Global Voice Radio Network's tracks

Share on social media:

In this episode, the hosts delve into a variety of topics, starting with a discussion on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the use of deadly force by law enforcement. The ruling, which was unanimous, emphasizes the importance of considering the totality of circumstances rather than just the immediate moments before and after an incident. This decision has significant implications for law enforcement practices and civil liability cases.

The conversation also touches on the historical and legal aspects of the common law tradition versus the canon civil laws of Rome, highlighting the differences in legal systems and their impact on governance and individual rights. The hosts explore the importance of understanding these legal frameworks to better navigate and protect one's rights within the system. Additionally, the episode includes discussions on the practicalities of legal processes, such as the use of registered mail for legal documents, and the role of juries in the common law system.

[00:00:52] Unknown:

Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.   This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymytoboost.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 Fatfix,   p h a t p h I   x,   dot com, and also iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International.   That's iTeroPlanet.com.   Thank you, and welcome to the program.  

[00:02:18] Unknown:

Yeah.   As would we,   they're Alvin, and, we're gonna take another   swing at it this morning   here on the Friday edition. It's the May 23.   And, of course, that means Brent Winters is with us. I don't know if he's with us just yet, but if not, he'll be here directly.   And, we got the Radio Ranch, Roger Sales, and the aforementioned   Brent Winters and his producer, Francine, who we're always happy to have along board.   And,   so there's a lot happening. We, immediately on the start of our show here turn it over to Paul so he can   identify the people that assist us and   help us extend our reach just a bit.  

And he's the keeper of said platform. So, Paul, would you come give them the proper recognition and credit, please, for helping us?  

[00:03:05] Unknown:

I can do that.   Good morning, Raj. Thank you.   We're on,   eurofolkradio.com.   Thanks to pastor Eli James.   We're on Global Voice Radio Network,   and the links to Eurofolc and Global Voice are on the matrixdocs.com,   the matrix d 0 c s Com,   where you'll also find links to free conference calls. You can join us live on the show,   and we are also   on   radiosoapbox.com   this morning for the entire two hours.  

[00:03:43] Unknown:

Yikes.  

[00:03:44] Unknown:

There will be no top of the hour break   because, apparently, today, there's no one to say goodbye to. So Yeah.  

[00:03:54] Unknown:

Well,   you could just out of habit if you want to.  

[00:03:58] Unknown:

Well,   or just to keep in practice because, you know Or consist  

[00:04:04] Unknown:

they they call that consistency.  

[00:04:06] Unknown:

No. You know why they don't give new you know you know why they don't give New Yorkers coffee breaks. Right?   No.   Takes too long to retrain them.  

[00:04:17] Unknown:

Oh, okay. Gotcha.   In real radio, that's called continuity.   Mhmm. You know, they'll   the people at this radio station, they'll do with the,   commercials and all that to make sure they don't play   two car commercials in the same break and, you know, that all that stuff's spaced and done correctly.   Continuity.   So we could do it just for continuity.  

[00:04:40] Unknown:

We could.   And that would be fun. But   but Unnecessary,  

[00:04:47] Unknown:

but fun. Well, we we probably have to interrupt Brent on one of his,   you know hey, Brent.  

[00:04:54] Unknown:

Yeah.   There he is. Oh, what are you doing? I'm going to sleep.  

[00:04:59] Unknown:

I know. I was doing the same. Hey, buddy.   Welcome. Paul, were you finished with this,   accreditation   segment?   Yep. I absolutely was. Thank you. Alright. Well, Brent comes in just in time. We're still a little bit off,   like an army. They didn't march on the same foot because of Skype and you for years.   Over ten years, Brent and I have always   said good morning to each other on Skype. Well, we can't do that now, or at least we don't know how. So,  

[00:05:30] Unknown:

anyway, wonderful Microsoft. Boy. Well, is your is your is your phone number still good?  

[00:05:35] Unknown:

No.   Oh. Well, it might be,   but I don't know how to I listen. I just don't understand what's going on over there. Half of it is the old Skype, and it's still good, but you gotta change something. I I   I just threw my hands up about it, Brent. I'm so frustrated.   And now I get people calling me. I've had somebody trying to call me on that number or on Skype. I don't know. Uh-huh. Probably on,   and and it rings, and I can't answer. It doesn't give me any kind of a prompt to answer it. I can't go to Skype and see who called to try and get them back. It's just,   well, it's   messed up with a capital f, Brent.  

Yeah.   Anyway, we're trying to deal with it. You know? Yep.   We'll transition over. And as I told Francine about my my illness this week, this too shall pass. Okay? It'll go away. It's just,   aggravating when you're in it. You know? So how are you doing? You have a good week?  

[00:06:33] Unknown:

Oh, yeah. We're okay. I   oh, even though I don't   like Tucker Carlson, I don't watch the news or pay attention to it. But some a lot of what's on the news is   what's happening is so apparent that you can't help but notice because people are talking about it, or your friends are mentioning it, or you're at somebody's house Right. On the flat screen.   One thing that happened this week is the US Supreme Court   made a monumental fourth amendment   decision. It was nine to zero.  

[00:07:06] Unknown:

Yes. I heard something about a nine to zero ruling. You wanna expand on that for us, can you? Yes. It is important. I I I take it as an encouragement.  

[00:07:16] Unknown:

I see it,   it bothers law enforcement quite a bit, but the truth is   it it, helps law enforcement too.   What cuts one way, cuts another way. It depends. What they're saying is that it makes law enforcement, makes it hard for them to do their job. Well,   I don't believe that's necessarily true.   It it might   help them do their job, but it depends upon, again, the circumstances, and that's what the case is about. And here's to get to the bottom line, here's what what it's about.   The US Supreme Court says that if an officer   uses deadly   force   and, intrudes into some people's privacy, whether an automobile or wherever it is,   use deadly force.  

The rule that has stood for a long time in many places is that   if you're trying to determine whether or not his deadly force was justified,   you need only look at the immediate   immediate   activities. In other words, two seconds before and two seconds after or two seconds before,   he uses deadly force. And whatever else the officer did before that that was wrong and illegal and   objectionable, it doesn't matter.   If he has to use deadly force at that moment, he has to use deadly force at that moment.   But they said no. Nine to zero. They said no.   They said an officer,   used deadly force. We're going if we're going to evaluate whether or not he was justified, whether or not he murdered or committed manslaughter or the   the, the government is liable for the death civilly, noncriminally,   that's what's happened in this case,   we look at the totality   of the circumstances.  

And this totality of the circumstances   test has been around forever   and applied in all sorts of situations.   The totality of the circumstances.   In other words, something that happened   three minutes before or even thirty minutes before   may have justified   use of deadly force or may have   not justified his use of deadly force. It can cut both ways and the dissent.   Kavanaugh wrote the dissent,   and he makes this point. He said, I agree that the totality of the circumstances can be applied. You don't just say, well, what was happening two seconds before   before,   the officer used deadly force?  

No. The totality of the circumstances   is the proper test.   But in   again, Kavanaugh Kavanaugh   joined by Thomas   and Alito, I believe, wrote separately to point out that this can cut both ways   in the, in the favor of law enforcement or against law enforcement.   Well, I got their point. And that's why it was nine zero. People are surprised   that it what came down that way,  

[00:10:17] Unknown:

but I get it. I get it. Well, you said Kavanaugh was in a dissent, but it was nine zero. There wasn't a dissent. Right? Oh, I'm sorry. Just in his opinion.  

[00:10:26] Unknown:

Yeah. I'm sorry. He wrote separately. Yeah. You're right. I that came out, and that's not what I meant.   Good thing you caught that.   No. Not his dissent. He wrote   he agreed with the majority opinion but wrote separately But wrote letters. Okay. For points. Yeah. Okay.  

[00:10:43] Unknown:

Wow. That even floated all the liberals,   through there. That's   Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, that's I guess that's good.  

[00:10:52] Unknown:

Oh, I'm not I I read it and thought about it, and I I agreed with them. I couldn't disagree.   And why why if a if a police officer bust into a man's bedroom, he doesn't even know when they're they're in the house with their guns drawn, and he pulls a pistol and kills a few of them or one of them, which has happened, by the way,   is he guilty?   Well, I think the totality of the circumstances   ought to apply. What if   what if,   the officers knew that he had   used, tried to use deadly force, previously?   Are they justified   in doing what they did? Yes.  

Maybe. Maybe.   What if there was a high speed chase and the fellow finally they get him oh, this really happened. This is one of the cases Kavanaugh   cited. High speed chase.   Finally, a bunch of cruisers were after him. Finally, they get a cruiser in front of him. He runs into the cruiser.   He's he's not stopping. He's got his foot on the foot feet. He's trying to spin the tires and get going again and not getting anywhere, and they finally shoot him and kill him.   Well, the totality of the circumstances   that they should think about is, well, has this man led officers on a high speed chase before?  

Are high speed chase chase is dangerous to to the life and limb of other people? Are they dangerous to him? Are they dangerous to the police officers? Yes. Yes. Yes.   Well, then he's trying now he's he led us on a high speed chase. Now he's trying to get away even though we got him stopped.   Is he posing a danger to us and others? Is he willing to use deadly force or act so recklessly it'd be tantamount   to deadly force? Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, the officers were exonerated in that case, but his daughter brought a lawsuit against him in a noncriminal action for wrongful death. Mhmm. Yeah. Uh-huh. I you know, people say civil or criminal. I I I don't do that. And the reason I don't do that, Roger, is because there's nothing civil about it no matter how you cut it in many cases. And it smacks   of the the civil law. So I I just say noncriminal case. You know? Okay.  



[00:13:02] Unknown:

Do we know the circumstances of the behind this nine o's decision? Did you Well  

[00:13:08] Unknown:

yeah. And and that, what happened was they pulled a fell over, a young kid,   and the officer,   walks up to the window, which is always potentially dangerous. He didn't know what's going on. There's been a lot of officers killed like that as you know. Yep.   Yeah. So he walks up the window. I believe it was in where was it? Doesn't make any difference.   Somehow, Texas sticks in my head, but I don't know.   But he walks up to the window of the car and he spooled her down, and, please give me your driver's license and your insurance proof insurance.   And, the kid said, well,   I don't have my driver's license on me, which is a minor infraction in many states. Yeah. Texas, it was. In Texas, that's a minor infraction, and that's where that's where he was. So he didn't have a driver's license.  

And he said, okay. Well, what about your insurance? He said, well, this is a rental car,   and that was the truth too. And by the way,   I think his girlfriend or or his sister or somebody, somebody else had rented the car, but he was driving it. So he didn't lie about it. It was a rental car. And so he starts rummaging around in the in the glove box to see if he can find the insurance paper.   And the officer said, don't do that.   Now all we have we do have the webcam.   We and I watched it.   You can't see everything, and it doesn't tell the whole story, but it tells a lot.   So he, finally said, well, I get in the trunk and and look. And you can see that the car is on because the blinker is still blinking.  

And and then the car goes off, officer's standing there, and then the kid opens the trunk from inside. You see the trunk lid come up a little bit, and then the   you can see all this on his cruiser camera. See? And then the the blinker comes back on, which seemed to indicate the car started.   The and by the way, by that time, the officer has the door of the car open. I don't know how that happened, but it was open.   And,   then the dog gone car starts driving away. Oh my lord. Yeah. But not fast. It just starts moving moving ahead. And the officer,   in the old days, we'd say jumped on the running board, but there wasn't any running board. He jumped   on the lip of the door, and he's standing on there holding on. The door's open. Officer's there. And when he jumps up, he pulls out his pistol. You can see him do that and sticks it in the car.  

Well, you don't see what happened, but he fired two shots.   And he couldn't see what he was shooting at.   But twelve minutes later, the boy was   deader than a doornail.   He hit him, apparently,   someplace   and killed him.   So,   the Texas court,   did an inquiry or the   police officer   organization, whatever it was, did an inquiry and said they applied the   the immediate circumstances test.   In Texas, that's was always the test. We the only thing that matters is what the officer immediately what happened immediately before the officer used deadly force, and I mean within a second or two.   Nothing else is even could the court doesn't consider anything else adding up to this point   because they said it doesn't make any difference   if the officer has done things illegal, dangerous, put the man in the mind, he might lose his life if if the officer was crazy or whatever.  

And so they they said   no no contest. The man did he followed the procedures, and we're not gonna hold him accountable. And then this, somebody in this boy's family, his mother or father probably,   filed a suit in court for wrongful death. And we used to common law, we used to call that,   the the   and then in the in Anglo Saxon, they would use a v,   you know, an old Germanic speech. And the was,   and this really, this went on for centuries. It's very, very useful. Our our wrongful death   is a continuation   of the, but a little bit of difference, of course. The   is used, in our common law tradition when there were no law enforcement officers except sheriffs and and their deputies.  

And, so the community was responsible   to keep the peace with the sheriff, and that's still true in our common law tradition. And sheriff Darr and I have taught classes on the sheriff at common law. And if you're interested in those kind of classes,   he's sheriff up in Michigan.   If you're interested in those kind of things, you can go to commonlawyer.com,   and you can take that class. It's all in the can, audio and visual, the sheriff at common law. Well, anyway, the the posse is part of the as part of that   vestiges, strong vestiges we have in America. They've lost them in England and Canada.  

But our sheriff posse here is still important. And the sheriff, if you don't respond to the sheriff's   command as a member of the posse when he tells you to do something, it could be on the spur of a moment. You may be the fellow standing by when he it's a it's a crime if you don't respond and do what he says. Wow.   Keep that in mind. That's your duty in our common law tradition.   Well   and thank God we still have it.   Other places have done away with it.   In other words, the militiaman is, he participates in the enforcement of law and our common law tradition as a member of the posse at the county level under the command of the sheriff, as a member of his state militia under command of the governor, or as a member of the militia of the, armed forces of the United States   if the president of The United States, calls subpoenas him subpoenas him and calls him out.  

Well, that's,   the the wrongful death is the Virgil. Well, the Virgil, no, going back, that means man price. The price of a man,   Bittergill.   And   if you,   if somebody dies in your family and you you think some mother fellas responsible for the death, whether he intended or negligent or whatever it was, you go to him and say, look, and you could set the price. Either you pay what I say you're gonna pay or you're fair game to me and the rest of my family, and we can kill you on-site. By the way, that's the foundation of the famous feud in America is the variegail.   That was part of our common law tradition. The feud  

[00:19:21] Unknown:

Are you talking about, like, the Hatfields and the McCoys?  

[00:19:25] Unknown:

Right. The blood feud. That's part of our tradition. The blood feud. But the problem with the Hatfields and McCoys, they didn't follow due process when they did it. But by the way, the Hatfields and McCoys is just one example that was made famous. There were so many blood feuds in America, all over America, and I've read about them. That was the way they settled their differences.   But you could you could stop the violence   if you were and this is in the Bible, by the way. This is Bible doctrine.   If if you think, oh, the Bible uses the example, you're out cutting wood with your neighbor. We used to do that, cut wood with the neighbors, and you kinda combine forces and get things done quick.   But cut wood with your neighbor and the axe head flies off the hell with the handle, the hell   of the handle and hits your neighbor in the head and kills him accidentally.  

The man who in the family of the dead man might say, well, you did that on purpose.   Well, there were no witnesses. The only witness left is you. So the Bible said you could run to one of the six cities of refuge.   And once you're inside there, you couldn't be killed until a trial or something or you paid the price. The man the variegels,   the man price. By the way, the man price is in the Bible on the   it's called the propitiation.   Propitiation in the King James   and also in the Old Testament   translated   mercy seat   because that's where the price for your life is paid.  

And on top of the ark of the covenant is the place of the variegle,   the man price.   And the priest, in symbolic gesture of what was to come in the coming of the Messiah, would sprinkle blood there, and that was a place of hilarity   in the Greek New Testament using the word,   the place of laughter, because once the price is paid, you're a happy man.   Well, if your family was rich and they could pay the price, if they couldn't, you stayed in the city of refuge, or   maybe they didn't wanna pay the price. We just stay in the city of refuge, and if somebody comes in there and and, kills you, they're guilty of murder, no questions asked.   And that you could stay there until the   high priest,   died, whoever he was and however long it took. That's what God said.  

Well, that continued in our common law tradition, and, it continued. And we have records of it going back to the fourth and fifth century in Wow.   The very held in the cities of refuge and the Mol Muqkind,   the common law was called the Mol Muqkind laws at that time. Well, now we have wrongful death. So this this, boy that this police officer shot and killed,   he,   they,   they took him to a noncriminal trial for wrongful death, and they want money.   That's the variegels. See? If we can't if we can't murder you, we want you to pay the price. Or if you wanna go to trial, we can settle it that way. There were three options there. See? You either pay the price, the family or somebody pay the price. Oh, by the way, in the Bible, that's called the kinsman redeemer.   The kinsman redeemer, which Jesus Christ is the kinsman redeemer.  

He's the kinfolk that paid the price for your life. He's, Adam's race. He's one of you.   And that's what we had to have to pay that. This is just fundamental   to human existence to understand that, frankly, and my fundamental,   simple understanding of the Bible, nothing complicated,   But that's what it is. Well, that's what they did. This is a part of our common law tradition, wrongful death. They brought suit. And okay. So the question in their lawsuit is   noncriminal   case.   Did the officer,   the the standard they said was the officer,   did he do what was reasonable under the circumstances,   under the immediate circumstances   two seconds before it happened?  

Well, he's standing on the lip of the door of the car. The guy is trying to drive away. He's standing there. He's he's afraid it's a high speed chase, and he he knows that's dangerous to other people. He knows he's in danger at the moment,   the immediate circumstances case.   But wait a minute. Let's stop and consider the whole circumstances here. That's what the US Supreme Court said. Is it do they have any record of this young punk kid ever committing a crime? Probably not.   Did he have a driver's license? Yes. But he didn't have it on him. That was a very minor infraction. All you have to do with that kind of situation  

[00:23:42] Unknown:

is go to court, prove you got a license, and they didn't just the whole thing. Yeah. Dismissed it. For nothing. Oh, hold on a second, Brent. Wait. We're getting a garble in there, Paul. Can you can you identify where that's coming from and see if you'd cease it?  

[00:23:57] Unknown:

It's right in the background, a little gargle. Go ahead. I think Rick has a comment, and his mic was open waiting for a moment to get in there. Okay. Alright.  

[00:24:06] Unknown:

Let's see what see what Audrey. See Yep. Audrey, if you if you don't if you have more questions, maybe we should cover them before Rick comes on. But if you don't, let's go to Rick. I don't have any questions. I wanna get that gar  

[00:24:24] Unknown:

in the chat, but I wanted to ask Brent something.   Brent, do you remember a case in Atlanta   where the police had a no knock warrant   for a crack house,   and they went to the wrong address?   They broke in,   and there was a black lump, black woman there living alone. She had a shotgun.   She fired into the floor to warn them, and they shot her to death.   And they ruled that that was justifiable   killing,   And this case would   would have applied to that if it'd been around there.  

[00:24:58] Unknown:

Yes. And, also, there was a case not too many years ago in Texas where a fellow was sitting on his bed,   with his backup against the board reading or watching TV or something.   And the police busted in his house without a warrant, busted in. He heard the racket, and then he reached over on the nightstand, got his pistol. When they busted through the door, he just started shooting.   And, and he was exonerated   entirely.   So I get the point. Yeah. And this is important. I that's why I say I don't this could cut both way for the ways for the officers. It just depends. And in those two cases,   there is,   the the court is saying   you gotta consider who the guy what what the officers knew about the man that they were seeking. Were they in the right house? Were they negligent in swearing out the warrant? Were they negligent in going to the wrong address   like a bunch of doofuses. That happens a lot. I was That happens way too much.  

I was yes. I'll give you a personal testimony. I was sitting in an office building once where my office was in an office building. There were other no one in a big office building, but there were other offices in the building. I was sitting in the building,   and I'm back in my office working. And bang, bang, I heard a door's door slam open, and and I I jumped up, and I went up front. And here's a half a dozen,   men with guns drawn.   And,   they're they're surrounding everybody in the coffee room   and   and, demanding who,   who so and so, and and I I I'm standing there staring at him. I ain't twitching a muscle as you can imagine. I'm not stupid. Well, I may look stupid, but I'm not. You know? I know what guns to do. I've been in in more than one circumstance   where people have been shot because of nervous people with guns in their hands. Yeah. And that's what I saw there. I saw a bunch of federal officers who didn't know what they were doing, clearly were nervous, upset.  

My it just makes my blood go to water. I owe it. These people could do anything.   I didn't twitch a muscle, and the one, two, all three of the other fellows sitting around the coffee table,   well, I knew they were veterans. I knew they understood the danger of firearms and that these aren't toys,   and they didn't twitch either.   That kind of stuff happens. And they, by the way,   they had the wrong address  

[00:27:20] Unknown:

in the war.  

[00:27:21] Unknown:

The address was for a place 200 miles away. Get that. Oh my no.   How many yeah. How many   people looked at that?   Somebody should have caught the problem,   but they didn't. That happens a lot, friends. But when you're around somebody bust into your house,   you have two choices. And in some cases, you have to make a quick decision.   Don't don't move a muscle   or do something. And you don't know which is always best. And so when you make that decision,   somebody may get hurt. You may be justified.   That's why it's important to keep your reputation   as clean as possible from violent action. And men, let me say this to you. I give this all due respect to everybody listening.  

Never ever be violent   except on purpose,   if you can. Think about it.   And men fight on purpose.   There are times to operate on instinct. I get it. I get it. But have a plan in your head before it ever happens. My brother was a career military officer.   He told me one time, he said, Brent, I've already figured it out what I'm gonna do if I see a officer   who's using excessive,   unjustified, dangerous force against somebody. I've already decided what I'm gonna do at my age.   And we talked about it.   He said, I don't have to think about it. I see it. I'm gonna do what I'm I've decided I'm gonna do. I won't tell you what it is, but I'm just making the point.   Manliness has to do with fighting on purpose, if possible.  

And even when you react,   it's nice to be had thought it out beforehand.  

[00:29:00] Unknown:

Well, for what it's worth, Roger, thank you for your comment, Rick. Well yeah. And I wanted to add something else because we talk about traffic a lot around here,   and that that's a big pitfall for us, you know, occasionally.   Yeah. Please take heed to everything that's being said here. Do do you don't wanna fight that battle on the side of a road with   authorities that have less than a hundred IQ.  

[00:29:24] Unknown:

You do have Roger, you make a good point, and the US Supreme Court has upheld   the hiring of law enforcement   officers based upon their law scores.   And they they a lot of places, they do that because they don't want people. They one guy sued and went, I think, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. He always wanted to be a police officer or some guy, and he applied. He aced the test. He he knew everything he was doing, and they wouldn't hire him. Right. He sued them because he found out that their policy was to hire people that scored below a certain level on the test.   Well, why do they do that? Well, at that point, I that's been a few years back. They did it so that they would have people who would do what they're told and not not consider anything else, and they've discovered, and it's true.  

If people that, well, people that   that scored higher,   sometimes wouldn't do what they're told. Now that's not always good, my friends, and that's not always the way it works.   What you want is somebody in on in law enforcement   who will follow orders as long as they're lawful, but is faithful and loyal in doing so. No question. That's what that military forces do.  

[00:30:33] Unknown:

We have a neighbor,   in Florida who is, the assistant sheriff in,   I don't know what county it is, but Albany, Georgia.   And the he'd been the sheriff, and he'd been with him for twenty five years.   And the sheriff was gonna retire, and he retired also.   And the the one of the main reasons was the state of Georgia told them they couldn't hire any deputies with an IQ of over a hundred.  

[00:30:58] Unknown:

That's right. And you make a point too, Roger. I'm glad you brought us back. Let's go back to,   traffic stop. There was those are dangerous.   They can be deadly no matter who you are.   It's my it's my humble and studied   opinion   that when you're stopped at a traffic stop, if you're just a normal guy, whatever the case, you're not trying to   to cause any problems.   Put your hands up on the wheel and just relax as much as possible because   when   I heard guys say recently, when white when white folk get nervous, they start killing people.   He was an historian talking about the Indian wars.  

Well, I thought, well, that's true, but that's true of all men. When men gets nervous, they may start killing people. They get scared. They get nervous. They don't that's the way it is with police officers. That's the way that so here's the deal. When they pull you up, your your relaxed attitude can be contagious to a police officer. It's  

[00:31:56] Unknown:

it conveys.  

[00:31:57] Unknown:

Yeah. And it it goes both ways. I've had experienced police officers stop me   that were as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof, and I I just did everything I could to try to just hold my head,   calm and down, keep my hands down and relax because I could tell that and I knew. And where we were and particularly, it was in California   that these fellas   are worried about getting killed at a traffic stop.   Don't make it worse for them. And once they stop you, shucks you, drive away, then they might kill you. You know, you don't wanna do that because you're afraid of them.   Keep your hands down   and,   keep your license plate clean. Keep your taillights cleaned off, working if you can.  

Reduce   the opportunity for them to stop you.   So because it's it's dangerous, more dangerous in some places than others. Texas has proven to be a dangerous place too.   So, yeah, be be careful. You wanna get through without a problem. Yeah. Do never talk back. Don't argue with them. Don't there's no there's no reason to argue with them. You're not gonna win. You're not gonna they're not looking for you try to adjust it. Roger, I'll let you I want you to see. I'm just saying don't try the case on the side of the road. Just like you say, don't try the case in a letter.   They're taught and properly taught this is a trial.  

Don't try the case on the side of the road. Forget it.   If you disagree,   go into court. That's where you're talking about it. Not there. These guys got too many things on their minds. They don't know what they're doing a lot of times, and but they're trying to do it, and they may get nervous and hurt somebody. Thank you, Roger. Let's see. Let's see what Larry has here. He's been trying to get in. Larry, what you got this morning, buddy? Good morning.  

[00:33:39] Unknown:

Good morning. The case involves   a 24 year old,   young man by the name of Ashteon Barnes,   and he was killed in 2016   in Texas. So Brent was right.   So Barnes was stopped because the car he was driving   had outstanding   toll violations,   and the ruling says that the entirety of the circumstances   must be looked at and not just the it's it's called the moment of the,   threat doctrine,   which just looks at the seconds before and after the incident.  

[00:34:15] Unknown:

Yeah. Okay.  

[00:34:16] Unknown:

So it was hold on. This is worth investigating.   So he's driving a rental car that his relative rent rented. He's driving it, doesn't have a driver's license,   and the thing gets stopped because of people that had rented it before   and run through the tolls.   And then the enterprise people or whoever it was didn't pay the tolls.  

[00:34:40] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[00:34:41] Unknown:

That's my understanding.  

[00:34:43] Unknown:

That's my understanding too. Thank you for putting those other facts in there. Yeah. So do you is enterprise so is enterprise guilty in this too in that lawsuit?  

[00:34:53] Unknown:

Well, somebody is guilty. That causes more problems. Somebody got killed because of a lot of little things here and there that could've stopped it. I agree with you. By the way, I'd recommend anybody. It's it's not that long a case. Pull it up and read it. Pull it up and read it. This is important. What's the case style? Larry, do you know the case style?   It's, go ahead, Larry. I've got it here. Uh-huh. Well, I've got it. Yeah. I'll read it. Go ahead, Brett. Yeah.   Barnes.   The name of the case is Barnes   versus Felix.  

Barnes individually and,   representative of the state of Barnes deceased versus Felix. It's a noncriminal case. They brought it, wrongful death action.   And this is United States,   Supreme Court. If you type in, Barnes versus Felix,   US Supreme Court, it'll come up. It'll come up. Copy of it. Yeah. Yeah. Now but but this is a slip opinion is out. They call it the slip opinion. That's the one they put out right away. It doesn't have all the information on it. It will have later. Oh, okay. Okay. But yeah. So we can't give the it doesn't have it on the one I've got anyway. The clerks the clerks hadn't finalized all of it yet. No. But it's number 23Dash1239.   Number 23Dash1239.  

Slip opinion, US Supreme Court. Twenty three dash twelve thirty nine.   Argued the January 22  

[00:36:16] Unknown:

decided the May 15. I just wanna bring this up in connection with because we get and I don't like to discuss it, Brent.   It it is all this traffic stuff. I know it's important.   There, but it's the one thing we can't control   because local jurisdictions are all different. You know? You never know when you got judge Roy Bean and and boss Hogg as the sheriff,   and they're not gonna listen to you.   Okay? So,   just   try and drive carefully. It's one thing. You don't have your registration.   You this is not a   you if you wanna fight this battle, you go ahead and do it. But please understand what might be involved for you, because some of our people don't understand what happens when you get into this litigation stuff and the fact that you may win.   But to win, you gotta put your whole life on the back burner. They steal your life to win.  



[00:37:09] Unknown:

Yes. We had a fellow at home that,   went into court,   didn't have a driver's license, didn't want one, you know, one of those fellows and,   locally here. And there was a man on the jury. I knew him well. I've known him since I was a teenager. He was his dad was in the NFO, National Farmers Organization, when mine was.   And,   he was on a jury.   And he looked at the case and said, I'm not gonna convict him for not having a driver's license.   And,   the rest of the jurors just beat him up mercifully.   Women went screaming at him. He told me about what happened.   He just didn't budge. And so finally, they went the other way, and they didn't convict him. But that fella had been that way. He had devoted his life to that, in the community. Everybody knew it. And then that happened, and I don't know what happened to the fella after that. If you maybe God has called you to fight that battle, but recognize   the battle God has called you to fight, whatever it is, will consume your life. Let let me bring up another point. Jury duty.  



[00:38:13] Unknown:

People don't wanna do jury duty.   Here's an example of, of how important that could be. One guy overturned that whole thing. Yeah. Good point. Not it could have been that it was a hung case,  

[00:38:25] Unknown:

but it wasn't in that case. They they just   it all went his way for some reason. I don't know why. But, you never know what's gonna happen. Remember the journey the jury in our common law tradition, our common law country is the final court of last resort from whose decision there there is no appeal down here on land down here on land. That's fine.   Yeah. Comment. Somebody said something.  

[00:38:49] Unknown:

Thank you, Brent. Paul.   Just, just an FYI,   WDRN productions did join us, so we will be saying goodbye   to WVOU at the top of the hour.   And, a good movie that,   illustrates that point is 12 Angry Men.   And thank you, Joe in Oklahoma for bringing that to our attention over a year ago.  

[00:39:13] Unknown:

Yes. And I I'm glad you did too, Joe. Joe, that's good. And, get watch the old one, a nineteen   fifty seven liter nine. I forget, but it's the one with Henry Fonda and and a lot of other famous folks that us older folks remember that have passed away recently.   But that's really   who?   The black and white one. The black and white one. Yeah. The black and white one. And when I was in law school,   last year, the last year especially,   you get to take courses you wanna take. And fortunately,   that that really changed my life.   Got me headed in direction more intensely, and now it consume it consumes my life. What I what I'm doing, I I may use myself as an example,   but, I am doing something that consumes my life, and that's the hill that's worth dying on,   far as I'm concerned.  

But coming back to   the the the movie, it's important because   it illustrates in such a such a vivid way what jury duty can be and what it can amount to.   And we watched that,   in the law school and jurisprudence class. Really? That's the guts. Yeah. That's the guts of what happens. It's that good a movie. There was another or two we watched that were very good too, but that was an important one.   And I Benefit of   Pardon?  

[00:40:39] Unknown:

Benefit of the doubt.  

[00:40:42] Unknown:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.   I won't tell you about the movie. It is good, though. It is good if you're interested in that kind of thing. You know, it's no accident. The trial   trial television shows like, remember that   How was that? That was famous back when I was a kid on the television.   Aaron Burr.   Aaron Burr. Yeah. That was his name.   Was the star of the movie, and it was just about all about criminal trials.   Or not the movie, the television series.   And then, and the reason for that is,   trial in our common law tradition   is battle by trial. It's battle.  

And that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world except in the common law countries. You go to we do you don't even go to court in other countries, and there is no fight. You just go to tribunal and the judge or the judge and the lawyers in the case decide what they're gonna do with the poor devil before the court. That's all it amounts to, and that's all. There's no way to defend your client, no meaningful way in the in the rest of the world, my friends. But in our country, it's, it's heavy drama.   Courtroom is heavy drama because it's a battle. There's only there's only three things that God has given us in this life. Only three things. He's given us   life. He's given us liberty,   and he's given us property, and that's all you got.  

And, when you go to trial, one of those three,   if not a combination of more than one of those three, life, liberty, and property, is at stake.   And if it isn't at stake in our common law tradition, our law says you're not allowed to go to trial. Of course, it won't take jurisdiction.   So it's gotta be at stake, and it has to be your stuff, not somebody else's   at stake. And, you know, I stand to lose some of that.   So criminal trials, of course, you're stand to lose a lot of things, not you could even lose your life   at a criminal trial. So it's important to understand fundamentally how that works. Another another,   thing you can watch on the Internet   that puts you in touch with a common law trial and and gets the fundamentals of it   is a television series that, was in the BBC played in England for over, about two or three decades. They're not anymore. It's an old thing.  

But, the name of the television series was,   Rumpole. Rumpole, r u m p o l e. Rumpole of the old Bailey.   And the old Bailey in London is the old, I mean, old criminal court   in London.   And he practiced in that criminal court, and   there's just a it gives you the totality of the circumstances of what it means to be a criminal defense lawyer, and it's done in a humorous way, by the way, about what it what it's like. And, old old Rumpole is the old lawyer, that, they they,   they show some of his cases. Well, that that TV series in the BBC   that they played in England for years,   well, the writer of that series was a a retired,   criminal defense lawyer who practiced in the old Bailey for years. And so really all he was telling about what really goes the the story behind the story about,   practicing law and and defending people in court and, of course, the jury and all that.  

Things are a little different. If you're an American, they don't say your honor. They say they say,   what do they say over there? As it pleases.   I don't remember. Not funny how that would escape me.   But, it's all still all common law court and it's pretty much all the same.   Oh, your lordship. Your lordship. And the lawyers in England say, your lordship when they address the court. And we over here, we just say your honor, which is still a nice thing to say, I suppose. We just don't go so far as calling the man lord, which is probably a good thing. The other great distinction is that   over in, the old country,   they the judges wear colorful and, beautiful robes.  

And here in America, we wear black robes. Mhmm. People have often asked, well, why why is that true? Well, in America,   Judges   wore colorful robes and   until the death of,   well, William and Mary. And, you know, William was a Dutch,   and William married,   a British woman.   And so he they claimed rights to the throne after the English civil war with such chaos. They had what they called the peaceful   revolution   and,   peaceful change of power. And, the Dutch, the king of, well, William of Orange. See, orange was an important  

[00:45:21] Unknown:

color then and still is in a lot of places. Well, shocks. I grew up, and had we were you gonna say something, Roger? I was. He was backed by the Jews, and he let them back in, and that was where the Bank of England came from. Well, now I'm gonna differ with you a little bit on that. Well, at least I've heard that's what I've heard in the past, but let's hear some your side.  

[00:45:41] Unknown:

Well, yeah. Oliver Cromwell,   who was,   the commander of the military forces for parliament,   he then he they they made him protector, which the chief man,   he didn't wanna be king. They didn't they wanna get rid of the king   and have not have kingship anymore, but   he he let them in.   Cromwell, for all of his conservatism and his Puritanism,   I don't know what happened. Now William of Orange may have said, well, we're gonna let him stay, and maybe you know something about that. But I read and, Roger,   understand, folk. When I talk   about stuff like this, I only know what I read. But how do I know that yeah. And how do any of us know who's telling the truth? But this is my conclusion for what it's worth, Oliver Cromwell. But,   anyway, William of Orange, the reason   they said, well, how how could a Dutchman become king of England? Well, he did it on the basis of his wife's claim, but they came together.  

And the the main thing was he brought an army, and it was peaceful. Nobody resisted   him because he was a Protestant.   And he was Dutch reformed, and they they said, okay. You're Protestant. We're good with that. And by the way, still in England today,   the only nonnegotiable   point about being king, you don't even have to be related to the royal family by law, although they do that. That's not our common law tradition, and there's no law that says it has to be that way. If the house of lords wants to choose somebody else, they can. But people like at at this point, it's just a figurehead,   really. And so people like it so much that it's a royal family. That's how dangerously stupid mankind is that he thinks there's some kind of royal blood and that that's the fantasy of the whole thing that the English people, they demand that it be the son of the king. See, that's just silliness. But and it's it's evil, by the way, that they would do that. That's the weakness of mankind. But the only nonnegotiable   point to hold the crown of England is you gotta be a Protestant.  

That's the only nonnegotiable   point, and it runs also to the other high offices of government. Remember that fellow that was that Irishman that was,   prime minister, Tony Blair.   Well, when Tony Blair became prime minister   you you know, he's a Irish, so he's gonna be a Romanist.   Well, he dropped that.   I call that,   I obviously, he   power was more important,   than,   than his In religion.   Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So but on the other hand,   the Jesuits and the rest of them in the Roman church are not adverse at all into lying and cheating and stealing to maintain power. That's part of their doctrine.   And the Jesuits, of course, that's part of their doctrine. Then so forget to do that and be   a undercover agent, that's part that's part of their tradition in England, and that's why they threw them out. You know, they even started a school. The Jesuits started a school up,   it was up around The Netherlands someplace to train   undercover agents to go into England. They were Jesuits.  

Undercover agents to go into England,   pose   as husbands of women, raise families,   pose as Protestants,   become appointed to the courts,   become,   Protestant Anglican priest, all that stuff. Mhmm. But they were undercover Jesuits trying to subvert the common law tradition. Mhmm. It all came down to this, friends. People say, oh, you're an anti Romanist. Well, listen to me close.   Whatever.   Whatever you say.   Here's the truth of the matter.   The canon civil laws of Rome are final according to Rome with the interpretation of the pope pope, and our common law tradition is the exact opposite of the canon civil laws of Rome.   And we and the two cannot exist together. That's why the pope of Rome excommunicated   everybody   that was   asking Magna Carta.  

Can you grasp that, friends?   Your religious convictions are strong   if they're real.   I mean, if you're really a Romanist and you would be foolish enough to lick the boots of the pope and kiss his toe, which is what he demands when you walk into his presence, well, there's something something about you that's not compatible with our common law tradition. I've often used the example of   of, what's that fellow's name? I liked him. You know? Justice Scalia. Yeah. Justice Scalia.   He's a hardcore Romanist. He had a brother, I think, that was a priest or something. I don't know. But the hardcore Romanist.   But he was   a he was a incurable   incurable   devotee of our common law tradition.  

He had he had feet on both sides of that question. Yes. He did.   He could he was good. I liked him, but he couldn't deny   his religion. Why? Because he took his religion   seriously. A lot of Romans don't. He did.   And that caused him a lot of problems, my friends. And when I read his   when I read his opinions,   I can see the struggle in his heart. I can see it. It it's there.   But he landed on the right side. But why live a life torn apart like that when you,   when you're trying to follow two gods at the same time? And that's what he's doing. Now, all of Barton, go ahead, Roger. Go ahead. He hired terrible clerks. Go ahead. Well,   but all of us struggle with our past.  

And if you aren't struggling with your past, there's something inhuman about you. Mhmm. I struggle with the past of what I was taught as a matter of the ultimate concerns of mankind. There were some things I was taught that were wrong.   There's not a man or woman alive that isn't in that position if he would if he claims Christianity.   Correct. And it's our job as individual Christian men and women to say no. No. I got Paul the apostle said it this way. The Bible's final, but Paul the apostle said,   try   all things   and retain, keep   that which is good. We're constantly   evaluating what we've been taught. If we've been taught something about the Bible that we clearly have found is untrue,   the lord Jesus Christ himself requires that we reject it. We don't have to be ugly about it. We be respectful,   but move on. I know some Protestants, for example, Presbyterians,   that if you're a Romanist and you come and wanna join their church and you accept   the Protestantism   and you reject the Romanism and they are opposite, it's not like you can consistently have both. That's not possible.  

But they say to   them, were you baptized   as a baby in the Roman church? Yes. Well, we accept that baptism.   Now that's now that was practice common in Europe, from the reformation forward   because the Romanists were Trinitarians. Keep in mind, the reformers did not want to leave the church of Rome. Martin Luther,   John Knox,   John Calvin,   and many that are lesser known as Zwingli,   Bede, or,   not Bede, but,   Bezos,   Bullinger, all those fellas, they didn't wanna leave the church of Rome. They they said, we just want you to straighten up your act and quit stealing so much money from people and murdering people.   We believe you have the trinitarian doctrine.  

That's fundamental,   the unity of the godhead.   The Bible teaches it clearly. I don't care what anybody says. On that one, that's worth standing on. That's a hill worth dying on. The Bible teaches the three persons of the godhead clearly.   Well,   they said, we don't wanna leave, but they said, no. We've decided we wanna kill you too, and we're relegating you to hell. Mhmm. Oh, well, then I guess we gotta go off and take our ball and bat and go someplace else   like the boys used to do when they get mad about people not following the rules   of the game. So they just left, and we've been left ever since. And I personally, the pope of Rome has relegated me to hell in no uncertain terms, by the way.  

If you don't believe it, go read the most the the council that they held in response to the reformation.   It's all there. They they recorded every word of what was said in that that council. It went on for many years. They hammered everything out. They made finality of it all, and there they are. They left the truth.   Rome   conclusively   and finally   left the truth. And if you don't believe it, go read their doctrines. But if you wanna read about it more in an objective way, you can also get the book, Excellence of the Common Law, and you can read about the comparison and the contrast of our common law tradition with the canon civil laws of Rome.   Just keep in mind, the Bible is not final to them. Not at all. No. No. I mean, abundantly clear. You need to plug right now that your upcoming,  

[00:54:20] Unknown:

series.  

[00:54:21] Unknown:

Yes. Oh, my upcoming oh, thank you, Roger. Yes. Five minutes left to the whistler. Go for it. Well, let's talk about that. We teach law classes. I try to teach the courses that,   the law cool school should be teaching, and I wanna teach them to just folk.   I'm not trying to make lawyers out of people. I want people to be like lawyers and understand the fundamentals Mhmm. Which lawyers don't understand anymore. But we're teaching those courses, and we've taught many. I don't know what does, and they're all in the can at commonlawyer.com.   You can go and take advantage of those courses. You can finish them, get a certificate.  

But the next course I want to teach is the course that should be taught as required and used to be taught as required at every law school in America called comparative law,   where we compare and contrast our law of the land   with the law of the city.   In other words, our common law with the canon civil laws of Rome because every country in the world   is governed by the canon civil laws of Rome.   Every country in the world except the very few number of common law countries. That means they follow Babylon.   Yes.   There are no meaningful ways to defend yourself in a tribunal.  

There is no trial of facts. The only thing that matters in the rest of the world is what did the government command. And everyone must conform, and that's the basis of every decision that comes out of their tribunals. They don't have courts. They have tribunals. The judges aren't lawyers. They're civil servants on the GS rating. They're trained to be so. By the way, that's where that comes from. It's the law of the city versus the law of the land. And that that that text,   well, we're gonna use it in the course, not all of it because it's too long. It's 958,   nine hundred and 50 seven pages long. But salient parts of the fundamental distinctions   between our common law   and the law of the city,   our law of the land, and our constitution of The United States is a thin slice   of our law of the land called our common law of government.  

A very thin slice. It's important   because it applies to government and it limits government.   Our common law tradition limits government. Why? Because our common law tradition is a Christian tradition.   All other traditions of law have no limit   to the governments here on earth. Did you know that? Oh, as nice as they may look and as calm as they may seem. No. No. No.   The state is final.   That's not our common law tradition. And if there is no   power   outside of men   entering among men to limit men, then there is no limits of the governments of men   called tyranny.  

And that's the potential,   a never ending, if they wanna use a potential   of the law of the city. I asked an immigrant from Russia not too many years ago,   living out west that met him, about my age, grew up in communism. We had some lively discussions about all the crazy things that went on in Russia and all the crazy things were going on here during the cold war days. And he said, you know,   recently, they just and this is back after   Yil Yeltsin took over the   the national legislature.   You know, he just parked a bunch of military,   tanks and guns around the legislature and said, I want everybody out of that building. They locked the doors, and there was no more legislature.  

And I said, how do you justify that? He said, justify it. He said, that that's the law.   I said, well, you mean the the chief the prime minister can just get rid of the legislature? He said, sure.   Sure. That's we know that's there, and we and how I said, how do you know somebody has the right to do that, to be prime minister? He said, because they exercise power.   I said, you mean,   might   justifies   the right to do something? He said, absolutely.  

[00:58:10] Unknown:

Jingoism.  

[00:58:12] Unknown:

Yeah. Well, in our common law tradition, you see it's just the opposite.   Mhmm.   Right justifies might. And in our common law tradition is just the opposite of the jesuit order. What's the motto of the jesuit order?   The ends justifies the or the means justifies the ends. No. No. No. No. The ends justify the means. The ends the ends justifies the means. Right, Roger? That's the motto of the just that's the motto of the raw Well, that's Machiavellianism.   Yes. And what's the motto of of our common law?   The means, which is due process, which is our common law, the means justifies the ends. Those are the kind of fundamentals we're gonna go over. And in our Christian tradition, according to the Bible, our common law tradition, though, is called our our declaration of 76   calls that the law   or the, yeah, the the   the laws of nature. That's our common law tradition. And then our declaration says, and the laws of nature is God. That's the the term that was well known in that day in the Scottish Enlightenment   for the Bible.  

What do we have as our fundamental   volumes   of government? The laws of nature, God showing us how the world works in his creation. He set it up according to laws that you can't break, and the laws of nature is God. That's our common law in the Bible. Well, what is it in the rest of the world? The law of the city. Well, the fundamentals there are, what did the legislature say? What does the state say? The only thing that matters is the command of the state through what we call legislation,   decrees, whatever you wanna call them. The the   the pope of Rome speaking   from the throne at the cathedral. That's fundamental. That that doctrine right there is a fundamental   of the law of the city, the code of justice, and end of the Roman Empire. This is Brent Allen Rutgers. Common lawyer dot com. W w w dot common law   common lawyer   dot com. Take that court with the website.  



[01:00:08] Unknown:

Yes. One zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago, part of the NET family of broadcast services.   Thank you for following us, Cindy, all the way through this first hour. Join us in the second hour by going to the matrixdogs.com   and clicking on either the free conference call links, the Eurofolk radio link, or the Global Voice radio link. Thank you for joining us, and have a great weekend if we don't see you again.  

[01:00:34] Unknown:

Yep. Yep. Now   we got to pause here. Hold on a second, Larry. About ten minutes ago,   I think it was Bruce who's trying to say something. Bruce, was that you   about ten minutes ago?   Team system.   Somebody was trying to break in. Okay.   Case passed. Go ahead, Larry.   Larry. Larry.   You talking about  

[01:01:02] Unknown:

Yeah.   Two questions for Brent.   So in the patriot community,   there's all kinds of crazy explanations   about what the meaning of the black robes are that judges wear. And And I was wondering,   if all that is just patriot mythology, and where did that come from where as far as judges   wearing black robes? And then the second question is,   you know, as far as a common law court, it's it consists of a of a   jury,   and it's supposed to be a jury of your peers.   And I was wondering if you can define peers because   it's my understanding that a peer is someone you know and they know you, but what happens during jury selection is the the very people that might know you,   they try to eliminate right off the bat. They want total strangers trying your case or hearing your case.  

So those two questions.  

[01:02:03] Unknown:

Well, let me give you an exam number one, the black robes   the black robes,   in America for judges,   tell us   that we are still mourning in America. We are still mourning the death of William and Mary.   Because in America and in England,   black robes in our common law courts were were donned   in   in extreme mourning   over the death of the Protestant   king and queen, William and Mary. They were beloved in America at our and they're who they were who they were.   Beloved. Did they do wrong things? Yes. We are aware of that, and the Bank of England came in. Roger, are you there? Yes. I'm here, Brian. That's something that comes to mind. You'd mentioned you thought that they were the ones that brought   allow the Jews to come back in, but and maybe this partially comes from the reality of the Bank of England coming in during their administration because it did, I think. Well, didn't they weren't they behind him from The Netherlands in the in the takeover of England in that war? Didn't they sponsor him? Yeah. I'd think that's probably true, but I don't know for sure. But, yeah, it's it makes sense. And that may have been part of it. But I did I know this, that the   the common law versus the canon civil laws of Rome was always has always been.  

It is the defining point of every conflict in human history since the settling of Babylon.   And that's the thing that mattered to people with all the other madness that occurred.   They didn't want Rome to have power over that island and over her possessions   because they saw what it did to them in the past. The saying in England for centuries was, and some Englishmen still are aware of this. They hear it said. What priest has ever done any good for Englishmen?   That's been the saying. And, of course, so once they get on the benches, which happened often, then they fought   to maintain jurisdiction of the courts in England. They've tried and tried and tried. And by the way, friends, that is the ultimate thing, so you is to get jurisdiction in the courts. That's where No. Aren't we? We're living that right now, aren't we? Yes. We are. Now,   so juries are important for that reason. Why are juror okay. So we're we're still in America. And but the the question comes, why did we never stop? Most judges, as you can imagine, wear black robes and don't have a clue why they're wearing them. Nobody cares anymore.  

But that's the reason, as I understand history, and I say that on the authority   of one of the foremost   of comparative lawyers in America, now deceased,   and that's William Franklin Fratcher.   That was his position on that question. It's an important question in our history to understand that.   We don't have to wear robes. There are a lot of judges in America that don't wear robes. It's we're not as uppity about that and having all the fancy clothes like they are in England. I've been to court before where and gone through a trial, and the judge never wore a robe at all. He just wore a shirt and a tie.   When it got hot, he'd take off his coat, which we did in some cases.  

I've had that happen lots of times in court too. Your honor,   may I take off my coat? It's awful hot in here. Well, yes, sir, mister Winters.   I'm gonna take my coat off too, you know, and they take off their coats. So that's the my understanding of that for what it's what it's worth. The jury,   why is it that people that know I went to a jury trial once,   and, I looked up at the jury pool as they were sitting in the box, the different ones of them, and I knew a lot of them. They're from my side of the county. It was a big case, big noncriminal   case. One lady said, well,   I have Brent in school.  

When he was in the grades, I was his teacher. Of course, I knew that. Well, sir, on the other side moved to get rid of her. That law didn't require we get rid of her, but they moved. He had so many choices. He said, well, I wanna get her off the jury. And then there was   another fellow on the jury that,   was a sure tailed cousin that they were they milk cows for a living. And   and he said, well,   I know, I know the plaintiff in this case because they were neighbors, and they didn't four h together.   Well, they got rid of the other side got rid of him. And then we got rid of one fella said, well, I've known Brent, see a little boy. He's from my neck of the woods. We went to church together. His family has known our family for two or three generations   at least. And, of course, the other side wanted to get rid of him, but they'd already used up all their choices, so we got rid of him. Why did we get rid of him? He knew me. Well, I'll tell you why. Because he was a banker. That's why. And as much as I like the fella, as much as I like the fella, any trial lawyer knows there's a certain kinds of people you don't want on the jury. One of them is bankers. I don't care   how good a guy he is. He's a banker. Well, what does that tell you? That tells you he's gonna try to play banker and figure out everything right down to the penny. That's what and you can't do that in a trial and expect to get justice. In our common law tradition, we're not after what is just right. That's it's not even possible among sinful mankind. That's what they try to do in the rest of the world and the law of the city. In the law of the land, we want substantial   justice.  

Don't overanalyze   anything. So we had a policy getting rid of school teachers. Well, the other people did that and that one. School teachers,   bankers,   engineers.   You say, well, Brit, you're wanting to get rid of all the educated people. That's exactly right   because they're not capable   of delivering justice   as a as a group of people. Why not? Because they all wanna play lawyer. If people think that lawyers are people that are precise, it's just the opposite. Lawyers are people that know enough to know that men can't be precise in those situations.   This particular case had to do with   with how much money this fella lost over a period of ten years. And,   finally, there was an engineer at the oil refinery,   oil country, so they got a refinery there,   a big refinery, Ohio oil or marathon, we called it. And we tried to get rid of him. Couldn't get he he stayed. And by the other side, wanted to get rid of him too. He got on the jury. They were out for several hours.  



[01:08:03] Unknown:

Were you gonna say something, Roger? No. I'm just snickering. Go ahead. Oh, they were out for five hours. Done.  

[01:08:09] Unknown:

That it was the case worth a half a million dollars. Thereabouts.   We never said, well, it's worth half. We're at $500,273.17.   We'd we never came across like that. We just said, here's what we thank y'all to get.   It's a substantial justice. That's all you're ever after in a common law trial. You if you think you'd be precise, that's silliness.   That's the law of the city. Precision is the law of the city. So we're out several hours. I finally saw   one of the jurors down at Moonshine store on a Saturday. We went down there to get something to eat and,   asked the juror what what was going on? The juror juror said, well, I know that engineer was on the case from the oil refinery down there. I said, yeah. Said that guy was trying to he had it all figured out on paper how much, your man lost by the day, and he was trying to make it, what they call it, per an,   you know, when it day by day, figuring out day by day what he lost and come to had all these formulas he was trying to use. I said I was afraid of that, and that's exactly what happened.  

And that's because people wanna play lawyer. If we wanted lawyers to decide our cases, we would impanel lawyers on the jury and use the judge.   That is contrary to reality,   contrary to the Bible,   contrary to our common law tradition, and contrary to reality. We are in a common law country. This is not fantasy. The rest of the world lives in   fantasy, precision.   That's not possible. You know, even in our our common law system of measurement, it's not based on tens and precision. It's based upon the size of your hand, the length of your foot, the   precision. It's based upon the size of your hand, the length of your foot, the length of your arms as you stretch them out, and, we call it the English tradition   or English system of measurement.  

And it works. The other stuff doesn't even work. Shucks. We went to the moon on that stuff, or they say we I shouldn't say that. They say we did. We've done a lot of we've done a lot in America on three quarter three quarter inch wrenches and, seven eights and all that kind of stuff, and it works, friends. It works a lot. It's in tune with our bodies. It's in tune with God's creation. It's in tune with reality. It's in tune with the the personage and the godhead that made everything.   And I've I have deep convictions about that, of course, but   we we didn't want that that educated man on there. The educated people tend to overthink themselves. I'll tell you something else about educated people. Don't tell me about it. I know. I've learned. I'll say this with conviction.  

Most men that have formal educations   are educated beyond their intelligence   clearly,   and they overthink everything.   Logic is not the key to life, friends, and our common law is not about logic.   Our common law is about   it's about fact.   We don't go into court and ask the jury, we want you to think this through. No. We go into court, and we say to the jury, you tell us what happened. Just the fact of the matter. Just the facts. You tell us what happened. Who done it? How'd he do it? What'd he do it with? Where did he do it? When did he do it? And you tell us.   Now thinking will occur.  

You don't have to teach people to think. That's stupid. That's like trying to teach a horse to run   or a bird to fly. Men   think. That's what they do. That's and our common law tradition rests upon the reality that fact is everything.   And   if you are in a world like the rest of the world where there tribunals are all and the Roman church, it's all about logic and the beauty and the elegance of the balanced syllogism   and the equation and all that baloney, which can be useful. It's a tool.   But like Martin Luther said, and he was deeply into that. He was a Roman priest. He said logic is a whore.   Nothing but a whore.  

And it's a fact. That's a fact. It's not so we want folk listen. I talk to people. Look. I say, get off all the fancy thinking. I don't   care. I wanna know the fact. That's why Christianity says I Paul the Apostle says, I have delivered unto you that which I have first received,   that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. Well, like the apostle's creed says same thing.   Dead, buried, resurrected the third day. He descended into hell,   and then he ascended into heaven. I believe in the in the holy   ghost, the holy spirit, to put it in Latin.   The gumption breath, the personage of the gumption breath of God, member of the godhead.  

I believe in that. That's just that's called dogma.   There is something the law of the city has a word that's good. It's called dogma. Oh, what's a dogma?   That's an the m a on the end of the m a, ma, on the end of a Greek word indicates a result.   A result.   Dogmatic. You're dogmatic. What does that mean? That means the other fellow's just giving me a bunch of conclusions, and he's not supporting any of it. He's just telling you what he his conclusions and fact, his conclusions of fact.   Here's the way it is. Here it ain't gonna change. Is there anything wrong with that? Well, there can be,   but there's nothing wrong with just saying, here's what I believe.  

The apostle's creed, for those of you that have ever recited it, and Rome recites it. The Protestant churches recite it. It's just a statement of facts.   And is there anything wrong with that if you wanna just summarize your conclusions? No. That's your conscience.   The summarizing of your of your conclusions from fact can be your conscience. The facts you have can be your conscience. But fact are the important things. Not   without proper fact, without the truth, logic   has nothing to be founded upon, and it will not get you to the truth.   That's why we say of the Roman tradition,   William Blackstone says this in his commentaries.  

Merriman of Berkeley, Bolt Hall, he's gone now, a comparative lawyer. He said it. Many other men have said it. All of the common lawyers that have any sense say it. Rome's got the whole idea upside down. All of the Roman Empire, all of the Roman church, they put logic   before fact. And that's inevitable   inevitable   when you stress logic.   Thomas Aquinas is the official doctrine of the church of Rome.   Did he have good logic? I've read some of his stuff, impeccable logic.   But what's the problem with that? Then they take that and make the logic the foundation of everything. Logic's the foundation of nothing. In reality, you can see that, and according to God, you can see that. And when I keep saying, when you, in the patriot community saying, we need critical thinkers.   No. We don't. We need facts. That's what we're missing. Just the facts. And the and the critical thinking, if you're a son of Adam or a daughter of Adam, it will occur. You can't stop it.  

I've taken courses on logic.   I think it's a waste of time. I think. I think. I've concluded it's a waste of time.   Nothing wrong with understanding,   how logic works, but you do it naturally without even understanding what you're doing. You don't have to to be taught logic, and you would be dead, many of you, by now, if you had used a little logic in your life. I don't step in front, I keep saying, of Greyhound buses running 60 mile an hour because logic tells me I know something about the fact of the matter. I'd be splattered all over creation if I did.   I've known of that happening to other people in different situations.  

I understand the law is a law. That's a fact, a perpetual motion.   But I do make a one step inference. I say, well, I know the law of perpetual motion. If I step out in front of that Greyhound bus going 60 mile an hour, one step inference. That's called logic.   I'm made of flesh and blood. I'll get splattered. I won't live through it.   I don't have to stop and analyze my thinking.   Although, there's nothing wrong with that, I should say, but life's too short to worry much about it. And most of you wouldn't be here if you've lived life very long, if you didn't exercise logic, but nobody had to tell you to do it. You do it instinctively. It is who you are.   As a member of Adam's race, of course, horses are born to run. Birds are born to fly. Beasts of prey are born to ferocity.  

Hounds are born to hunt. You can't stop a hound from hunting if he's a hunting tree and hound.   And men are born to think, and that's what they're gonna do. Now my father and I have had a running   running battle. He's still alive, as you know. Somebody 99 this year. Running battle for decades. Dad said man dad said man's problem is he doesn't think.   And I say, no. No. No. No. That's not fundamentally a man's problem, dad.   Evil men think. Non Christian men think very precisely. They base everything on logic. The problem is they don't have the facts. Ever learning, as the Bible says, but never educated men educated men ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth, says Paul the apostle in the Bible. I don't care how educated you are. If you got the wrong facts, you're gonna come to wrong conclusions.   Here, let's try this. Let's try this. Even when you have the right facts, you'll come to the wrong conclusions   because of misuse of logic. Logic is a whore.  

People who say, well,   people who say, well, we have these. We believe that, man came from monkeys and monkeys came from dogs and dogs came from,   snakes and snakes came from,   slime in the in the in the in the in the in the swamp someplace.   From,   they believe from   goo to you by way of the zoo.   Yeah. They believe that. And, then you got these other people over here who got the same facts. They agree on the facts of what they're looking at. They they're over here, and a lot of them Christian folks saying, no. No. We don't we don't believe that. Why? Well, we got other evidence called the Bible, and this evidence is irrefutable, and it it doesn't say that. Oh, so we got the same facts though in nature.   We got the same facts in nature. And these folk that these Christian folk are saying even without the Bible, just looking at nature, what you're saying is genetically impossible.  

The facts say it's impossible. So we got the same facts.   They know the facts. There was a fellow over here at Terre Haute, Indiana.   He was the the leading at the at the university there in, University of Indiana. He was the leading proponent   of evolutionist in the country, probably maybe in the world. I don't know. He had the same facts. He agreed with all the facts. I'd hear him debate. I think he's gone now. I forget his name, but, like, it makes any difference to me. But I'd hear him debate   with people on on the facts. And people and both of them had, two or three PhDs on the subject of,   biology,   and they come to opposite conclusions. Why? Because logic is a horror.  

But it's even more of a horror if you don't agree on the facts.   What do you do? Of course, his logic, he thought he had logic,   but he was denying some facts when he did that. Logic became more important to him as Merriman said. I've mentioned him a while ago. Where where logic   precedes facts,   fact has a way   of receding   from consideration.   Listen to that. I said to my father yesterday, I was talking to him. I said, dad and mom. Mom was sitting there. I said, dad, all false and mom, all false religion, the way I get it, all false religions are all the same.   It's logic before fact. Or let's put it this way.  

All false religion has some other revelation from God outside of the Bible that they depend on. And once that begins to happen, even if it's in a small way, the true revelation of God, the Bible, will start to recede from consideration.   Consider,   if the pope of Rome can he says he when he speaks ex cathedra,   when his haunches are parked on the old Roman empire emperor's   throne in the latter palace, he says, when my butt   is on that throne,   I that preserves me from speaking error. That's the official doctrine of Rome. You say that's insane.   All of the law of the city is like that to varying degrees. Some little thing they do when they speak, they have some idolatry saying some created thing preserves them from error, and there is no appeal from what they say. Well, that's what he says. Well, all of the people that adherence over the Roman church, and by the way, the Roman church are not the people that go take mass. Again, official doctrine of Rome. Is that just the priesthood is the church? Did you know that? I've talked to a lot of Romans. They don't know that. It's important,   though. When you follow that out when you follow that out, that makes a big difference. Well, at any rate, all the people that go take mass say, well,   I have the pope. I can listen to him, and he tells me what to do. And don't think for a moment that all the world doesn't say that.  

And and I don't what happens? The Bible recedes from consideration.   I mean, you know as well as I do, all of you listening,   that the Bible does not have the the same dignity,   at with the Roman   Roman church as it does Protestants.   Many of the Protestants that are fundamentalist Bible believers. That's why. Let's take the Mormon church. They have a present day prophet they call the president of the Mormon church. He tells them what to do. You go to Mormon church. Go to Mormon church service. I've been to several. Is the Bible ever mentioned? I never saw it mentioned. Boy, they have church two or three hours. The Bible doesn't even come up.   When you go to church at the Roman church, does the Bible come up? No. What's the center? What's the center of their,   supposed worship?  

The altar   of the mass. That's it.   Protestant church since the reformation, what has been the center   of worship? The sermon. What is the center in the old church house? In a Protestant church, traditionally the pulpit. Why? Because that's where the book is. And he has the book there. He opens it up and he talks about the book. He reads the book.   That's not the way Rome is. That's not the way Mormon church is.   That are Buddhist that way. No. They all have. I know Christian folk that claim to be protestant that read or listen on the Internet to a present day prophet every day. I   Jonathan Cahn's, one of them I know has become famous. And I've discovered that those people that do that, they don't know. They don't know Sikkim from Come Here about the Bible. It recedes from consideration.  

Why would you need the Bible if you got a guy telling you day by day, what God said? Oh, I've got a connection to God. I know charismatics that go to church so they can listen to the people stand up and make present day prophecies. And I've discovered the Bible doesn't really carry much weight with them. Oh, they use it. They play with it. They don't really get serious about it. I got a lot of weird doctrines they say, or that they use, that they say are in the Bible because they don't study the Bible.   Listen, friend, the Bible is final on Sundays.  

No, on Saturdays   on Patriot soapbox, we're going through the Bible. We're going through the, the book,   Peter.   Who doesn't know about Peter? Oh, he's quite a character in the Bible.   Yeah. Oh, Peter says there at the end of his life, it is his dying   decoration. Second Peter and first Peter to a varying degrees too. He knows,   he believes in his heart of hearts he's going to die real soon.   At common law, that's an exception to the hearsay rule. If a person really believes they're going to die real soon, real soon, maybe they're wrong. But if they really believe it, we let those hearsay comments come into court because we've discovered they're reliable.   Imagine he tells the truth when he thinks he's as good as a dead man. Oh, yeah. Well, Peter, he knows. And they and of course, he died shortly after that. They killed him, murdered him. But he knows his his days are numbered. And don't think he's not telling the truth.  

He like a dying declaration, he says in there. And we're going through that book now.   He says, I heard a voice out of heaven. I heard God speak to me out of heaven.   Jesus Christ was standing right beside me there on the mountain.   Yeah. And I heard God speak out of heaven. What'd he say? We can go back and read it in the gospel records. Essentially, what he says to Peter was, shut your blasted mouth and listen to my son.   Peter's always shooting off the mouth. Every time he got nervous, he didn't know what to do. He'd just say something even if it didn't apply, like a lot of us.   He get nervous. He start talking or laughing or acting goofy or something. Well, that's the way he was, but he was shooting off the mouth. He didn't know what to say. And,   he saw the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ because he showed it to him. And then the voice came out of heaven and says, this is my beloved son. Hear ye him. You all hear him. Pearl. Second person. You hear him. You all hear him.  

And he said, I heard that voice out of hell. I heard it. That's my testimony.   But he said, we have a more sure word from God than that.   What is it? He tells us it's the Bible.   Now that's heavy duty testimony.   That's heavy duty evidence.   Why are you as my father? Oh, I won't say it. It's too earthy. Almost said it. I wanna say it. But why are we   fiddling around   fiddling around   with anything?   But what God said in his book, that's final, by the way. That's the court of last resort according to Peter and the other apostles and the prophets of the older testament, and that's the evidence we have of it. Where are we fiddling around with other things? Even as our of our common law tradition, our laws of nature nature,   any apparent inconsistencies   between those two volumes,   the bible and our common law tradition,   the bible is still final.  

Our common law tradition is our   uses and applications   of the principles of the Bible,   but we have to come up with ways to try to ensure that they're followed, and that means due process. Our common law is due process. We'll talk about those things in that court.   Roger. Roger. Yes, sir.  

[01:25:54] Unknown:

No. I think I think Paul wants to say something, and it sounds like somebody else does too. But Paul was away first a few minutes ago, Paul.  

[01:26:01] Unknown:

Hey. I've You remember?   I I look at waiting for my turn as a memory exercise.   My personal best is twenty two minutes without forgetting what I wanted to say.   But   so if we can rewind back about twenty two minutes, you were talking about everybody wanting to be lawyers.   It just, reminded me of the,   the legislative hearings   that are talking about the federal judges.   I forget who said it, but,   one of them said,   watching   my cousin Vinny   does not qualify you to be a federal judge.  

[01:26:42] Unknown:

Doesn't do it. Doesn't do it. Oh, well, look at that.  

[01:26:46] Unknown:

I just thought that was hilariously funny.  

[01:26:49] Unknown:

Well, here's the thing though. You boy, I'm glad you mentioned that. I get excited talking about the differences between our law of the land and our law of the city. And if we don't know them, we will never understand our law of the land, our common law. The only way you can understand our common law as that is as it comes head to head with the great   counterfeit of law and government,   and that is the law of the city. Yeah. And our common law doesn't we don't even know what it is   until it comes up against the law of the city. It is an adversarial tradition. Therefore, there must be adversity with the falsity of the law of the city, and that's what our common law tradition is. When you go to court, what have you got? You've got people there, lawyers, trying to use principles from the law of the city,   lawyers, to get what they want. Listen. Why would anybody,   for all the ugliness   that so called patriot community   by the way, patriot community, what did Sam Johnson say? Sam Johnson, the first man to ever write an English dictionary.  

Sam Johnson said patriot. He knew a lot of stuff. He said my in my observation,   patriotism   is the last refuge   of a scoundrel. Yep. Now in my life, I've seen that too. Is patriotism   commanded of God? No question. Is it the right thing to be?   No question. But recognize, mister and missus patriot,   that the scoundrels are in your tradition, and they're subverting you from the truth. And the devil, that's the way he works.  

[01:28:15] Unknown:

How many of the best gene pool people   in our country have lost their limb, life, and blood on foreign shores over patriotism,   false patriotism?  

[01:28:26] Unknown:

Yep. No. Be a be an intelligent   patriot, that's a patriot that knows the laws of nature, and the laws of nature's god doesn't know all he knows the fundamentals, and there aren't that many. We're gonna talk about them in that course.   The laws of nature. The laws of nature's god. And when you take that course, by the way, you support what we do. Roger and I do not get paid to be on here. I am not paid. I'm on the   public platforms and radio seven days a week, and I don't get paid a dime to do any of it. But when you when you get access to our   our materials written and our our courses,   you help us. And by the way, I said this last time, you help miss Florentine.  

She doesn't get paid either. And there are a couple other gals helping me. One of them I've been sleeping with for forty seven, forty eight years.   And she didn't get paid either. But you helped keep us going, and I practice law less. I'm older now.   I'm, doing this more. I see this as a valuable contribution that can be made. You can be part of that. You can be a partner with us just by taking the courses and learning what what we think is important to know about our common law tradition. But why for all the ugliness that people say about lawyers in the patriot community, why would have any any of them wanna act like a lawyer? But that's what they do. Well, I can be a lawyer too. No. Don't. Don't be a law. We don't worry about that. You you be an American, and you know something about our common law tradition. Alright? We don't need lawyer. Why don't we need lawyers? Why do we have juries? Because we don't want lawyers to make those   ultimate decision about, for example, who may lose his life, his liberty, or his property.  

We wanna give that to people that aren't   so used to it that they're hardened. That's why.  

[01:30:10] Unknown:

But go ahead, Roger. I think that was Joe. Joe and there's somebody else wanting to ask something too, I believe. Joe? It was Larry. I got a chance. Alright. We'll get you, Larry. I did Joe, I was gonna go first because   he's gonna go first. Go ahead, Joe.  

[01:30:24] Unknown:

Okay. Well, I brought this up another time,   and it was right toward the end of the   program. So it there wasn't much discussion on it.   But,   there's a book entitled   unlimited   submission   with a question mark. It's by Dan Fisher.   He's from Edmond, Oklahoma.   And it says how Romans thirteen one through five has been incorrectly used to silence Christians and the church.   Oh, yeah. And, I don't know if you got that   library of congress number, Brent,   but I would invite you to read that.   Much of what you say,   I agree totally with,   but the problem we   have is that we have these embedded   lawyers and judges,   and we can see the corruption.  

It's obvious   And how we deal with it and with regard   to the black robes,   he also   has written books on the black robe regiment,   and that is a good study in itself.   And   if we are to submit to the state   on every issue,   founded   on   a moral man's   position,   and we have   destroyed   the moral issue in our country.   That's my opinion.   And without   good moral people, and you can twist that into Christianity,   Islam,   Catholicism,   whatever you want twisted into.   But if you're not a good moral person,   you're doomed to failure.  

[01:32:37] Unknown:

Well, thank you, Joe. Yeah. Joe, you make a point. And,   if all of us agree on everything,   somebody's   brain isn't working at all.   So we we don't complain   about that. And the other thing we want to mention too is anybody that reads history much will find out real quick that the people that founded our country were just as rotten and as low as we are, and they suffered the same problems and the same breaches in our courts that we're suffering now. That's not new. So don't be discouraged, friends, but it is God does not bless brains. According to the Bible, God does not bless brains,   and God does not bless brawn.  

What does he bless?   He blesses his order of doing things, his way of going about. His the attitude   of respect   and decency and his due process,   the way we go about doing things. And that's what   our common law tradition is. You say, well, why why do you say yeah. Excuse me. God does not bless brains or brawn.   Well, Isaiah said it this way.   Famous famous verse.   Not by power,   not by might,   but by my spirit.   Now those Hebrew words in my studied opinion mean brains and brawn, a little bit different, brains and brawn, not by brains,   not by brawn. And by the way, the winterized version translates it just that way.  

Well, then what is it that god blesses?   He blesses us   knowing where we fit in that Romans 13 authority structure,   who we are to arrange ourselves under at any given moment, any given circumstances,   and who we are to arrange ourselves over.   But, yes, Roman thirteen is misused, and I'm glad you brought that up. And if you say that's a worthwhile   while looking at, worthwhile reading by a man named Fisher,   I'm anxious to get it and the other books he's written as well. Fisher, what's his first name, Joe, again?   He'll tell us in a minute.  



[01:34:44] Unknown:

Dan Dan. Fisher.   And No. Thank you. Brent, if you will   look at your email, I will send you the inside cover and his contact.  

[01:34:57] Unknown:

Okay. Thank you. Is he still is he still alive?  

[01:35:01] Unknown:

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, the April 17,   he had a presentation   down here in Medford at the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association meeting, and, he brought a bunch of his,   revolutionary   war relic.   And there were a number of them, including   Paul Revere's pistol.   Woah. It's engraved with   Mhmm. And these are all originals. They're not reproductions.  

[01:35:29] Unknown:

What we have in our common law tradition and what is the remedy? Thank you, Joe.   Well, that's   an opinion from a farmer in Oklahoma.   I take great pleasure in having those kind of people listening.   And and other people too. I'm just talking about Joe for now. But,   that's the   that's the what do we call   it? People of the earth.   They're not   lawyers. Do not strive to be a lawyer. William Blackstone wrote his four volumes, and he says in the front of it. He said, this isn't for lawyers.   Did it did it become the foundation of lawyers for   over a hundred years, about a hundred and twenty years in America? Yes. They're really the only foundation,   quoted more in our courts than any other   authority   from the beginning of our country in 1776   to about 1892,   William Blackstone's commentaries.  

Don't you think that probably set the trajectory of our country and our courts? Yeah. It did. And we're and, the evil empire is still trying to get away from it and having a hard time.   But William Blackstone isn't read in the law schools anymore. It ought to be.   But Blackstone   says at the beginning of those four volumes,   he says   that this is written to the Englishman,   and that's what folk were in America at that time.   The gentleman, he says, not the lawyer. Well, what's the gentleman? That's an important word in our   common law tradition.  

He was not a member per se of the nobility, but he was a man that was concerned.   He was a part of his community, and he wanted to make a positive impact. And those are the fellows, by the way, the rank and file gentlemen. Those are the ones who served on the jury.   Oh, you say, well, gentleman was a was an oath of or it was a title of nobility.   Well, it could have been at one time, I suppose, looked at that way, but we use that word in America still. I mean, I was a boy growing up. People talked about the young gentleman or the gentleman this. It was a term of respect.   And what he was saying in there is   that every man that has any sense of responsibility in our country   ought to have the fundamentals of our con common law tradition under his belt so that he may,   fulfill his responsibilities   and protect his life, liberty, and property. And when he serves on the jury, and that's important,   duty of our militiamen,   when he serves on the jury, he can protect the other fellows.  

What did Herbert Hoover say? Herbert Hoover, president of The United States.   He was a a geologist and a mining engineer. What did he say? He him and his wife, her name was Lou.   She knew Latin, and he knew geology and mining, and they translated into English   the first treatise on mining engineering ever written in the in the in the world, probably, that we know of. It was written in Latin, and they translated it into English.   And he, at the beginning of that book, said that a miner   ought to know the law of the minor. Well, what's the law of the minor? That's another slice of our common law tradition,   something that occurs naturally, has all over the world. It became the found the foundation of our oil industry in America.  

That's an important part of our our lives here in America.   We produce more oil in America by far and away right today than any country in the world.   And we haven't even according to the those folks that spend their lives studying the matter, we haven't even scratched the surface in America of the oil that we have.   Oil has come to define, under the law of the minor and a whole lot of other stuff, our common law tradition. What's our common law tradition about? Well, it's about private   property. What is   and Hoover said at the beginning of that book, he said, you just show me who owns the minerals in any country, and I'll show you who runs the country. Well, who owns the minerals in The United States?  

Well, there are laws so written even on government land so that the private man owns the minerals   and also,   oil under the ground on the property. A private man owns the mineral minerals. A private man owns the owns the production that the farmer coaxes   from the soil.   The the private man owns the minerals that that he worries   from the mountains and the earth.   That defines everything. Another fundamental of our common law tradition, that's not true, except in common law countries. And the old tin binders from fifteen hundred years ago in Cornwall, England that produced the copper for the Roman Empire,   they were under the law of the minor. It occurred naturally. They had their own courts. Those courts, by the way, are still in England. They have their own grand juries. Well, under the law of the minor, we did the same thing here. Just by nature, the miners were the miners educated men? No.  

But isn't it something? By nature, they established their own mining districts everywhere from Georgia to California and every place in between mining minerals.   They find their own mining districts. They ceded their own juries. They impaneled their own grand juries in cases of criminal problems. They had criminal and civil jurisdiction. If you wanna know more about that, you can go to the website commonlawyer.com   and get that book, Excellence of the Common Law. And I have chapters in there and appendices about the law of the minor, also the translation of the Bible from the original tongues. I have much to say about the law of the minor because that became fundamental to our common law tradition. It was all about private property and who ultimately owns it, not the government as in all the rest of the world. Roger has even told us down there in South America who owns the minerals, and there's a lot of minerals down there, Roger. Oh, yeah.  

[01:41:24] Unknown:

Well, you know, there's so many, Brent. I I think I might have told you an Argentinian,   they call them Anglo Argentinians whose families have been down there, but they go back to England and go to Scotland, etcetera.   And he was a mining engineer.   Sure. And at a party one night, we were talking about it. And, what his job was was he sold dynamite to the mines.   So he knew virtually every mine in the Andes there. And And that's   only 17%   of the Andes have been, explored.   And the reason for that is because Argentina owns all the mineral rights. There's no incentive  

[01:42:01] Unknown:

to explore it. And that started with the law of the city. The Spaniards got there first, the largest   silver mine that changed the economy of the entire world   is down in in that part of the country or down in the Andes, and it's still there. And we're talking the the mind that gave silver to the whole world   during the colonial days, the early days of England, and they used that silver to expand what they were doing. Well, that but that was under the law of the city. Yep. And, because of that, it was hard to get into private hands. Go ahead, Roger. Oh, one of my friends is a old family home, and,  

[01:42:40] Unknown:

they had to convert it into a, like a bed and breakfast or hotel or something.   And,   so he had a Brit come through, and he's he's Scottish.   He had a Brit come through who was an engineer mining guy, and down south of them in, Nahuatl, which is another one of the provinces.   And he said, we found a veritable   mountain   of silver.   The whole mountain, silver. Where? Where? Down down south in in down in Patagonia.  

[01:43:11] Unknown:

Oh, yeah.  

[01:43:12] Unknown:

And and he said, but the the province wanted so much of the take   that we're gonna walk away until that improves.  

[01:43:20] Unknown:

That's it. And Americans I've been in the mind of business here in The States. Things have changed, but Americans wanted to go to Mexico, Central America. They knew how to get the stuff out. Those folks down there did not have the mindset or nor the technology to do it because they live in a a legal tradition, the canon civil laws that stifles everybody. Yep. And they couldn't. And then but the Americans wanted to go down, but they said, well, we won't let you do it unless you give, us 51%   of the take.   Oh, no. We we wanna control it, and so they don't go, you see. Yep. They don't go. That's the way it works. And it is the laws, friends, our common law tradition that enables this unfathomable   amount of production that we experience here in The United States that they don't experience elsewhere. Don't get caught up with the the law of the city pay or the law yes. Law of the city patriot. Oh, there are no common law juries. Even though we got them, they don't. No. No. No. No. No. We got rid of all the people on the jury we didn't want, and we won that case.  

When I was tried,   six weeks, I was tried, and I knew there were people on the jury that were not according to common law tradition. They weren't from the district.   They weren't from the district that preestablished   by law. There's a reason that happened. It shouldn't have happened, but the jury sprung me anyway.   Because the common law tradition works   even in the face of the never ending, and it's been never ending since the since the settling of the city of Babylon, never ending   aggression   of the law of the city to control our courts,   Romanism, the canon civil laws of Rome, and the principles of dictator,   imperialism,   whatever you wanna call it, A one man show. The government of the law of the city is always a show of one will. Now it could be one man, one woman. It could be a common a will or a single will expressed from a legislature.  

But it's always a single will in our common law tradition. We have three coequal branches of government, and none none of them has jurisdiction really to commandeer the yeah. To commandeer any of the other two. The Supreme Court of the United States does not have authority over the president, ultimately. Ultimately. Not ultimately. He may go along with him if he wants to for political reason, but understand that, friends. This is our common law tradition. Go ahead, Robert. What about a district court judge in Massachusetts  

[01:45:39] Unknown:

named Murray?   Yeah. Who's stopping   all all of these trying to stop all these murders, rapists? It's   ridiculous, and that's something that's gonna have to be addressed.  

[01:45:51] Unknown:

Well, then let's back up. That's good. I bring you brought up you brought something up that's in the news.   Does he have authority, discretion as a judge to do that? What's the answer?  

[01:46:00] Unknown:

Yes. Oh, he does?  

[01:46:02] Unknown:

No. He does. Of course. Yes. He's a judge. He's an independent and coequal branch of government. Who's gonna tell him what to do? And the answer is the president ain't gonna tell him what to do, and the Congress ain't gonna tell him what to do. No. A thousand times no. But on the other hand, neither does he have authority in his opinions to tell, president Trump what to do. Or so he's trying to he's trying to override and dictate foreign policy, and that's pretty much exclusive jurisdiction of the secretary of state. So a district judge in Massachusetts  

[01:46:35] Unknown:

can override secretary of state?  

[01:46:37] Unknown:

Yes. Now let let's ask ourselves this question, Roger.   Who's gonna stop him?   Who's gonna arrest him? Who's gonna deal.   Yeah. They could defund him. There's a number of things they can do, I guess. You can do. But as a matter of discretion on the bench,   even if it gets crazy,   we're not, there's nobody can tell him what to do. That's our common law tradition, and it gets crazy.   Let's get comfortable. This is what we're not doing as patriots and American. This is our constitution of The United States, a brief of common law government. Let's get comfortable with the reality   that men are evil. Judges are evil. That's why we have juries. If we thought judges were smart guys, good guys, moral guys, we wouldn't even have juries, but they aren't.  

Let's get real. This was   Joe from Oklahoma. Not many years ago, I read the whole case. There was a judge in Oklahoma on the state bench   that was giving himself orgasms during murder trials.   He had a bad addiction bad addiction. And then finally,   it discovered that it went into crack and not crack methamphetamines.   It got worse.   Friends, that's just a picture of what every you say, I'm not capable of that. I don't believe you. I think all of us have that taint of of imperfection in us that if it fed improperly will grow, and sin will always take you further than you wanna go, and it'll keep you longer than you wanna than you want it to keep you. Oh, until California.   Yeah. Same thing. But let's understand what our common law tradition is at bottom. Why do lower courts   and our   courts in America   follow   the decisions of the Supreme Court? Just I just read one. It's a new decision. It changes the way all the courts are to look at the Fourth Amendment. Why? Because that's a separate and coequal branch of government.  

That that branch of government does not follow orders from the president of The United States. A lawyer is a lawyer. I don't go into court, argue, well, the president says this, and you gotta do it because every judge knows that's not true if he's thinking right. I don't know. Maybe most of them are. We use what we call.   The   judicial branch is over here following the the courts. But this president of The United States has no duty, no responsibility   to do what the Supreme Court tells him and vice versa.   Does he? Yes. Is it smart to do so? Yes. In most cases. Is he allowing these problems to be taken through the courts? Yes. Why? That's wise politically. He's letting the the process go through the courts and see what happens in the end. But when it's all over,   he still hasn't he took a note to support and defend the constitution of The United States as he understands it, not as the Supreme Court understands it. And it and it's silly to even say such a thing, but I'm saying it. Let's stop and consider this.  

I take an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States as I understand it, and it says I understand it. I didn't take an oath to support and defend it as anybody else in the world understands it. Very true. That's the strength of our common law tradition. Every man,   every militiamen, every jury member, every president, every governor,   he's responsible. He took an oath personally. He's responsible.   But even if you don't take the oath, the oath doesn't make you responsible to do that.   An oath all an oath does is strengthen responsibility.  

You've already got as an American to support and defend the constitution of The United States. You men.   This is the target. You men.   Your members of the militia, whether you understand it or not, whether you know it or not. That means you have two duties. And the oath that men take when they go into office reflect those two duties. To support and defend the constitution of The United States, it is the law of the land. It says so in article six. What's the law of the land? That's due process. That's not the Bible. That's our common law tradition. The way we go about doing things. You have a duty to to defend that as against enemies foreign. That means willingness to take up arms and kill and maybe be killed to defend your land.   Number two, against enemies foreign, number two, against enemies domestic. That means you are willing to serve on a jury and defend the law of the land. Those are the two duties of the militiamen in America.  

The land and the law of the land, you do it two different ways.   Understand that what you do there   applies, and this is where the judge is wrong, but his discretion   is is we're not to   we have ways of dealing with the stupidity of judges, and it is not going crazy and picking up your pitchfork and storming the steel as they did in France. That's that's the law of the city. Ever never ending revolution. No. We have an order. A way to go about this. What do you do? Well, you impeach the judge.   You vote him out.   You go to the legislature and change the law and apply pressure there.  

You write editorials in the newspaper.   You hope you got a president that will withstand   unconstitutional   acts of judges,   and all presidents have done that. Most of them do it in ways that are not politically dangerous to them. For example, when I was involved in politics and running for congress and all that stuff, I remember president Clinton, and I made a lot about this, when I'd talked, he would not enforce   the legislation that said   that unions had to to post in the places of   work   that every union member could choose   to send his union dues   to a a comparable charity   if he didn't agree with union policies.  

Well, president Clinton didn't enforce that. And the reason he didn't enforce it was he didn't want to. He thought it would hurt him politically, and the unions, of course, didn't want him to enforce it, and nobody would notice. And that's exactly what happened.   And there's a lot of things that presidents do, the law says. Let me give you another one. The   the,   the federal courts have said that there's a way for a fellow to get his second amendment rights reinstated after a violent felony   if he if he produces proof and goes in front of a tribunal.   Congress has said this. They passed a law. They provided funding to do it to the president of The United States.  

The ATF is supposed to do it, and they haven't done it in decades.   Men have gone to court and say and said, we want you to order the the executive branch to hold this hearing so I can get I'm a I was a violent felon. I wanna get my gun rights back.   And the federal courts have said, well, we'd do that if we could, but we have no power to force the president of The United States to do anything.   Is that true? You better believe it's true. Ain't that simple?   What power does the court have to force the president of The United States to do anything? The president of The United States has the army, the navy, the air force, marines, the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, and they're all armed now. He's got armed force. He's gotta blame their monopoly on force and violence. What does the courts have? Well, they have the power two things. They have the power to order a US marshal to do it. But what if the US marshal tells what if the president tells that same US marshal, don't do what they say. Do what I say. Second, the courts have the power to to subpoena   the militia, whatever part of it locally they want, to enforce their will against the president of The United States. And there have been federal judges that have considered that and said so in their   opinions, especially when Lincoln was president. But my point I'm making is, listen.  

Our common law tradition in three separate coequal branches, and neither one of those branches has any authority under our common law tradition, under our constitution of The United States, to commandeer   the other branch. Let's talk about the second amendment, Prince versus United States. That's the Sheriff Mack case. The feds came around to all the sheriffs in America and said, you have to   you have to enforce the Brady Act, do background checks on everybody in your county that wants to buy a gun. Well, out of over 3,000 sheriffs in America, only two said that we're not gonna do that. Number one, we don't have the money to do it. You're not giving us any money, and I don't have any extra money to do it. And number two, you don't have any power to commandeer me as an employee of state gov an employee of state government. Well, not an employee, but as a officer of state government. You see, every sheriff   is there because of the commission of the forming of a county, which is a corporate entity.  

That's state government does that. And then the sheriff,   receives his paycheck from the state treasury   even though he's a common law officer. I get that. But the county chooses him.   Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says, justice Scalia writing, that in our common law tradition of separate coequal branch of government,   the the federal government, the president of The United States, has no authority to commandeer the sheriff of a local county and tell him what to do and come and push him around and command him.   That's fundamental to our common law tradition. We branch the government. They have no power to commandeer each other. The the general government in Washington, D. Has no authority to commandeer   and push around governors, sheriffs, employees of state government.  

Do you realize what would happen if we didn't follow our constitution   or is a brief of common law government at that point?   Well, see,   then we would have tyranny and a centralized power and nothing we could do about it. We're moving in that direction. Let's talk about our common law. Let's get our common law embedded in our minds. Let's learn about it. Take the course. Would you please? I say this without apology.   We need to understand comparative law, what the difference is. The difference is between us and everybody else. There are only two two fundamental traditions of religion, law, and government in the world.   The law of the land and the law of the city. There isn't anything else, friends. Oh, the law of the city comes under a thousand different labels. A million.  

But all fundamentally, it's always the same thing. Government by a single imperial will.   The law of the land is government by several wills, and they're always fighting with each other. And we can't tell who's in charge a lot of the time. And long as that's going on, then you and I are free to make our own decisions.   Ain't that wonderful? That's Romans 13 too, which Joe meant.  

[01:56:51] Unknown:

Roger.   Well, Larry, you better hurry. You got a couple of minutes. About two, three minutes left.  

[01:56:59] Unknown:

Yeah. Two questions for Brent. Would you agree that the law of the city is amoral?   It's neither moral nor   immoral.   And No. No. For example   Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, let me give my example. For example, car loan is a contract   and product of the law of the city for merchant law,   which includes self help remedies.   And I guess you could say that there's   some admiralty   law involved because if you don't make your car payments,   they will come by force and take your car.   And then the second question is, is equity   is equity   exclusively used to bring remedy,   to a dispute   that involves the law of the city?  



[01:57:47] Unknown:

Now I'm gonna say something here that is gonna ruffle maybe. Maybe. I don't know. Let's see it. Let me just say it. The law of merchant is not the law of the city.   The law of merchant is not the law of the city. Did the law is the law of merchant present in Babylon? Yes.   What's wrong with it? Well, you know, the the evil empire gets it right sometimes.   The law of merchants is part of our common law tradition. The UCC is a a restatement of our common law tradition applied to,   merchants.   The UCC   is the law merchant codified. The law merchant was part of our common law tradition in England. It was because of the merchants coming from the continent and applying our common law principles,   applying them, the principles of our common law in certain,   in ways that work with these merchants coming from the continent.  

That's that was the work of a very well known justice in our common law tradition called,   lord Mansfield, and he was a Scotsman, and his name really was Murray.   His name really was Murray. By the way, Madeline Murray O'Hare. Remember her? Somebody Yes. She was a descendant   of lord Mansfield.   She was part of the Roe v Wade deal. Yeah. That well, no, Al. No. It was way back. She's the one that pushed and tried to get, prayer out of her public school. That's right. But her son her son went the other way, and I got to know him a little bit when I was running for office a long time ago. And he ran for congress. And, he's a total conservative Christian man, and and,   it's amazing. You can look at a picture of him   and a picture of Ward Mansfield and say, wow. That's   that's the same guy. But, anyway, they were, yeah, they were descended from the same bunch. He was a he was a Scotsman. And his brother, by the way, was a Jacobite, and I think he got hung. But Lord Mansfield was a genius   because he took the com there were there's two understandings of stare decisis in our common law tradition. One is the Scottish understanding, and one is the English understanding.  

And both of them   are about the same, but a little bit different.   The English were a little looser, little looser with stare decisis,   or rather, the Scotsman is a little looser, and the Englishman is a little tighter. The Scotsman or the Englishman traditionally look for a case that was just like his case, as close as he could possibly get it. The Scotsman's understanding of stare decisis is, well, we need to look for the principle   regardless of the facts.   The Scotsman's understanding, Lord Mansfield's understanding   is substantially our understanding of stare decisis in America now.  

Mhmm. But that's all good. But the law merchant, even though the Babylonians   had it, it it's part of our common law tradition. You know, the re Rome under the republic.   They had a lot of doctrines that were like our common law tradition. The problem was they couldn't keep them. They didn't have the power to do so. They didn't have Christianity.   And when they finally did get it, they perverted it pretty quick into Romanism.   There's nothing but Babylonianism   with a Christian label and the law of the city and the canon   canon civil laws of Rome. But don't think that men that aren't Christian aren't smart and can't do what the common law tradition demands. But,   thanks for bringing that up, Larry.  



[02:00:47] Unknown:

Yeah. Larry and I wanna we'll do it another time, but you, mingled admiralty and self help remedies, and I don't agree with that. K?   So maybe we can discuss the finer points of that at a point, but we're at the end of the show today.   And another great show with Brent Winters. Brent, thank you. You're like the ever ready battery. We just say something and wind you up, and it's   there you go. Two hours.   Well, I I appreciate it. Well, it's passion, man. It's passion. It's commitment. It's all the things you've studied in your life that you get all of a sudden here it is on a platform. You got a question and all that comes to your mind to help people   understand what the hell is going on, and we appreciate  

[02:01:29] Unknown:

it. Well, thank you, Roger. These folk listening   are tuned in. I get the feeling we're on the same road or knows that we're pointing the same direction. So the same questions come up, and I appreciate all the involvement here. Yeah. Well, we love you, buddy, and, we'll look forward to next week and see what we can uncover.  

[02:01:49] Unknown:

Otherwise, than that, you'll be on your show tomorrow, and we'll be on ours. And, unfortunately, we conflict, but sometimes it works out.   And, we'll look forward to seeing you next week. So we appreciate you and everything you bring us.  

[02:02:03] Unknown:

Thank you, Roger. Appreciate you too and all of you.   I'll be talking.  

[02:02:08] Unknown:

Okay. And I've I've I'm just I'm not gonna hang around today. I just am too tired. I've been sick all week. So,   y'all look forward to me tomorrow. I'll maybe be better by then,   a little bit. So,   we'll see you, Manana. And if not Manana, we'll see you soon. Okay?   And, Brent, if you wanna hang around and converse with these folks, of course, you're welcome to.  

[02:02:32] Unknown:

They will. Alright. I I might just a little, but I I I wanna go to. But I might a little if there's a loose end somebody.  

[02:02:39] Unknown:

There's I'm sure there's Larry has a loose end. Somewhere.  

[02:02:43] Unknown:

I'll say Larry has a loose end.  

[02:02:46] Unknown:

I'll see you. And we'll, discuss maybe some of this tomorrow, Larry. Okay. Ciao ciao, kids.  

[02:02:53] Unknown:

Thank you, Raj.   Go ahead, Larry.  

[02:02:56] Unknown:

Yeah. Brent. So,   in common law, there's remedies,   and they are if you damage someone,   the remedy is,   that you make them whole again, you know, after it goes through a trial, for example.   And it's is is this true that   in equity,   I mean, in the when it has to do with the law of merchant or,   merchant law that the remedy is equity,   exclusively   its equity, would you say that's a true statement?  

[02:03:30] Unknown:

No. It's just the opposite.   The remedy is law.   Law equity always follows law.   In other words,   if you can't find a remedy at law,com   that means common law,   then we go to equity, not before.   We only go to equity when there is no remedy that's available that we can see at law. And then once we go to equity,   that equitable remedy that the court fashions   may become part of law. And that's how that's how equity happened, and it's an important part of our common law tradition. It's not an opposite. It's an important component   and always has been.  

A dangerous component I saw.   Read. But yeah.   Go ahead. So,  

[02:04:16] Unknown:

so the merchant law doesn't need to have a remedy because the remedies are built into   the contracts.  

[02:04:25] Unknown:

Is that true? Well, the reason we call it the merchant law is because, again, go back to the fundamentals. Always go back I I say go back to the fundamentals.   The merchants were coming from Europe. They call them,   pied powder. They call them pied powder,   pied powder or pied in French law law of French pied power merchants. They spoke French.   They were traveling salesmen. They were hucksters. That's not a bad word. It it became a bad word. We used to have hucksters at home. They drive around the countryside with a truck and sell,   things or take orders from the women and men on the farm. They wouldn't have to go to town. They're called hucksters.  

You remember, what was that show, Greenacres?   And the huckster that was on there, he'd drive his truck up and always trying to sell something.   But huckster's got to be had a reputation like used car salesman, but they were the hucksters of the of European world. And they said, man, there's a big market in England. Let's get over there. Those folks got they they like to dicker, and we can make some money. And so those Frenchmen came over there, and the word pied powder. Pied is a word that means foot and powder. It means the the men that walked the the well worn powdered trail, a foot and carried their goods on their backs, and they came dangling.   Well, they didn't if they got into a   contract dispute with somebody that bought something, they didn't have time to stay for, two or three years till it went through the courts.  

And and and they and so they got discouraged from going to England. They said, shucks. If you go over there and you have a dispute,   those Englishmen will keep you there forever, and you'll never get your money, and you gotta go home and take care of your family or whatever they were doing. So   Lord Mansfield was one of them, and there were others. He said, you know, we have these fares.   And then they they made a a jurisdiction where the the foreigners could come and sell their wares. They wanted their wares. They had were bringing things they didn't have in England, and they wanted that free trade to go on.   So they set up these courts courts.  

And just one example, the law merchant, Lord Mansfield, trying to find ways to apply the common law tradition, he said,   I know what we'll do. These fellows can't even speak English, so we'll have what we call the court of the half tongue,   The jury of the half tongue will have six jury members that can speak,   Norman French and six jury members that speak Anglo Saxon.   He tried all sorts of things. And then he even tried.   To use the jury. He said, well, the jury is supposed to be of your peers. What's a peer to a merchant?   We said, well, a peer to a merchant is a merchant.  

And so he had this pool of merchants he would impanel,   and and this became part of English law. A pool of merchants because merchants understand merchants. You see? And they understand the   the you're talking about more morals? What is moral? That's a Latin word that means custom. It doesn't mean law. I don't like to use the word because,   it may or may not be true, and you won't find the word moral in the Bible anywhere.   I like to use the word law   because   law, god's law, our laws of nature, laws of nature is god, That has been our custom.   So it it qualifies   as moral,   but it moral means custom. It doesn't mean right and wrong. There's that's a difference here, friends. I don't like to use the word. People say, oh, our constitution is made for a moral people.  

Well, you say that to a Islamic person and or a a person that lives in another part of the world, that has a whole different meaning to them.   So I like to use the word just law. Law, our common law, laws of nature, laws of nature is God. That's really what it is here. The word moral, when it was used in those senses, apparently, that people apparently quoted and said these things, it was used in a Christian context. They didn't know anything else. There wasn't anything else in their wheelhouse that they understood or knew about or would have any reason to even think about.   So what is it? It is the laws of nature, and the laws of nature is God. That's how God has revealed himself and his will to us is through the Bible written and our common law unwritten, the way things are in his creation, which is his, operates according to his will. We call it the laws of physics and all sorts of things. That's the laws of nature. Well, lord Mansfield, he began to be innovative.  

And he said, how can we achieve   the principles of our common law, the use of the jury   with, when people are coming over from the continent, they aren't us. How are you gonna have a jury   a jury   empaneled that understands a a Frenchman   or an Italian over here selling goods?   No. We're different people. We don't have the same   morals that is customs, the same mores as we say as customs. So how can we understand them? Well, we need the common law applies to everybody, but we need it to   our common law is what we've discovered in nature, the way things work between merchants,   not just anybody. Merchants operate different than other people. You find out merchants,   have and merchants that travel, there are certain customs that apply there.  

I had an uncle. He's gone now. My granddad's brother, he was an auctioneer.   An auctioneer. That's part of our common law tradition.   Very distinct law. The body of laws applies to an auctioneer.   The law of a minor. Where'd we get that? Well, I mentioned that a while ago. That arose among minors. And interestingly,   it's all the same all over the world when law first arises among men. It's fundamentally the same all over the world. It's just that some people have the ability to keep it going because of Christianity   and others don't. The Babylonians'   law merchant arose.  

The the laws arose in the Roman Republic. None of them continued. None of them.   They didn't have as Bagot, the English common lawyer, said, the thing that they lacked was the power   to persistently   keep those laws and keep and keep them rolling, the due process, the way things are done. So,   equity, don't don't,   don't list well, don't go to the extremism. Equity is bad. Admiralty law is bad. No. No. No. Admiralty law is very good if it's applied to ships at sea and sailors. I speak as a former sailor for a number of years. And,   there is no jury when you're on a ship at sea,   and there is no jury when you're on an airplane. That's Admiralty Law. You know, the old man or the the pilot of the plane has absolute command. You don't argue with him at that point.  

If you do, it's a felony.   They don't tell you that.   Like smoking in the in the boys' room on an airplane.   But, yeah, there's no jury applies to that. You just don't do it.   The same thing is true on ships.   Martial law. Anything wrong with that? No. Martial law is very good as long as as as it is applied to armed men on fields of battle. That's what we want there.   What about equity? Is that bet? No. Equity has a is proper use. Without equity,   we wouldn't have new remedies. All of our remedies that, common law arose at what we would call equity. When the miners out in California got together out in the wilderness and tried to form courts, what did they have? Well, they didn't have educations.   They didn't have books. They weren't lawyers.  

What did they have? Well, we would have called it today equity. That's not a good word, but that's what we what arose among them, they just looked around and said, well, what's the thing to do here? And so they began to panel juries   of 12 men.   How in the world did they know how to do that? Did that all over America.   They did it in the Midwest. They did it in Tennessee when people first settled there. They did that. Well, that's   that's the a law arising from men, but we had the persistence overall   in a Protestant country to keep that going.   Again, I reiterate, the canon civil laws of Rome of the Justinian's code of the Roman Empire, the canon civil laws of the Eastern and Western churches are contrary to our common law tradition.  

How could you be both?   Oh, people try it. It doesn't work well. It makes for a miserable life if you really understand it like justice Scalia did. You've got to choose one or the other if you finally know the difference. And we want our goal is that men know the difference.   Remember, when   Blackstone wrote his comment or it delivered the lectures, commentaries on the laws of England, often called the commentaries on our common law, his assignment was funded   by a wealthy Jew who was not a Christian, a merchant named Verner, and his assignment was to lecture on the laws of the city, which he knew very well, the canon civil laws of Rome. He was a graduate of Oxford.   That's what universities teach, the law of the city. Everything about universities is geared to the canon civil laws of Rome even yet today in the principles of it because it's a product of the command of the pope of Rome back in the   eleventh century or the tenth century, tenth and eleventh century.  

But   he also was a common lawyer. He knew the difference. He had made his choice.   He chose the common law tradition.   So what he ended up doing   was comparing and contrasting the law of the land with the law of the city all through   to show the contrast, to make it shout.   How you gonna how you gonna how you gonna define what something is really clearly unless you can show show the contrast to its opposite.   That's what those lectures were, many points. And and he justified what he did because he got paid to do it by a wealthy man   who established a chair   of canon civil laws at Oxford.  

He   used it to teach the law of the city and into something. Now we recognize that   because of his propensities, he chose the law of the city and would talk in that in those lectures about how silly silly, how upside down the law of the land is. For example, putting logic   over fact   And fantasy, what is logic? Logic. Fantasy.   What is law without fact at the foundation?   Fantasy.   What is the law of the city? Fantasy.   What did Jack Kennedy mean in that famous speech when he said it's our job to think about,   things that never were as though they could be or something like that and never happened before? That's called utopia.   Well, who invented the word or who made utopia famous? Well, he was a Romanist, a juror in England,   and he's very famous under Henry the eighth. And he,   wrote a book called Utopia about the way things could be if men were not depraved at heart. Our common law tradition recognizes   that men are depraved at heart. What's the official doctrine of Rome?  

The depravity is not a part of the official doctrine of Rome.   No. When man fell in the Garden Of Eden, our grandpa Adam and Eve,   he did not fall into depravity,   says Rome.   Protestantism, no. They follow the Bible. What did they say? Man fell into depravity.   He's not even able to choose   good.   If he even he knows it. If he chooses it, he still can't do it. Well, that's what Blackstone said. That's Protestantism.   He doesn't have the power. He's not born of the spirit.   That's not what lives inside of him. He can't do it. You know, I do things that are not right sometimes as all men do, but the difference between a Christian man and a non Christian man is   even though I'm like a rubber band, even I may make a frolic and make a long wrong choice and do things aren't right, but I'll zip. I'll pop back, and try it again. I'll come back to home base and say, wait a minute. That wasn't right. And I'll try to persist.  

That's what God does for the Christian man. That's what he can do for you. I hope that's what he's doing for you right now as you as you listen.   That's the what I see and what you've mentioned. I think I hit the high points. Did I?  

[02:16:20] Unknown:

Yes. Thank you.  

[02:16:22] Unknown:

Cornell, thank you. Thank you. Well, I'm gonna go. Thank you again bringing all these things up, and,   I have something meaningful to talk about. But please sign up for that course.   I I'm interested in my country.   And I'm interested in my country because I'm interested in my children and my grandchildren   and my great grandchildren.   And I'm interested in yours too. We won't have a country. Why am I interested? Because God said   that we are to conquer this land and keep it, and we can't do it without the law of the land, my friends.   And without you can't do it without knowing something about our law of the land.  

So let's learn a little bit more about it.   Please take the course.   Join us in our effort   to teach people   how our country is to be conquered.   It is to be conquered by the right law.   That's how it's to be conquered. What is law? It is the will of the sovereign who is our sovereign, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of creation, the God of the Bible,   him and no other, him and no more.   That's the hill worth dying on, friends. If there ever was one, that's it. A lot of other little things out here that probably wouldn't matter as much, but you can fight about driver's license all day long, and that may be you're right on the point. But if you're not understanding how that connects to the trust settlement of God,   that the Bible   is the theme of the entire Bible, an entrusting of land,   different land to different men, different races, different tongues, different peoples, different cultures   like our country.  

If it's not about that, you won't last. You've gotta get the big, big picture in order for you to persist   in what god wants us to do here. Our forebears that came here   understood exactly what I'm saying. They said it. They made it clear that when they came here to these shores, that was their goal, was the trust settlement of God. They called it the covenant. Is a trust settlement a covenant? Yes. But I like to be a little more precise   than they were, many of them, former Roman priests who were used Latin words to express everything. No. It's just a common law trust, a very important one, though. And it's all about land being entrusted,   all about the therefore, the law of the land, which is our common law tradition.  

Let's learn something about it. Well, thank Paul, are you still there?  

[02:18:50] Unknown:

I don't hear him. Maybe he's gone. Yeah. But it takes me a minute to get to the mute button. I have   I have many screens.  

[02:18:58] Unknown:

Yeah. The bank This is   Chris.   This is Chris from California.   Yeah. I wanna I wanna take your time a lot of course. Where do I find it and when do I start?  

[02:19:10] Unknown:

Oh, go to   www.commonlawyer.com.   Here's where I oh, here's what's gonna have to happen.   I'm a always a little a dollar short and a day late, Chris,   but I'm trying to catch up. Okay. Here's what's got to happen. I have to   make sure that the information, the blurb as they call it, little paragraph saying what it's about, goes up on the website.   That hasn't happened yet. And then I that has to be sent to people that   run the website, then they'll put up the buttons that allow you to join.   So please keep your eyes open. I I have told those concerned I would do that yesterday, the day before, the day before.   Things came up. I didn't get it done. I got to get that done today.  

So I'll get that done today. I'm telling you that   to make myself feel more responsible, get that done, and then it will be in the pipeline to be up on the Internet. I think it will happen pretty quick. Commonlawyer.com.   And if there's a problem, you can email.   Thank you, Chris, and and good thing you asked. Alright. Thank you. Thank for all concerned. You're in our prayers, those that listen. You're the folk that God has has given me an opportunity to talk to, so I'm primarily concerned with you as opposed to everybody else in the world. And let's get with it and see what we can do. See you, Paul.  

[02:20:33] Unknown:

Thank you, Brent. Brent. Take care.  

[02:20:38] Unknown:

Hello, Chris.  

[02:20:40] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[02:20:41] Unknown:

This is Dan. And,   for that course, we can do a group thing of 10 or more people, and it's a little less to take the course.   So as the days come forward and we find out when the course will start,   we'll,   get that together and and proceed that way if you're interested.  

[02:21:01] Unknown:

Sure. Sounds good.  

[02:21:03] Unknown:

Alrighty. Have a good day, Al. Thank you, Dan.   You bet.  

[02:21:11] Unknown:

Is this Chris from California?  

[02:21:13] Unknown:

Yes.  

[02:21:15] Unknown:

Hey, Georgia. Idaho. How did you make out on your I thought you had a traffic thing that came up the other day. I was wondering how you're  

[02:21:21] Unknown:

that was you. Well, I think it's, coming along very well.   What we did is we did a refusal for cause without dishonor,   and,   we sent that by registered mail.   Registered mail,   is very important as opposed to certified mail. Just in the last two weeks,   I I sent out a couple of things by certified mail.   And,   certified mail, they don't   they don't, control it   tight very tight at all. And they'll just send the green card and the whole thing   through the recipient   and let it up to the recipient to decide whether or not they wanna return the green card, and they already have the goods.   Because that's not the way it's supposed to be. You're supposed to get an orange card in your mailbox,   and then you have to go in and show ID that you are the person that it's addressed to, and then they will give you the certified mail. Certified mail is is, you know, basically junk and very unreliable.  

However, registered mail, on the other hand, when you use registered mail, it's more expensive. That's what's called a chain of custody. You have a solid chain of custody. It's tracked completely. They never screw it up, and,   you can hold court by registered mail.   And,   you can issue   various,   notices   and,   demand that they respond by a certain time.   It can be ten days or it can be ten business days, not calendar days. Or it can be twenty one days or thirty days depending on   the situation and the way you're doing it. But,   so that's what we're doing.  

And, you can use, refusal for cause without dishonor,   UCC section, three dash five zero one, and there's a couple other sections that apply.   And just get rid of the thing. Refuse to accept the contract   because it's all contract   law. You have the right to refuse any contract.   So you simply refuse the contract. All these agencies   are operating as private corporations. They have Dun and Bradstreet numbers.   They have, the fruit the fruit of the poisonous tree. They have, a conflict of interest, and they can't overcome that.   They can't and they can't turn you into a corporation   if you don't wanna be one. And so, they're operating under fraud all the time.  

So,   that's what we're doing.  

[02:23:46] Unknown:

Yeah. Excellent.   I've got I've done that registered mail before.   I recently   did an affidavit of mailing,   which,   I get get get notarized. So because I   remember that registered was, pretty expensive. And I I, I too didn't get cards back on the certified, so I I'm with you on that. But here, I sent it certified still, but then have an affidavit that it went into the post office. And then   I would complain probably to the, if the post office is above because they're it's supposed to be as received when thrown in the mail. So,   I guess, per the law. Although, I don't know what the site is for that, but but I hear you on on the registered.  



[02:24:27] Unknown:

Let me give let me give you let me give you my recent example   of what happened with registered mail.   Twice in January, middle of January, and January,   I sent my first affidavit of citizenship evidence   to, Anthony Blinken.   Then Marco Rubio became the new secretary of state, and I sent it to him also. I did both with certified mail.   I didn't get anything back.   No activity whatsoever.   So, in April,   I sent it again by registered mail to Marco Rubio.   And I got the green card back very promptly,   and I've never seen this before,   stamped on the on the, on the,   green card in red ink with a big stamp. Yeah. It said secretary   of state of The United States Of America,   and it said received and processed.  

Wow.   Mhmm. Never saw that. Mhmm.   Never saw that. But you won't get that with certified mail. I'm I'm sure.  

[02:25:36] Unknown:

Yeah. I'm gonna have to go back to my when I did all my,   nationality correction back, I started it under,   under Bush.   So it was under   Condoleezza Rice, and then I finished the common law cure, you know, given them the notice and everything.   I'm under   Obama slash   Hitler,   which is giving Hitler a bad name. Hillary.   And,   yeah, I'll have to see how they stamped it because I have all those registered cards from that. I also had a witness of the mailing as well, so I had somebody that would go to court, you know, if need be.   But, that I heard a interesting one on a traffic ticket.  

Get one of those, and I just picked them up on,   from Michael's or whatever. Get one of them gold and one of them silver pens, and, Boris rode across.   Y'all took the silver and gold, so I got some myself and then signed so that was in silver and then signed his name in gold   because,   evidently, we we are the gold and silver with the labor with the land. You know? So I thought that he never heard it again from the from them. They probably just hypothecated it anyway using his name, but,   yeah, I hope that was an interesting way to handle ticket.  

[02:26:50] Unknown:

Well, they don't like being exposed. That's for sure.  

[02:26:55] Unknown:

Come in.   Okay. Well, I'm gonna   I'm gonna be out with it.   Roger   says registered mail isn't necessary   and that registered mail is only applicable to things of intrinsic value.   My belief   on it is   my intellectual property is worth something. It has intrinsic value.   And my word,   my declarations,   and my notice of demands   have value to me because I send them with an expected   end result.   Registered mail   is only   a pittance more   than certified mail,   and it checks all the boxes   for chain of custody,   for accountability   from not only the post office,   but the receiver.  

So registered mail is how I send   everything   that is absolutely   necessary that it gets there. I don't even use FedEx. You know, when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight,   screw them. I use registered mail.  

[02:28:15] Unknown:

Yeah. Another thing I'll add.   If you put the value   at $4,000   or more,   then it becomes a felony to anybody that, disregards it or mishandles it.  

[02:28:29] Unknown:

Right. Chris, what is the cost for the additional $4,000   of insurance?  

[02:28:34] Unknown:

Well, they don't charge anything for that. They don't? No. You just put because I know it'll go up to 50,000.   Yeah.   Well, 4,000 is the cutoff. At 4,000, it becomes a felony.  

[02:28:49] Unknown:

So you're just declaring what you think it's worth?  

[02:28:53] Unknown:

What value it has to you? I put $5,000   on mine.  

[02:28:56] Unknown:

I get it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. When I do when I'm gonna do my notices, it's gonna be a legal document that's gonna be asking them,   you know, what I or I'm gonna be telling them what I expect from them and who I am and how they need to address me, etcetera.   And I want a chain of custody because I wanna be able to bring that to   any   face off you have with them as to, you know, who signed off and   here you've agreed with it, you know, and now you're saying you're not agreeing.   So it needs to have a chain of custody.  

[02:29:31] Unknown:

Yeah. I've always agency. Registered mail for anything important.   The only thing I use certified mail for is paying, property taxes, things like that,   or sending in   money that I owe, whatever, just to make sure that they they got it. But,   yeah, registered mail is not that much more. I think it's worth what you get. I think it's worth the price.   Yeah. Something like $4 more, I think. That's about it. Well, it's about $40 right now to send something registered mail.   Really? Okay. Yeah.   Which is probably at least double of verified mail.  

[02:30:08] Unknown:

It's a whole lot less than   your notice not getting where it needs to be in time.  

[02:30:16] Unknown:

Yeah. No. Now if you're serious time to have to do it over if that's the case. Period. You know? Yeah. If you're serious about what you're doing, you wanna let them know that you're serious.   When they see the registered panel, they know serious.  

[02:30:29] Unknown:

I sent my, affidavit   of citizenship evidence to the secretary of state. I sent it certified.   Didn't hear a word.   Like, seven months later,   they send me a letter back saying,   we can't accept this.   So I just sent it to him again, but I sent it registered.   I got my card back. I haven't heard a peep. Haven't heard word one for two years now.   So it's all   good.  

[02:30:58] Unknown:

Yeah. I I I was I was impressed that with the stamp, you know, that they put on it that said, you know,   received and processed.   Mhmm. I've never seen that before.  

[02:31:12] Unknown:

Right.  

[02:31:14] Unknown:

Okay. Well I would I would  

[02:31:17] Unknown:

Go ahead, Samuel. I I  

[02:31:19] Unknown:

was wondering if   if you guys could explain better to me that traffic stop that Brent started out with. I mean, the picture I got painted there   at at it was you got the 24 year old at the trunk, and then the car's driving away, and then the cops getting in how that how can that be? That can't be the right   way to picture it. So   what actually happened there?  

[02:31:45] Unknown:

The cop was at the trunk. The guy was in the car.   Okay.   And,   the guy started driving away,   and the cop   ran up and jumped on the open door,   jumped on the,   on the floorboard.  

[02:32:04] Unknown:

And just start shooting without seeing where he's shooting at this guy.  

[02:32:11] Unknown:

Apparently.  

[02:32:13] Unknown:

Yes. That's correct. His his head   was above the roof of the car. He had his gun drawn.   And when the, the 24 year old started to drive away slowly,   he just started shooting into the car.  

[02:32:33] Unknown:

You know, if   if IQ doesn't matter. Right? I mean,   if if I was worried about my life and I'm the cop, I'm running this guy before I'm pulling him over to have an idea of who he is. Well, obviously, if it's a rental car, you're gonna find that out. So you don't know who it is, and then he doesn't have ID.   What a mess.  

[02:32:58] Unknown:

The cop would have known in order for the cop to have known that the car had unpaid   road tolls on it, the cop would have already known who the registered owning entity was. Exactly.   They knew it was a rental car before he even lit him up.  

[02:33:15] Unknown:

Right.   I mean,  

[02:33:22] Unknown:

How about   how about how the car just kept rolling into   on the highway   with the cops standing on the   the bench of the door,   and the car and there were cars going back up and down the highway. And and I didn't see the whole video, but I saw that one second part. And did the car then run-in   just keep going into the highway and wreck into other cars and hurt people?  

[02:33:50] Unknown:

Yeah. Where would his bullets   end up if he's not even looking at where he's shooting?   I would only say be on the fourth.  

[02:33:58] Unknown:

I can only say that if it were me behind the wheel of that car, if the first shot wasn't fatal, I would've floored it. I would've popped I would've punched that cop in the nuts so freaking hard, he would've gotten off of my door.  

[02:34:13] Unknown:

There you go.  

[02:34:16] Unknown:

That is if the first shot wasn't fatal.  

[02:34:22] Unknown:

I guess the real question is why did the kid just start driving away?  

[02:34:30] Unknown:

Probably nervous. Then his foot just probably hit the gas or something. He,   I mean, just maybe his foot was just barely resting on the gas.   And he didn't even know that the car was rolling. He had to put the car in gear.  

[02:34:43] Unknown:

He had to put the car in gear.   And he was he was trying to roll away slowly   expecting the cop to realize how,   precarious the cop's position was, and he was expecting the cop to jump off the car, not to open fire.  

[02:35:05] Unknown:

That car did not go and run into the rest of the cars that were going up and down? I'm sure it did. I'm   sure  

[02:35:13] Unknown:

it did. I'm sure it did.  

[02:35:16] Unknown:

So   he, when he got stopped   and he was asked to provide ID,   the 24 year old said   well, he couldn't find any ID in the car. So   he told the officer, I think I might have some ID in the trunk.   And so that's why the officer went to the rear of the trunk,   and the door was open. The driver's side door was open. And I guess, from what I understand,   listening to a video on this whole story, I listened to it yesterday,   and,   the car started to slowly move away.   So the cop, I guess, he drew his gun and   ran and jumped up where his feet were on the rocker panel.   And as he's holding on to the door and the roof, his head is above the roof,   and he's yelling, you stop this car. You stop. Don't you drive away.  

And and the kid, I guess, kept going or whatever for whatever reason,   and then he the the officer just starts shooting in the car, not knowing what he's shooting at or what's going on.  

[02:36:23] Unknown:

Was absolutely   irresponsible   of the cop.   Absolutely.   I mean, what the kid  

[02:36:35] Unknown:

find that video.  

[02:36:36] Unknown:

What the kid did   wasn't   wasn't, very intelligent either, but what the cop did was absolutely irresponsible.  

[02:36:47] Unknown:

First thing, why would he leave the ignition on? Cop, if he was gonna go to the trunks, could it give me your keys.   You know?   Turn this thing off. Give me your keys. I mean, I got pulled over because I I had warrants out for me.   That cop   drew his gun on me from his car,   told me to stick my arm both my arms out the window and drop the keys on the ground.  

[02:37:15] Unknown:

Mhmm.  

[02:37:26] Unknown:

Is Lame?  

[02:37:28] Unknown:

Yeah, Sheldon.  

[02:37:31] Unknown:

To be fair, not to cause an argument on the previous topic of the green cards,   George and   Chris, I sent you a copy of mine.   For the $7.88,   mine also says diplomatic pouch mail,   screened at SA 32,   inspected and processed in red.   So you can obtain this for   the pittance,   and I got mine back, both of them within ten days.   Just saying. For a matter of record, I'm done.  

[02:38:05] Unknown:

My   experience is registered. It's not that much more expensive than certified return receipt requested.  

[02:38:13] Unknown:

Probably not now. Certified is over $10 now. It used to be $7.88.  

[02:38:18] Unknown:

Right.   I always send important things registered.   It's it's just what I do.   Anyway,   show technically ended,   over a half hour ago, so   let's do this.   Thanks so much for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales.   The,   Friday edition with Roger and Brent Allen Winters.   Catch us here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. For more information on the topics discussed,   please go to the matrixstocks.com.   That is the matrixstocks.com.   You can find downloadable,   downloadable items. You can find interviews.   You can find   exhibits,   all kinds of fun stuff, including links to join us live on the show or to follow   the broadcast stream either on Eurofolk Radio or Global Voice Radio Network.  

Come right on back here at 11AM eastern tomorrow   for the Sabado edition of the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales. That's it for me. I'm Paul. I'm out of here. Have a great day.   Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.  

[02:39:39] Unknown:

Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.