, talking about how, there's been, like, a revolution. Oh, oh, it's it's a okay. So let me just kind of read a little bit. Over the past fifty years, swift and changes have occurred in this country. Now, this was written in, like, '50, four.
In the function and activity of the federal government. Skipping down to third paragraph, among these is an increasing participation of the federal government in education, slum clearance, education, health, power generation, subsidies of agriculture, science research, wage control. Ding ding. Anyways, mortgage. It goes on a little bit more. Most, have not all of well, anyways so so, basically, it's saying it's these tax exempt that are writing the laws that's causing the changes that's reducing the people's, ability to or or, you know, increasing the the the federal government's powers over the people is in in essence.
What what kind of comes to mind is if if if tax exempt, which is the function of rich over the poor, it that's how I see it, and they're writing laws to increase their powers over the people, wouldn't that in court become a a, a weapon against the people? Well, I'm not saying it the way I wanna say it. But, hopefully, it gives you enough there to and maybe this is for another day that, you know, when when, the rich causes laws over the to oppress the poor oppress the people that they're supposed to serve, that's an injustice.
[02:52:09] Unknown:
But maybe another day you could talk about that. I yield. No. But that's that. No. That's absolutely true, but it's it's, going on now. That's it's it's going on for centuries. When our country started, it was the rich folk in England, namely the parliamentarians and their, arm of trading called the British East India Company, had included the crown that were oppressing the colonies economically. And, we had been free before that for three kings. They left us alone, and then all of a sudden they saw, hey. These people over there in America are rich, and we were. Our lifestyle over here was much better than anybody in England by and large because they left us alone. That's one of the greatest proofs of government just getting out of people's lives. Prosperity will result. That's who we were when we started, and they were envious and jealous. And they wanted us to milk keep milking the cow over here, and they wanted us to send them all the milk. That's what it boiled down to. Then all the other things I'm talking about, but came down to the common law tradition and monopoly. They had a monopoly on trade. They would didn't want us to trade with anybody, but they were rich.
They were rich and had power to control the laws that were being pumped out of the legislature, the parliament. And it is a subject that we could talk about more, but I understand what you're saying. I do see it. I was told when I was in law school by, professor named Nelson. I think he teaches at Pepperdine now, but he's he's old by now. But he said, just remember, boys, remember, you go up against a bank or an insurance company, all the laws are written to favor them, and you're gonna have a hard hill to climb. It'd be like pushing a rope uphill on the ground.
He said, and he said, the reason the laws were written for them because they're tax exempt, the, the funds of insurance companies, make money on interest and investments that is not taxed. And this done for public policy reasons. They don't want the they say, wait. They don't want the insurance companies to go under in case of a catastrophe, and so they pass legislation. Then the the banks have legislation of congress say the Federal Reserve Bank, which is really the banks in America, everybody has to count out of them, all the banks. Law says court cannot audit. No one can audit the Federal Reserve Bank.
So they're controlling things. That's all true. What is our defense against it? It is our common law tradition. Do we even know what it is? Can we define it? Do we know how to use it? The answer is no. No. No. The lawyers don't know the difference between the law of the land and the law of the city, the canon civil laws of Rome. They even write books and say they're all the same. I've read the books. They don't know what they're talking about. Comparative law, we call it, is not even required to be taught in the law schools anymore. So we do know the difference except in one state, and that's Louisiana. It's required to be taught in the law schools in Louisiana, which isn't even it's the only non common law jurisdiction in the country, But they want their boys to know the difference down there, so they they teach it. They're a canon civil law jurisdiction like Quebec because of the Roman church and the French influence there. So there we are. Yes. It's our duty. Justice Scalia said one time, he said a lot of things that were fascinating. He said people, when I go and I travel and I speak, people say, well, you're supposed to represent us as Americans. He said, what? The Supreme court you think is your representative?
Number one, the Supreme court doesn't represent anybody. Number two, if you want to look at it that way, just consider what is most of America? Protestant. Are there any Protestants on the court? No. It's split between the Jews and the Catholics like me. That's not representative, he says. Well, is he right? Of course, he's right. Why is it the federal branches are that way too? Don't tell me that religion does not dictate the way you think. It does. That's the heart of who you are and your deepest convictions. Who was it? Cornelius Mantell, a professor at Princeton University for years, the foremost proponent of the reformed Christianity in the world, grew up on a dairy farm in Northwest Indiana.
What did he say? What was the conclusion of his life? Here's it. Here it is. The greatest Protestant theologian in the world up and through until about '28 up into the eighties. What did he say? He said, culture. He said, culture is religion externalized. Culture is religion externalized. You wanna know what the culture of Mexico is or what's their religion? It's externalized. They love dictatorship. That's why they have a a government down there and not three branches of government like we do. But what about America? What's our culture? Well, our culture has been fundamentally protestant. That's a fact of history. That's not an argument. That's just a fact.
Well, therefore, our culture is a expression. Culture externalized an expression of our culture, what we deem worthy to cultivate. You go to China, you go to Japan. What's culture? It's internalized. What is it? Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism. They eat the manure from cows. That's their culture. They have recipes. They serve it up in the restaurants. They fix it a certain way. That's a filthy, stupid, dangerous culture, but that is their religion externalized in India and Pakistan and those places. Our culture is different because our culture is religion externalized. And so if you wanna be a part of the solution, ask yourself, what is the religion that has made us some great and has enabled us? It is the common law tradition of Christianity, which is the only tradition of common law there is. Go ahead, Annette.
[02:58:02] Unknown:
I I I was just letting everyone else else know I yield. Okay.
[02:58:08] Unknown:
Yeah. No. I'm an ex in line if you don't mind.
[02:58:12] Unknown:
I know that we we need to get it so you take a ticket like the driver's license station or something. That's
[02:58:18] Unknown:
right. I have a number. We'll try. Oh, okay. May I So Oh, wait. So when you said when you said, please tell me, where, the law of the almighty has given us, the ability to travel, you took it back further. Said was, go forth and multiply. He didn't say scatter, but go forth and multiply. But what I was gonna take it back to was Moses and going to Pharaoh, let my people go. You don't have authority over them because they needed to travel to the, feast.
[02:59:06] Unknown:
My point. My point was the Bible teaches that it started in the beginning when he said, be fruitful and scatter, and that's what the Hebrew word means. And then throughout the Bible, he reiterates that, and you have pointed out and you have well pointed out that some of those reiterations, the theme never stops.
[02:59:23] Unknown:
That's our whole point of being down here to plan. What? The principle came from the almighty and then his people, principle. And that was No. They don't.
[02:59:37] Unknown:
No. They don't adhere. No. They don't adhere to his principle, but they're supposed to. Well, most of the we have that's why we have in Genesis 11, God scattering people at the Tower Of Babel again, because they're fighting the simple command of their maker. But, yeah, that's the theme. You and you pointed out some good examples of it. Yeah. Who's next? Somebody said they're up.
[03:00:02] Unknown:
This is Larry.
[03:00:04] Unknown:
Hey, Larry.
[03:00:06] Unknown:
Hey. There's a it sounds like based upon what you're explaining for the last hour that the common law is still available to us in the courts, but Roger is always teaching us that, I think the courts are courts of equity and, or contract courts and you have to invoke common law. But by the by the way you explain things, people are getting due process because that's that's what the common law is all about, getting due process, and due process is taking place in the courts. So if it is a court of equity, would you say that the it is it's it could be a court a common law court at the same time because they are getting due process.
[03:00:58] Unknown:
That's correct. And equity is equity follows common law or as lawyers say, equity follows law. Equity is subservient to law. Wait. Law is short for common law in our English speaking world. And so, yeah, equity is always there. It has to be equity is part of our common law tradition. It's a very specific part. We could talk more about that, but don't get caught up. Don't get caught up. This is patriot more patriot mythology. Oh, these are courts of equity. Well, of course, they have equity jurisdiction. That's what a common law court has. It also has a law, but where there is no remedy at law, the courts, according to our common law, repair to equity to try to find a remedy. But that's a long subject. I don't I think it's a I think it's a distraction to get off on that subject the way people do. Let's just talk about our common law. What is it? It's due process. That's one way you said it. So what's due process?
Well, we could define it this way. It's the process that is due and owing. The course of process that is due and owing to all concern. We follow a certain course. Jesus Christ did not say I am a list of laws. No. No. He said I'm all about process. He said it this way. I am the way. I I am the way, John fourteen six. And he says that over and over. The word Torah, we translate it law. Well, what does it mean? It means the way pointed out with the index finger. In the verb form, it means what's your what the the path you follow, the path, the course you get on. The Puritans understood this. Pil John Bunyan wrote pilgrims pilgrims laws. No. No. It wasn't laws. Pilgrim's progress. And it's all about a man that finds a narrow path to get on, and he tries to stay on it to get to the celestial city, the New Jerusalem. But he analogizes because the Bible does. It is the ways and the paths. It's not we're not to be concerned with the outcome. We are to be concerned with concentrating on moment by moment, day by day, living our life the way the way God says to live it. I'm talking to my mother. My father will be 95 99 here pretty soon. My mother is pretty close, and she is dis disappointed me as of two days ago that I wasn't speaking to her in a way that made her feel comfortable.
Was she right? I she's the final decider of that, not me. So I just said I just said to her, I just texted her. I said, mom, by the way, if you think I need slapped in the chops the way you did when I was 16, I'll hold still or somebody can hold me and, just let me know when to be there and you can do it. Well, what was I trying to communicate to her that I was gonna do what she said? No. I was trying to communicate to her that I'll do more to try to show her respect in a way that satisfies her. It's the way I go about life that God's interested in, not the outcome. That's his business. I live my Christian life according to the Bible. I'm a need to try to live it moment by moment from faith as it says to faith.
The way my attitude toward other men, my attitude toward God. What does God want? What was the course he wants us to follow? We're talking here about the things of God. And so I'm Roger and I are in charge of the way we go about that. And that's really as important or more important than what we say. And, of course, I'm always saying, well, let's try to get some order here. And Paul says, well, let's have let's do it this way so everybody gets a chance to see how important that is. How can all your ideas in your mind, your collectiveness of thought come out unless we have some kind of order that works. Again, that's our jurisdiction.
And right here, it's my jurisdiction along with Roger and Paul helps, and you can help too to help us keep that order so that this will be more profitable for all concerned. I'm not as concerned much about the outcome of this discussion as I am that it pleases God the way we go about it, the order, you see. Listen. We've been in Clown Town. I have one more comment and then yeah. We've been in Clown Town for many years. Obama, Biden, everywhere we look, as one fellow says, all we can see is clowns on unicycles. Disorder. Chaos.
God, the Bible says, is not a god of disorder. He is a god of order, and he his people are to reflect that in what they do. And so yes. Go ahead.
[03:05:31] Unknown:
Yeah. Just two more things, and I'll I'll I'll mute to listen. So we we were discussing this a couple of weeks ago, and it was determined that the federal courts don't use common law. So do you agree with that? And then the second question is, we had a caller call in a couple of days ago, and he is caught up in some kind of Hebrew Christian Hebrew Christian movement or something. And he's claiming that all the Hebrews were black, that Moses was black. And I was wondering if you can comment on that.
[03:06:09] Unknown:
That's, the Bible doesn't support that. Talk about that. I'll start with that question. Talk about that is to miss the point of the Bible. The but it is important that we recognize race is race is not a matter of skin color. Race is a matter of your ancestors. Now I know often skin color and is indicative in many way, but that's not really what the bible that's not the way the Bible presents it. The bible presents it according to your ancestors, number one. And know that that's not a relevant point. Was Moses that's just not relevant. And the bible is not clear on that point. It's pure speculation.
From my study, I'll give you my testimony. I don't know everything. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but neither am I the dumbest. And I've had my bury my head buried in the Bible, my brain buried in the Bible for well over forty decades very intensely, and I don't see that's true. No. I don't. And I've known men that have taught that. That's true. The second question was, is or, yeah, is are are federal courts common law courts or is the common law gone? No. Our federal courts are common law courts. The machinery is all in place. And to say otherwise is to become part of the problem.
All you're doing is playing into their hands. Oh, no common law here? Yeah. And we go back and people quote silly things like, Erie Tompkin Railroad, see, Erie versus Tompkin. I see. Who what what was that guy? Thompson versus Erie Railroad. That's what was it. And the comment was made there that they say the comment that was made there, the common law does not apply in our federal courts. Well, what they were saying is and you gotta go back and just read the case. It's really easy. What they're saying is we used but here's what they said. They said, there is no federal common law. Well, what do they mean by that? What they meant by that listen to me close.
That was in the nineteen thirties coming up to the forties. What they meant by that was this, and they said so. When a when two people from two different states get into a federal court and our constitution, by the way, allows that. It's called diversity jurisdiction, where one fellow is from one state, another fellow is from another state, and neither one of them wanna get sued in the state courts of the other man's state because that would be unfair. The federal courts say we can take jurisdiction and there's a a neutral forum. Well, always until, Tompkin Tompkin versus Erie Railroad, always before they had the they said that the was a a federal law that the feds the federal courts would decide how to decide the case, and they wouldn't ask anybody else.
Well, Tom conversion railroad, Ernie, area railroad said this. I think one fellow was from Pennsylvania, and, yeah, the other fellow was from New York. And they said, here's what we're gonna do from now on. We're not gonna go to the federal cases and the federal precedents and the federal courts to decide these kinds of cases where two people are from two two different states. Now we're gonna choose one state or the other, and here's how we're gonna make that choice. And here are the principles of our common law we're gonna use to make that choice. That that case through power back to the states, that's what it did.
And so it was a good thing. It's called choice of law, choice of law between two sovereignties. How do you handle that? And they said, we we have ways of doing that, and we're gonna choose. For example, I write a trust document. And, I'm saying if I did, I have. I've written trust indentures, then there's a problem. And one beneficiary lives in one state and the property's in another state. Some of the properties in one state and some of the properties in another state. Well, how do you decide which state courts have jurisdiction over a problem? Well, there are rules at common law that guide us so we can make that decision, and the courts will make that decision. It's that kind of a principle. No. Our our our, federal courts are common law courts. Let me give you some reasons how I know that. Number one, we use a 12 man jury.
That's by the command of the constitution in states. If you got a jury, 12 man jury and I'm talking. I'm giving personal testimony. I've been tried in the federal courts by a 12 man jury and was sprung by a 12 man jury. I'm all I'm all for, the common law, and I'm all for saying the common laws into the federal courts, and the jury sprung me. Judge was really mad, really mad. Prosecutors were beside themselves. One lost, his position as a US attorney over it. That really happened. Doesn't always happen right, but in that case, it happened right. Also, the right to remain silent, the right to free speech, those are all matters in our common law, our federal courts. Those are common law doctrines.
The right the right to an indictment by a grand jury. You can't get into federal court as a criminal defendant unless grand jury has indicted you. That's our common law. There are no grand juries in the rest of the world. That's common law institution. So no. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've been to federal court lots of times. No. We follow follow the common rules of evidence that Congress statute put them in a statute, the rules, but those are the common rules of evidence that they put into a a statute. We follow all that.
We can impeach federal judges and we've done it in America. We need to do it more. No. No. All that's common law doctrine. So, no, that's not true. Nuh-uh. That does that help? Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:11:40] Unknown:
Yeah. I just wanted to be clear that that it I called it a mockumentary for a reason. It's not fact, but it's based on law where, legal professors have said the scenario that's portrayed in there is possible. You could actually do murder in this country somewhere and not be able to sit a jury in order to adjudicate it.
[03:12:06] Unknown:
Well, we'd have to see it. An exam at common law, speculation is not allowed. If I can't come up and as our constitution says, in order for a court to have jurisdiction, a federal court, this a common law doctrine. It's been around for centuries. The controversy has to be real. The parties have to stand and just life, liberty, or property, or a combination thereof, or the court doesn't even have jurisdiction. You can't go into a court a federal court and say, I wanna know how the court would rule if this, this, this, and this were true. They'll just throw you out and say, we don't do that. Well, our our the constitution and our common law requires a real contra a real fight a real fight over life, liberty, or property.
And if they're in a fight over it, we can't take it. Yeah.
[03:12:51] Unknown:
You know, Brent, one of the guys I like to read when it comes to, you know, common law versus equity is Roscoe Pound because he was born in 1870, and he died in 1964. Throughout his life, he saw the changes that happened, and he's basically saying the equity has gotten more rigid than common law ever was.
[03:13:17] Unknown:
It it has, and it it is governed by the rules of evidence of common law, and it has been brought in been brought to heel, so to speak, under our common law traditions of evidence. But it all has has always been around for centuries, and it all has always been true that equity follows law. Equity follows law. A long history, it takes, how many years of just reading and reading to come to grips with what equity really is. I say that, and maybe I'm just stupid, but it took me a long time, and I worked at it for a long time. I'm comfortable now. But, you know, they don't call it reading law for nothing. You gotta just read and read and read. Oh, yeah.
[03:14:00] Unknown:
Yeah. At at one point, they were very careful about it because they would they would make a decision in, say, common law, but then they would follow it up with equity and keep them separate. Well, now it's, you know,
[03:14:16] Unknown:
it is the rules. I yeah. Not very long ago, well, in all the state courts I knew, we had two divisions in our state courts, chancery and law. Chancery is another word for equity. And we had two different divisions, and and we even sometimes had two different judges judges. And equity had to do with matters of fiduciary trust, family law, marriage and divorce, adoption, trust in estates and wills. That's fundamentally what it was. But now the legislation in almost all the states and it's not a bad thing, and it used to be this way in England, then it went the other way. Now it's come back again, but it's all good. A judge can take jurisdiction over either if he thinks it's necessary.
He can take off his law hat, and he can put on his equity hat. I recently, well, not too long ago, tried a case that had to do with trusts, and that's equity, but the bank was involved and the bank wanted didn't want it in trust. I was arguing that they had had taken on the duties of trustee. Well, I didn't want that. They wanted to look like they had taken on the duties of contract, which is arm's length to say, so what do you do? I said to the judge, judge, we got to decide what law, what the relationship is here, or we don't know what body of law to apply. If the body if you do do what they want, we're gonna have to impanel a jury. That's law. That's, that's contract.
And that's where all banks wanna stay because they don't wanna care about other people. See? But if you get them in, trust but there's a trust problem here. We're arguing that the bank, took on the office of trustee and got this guy to trust him, and then they screwed him. That was the whole, like, the whole theory of the case. And it should have been tried. We should have had a jury. He denied a jury, but on the other hand, in that particular case, we would have bored a jury to death and they would have probably ruled against it.
Oh, there's a lot comes in in our common law, in our common law tradition. There's it's about us. It's not about what the government wants. It's not about we gotta reach the outcome the government wants. No. We go into court and fight. There is no trial in the rest of the world. There is no trial, just a tribunal. That's all. That means you can go in and the lawyers and the judge decide what to do with the case. And there there trial trial by jury is a fight. It's trial. It's a battle by trial as I was saying before. It's a fight. It's from the tradition of trial by battle at common law. It's from the tradition of dueling. That's what we do in court. What's that?
[03:16:58] Unknown:
What's that? What are the facts? What are the facts? The facts or whatever the Jewish says? The fact. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. When I'm talking about Well, wait a minute. It's one No. No.
[03:17:12] Unknown:
No. I'm not waiting. I'm not waiting. When I talk, everyone else stops or we can't do this. That's the way it works.
[03:17:21] Unknown:
Well, if you take a pause, and you know I answered it. Are you? Stop.
[03:17:26] Unknown:
Good. The facts are what the jury says they are in our common law tradition. The jury is the decider of fact. That's the job and the jurisdiction of the jury. And we we don't have lawsuits. As I said a while ago, we have fact suits. We call them lawsuits, but they aren't. We don't ask the jury what the law is. If they wanna decide, they can, but they're not even they don't even think about it, and they don't wanna tell us. Because once they decide the facts, that pretty much ends the case. The law will be obvious. That's how that works. Now if there's another question you wanted to ask, but I wanted to get that out of the way first.
Was there another question you wanted to ask?
[03:18:06] Unknown:
Well, I just wanna say that who puts forth the facts and it comes back to who has what position. So you have your two adversaries, your, plaintiff and your defendant, and then the judge who is supposedly neutral. I know those things change depending on what the matter is before them. But the jury can only decide facts that are put forth by each party, and the same with a judge. Well, let's just stop right there. That.
[03:18:50] Unknown:
Stop right there. Stop right there.
[03:18:51] Unknown:
We're talking about standards. I'm not talking about any particular case. Let me say it this way. The most powerful position in the universe among any people are the ones that have the final arbitrary power to decide the facts of any particular instant case. God is the final arbiter of right and wrong in his universe. That means he decided the facts. And nobody he doesn't have to explain them, and nobody has the authority to question. And amazingly, in our common law tradition, we've been delegated authority down here on land, and the jury is in the same position. They decide the facts.
We don't have any right to question those facts, and they have no obligation to explain anything they've done. There is no appealing from the decision on the facts from the jury. That's the most powerful position down here on land, and we call that the lawgiver, anciently called the lawgiver. The lawgiver is the final arbiter. That means you don't have to give a reason. The final arbiter of the facts and individual instances from whose decision there is no appeal. That's the jury down here on land. That's God over his whole creation. That's what we need to know, and that's the way we need to approach everything. And we don't need to riddle what we're doing, for example, here with a whole lot of just stuff that obscures the fact of the matter in this case. And the fact of the matter is that's our common law tradition, and that's what God authorizes. And that's why Jesus Christ and paneled 12 men, 12 men to destroy to decide the facts of who he is, his identity, and deliver their verdict.
And he just grabbed 12 men he just grabs 12 men standing around that didn't amount to anybody, anything in anybody's eyes, and we do the same thing today in our common law tradition, and they don't do it anywhere else in the world. And it works real well. Yeah. That's what love for you. Is who purports
[03:20:58] Unknown:
who puts forth the facts for that jury Obviously,
[03:21:03] Unknown:
obviously, obviously, the parties put forward evidence, and the jury decides the facts on the basis of the evidence. That's the way our common law tradition works, and God has ordained it. And to know that standard and to push forward and to say, this is what we gotta do. This is due process. This is the way we go about it is our duty. You need to be doing it. Correct. And I need to be doing it.
[03:21:28] Unknown:
Correct. I I just wanted to say it's up to us to put forth the facts of the matter, and we cannot, oh, we have to do that. Put it forth. But also, speaking to the adversarial sides and the judge is supposed to be neutral, instead of the judge giving a fourth, terms and conditions for the jury to decide, if he's neutral, then he cannot do anything except for, listen to the arguments for both sides. Correct?
[03:22:14] Unknown:
Oh, sure. The jury. We we have juries because we don't trust judges. That that's not too hard, is it? We have juries because we don't trust judges to be fair and unbiased, and they need to hear that more often. I mean, that's so blatantly obvious. I'm amazed that it isn't said by judges themselves. Look. The jury is here because I'm not to be trusted with this case. That's exactly right. That's why we do that. Somebody else had another question. Somebody
[03:22:43] Unknown:
Hey, Brent. It's, Larry in Jacksonville. Two things. So if if somebody, is is has to appear in court, let let's just say it's a civil matter, debt collection matter, whatever, and and they don't, invoke their right to a trial by jury, it's automatically waived, and they get a bench trial. What kind of court would that be considered where the judge decides? Is that just a plain old court of equity? It it's no longer a common law court in that sense? Oh, no. If you opt if you opt for the judge instead of the jury, it's still a common law trial.
[03:23:23] Unknown:
All the rules of the common law apply, but that's up to you. You know, sometimes it's better to opt for the judge. Better. Depends upon the issues. Sometimes it just depends upon where you live. It depends upon all sorts of things. But if you don't demand a jury trial and your first opportunity to respond, you may not get one. And you don't make a motion for a jury trial. You demand it. It's called a jury demand. Why? Because of my my call, nobody else's to demand a jury. And you put it right on the front of the pleading when you first opportunity to opportunity you have to respond.
[03:24:00] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. And one more thing. You've gone over this in the past, and I'd like you to just take a few minutes to reiterate your position on it. There's still a lot of talk on on the after shows of the Radio Ranch about there is a there is a difference between a jury trial and a trial by jury. And what they're saying is their students saying, oh, you must have a jury, a trial by jury. Don't call it a jury trial because you you're not gonna get the same thing. Can you speak on that one more time, please? Well, probably probably the judge wouldn't know the difference, but I agree the proper
[03:24:40] Unknown:
way to say it is trial by jury. That's the proper way to say it. And it's important that we say things properly so we communicate properly. That's not that's like a guy said to me one time, I was, he was from, just North Of Memphis down there along the river. He had a real deep I called the old river accent. And I said, well, you know what? Just like I was talking to him. I said, just like, Daniel in the in the lion's den. Daniel in the lion's den. And he said, when is there it weren't no lion's den. I said, well, what was it? He said, it was a den of lions. Is there a difference? Yeah. But I got to thinking about it. He was right. There's proper English there. It it wasn't a lion's den. A lion's den may or may not have lions in it, but a den of lions has lions in it. And if you say jury trial, that's a little bit different and stress is something a little different than trial by jury. And historically, the pleading at your first response, you would say, and I demand a jury trial demand went this way in the early days. So I'm talking a few centuries ago. And I demand that I, that this case be put upon the country.
Trial by your country. That's jury trial at common law. Well, what's trial by your country? That meant trial by 12 men, 12 militiamen, members of the militia of the country. That's jury trial. Two duties of a militiamen, to defend the law of the land by willingness to serve on the jury and to defend the land itself by willingness to take up arms against enemies foreign and to bend the law of the land by enemies domestic. And that's why we have that oath, enemies foreign and domestic willingness to serve, to pick up arms and defend the land.
Number two, willingness to serve on the jury in defense of the law of the land. And to defend the law of the land is to defend the land. And to defend the land is to defend the law of the land. That's God's way, w a y, of going about justice. Brent? Well yeah. Go ahead.
[03:26:56] Unknown:
Yeah. There this is the testimony of a Christian woman. She she felt that it was her duty to go on the jury, and she said the first thing she had to do is be very careful to get on the jury because they were trying to make sure that they had people on that jury that were going to agree with everything that they were saying, and she didn't think that was fair. So she really went out of her way to get on the jury, first off. Then when she gets on the jury, part of the judge's instructions to her are to say if there's a, a word that that you don't know the definition of, he restricted them from looking up the meaning of the word.
I mean,
[03:27:42] Unknown:
this is not right. But touch what? Why is that not right?
[03:27:48] Unknown:
Why shouldn't she know what a word that's being used to convict or show a man innocent the meaning of it?
[03:27:56] Unknown:
Well, here it is. Here's the reason for that, and it's always been this way. That's nothing new. When you impanel a jury, you're not impaneling experts. That's the whole idea behind it. Like the bible says, first Corinthians chapter six, empaneled the least esteemed among you. To do what? To decide the fate of rich people's money and lives. That's what. Can you imagine how much more decent the world would be if every rich man, every rich man thought possibly some poor nobodies would be deciding his fate in life? How much nicer he would be to everybody?
What a beautiful, beautiful thing trial by jury is. I know little towns. I'm from a little place, little towns. Every lawyer that tries cases is very his whole life, very, very careful not to offend anybody. Because one person on the jury could throw your whole case. You see, what a system. God has done this. God said, and I cease to be amazed at the wisdom of the law of God. But coming back to your question, here's the principle behind what you're talking about. We take the juror as he is on the spot. And once we get him in paneled, we don't let him look at anything.
We don't let him change. Oh, this is a murder case. I gotta go look up the law of murder. We don't want that. No, we want to take him as he is. We're not looking for experts or men that have educated themselves and prepared themselves to serve on a jury. Matter of fact, we guard that so zealously that we empanel the jury and immediately I mean, within five minutes, the trial starts sometime ten minutes. We don't want them to have time to go think about anything. We want to take them as they are. We don't if we wanted experts, we would just ask the lawyers and the judge to decide the case. We don't trust them. We trust folk.
What a wonderful, beautiful arrangement. So no. I see why. And I was involved in the case one time where that happened. And there was a English, a British immigrant on the jury who had been naturalized as a citizen. And they got in an argument in the jury room and had to do with extortion. Got an argument in the jury room about what extortion is and what is the definition. And, of course, this Brit was saying, well, that's not the way they define extortion in England. Well, that wasn't true, but that everybody, of course, when people get on the jury that they wanna think they're some kind of lawyers, you know, and destroy the whole thing. And that's what that's what happens when you want people to be lawyers. We don't want them to be lawyers. We want them to be men just like they are.
And we want them to understand and feel things that lawyers don't understand and feel. That's why Jesus Christ impaneled the least esteemed among his nation. The people that didn't have formal educations, we know that. The book says so. They were fish they were fishermen, and they were the least esteemed. And anyway, this Brit smuggled Right. Knowing that this Brit smuggled a legal dictionary into the jury room to try to teach Americans what true extortion was according to the English, the Brits. And what happened was a long trial was thrown out because this juror did that.
The long trial was thrown out and had to start all over again. Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:31:36] Unknown:
So what if the prosecution is using words to hide the, actual, guilt of, what is actually happening in the court setting. That could be easily done.
[03:31:51] Unknown:
Well, this is, an adversarial tradition. We go into court and fight about stuff like that. That's what can be done. There are many ways to do that, to bring it to the attention of the judge. If the judge doesn't pay any attention, I've had that happen too. Then what do you have? Well, you have post trial motions. You have appeal. You have a lot of things. You can get rid of the judge, but whatever it takes. But we're, this is the tradition that God has given us. That's a good one. If we know it and know that it's a fight, our tradition is adversarial. That means we fight the law of the city that got in Canon laws of Rome that govern the rest of the country is you've heard this word, inquisitorial.
Inquisitorial. There is no jury. There's just torture. And then the government decides what they're gonna do with you. That's really what it boils down to, to varying degrees. Sometimes it's not that noticeable, but there certainly is never a fight. It's never adversarial. There is never any combat in the court. There is never and here's not another thing they don't have. They don't have any cross examination. None. The greatest surety of truth in our common law tradition at trial is not the oath. That'd be silly. People don't pay any attention to that cross examination.
That's the surety of truth. And then the, it can be used very skillfully. Of course. Well, I'm glad you're asking these questions, but let me say this. I like to talk about it sometimes. Of course it keeps it at the top of my mind. Your questions are all good. You're getting to the heart of the matter. I certainly do recommend the book excellence of the common law, a comparative law text of 958 pages. It's like sliced bread. You can go to any section, pick out the subject you want, and read it. And you don't have to read the whole book. Just start picking out sections. And it's all about our common law tradition, comparing and contrasting our common law tradition with the law of the city, the law of the land, with the law of the city. And these questions you're asking about, they're not only answered in that book, but they're fleshed out in pretty much fullness.
I don't know that I, I took the inspiration to write that book from a man from the fourteenth, thirteenth and fourteenth century, sir, John Fortescue, who wrote a book, something like that. But he, he didn't approach it exactly like I did. And that was a book that was used for centuries to answer the kind of questions you're talking. He put it in a format. He put it in a format that was him answering the questions of the future king of England. They were both exiled in France to keep from getting their heads chopped off. And he wanted to teach the future king of England about the common law. And he started out by saying, well, you don't have to know everything about it. We don't want you to be an expert, but you certainly need to be familiar with the fundamentals. And that's what I'm trying to do here. Just get to the fundamentals. Cause once you know those, if you don't know the fundamentals, like most Patriots, they're just haphazardly going around. They don't have a clue what they're doing saying the constitution says this. Well, it says it's the supreme law of the land, but, that means it trumps the Bible. Crazy stuff like that from otherwise smart people who are very intelligent. What are these and want to talk about? I have a right to travel. Well, why?
I mean, if you can't say why from a religious conviction of God himself, forget it. You, you, you don't, you won't have enough conviction. You don't have any conviction. You just have a preference. I wanna travel. It becomes a selfish thing at that point. It's not what god wants. It's what you want. Now I'm not trying to criticize anything that we have here, but you see my point. We need to know what god wants. And the common law tradition tells us go ahead.
[03:35:25] Unknown:
I was gonna chime in on the right to travel thing with, like in Texas and the Old West, it little man's horse was, five to fifteen years. And in other places, if you had a bad personality, they probably hung you.
[03:35:39] Unknown:
Yeah. That's true. Of course. Of course. Why did they hang the witches at,
[03:35:45] Unknown:
in Massachusetts? It was a life or death matter to travel, and I think it still is, Brent. And, you know, it's just badly damaged. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo
[03:36:08] Unknown:
So Yeah. If the point isn't made through the Bible, then you don't have any conviction. And just saying I think it is means nothing because none of us are so I I'm not instructing you. I'm just I'm just I'm I'm just trying to get to the fundamental here. None of us are givers of law. None of us are the source of law. But if we can't find what the source of law has said, we're just wasting our time. It will never work. It will never come to any lasting effect is my point. If we don't know why it's important this right to travel go ahead.
[03:36:43] Unknown:
Is there any, is there, is there some, stuff in the UCC that would help people? Like, I guess that's my point. Should should we be looking at the UCC?
[03:36:58] Unknown:
No. Well universe There's nothing wrong with the UCC applied properly to merchants. That's what it's for. But the none of us have enough time to look at all that. What we should be focusing on, I focus on it, by the way, is the two volumes that god has given us, like the future king of England, sir sir John Fortescue Fortescue and William Blackstone, his commentary said, an an Englishman doesn't wanna be an expert on the law, but he better understand the fundamentals of our common law tradition. That's what I'm interested in, and I'm still interested in it. The UCC is nothing more than the codification of contract law, common law applied to merchants. That's all. To try to reach, to try to put procedures in place that enable us to move quickly if you're a merchant so that our economy will keep flowing quickly if you're a merchant. And that's important.
No, don't worry about the UCC. That's more Patriot mythology. That's more a distraction. What God wants us to know here's another thing. If you think that there's some bad law out there, don't look at it. Don't look at IRS law. I know people that have devoted their lives to studying the IRS code. All that is looking counterfeit baloney. Why don't you devote your life, I would say, to what God said, your evil gift to the law? That's lasting, and that will bring deep satisfaction to the soul, my friends. The law of God, said King David, is perfect. It is perfected. And then he says, converting, turning around the soul of man.
That's power, friends. I want to look at what is powerful in my life, and I want you to too. So the two volumes, the laws of nature and the laws of nature's god, the laws of nature unwritten, meant to be observed in creation, the way things are, and they aren't gonna change. Our common law tradition is a significant slice of that. And then the laws of nature's god, says William Blackstone. That phrase means the Bible. That's what that phrase has always meant in our common law tradition. That's what it means now. Our declaration of 76 says the laws of nature, and the laws of nature is God. If you aren't if you don't have your head in the Bible every day to some degree and are paying attention to what's around you and how the world works, our common law tradition, the laws of this natural world, then you're part of the problem. You're not the solution.
And none of us will ever learn at all, but we need to stay with it. Well, I'm gonna go because I'm getting so tired. I can't talk anymore. And you folk, all of you, I say again, thank you very much because all of you are engaged, and that's what we like. But you're so engaged. You're you're running ahead of me. I can't keep up. That's better than you. You, Brent? I'm being
[03:39:47] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent.
[03:39:48] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Thank
[03:39:50] Unknown:
you, ma'am.
[03:39:52] Unknown:
Oh, somebody had a somebody said something at the end here. I just got I just have a closing comment, not really a question. I was listening to this judge in Texas, and he's pretty famous on YouTube. He's really light. He's pretty fair. And so he got one of these guys in the in front of him that a defendant that had to appear in court because he was caught driving without a license and insurance, and he was trying to make the argument, well, I'm sovereign. I don't need to have a license. And, and he says, well, what do you the judge says, what are you basing that on? And he said, I have the god given right to travel. And the judge agreed with him, and the guy looked kind of puzzled.
And the judge went on to explain, you see those two legs that you have on your body? You have the right to go anywhere you want. But as long as you're in my state, you're gonna have a license, and you're gonna have insurance in case you get in an accident and damage someone else's, you know, you know, property. And he said, I'm not gonna grant you bond because that's gonna be a condition of your bond. And if you show up in my court again, I'm gonna put you in prison. Very interesting.
[03:41:07] Unknown:
Yeah. So, what he was saying was I take it what he was saying was, yeah. You have the right to travel. What's that got to do with sovereignty? And it nothing. The right to travel is a delegated from a sovereign, god himself. It's a responsibility that when you feel the impulse, you get up and go because that's what he commands. And we will feel that impulse as long as we still can go. But what the sovereignty I have a right to travel because I'm a sovereign. That's silly talk. Who said you were sovereign? Where do you get that? Do you have a source of law that says that? I'd he'd be hard pressed to find one. Sovereignty is an absolute. I'm not sovereign. I'm I'm a creature of God, a creation. That means he has created me. That means I'm responsible to whoever made me. He's the sovereign, and God has delegated data sovereignty down here on land, and it doesn't belong to me.
Sovereignty is an absolute term, and that's another patriot mythology kind of a thing. You won't find that in law anywhere that I know of, and you might find it. That doesn't mean that, somebody's statement, that doesn't mean it's true. Men are not the final deciders of what law is. God is. That's sovereignty. And, we have delegated limp what we call limited sovereignty, less an ex oxymoron. There's no such thing as limited sovereignty. We don't have a word in English for it. Why? Because we're a Christian tradition. Our language doesn't even have a word for limited sovereignty because there isn't such a thing. That's why. But we still try to use that limited sovereignty idea and say, well, we try to work with it because all of us have limited jurisdiction, you see. All of us. Because everything down here on land belongs to god.
And if what is down here on land is not limited by the true sovereign, then we will think we have no limits, and we will act that way, and we will destroy ourselves. We will destroy ourselves. There has to be a limit or we think we're God, and that will destroy us. And it's going on all around me. I watch it right now in the patriot community and out. I'm not going there. No, sir. Well, thank you very much again and appreciate you. I I did enjoy the all of this, and, it gets my mind going. I'm thinking about how to get the points across, but please, I have you're asking the questions, and you're bringing raising the the the the subjects that I address in the book, come, excellence of the common law, and I address it even further in five volumes in, the winterized translation of the Bible from the original tongue, the 35,000 footnotes and over 200 appendices talking about all these kind of things, tracing major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context of the Bible.
I appreciate you, and and we're praying for for Paul, and we're praying for Greg up north. And I'm praying for all of you. Listen to me. I'm praying for all of you that God would protect you and your parents and your children and your grandchildren from physical harm, spiritual evil, and false doctrine, above all things false doctrine. And we ask these things and the authority the authority of the Lord, our Lord, Jesus the Christ. Amen. Again, appreciate you. Hope yeah. Hey. Come with from California.
[03:44:35] Unknown:
What's that? From California, Brett. This is Washington California. Oh, Chris. Chris. Yes, Chris. Thanks. Yeah. Chris, go ahead. Port I've got a couple I've got an important thing. You know, Michael, what's the name, Michael? J. Michael j. Michael j, which will be on the show following you on Sunday.
[03:45:01] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Michael j is
[03:45:03] Unknown:
yeah. Michael is in serious trouble. We've talked on the phone. We talked about this lady that he wants to help, but more importantly, he's about to die. He's got infection in bone. He's got infection in the bone of his jaw, and he told me all the trouble he was having. I couldn't sleep, and he couldn't find anybody that would do the work, that all the dentists turn him away. I found a, I found a an oral surgeon that will accept his Medi Cal and do all the work he needs done, and now he won't talk to me. I was gonna drive him right there, and he was gonna go. We had an appointment. I've had this happen with three other people that I've known who died because they went into sepsis in their body, and there was nothing that the hospital could do.
And, he needs to take this seriously. He's not gonna be around much longer, maybe a week or two. He's at the end of the line, and I would like you or somebody to get in touch with him and try and talk some sense into him that he needs to go to a to a to the oral surgeon and let them do the work they need to do to save his life. Did he just did he just find out about this? No. He's known about this for a while, and he's been dancing around on it. And his time is coming to an end. Oh, I see. He's he's told me the whole he's told me the whole story, which is why I jumped in because I know a lot about this. And so I found him a dentist. He said he couldn't find one. And I found him one, and I'm willing to take him there for his treatments.
All he needs to do is say yes and take some time off and do it. Okay. Well, he's he's gonna he's gonna be gone. We're gonna we're gonna be looking at a funeral here.
[03:46:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, you live close by him, I take it. Yes. Yeah. Well, thanks for letting me know. Maybe I'll talk to him Sunday.
[03:47:01] Unknown:
We usually do. That would be good. We'll see. On on the other hand on the other hand, I hear a lot of talk about the Jews and the Gentiles, and I don't hear a whole lot of talk about the Israelites because we're still here also. There's some interesting scripture I've been looking at trying to track down what's happened here. And, and it says in Genesis 48 that it says in verse 16, the angel which read this is Israel speaking. The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be named on them. And the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
And then it's and then, so the name Israel was transferred to the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh, not anybody else. Then in Genesis, 49, at number 22, Joseph is a fruitful bow, even a fruitful bow by a well whose branches run over the wall. The archers have sorely grieved him and shot at him and hated him, But his bow abode in strength and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob. From fence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel. Then we have down in verse 26. The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills. They shall be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren. That was Joseph that was separated from his brethren.
So I see Joseph as being the, the chosen tribe or Ephraim and Manasseh being the chosen tribe, not not Judah. Now we have another thing too in both Matthew and Luke in the lin and in the lineage. We have the lineage goes all the way up to Mary, but never touches Mary. It touches Joseph, but Joseph is not the father of Christ. And furthermore, Mary was not from the tribe of Judah. She was from the tribe of Levi. So there's no connection from Judah to the Lord
[03:49:50] Unknown:
as far as I can see. What I think what I think might be helpful, I recommend it. Roger mentioned this a while ago. Get Ted Weiland's book on that subject, and maybe he'll give you some more clues. He's a pretty good writer, and, he studies hard. I'm on that subject, especially. He is very important to him. So I would suggest and then if after you read it, come back and tell us what you found out, if it helped any.
[03:50:19] Unknown:
Yeah. What was the title of that book?
[03:50:22] Unknown:
I don't remember. Just look up look up Ted Weiland, w e I l a n d, and then see the books he he wrote, and you'll see the see that book there. You'll recognize it by the title. Sure. Okay. Great. Something. Like God's chosen people. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks again. God's chosen people. You, Chris. God's chosen people. Thank you. Appreciate you. We'll talk again. May I? May I
[03:50:51] Unknown:
I wanna apologize to you. Yeah, I wanted to apologize you for you, Brent. Chris called me a troublemaker, and I was asking some personal questions, and I apologize. I didn't wanna get personal. I respect your privacy. But I do have one question. You travel all over the country, and you deal with judges. Now there's something called the Masonic Lodge and Masons. Do you is it your opinion? I'd love your opinion on do you think some of these judges are masons? And if they are masons, they take an oath, and that oath is probably to the masons and not to the judgeship.
So I I'd love your opinion. Thank you very much for your time. I love you.
[03:51:37] Unknown:
Well, let's do this. Yeah. I've I got things I could say about that. But when we come back next week, if you raise that question, Joe, the fellow that spoke first today, Joe from down Oklahoma Yeah. He he knows quite a bit about that. And I would you if you raise that question, we might get him to respond to it, maybe from some inside information. So try to remember that, and then we may we could talk about it more then. But I'm I'm counting on you to bring it up because I might not remember. We might get sidetracked.
[03:52:16] Unknown:
Okay. I respect that. Okay. Thank you, Brent.
[03:52:19] Unknown:
Where do you live? And I'll
[03:52:21] Unknown:
I live in the beautiful state of not state, but I live in Oregon on the East Side Of The Cascades.
[03:52:31] Unknown:
I'm overlooking the mountains right now, but they're a little close. Well, I know you, don't I?
[03:52:37] Unknown:
No. You don't know me.
[03:52:39] Unknown:
We haven't known each other for years.
[03:52:42] Unknown:
No. No. Sorry. I've been I've been on the the Radio Ranch for about two and a half years, and my name is Steven, but I go by Sketch.
[03:52:53] Unknown:
Oh, no. No. If no. I I'm not that's right. I don't know you, but you sound like somebody I know. Well, yeah, we'll talk to you maybe next week then and bring that up.
[03:53:03] Unknown:
Okay. And I hope you accept my apology for asking you a personal questions about your litigation with The US.
[03:53:10] Unknown:
Well, let me put it this way. Let I I didn't know that anybody offended me. And when you said that, I said, I can't remember you offending me. And, of course, I accept your apology, but, I don't demand that other people apologize to me. I demand that they just give me assurances they won't do it again. I don't even remember you doing that, but that's
[03:53:29] Unknown:
okay. No worries. I can't I was a Yeah. I was apologizing to Chris, I guess. Thank you. I Oh, okay. We'll be talking then. Thanks. Bye.
[03:53:39] Unknown:
Have a good one, Brett.
[03:53:41] Unknown:
Okay. Bye bye.
[03:53:43] Unknown:
Yep. I just wanted to say, you know, this this equity thing is it's very complicated because it's it's one of those things where I you you wanna believe that the intention was good, bring it in because the common law was too strict for a lot of people. You either were or you weren't, and there wasn't any any in between, and they would bring inequity to try to be fair about it. But if you read guys like Roscoe Pound, who, like I I think I said earlier, he he was born in 1870, and he died in 1964. He saw the effects of of of equity on the system.
And if I can put words in his mouth, I guess, if you wanna sum up, and he's got tons of books, tons of articles that you can read about the subject. And, basically, I I would say he's saying that that strictness of the common law has been far surpassed by equity. And I believe it's the road to it it it became, of course, the rules of federal procedure in time, and I believe that's the new world order, precursor to international law that will all be under for some, maybe not so distant future. And it's a creeping, ugly thing that if you look at it within your lifetime, you really probably aren't getting a very good idea of, of its effect on our system.
And, of course, the first the first ten amendments are in common law, and everything thereafter is inequity. Anyway, so I just leave it at that. Roscoe Pound, check them out.
[03:55:43] Unknown:
Hey, Samuel. The new world order is a code word for the Zionists' desire to rule the world because they think they are the chosen people, and they have God on their side. It's not gonna happen. God is done with them. He he made that known back in seventy AD when he ended the old covenant system and dispersed the Jews and destroyed everything. This new world order thing is just not gonna happen. You're just gonna have nations.
[03:56:16] Unknown:
I hope you're right. You know, there's a book, written by Gary Wayne, and it's about 800 pages. It's called the Genesis six conspiracy. And I summed that book up like this. There was a new world order before the flood. God put an end to it. And right after the flood, they started a new one, and those bloodlines are healthy and well and trying to get back to it. That's according to him with an awful lot of evidence. Whether they can succeed or not, I know this this what Trump is doing is hard to figure. I mean, it looks like he's trying to make an allegiance, even at the cost of Europe with, the Soviet Union.
And I think he's also asked some people to say to help him in the Middle East. I hope it's for good and not as a, a person who wants to restore, you know, that place from river to river, there's no way that's happening without tremendous amount of death and conflict.
[03:57:30] Unknown:
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:57:36] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
Introduction and Hosts
Radio Networks and Platforms
Discussion on National Debt and Monetary System
Global Economic Issues and Energy
Income Taxation and Usury
Swatting Incidents and Legal Consequences
Department of Education and Education Quality
Political Figures and Legal Challenges
Historical Anecdotes and Political Influence
Legal System and Evidence
IRS and Tax Regulations
Administrative State and Regulations
Executive Orders and Government Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction and Legal Authority
State and Federal Court Jurisdiction
Constitution and Biblical Law
Right to Travel and Common Law
Common Law and Court Procedures
Jury Trials and Legal Process
Closing Remarks and Listener Questions
