In this episode of the Radio Ranch, host Roger Sayles is joined by Brent Allen Winters and a lively panel of callers to discuss a wide range of topics centered around the principles of common law and its application in modern society. The conversation delves into the historical context of the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the role of the federal and state governments in regulating individual rights. Brent Winters provides insights into the common law tradition, emphasizing its roots in due process and its distinction from statutory law. The discussion also touches on the challenges of navigating legal systems, the importance of understanding one's rights, and the influence of historical legal frameworks on contemporary issues.
The episode also features a robust debate on the interpretation of legal terms such as "trial by jury" versus "jury trial," and the implications of these distinctions in the courtroom. Listeners are encouraged to consider the impact of legal language on their rights and the importance of maintaining a clear understanding of legal principles. The conversation is enriched by contributions from callers who share their experiences and perspectives, adding depth to the exploration of legal and constitutional issues. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to engage with legal education and to remain vigilant in protecting their freedoms.
[00:00:16]
Unknown:
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 PhatPhix, 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. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:51] Unknown:
Ah, yes. And, as would we, and we do take a stab at it here on a pre regular basis six days a week at the Radio Ranch. And, today being Friday, we think when he pulls up here outside the saloon, mister Winters will be with us and, gets his horse all hitched up and all that stuff. It is June June June the sixth of '20 '20 '5. And, of course, Roger Sales, and I think Brent be with us if he's not already in a second. I think today is, like, pretty important today, wouldn't it, d day, June 6? Yes. Do you remember? Yes. Okay. Well, that's certainly something worth recognizing for a lot of different reasons. Otherwise, I heard Alan earlier, so maybe we've got Alan's bunch with us today. We wanna go over all the folks who are helping us today and give them their proper recognition and do?
[00:02:42] Unknown:
I can sure do that. Thank you very much, Roger. This is the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales. We are on 106.9 W B 0 U F M in Chicago for the first hour of the program. We're on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, across the drink. We're on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James and his diligent efforts to freedom and truth. We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. That's radio.globalvoiceradio.net. WDRN productions and the net family of broadcast services not only brings us w, BOU, they also bring us homenetwork.tv, freedom nation Tv, go live TV, and stream life.tube.
Our website is thematrixdocs.com. Our, call in line is a free conference call room. We've got room for about a thousand of you, and the links to Global Voice, EuroFolk, and free conference call are right on the matrixdocs.com. Among other things, fabulous stuff. Fabulous stuff. It's a Friday. That means it's Brent day. Right, Raj?
[00:03:57] Unknown:
Well, it does. And he is he keeping us in suspense, or did he show up? It looks like he might have showed up. Brent, you there? I don't have questions. My eyes. Okay. Well, of course, yesterday during the show and, you know, we had a a new caller telling us this traffic story from Minnesota with a wonderful name, Aloysius. Mhmm. I don't think I've ever met anyone with the name Aloysius. I've heard it before. I don't know much about its origin. It's an interesting name, and I wanted to query him about that. But, somehow, something happened to the Internet in our area here, and, it was out for six, seven hours, something like that.
Supposed to be two days, so I'm grateful it was only six or seven hours. In the middle of that, of course, I missed, what I had anticipated a lot was, the show with Paul English. And, of course, no Internet, no show. And, so I hope Paul I'm sure he did. He managed somehow, and, we'll hopefully get that rescheduled. But that's, when the day before, there was some mix up and didn't get that interview done. So, boy, this week is the weeks have not been real kind to me, it seems, Paul. Hopefully, this will straighten out. I've been sick. You know, Internet's off. All these missed interviews that I hate missing. And, anyway, hopefully, things will turn around a little bit as we get a little bit deeper into the summer if we have a summer here, which we're still waiting for, unfortunately.
Otherwise, in that, are you sick of hearing about the big, beautiful bill?
[00:05:38] Unknown:
Absolutely. Yes. And as a matter of fact, just purely by virtue of the fact that they named it the big, beautiful bill makes me break out in hives. Well because you know it's anything but.
[00:05:52] Unknown:
No. You're getting mixed opinions on it. What I don't like is they pulled the same old Democrat scheme of there's a rule up there in DC that I think seventy two hour rule that you can't put out legislation without seventy two hours for them to read it. Well, they broke that. And what what I see here is the, influence of the Israelites on on the Congress to try and thwart Tom Trump. That's what I think is going on there. But, I don't know. It's it's banter, banter. Now him and the the Democrats dream, him and Elon having a urinating contest on each other. And, just one thing after another, we'll see how it, unfolds.
Boy, there's just a lot of tension everywhere. The Ukraine situation's horrible. The Gaza situation's not much better a little bit. Not as crucial anyway, it seems. And all this other stuff, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Do you remember that movie?
[00:06:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's a Yeah. I It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. From, Andy this morning that, Russia actually started bombing Ukraine. Yes. I believe they have. A bitch.
[00:07:04] Unknown:
I best I guess they have, and I I I have to applaud Putin for having resolved through all of this, garbage they've been throwing at him. And then, of course, they go over and do that. And then and then and then Zelensky coming, no. We want cease fire. We want cease fire. We're not bombing anymore. And then, of course, the news doesn't cover what they've done, to Russia. And so they take the clip of him going, we want peace. We're not bombing any anymore. And and then they turn that around on you. So it's just all this it's just sickening, man. And, they've they've sabotage or they're sabotaging mister Trump, obviously.
He wasn't informed. He's not getting briefed on this stuff. And, it's a mess. And, it's this new world order fronted by Zionists as usual. As usual. Did I see Brent show up up there?
[00:08:01] Unknown:
Uh-huh. No. I have. Yet? Nope. Not yet.
[00:08:06] Unknown:
Okay. Roger.
[00:08:08] Unknown:
Yeah. Hey, Larry. Yeah. I was trying to I've got yeah. Anyway, just a lot of frustrations. Yeah, Larry. What you got?
[00:08:16] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm worried about you. You're starting to look at the world like it's a glass half empty.
[00:08:21] Unknown:
And Well, no. I'm just you know, I I I've always got hope. I try to look on the positive side, but I am a realist, Larry, and I will put the facts out in front of us. So, the facts are, there's an awful lot of real critical situations happening. And,
[00:08:38] Unknown:
I'm I'm I'm just referring to the way your week went.
[00:08:42] Unknown:
Oh, the way my last couple of weeks have been, anyway.
[00:08:46] Unknown:
Hopefully, we'll get back bright side. We did figure out how to respond to the new improved, bluff letter from the state department.
[00:08:54] Unknown:
Yeah. New oh, well, I'm yeah. I guess it's new and improved. It's the same old bluff letter. Same old searching. Yeah. We have the Kelly Robinson ones around. So No. She quit. See, that's what happens. They they'll start that little campaign thinking it's gonna have some some, deterrence on what's happening here, this tidal wave of, of truth that's coming on them, which appears like it, a little one anyway at this point. And they try and do something, and they see that it doesn't work, and then they stop doing it and go to something else. But, none of them are successful, and none can be successful because as Christie told us yesterday, I guess, with her buddy Josh, they called the passport office and the guy said, well, do you know what a national is? And the guy in the passport office said, yeah. You don't have to follow any of the statutes or the codes.
So when the understanding's getting down to that level, I, you know, keep keep flooding them with paper, folks.
[00:09:55] Unknown:
It's the only thing I know said, we're in the education business.
[00:09:59] Unknown:
Really? We are. You know? Because you can't just file paper and expect things to happen, and that's what those bluff letters are for. They're going, are you just a paper filer, or do you really understand what's going on here? That that's what that's all about. K? And, it's yes.
[00:10:18] Unknown:
And that and that's why I use the, code of federal regulations Yeah. I know. Because we don't have to follow them, but they have to follow them. So
[00:10:28] Unknown:
it's very important to acknowledge that. Well, it's their rules, and I agree with you. And I just said I wouldn't have done that, but I like to work on concepts. You go to the specifics of work both of them work. There's nothing wrong with either one of them. So, anyway, that's, we are making an impact up there to some degree. Don't know yet. We just don't have enough numbers. But should we ever get on one of these big platforms where that's got millions of listeners. The sample, I would think, outside of Jeff Rents, the normal Patriot people, I would think, are very interested in what we have to offer for free, their freedom. So, anyway, we'll see. All I know to do is take it a step at a time, put one foot in front of the other, and, see, where where the the good lord takes us, because we're certainly doing his work. Yes.
[00:11:20] Unknown:
Yeah. So, that the observation we made yesterday, I think her name was Christie or was it Christine?
[00:11:27] Unknown:
No. It's Christie, t y.
[00:11:31] Unknown:
Christie. Yeah. So the the bluff letter she received, I believe they received that more recently than the bluff letter that that that I received helping the student. He actually received it. But, it so they took out that little phrase, except as provided by law, and it's my understanding based upon what you've taught us over the years, that has to be in there. And so what how can they take that phrase out of Christie's bluff letter, and yet it was in my bluff letter. Oh, well, it goes all the way back to h j r one ninety two or '92 back in the thirties is in there.
[00:12:11] Unknown:
I don't know. Just, because we've accented on that, and maybe they said, well, we'll take that out and see if that's what's giving them the, the advantage. And it won't, because they still always quote the fourteenth amendment, and it does say and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and not are. That right there is enough to spring you.
[00:12:33] Unknown:
K? But it's my understanding that they they would have to have that in there because that they have to provide an an outlet, a way out. Otherwise, it's tyranny. They in other words, they have to have that in there.
[00:12:48] Unknown:
I I I don't know if they do or not, but they've dropped it evidently. And, maybe that's how desperate they are, Larry. I don't know. It should be in there. I was surprised when it wasn't, but I don't know that there's any recourse that it's not. Yes.
[00:13:05] Unknown:
Yeah. So, when I when I applied for my passport, it took about a year. And, if you remember, when you were on Sunday nights well well, it took a year before I I'm I filled out the application because I'm still trying to learn about the whole process. Okay? Yeah. So if you remember on Sunday nights, you used to come on, and I had all a a whole bunch of questions for you about the passport. Do you remember that?
[00:13:34] Unknown:
I vaguely.
[00:13:36] Unknown:
Yeah. So anyway, it took about a year before I finally filled out an application and attached my app, my affidavit. And then, you know, within a couple of weeks, I I received it in the mail. And one of the things I noticed was they they because this was the first time I was applying for a passport, I had to, I had to get a certified copy of my birth certificate out of Pennsylvania. And I included that. Yeah. I included that with the application. And so a few weeks later, I got the card. All all I did was get a card because it was $30. So, anyway, a few weeks later, they sent me back in a in a Manila like like a mini Manila envelope, my my birth certificate and my affidavit.
And I'm wondering, do a lot of students get their affidavit back? And is do you think they sent it back? And I know I know you don't have a crystal ball, but just your best educated guess. Do you think they sent the affidavit back because they saw I already had my naked affidavit, the exact same affidavit on file in, you know, with the secretary of state? So they felt they thought to themselves, well, we don't need to have two of them in this file, so we're just gonna send it back. And I know another student who didn't file a d s 11. They did a d s 82, and they didn't have to include their birth certificate.
[00:15:05] Unknown:
And he also got his affidavit back. So any any thoughts on that? Well, I've got a little bit of knowledge on that, but I'll let Paul go first. Go ahead, Paul.
[00:15:15] Unknown:
I think just because we call it the permanent administrative file, I don't think there's a physical file. I think all that stuff is digitized. Computerized. It's all computerized now. Yeah. So they can send the originals back to you because they already made a certified copy for themselves.
[00:15:32] Unknown:
Alright. Well, I'll tell you what I know. If you've got apply for a passport, there's a website site that you can go to where you can track the process of the applications processing. I don't know what it is. I know it exists. And so, yeah, years ago, a girl that was freaky out because, freaking out because hers wasn't back fast enough or something. And, you know, people are here. And, so they the she called them, and they said, well, you can track it online. And that's what that's what she did, and she sent me some screen grabs of it. And, as you go along, it'll say, this is where we got the term citizenship evidence.
It comes from the state department in this process because that's the terms they use. And so, it said your passport and your app your citizenship evidence and whatever, like this, birth certificate will be returned to you under separate cover. Now some people get them back and some people don't. And I don't know why, but the reason is because over the years when somebody gets one back that they send back to them, they freak out and think they didn't take my affidavit. They sent it back to me. So we've had that reaction out of people, but, no, our experience is, and it's confirmed by these people we talk to inside, by and far the most part, they do their job. And when one is included in the application, it's processed as it states in the instructions that you can include those types of documents.
And the people that have gone back and done privacy requests have found that those documents are in there. So I think it's I don't think there's a a real consistent thing on it, Larry, is the best answer I can give you. Some people get them back and some people don't, but it does say they will send it back to you if you go and check the processing thing in the little notes they've got attached. So is that as good a answer as I can give you?
[00:17:39] Unknown:
Yeah. It is. Thank you.
[00:17:41] Unknown:
Alright. Okay. Well, is Brent maybe you think Brent see, him and I are we're a victim again, both of us, of being old men and not real good with all these equipments. I don't know about Brent's eyesight. I'm sure it's better than mine. And, my fat fingers. And, so I tried to get I've got his, a phone for him from his son. I have a relationship with his son, Caleb, his oldest boy, and he sent me a contact, but I I can't get it put in a cell phone correctly because of my fat fingers and my bad eyesight, and I hate cell phones. I just hate them, okay, because of these limitations they put on me. So I do have a contact to get to Brent, which I tried to input this morning, and I can't seem to get it to work. It's probably not right. So, you know, my fat fingers, when those little letters and I've I've got my bad vision, and I'm with a magnifying glass over those little letters, And I'm trying to hit the right letter, and I always hit the next one.
And it's some kind of, perspective with my eyesight. Just terrible. Cell phones are just horrible for me, and, I don't like them. I answer them if they ring, and that's about mostly my interoperation with them. I know some folks love them. But, anyway, I have a lot of trouble with them. I tried to put in or Britt and I could connect because since Skype went away, we can't connect now like we used to and say good morning and all that stuff. So, anyway, I don't know if he got caught in that, Franny, or if he got Right. If he just forgot about us or what.
[00:19:18] Unknown:
No. He's, well, he sent me a message earlier. But, Roger, we need to get you on found or signal or one of those. That's how Brent and I are communicating now. Found is pretty much like Skype. Paul, do you know what I'm talking about? I've never even heard of that one. It's p f o u n d. It's part it's from free conference call guy. That that's who started the whole thing. And you can screen share. You can talk. You can, you know, you can do everything we did on Skype. So we need to get you on the Well, I'll have to get that loaded and all kinds of stuff. I got his number through on WhatsApp, and I was trying to put him in as a WhatsApp
[00:19:53] Unknown:
because he does have that already. Oh, he's here. He's joined us. He's joined us. He's joined us. Alright. There's mister Winters dragging him, comfortably, late. Hey, Brent. How are you doing this morning?
[00:20:06] Unknown:
Alright. What have you been talking about, Roger?
[00:20:09] Unknown:
Oh, aggravation. Trying to get, your your son sent me a profile of you on WhatsApp, and I tried to put it into my cell phone this morning. And with my bad eyes and fat fingers and everything else, it's just a real challenge to do that sort of thing. We've basically been talking about how much we missed you, my friend. Yeah. That's right. Where you were and and and all that. So I appreciate this. It's nice to be missed. I,
[00:20:38] Unknown:
have a friend. As a family, we're very small in stature. And, a piece of a guy is gone now. I should say I have a friend. He passed away not too long ago, but his first cousin went to Vietnam, way back when, and he wasn't over there just a few days and lost both of his legs. And he was a wasn't a very tall man. But, of course, he was reduced to being in a wheelchair or moving around, but he got really efficient, moving around on his on his arms. And, he'd work, do different things one time, so I'm out, changing the tie a tire on his car, sitting on the ground, you know, and, I remember he his eyes were getting bad because he was getting older, and he couldn't see, the threads that he wanted to see clearly.
And, he said, boy, he said, sitting there on the on the gravel by the car, he said, it sure is a bummer getting old. Can't even see anymore. Yep. I thought to myself of course, my eyes aren't what they used to be either, and I know yours aren't, Roger, but I thought to myself, here he's lived his life like hell, like he had, and he wasn't complaining about that at all. And, back when, Reader's Digest was popular, they had an article in there about him. And he was, the neighbors that had having supper or something, and he heard a sound. He'd moved up north to Chicago area and heard a sound, kinda funny, in the neighbor's swimming pool, which was across the fence.
And he decided nobody was outside. He'd better go investigate, and he somehow climbed over the fence. And if you can picture that, he his arms were developed pretty strong. Wow. And he went over in there and saw, an infant in the swimming pool drowning. And, of course, he hightailed it to the swimming pool as fast as his arms could take him and got in the water and pulled the child out and saved his life. And, somehow, I don't know where they are how the article got in Reader's Digest, but they put it in there. He lived a productive life. What I'm saying is I know getting old, somebody advised me re recently, whatever you do, Brent, don't grow old. Just it doesn't work that well. So I said, oh, sure. I won't do that. But, I think about him, and I think about how he attacked life. And I said, now doggone it. I can keep going no matter what aches and pains I have. And I'm fortunate, frankly, very fortunate, and that I can just I'm I can still locomote.
I can visit with my friends, and I can do things here, like, on the computer, Roger, with you. And I know you feel the same way, but, well, just a little story from, for a little testimony from personal experience. Yeah. I wanna know what you're talking about. I just found out not long ago that, there are about 60,000,000, illegal aliens in our country. No. No. No. 60,000,000 aliens. 60,000,000 aliens out of 300 and some million. 60 million are aliens. 40,000,000 of those aliens are around terms of 40,000,000 are on green cards, so they're here legally. They're here legally. Resident resident aliens. That's the words I'm wanting to talk about. Hope maybe you'd talk about a little bit.
Then 20,000,000 are here, against the law. Mhmm. 20,000,000 are here against the law. They're voting in school board's elections. They're even running for office in Yep. Places like California.
[00:24:25] Unknown:
Yep. Hired as policemen.
[00:24:28] Unknown:
What are you doing for us?
[00:24:30] Unknown:
Yeah. The whole the whole caboodle. And here's what we could talk about a little bit and the history well, we could if people want to, the history of nationalism. Because nationalism is a is pretty new on the scene of world history. There ancient Israel was a nation. That was new, by the way, in most of the world. City states had become the way the world was organized. Even in the ancient world, the city states, for example, of Babylon and Pergamos and and even in the land that that became Israel's, the nation the nation, I say Israel, very important word, nation. Of course, the Hebrew word is goy, plural, goyim, and the germ the, Semitic tongues are like the Germanic tongues.
Nationhood is feminine, not masculine. So to the Israelite, it was it was that way. Just like in Germany, they talk about the fatherland. And, in England, they talked about the fatherland until the French speaking Normans invaded. And then with the French tongue, it became the motherland when I was in school in the first grade. It's odd to think about this now, but I went to school in a schoolhouse and had a picture of George Washington up in front and a picture of of, Abe Lincoln. You know? And and they had the American flag flag hanging out over between them. You know? And we had a strong sense going that that that building was built in 1910, so it was structured that way. And by the way, we still had the 48 state flag on the wall. I didn't know that till later when they tore the building down. I went and retrieved the flag just to take it home as a souvenir.
But, we don't stop to consider maybe that in America, something has happened that never happened, has never happened in the whole world. Never. We're the only country that has achieved a strong sense of nationalism that are made up of many towns and tribes, and we've always been that way even when we were nothing but pretty much Brits and Dutch. And I say Brits, the Scots, the Welsh, the and the Irish. They were here in English in the beginning, and the Dutch. They had settled New York. As you remember, it was New Amsterdam before the English got it.
And, but all of those people considered each all of them considered each other foreign races. They weren't the same people. And, when you go back and read, about them in the 13 original colonies, they'd talk about people from other colonies like they were foreigners, and they'd be surprised that, for example, they had pretty girls there. They figured they were all ugly. I remember reading about, a fellow from Connecticut. They wrote the only memoirs of a revolutionary continental soldier from the perspective of a rank and file fellow that joined when he was 16 and got out when he was 23. When the war ended at Yorktown, he was there. But he talked about the girls from New Jersey, and he couldn't he was surprised. He was from Connecticut. He was surprised that they were so pretty because he figured they were of another race and and and probably weren't attractive to him. Well, of course, that's expanded in America in a way it hasn't anywhere in the world. Now in Rome, of course, they achieved, unity with, among many tongue tongues and tribes and nations, but we don't forget Rome also had a common tongue throughout the empire.
And we have a common tongue also in America. Without a common tongue, you're not gonna hold anything together. Fortunately, we do have a common tongue, and that's what's enabled a lot of this. Rome had a common tongue, Koine Greek, the New Testament, therefore, was pinned in that tongue, and that, in the providence of God, did a lot to spread Christianity rapidly. But Rome, did that, but they weren't a nation. They were an empire. They were still built on the old model before of the city state that had arisen in Genesis chapter 10 with the settling of the city of Babylon. And the city state became everything in the ancient world up until Rome.
Rome still had a city state. Your loyalty in the Roman Empire was not to the empire. The loyalty was to the city of Rome called the mother city. And in the Greek tongue before Latin took over, the Koine Greek, that mother city is metros metropolos, mother city, metro and polos, polos, city, metropolis. And even then the Roman church that is built on the model of the Roman Empire with an emperor at the top calls the church the same thing, the mother church. And without the mother church, there is no life in the Church Of Rome because that's the way it was built on the model of empire. Empire is an outgrowth of the city state, but where the city state extends its terror over what came to be called the territory of the empire.
The territory is the area over which a city state extends its terror, and that's the constant never ending danger we're suffering from it now where the cities have extended their terror terror over the states individually and control the governments of the states now in a way that has never happened in the history of our country. But our country took, didn't we didn't do it consciously. This is just the way in the providence of God things go. We began to say, well, we're not an empire. We're a common law country. Therefore, we can accept, people that speak other languages. Of course, it started out just white folk just white folk White folk, frankly, from the North Of Europe. That's the way it started out, and it stayed that way. But then came the influx of the Irish.
Well, they were white folk too, but they were viewed in a very low state because they were in a very low state. They didn't even know they were Irish until they started migrating by the hordes to America. They didn't know who they were. They didn't have government. They were reduced to digging in the ground with their fingers to try to find something to eat, and that's why they came to America. Well, they gained their national identity in America. The Irish didn't call themselves Irish. They didn't group together. They didn't have any pride in who they were. They didn't, of course, suddenly got to America more and more. They recognized they weren't Protestant. That was a big deal, and that was part of their commonness. But then, of course, the migration from the sub from Southern Europe came, and they came in absolute droves.
And then we slowly began to accept them even though they spoke a different tongue, but they learned English. And on and on, people like Joe DiMaggio, remember, he was a very well known, famous, accepted, but that little things like that begin to happen. And we don't wanna leave out, of course. There were, vast numbers of African Negro slaves in America, and they were not accepted and still aren't to a great degree. Well, that's but that's fundamentally what's happened here. And what's happened here, we didn't take the idea of the city state, although we're coming back to that as the useful idiots of the Democratic Party. I used to say the useful idiots of the evil empire, but now I say the Democratic Party because some of the hardest known Democrats, hardest core Democrats I've known around where I'm from, volunteer to me now when I meet them. I never could understand why they were following the party like that, but now they're saying to me finally, well, you'd be hard pressed to find a a Democrat that'll claim to be a Democrat around here anymore than because the party has gone from the rails. So I say That's good to hear. Yeah. The yeah. It's really happening, but, useful ideas of the evil empire, the Democratic Party want to make America tribal and revert back to the city state model. They want the law of the city, not the law of the land or common law to govern, and they want, us to capitulate to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San well, I should say, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Las Vegas. Those are the cities that govern otherwise vast territories of, sparsely populated land. Yeah. And and many of it are highly productive land. And once you the cities begin to con the consumptive culture of cities begins to control the rural count culture production, well, then you've got a problem because they will tick. They'll suck the life out of it sooner or later. For example, in agricultural states, I know where I'm from in the Midwest and out West, also in the states that are agricultural like Idaho, Montana, agricultural land, the the taxes on it are pretty pretty low, pretty reasonable in different ways. Well, that won't last. You see?
They'll want that money, and they'll start raising taxes on farmland. And once that happens, the production is gonna suffer. Well, if our production suffer, our country suffers. This is nothing new. Tom Jefferson and the the rest of the folk that lived around him at that time, they wrote about it profusely. And they said Tom Jefferson said, I'm quoting pretty much the words he's using. If we ever pile up in cities, we're done. If more people begin are living in the cities in America that are in the countryside, the the the nation won't last. They weren't stupid. They had they understood ancient history. They saw it happen in Rome. Well, back to us now, though. We've got all these illegals here, and, they're here trying to govern and and, gaining the ascendancy.
That means a different culture will gain the ascendency. Friends, it is really true. I don't say this lightly. Our culture has always been Christian. It isn't our our, the color of our skin that has made us powerful as much as our Christianity. As a matter of fact, as I've said some of my Mexican friends, I said, what why are you so poor down there, and why are we, so prosperous up here? And they come here because we're prosperous. And I ask them, is it because we are, as white folks, smarter than you? And they'll say, well, no. That can't be it. We know we're smart people. I say, yeah. I can see that. It's not because we're smarter. That's not it. Well, then what is it? It is because we have a book, a book that has overcome our culture, and that book is the Bible.
That has overcome our culture. It has not overcome the culture of Southern Europe. It has not overcome the culture of now most of Europe or even the rest of the world, but it overcame our culture, and we're it's still dominant in our culture. I'm surprised pleasantly as I travel, and I travel as you know a lot, that I meet folk a lot just out. I talk to folk. I'm one of these fellows that talk too much, fundamentally, and that's why I'm thankful for an opportunity where it's socially acceptable that I can talk like this. But when I'm out, I talk to people too one on one a lot.
I listen. I don't tell them about myself as much. I do talk enough to try to weasel information out of them. Try to do that because or wheedle. I shouldn't say weasel. Wheedle is a better word, w h I d d, e l. It wheedle information out of them. Most people don't if you most people, nobody asks them anything about themselves. And if you get them in the right environment, get them relaxed, they'll they'll tell you a lot of things. And you'll find out that people do a lot of thinking, but they don't do much talking generally. And the ones I talk to, I find out they're intensely Christian in many, many cases, most, as a matter of fact, and intensely committed to the truth of the Bible.
There is no true Christianity without a commitment to the truth. The reliability of those manuscripts we call the Bible. We have that here in America. Now viewing the past, we see the trajectory we're on that knows which way, that tells us which way we're heading. We can know it. And knowing that, the question is, do we want to cultivate the trajectory that we're on so we won't have bias? Bias. Now that's a French word, French word from what I read. I don't speak French, but I read about French. Oh, I I do read a little French. I remember when I was in school, I got right to the end of school one time, and, my adviser got me aside. I was supposed to go see him, and he said, hey. I just discovered here you got about a month before you're supposed to graduate, and it says here you have to prove efficiency in scholarly French, German, or Latin.
I said, I do? He said, yeah. I think you can do that. I said, I said, I went to the library, and I got a German bible down. I looked at that. Well, that didn't work very good. I said, I could recognize some words being a German's a Germanic tongue like English. You know? But, I noticed that the verbs were hard to find, and I had a fellow tell me one time he heard about a German author. The verbs are always at the end of the sentence. Had a German author, and he, of course, used to. They'd write their manuscripts. They weren't on computers, and men would that wrote would, habitually keep all their manuscripts in a briefcase at the end of the day, and they would set the briefcase by the door of their by the entrance door of their house. So if the house got on fire, they'd run out the house and grab the briefcase. See?
I guess the people really understood that back then because they had no other way to preserve their work. You know, now we have backup and we back our what's on our computer up. Well, they did it that way. And, some fella, his house got on fire and some German author, and he ran out of the house and grabbed his briefcase. And then he discovered that he'd left the the, the final page of the manuscript, and it happened to have the verb on it. And he he panicked because he couldn't remember what the sentence was about. Well, that's the way German was. So I put that aside. I said, I don't know. I can't learn that in a month. So I said, well, Latin. Of course, I knew a little bit about that because you're constantly working with it. It's not that I ever took Latin. I just it's just a part of our English tongue very much here in America more even than England. They use more Anglo Saxon words, fortunately for them and unfortunately for us, but I could have done that. But I got the French Bible down, French translation of the Bible, and I was pleasantly surprised that I could follow it pretty good.
And by the way, you can. It's, that kind of a tongue. It's it's not a Germanic tongue, but it's like but it is a European tongue, so it is related to English. This is Latin based, I believe. Yes. It's Latin based like the rest of the southern European tongues. And the northern European tongue, we call them German based, but all those tongues are, from what anybody can figure out are descended from what people call Proto Indo European, p I e, which is a tongue we can't find. We'll accept tongues like Welsh and and, people in Southern France. I they have a tongue nobody can figure out. They're all over America. I can't remember the name. But, anyway, I said I can do that.
So I did learn a little French and kinda read it for him to show him I could do it. But other than that, I don't know much about it. Well, I've been talking long enough. I talked about, our problem, and the question is we wanna cultivate what we have. Go ahead, Roger.
[00:39:59] Unknown:
Well, I'm a let Paul get in there first. I got a couple of comments. Go ahead, Paul. Well, I've I've I've got something. First of all, I think we have a new person
[00:40:08] Unknown:
that joined us named Josh. They are unmuted, and, I don't know if they have anything to say. If they do, speak up. If you don't, please press 6 and mute your line because we've got some noise coming in.
[00:40:23] Unknown:
Hey, Josh. I think that's Christie's friend, and, welcome aboard. And, of course, on Fridays, we have mister Winters here with all his incredible depth of knowledge and, learning over a lifetime. And so welcome. If you got something to say, we'd like to talk to you. And if not, welcome aboard. Anyway, glad to hear from you. And, we heard about your letter yesterday and spent a bit of time before the Internet knocked me down. So, anyway, I did wanna say I had a really good idea this week. Somebody came up with a You have something to say. Okay, Josh. Well, go ahead, man.
[00:41:00] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I did. So I am Christie's friend. My name is Josh Allen. I'll give you a little bit of a history and a backdrop. So I was a student of the late George Gordon. Oh, yes. I took his courtroom strategy and proceed yeah. I took his courtroom strategy and procedure class, his tax status class. And, a long time ago, I actually ran a case to the US Supreme Court with Georgia's help. The issue was I was jogging home from a bar, got ordered to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffed, by some cops in Hickville, Montana, and I refused to identify myself.
So I, anyway, I read that case to the US Supreme Court. I did get the petition for writ of certiorari docketed successfully the first time. The court did demand a response to my response or, excuse me, demanded a response from the assistant attorney general of the state Of Montana. And then, I ended up getting that one page letter that says petition denied, but it's pretty interesting because, the assistant attorney general invited me to his office, in Helena, Montana. And so I was passing through there one day and stopped in. And, we were, I guess, on friendly terms, but he, he was in disbelief that I would run the run the case all the way to the US Supreme Court over, an $85 court cost.
And I had deliberately spent four and a half days in jail to create damages for false arrest and false imprisonment if I did win the case. So, yeah, he was in he was in complete disbelief that I would spend a couple thousand dollars to run that case to the US Supreme Court, and it was kind of hilarious. He said, did you realize you wrecked my hunting season? I'm having to I'm having to respond to you. And, so, anyway, I guess that's how I got started down this path a long time ago, and, Christy has also listened to a lot of Georgia's materials. But I had kind of given up, on ever, achieving any sort of freedom just because, you know, I've seen the sovereign citizen stuff fail over and over again, and I had no idea that, this existed, this national status.
So Christy is the one that got me started down the path. Last year, I've had a front row seat to her case with the ATF. I won't comment beyond that. But, with the passport that she was referring to yesterday, so I had actually filed that paperwork. I think it's been about three months ago. I paid for the expedited shipping and, the expedited service, and I got, tracking number, the USPS tracking number for priority mail, and an email that said your passport book card and substantiated documents will be mailed back to you. So I received just the the passport book, and, I thought there was some sort of an error. So I called the, passport number, and, the guy proceeds to explain to me that the passport card and the substantiated documents were gonna be coming in a separate envelope, not priority mail.
Right. And so I'd I've been renewing my passport, and, so if I what I was really curious as to what the substantiated documents were gonna be because I, of course, mailed in a copy of my affidavit that I sent to the Department of State during, I'm no longer a fourteenth amendment slave. And so, anyway, I he said, yeah. Those, supporting documents will be mailed separately. And I I said, well, I said, I think, you might think this is a little bit crazy, but I said there's a legal status called national. And I said I filed the paperwork for the Department of State, and I sent, copies of that to you. And I said, am I gonna get those back as well? And he said, well, if they're a copy, we keep them. And if they're original, we send them back.
[00:45:20] Unknown:
So Oh, that's nice to know. Anyways,
[00:45:24] Unknown:
well, yeah, that was what he told me. But I thought I got this guy on the phone. I'm gonna pick his brain a little bit, and I if I would have known the course of the conversation's gonna take, I guess I would have been recording it. But it was very interesting to me. I said, well, do you know anything about this national status? And he says, yeah. He said, I just took a class on it about ten days ago. We're getting a lot of requests to do this now. So I said, okay. Well, what what else do you know about it? And he said, why why do they tell you that people do it? And he said, well, they tell us that people do it because then they're no longer liable to file and pay a federal income tax, and then they're not under, large parts of the US code.
And, oh, I'm trying to remember what else he said to me. Then I I asked him. I said, well, what are what are the downfalls? What do they teach you with that? And he said, well, they tell us that you can no longer hold a federal government job. You can't vote in federal elections anymore. And
[00:46:22] Unknown:
that was about it. You can't run it. I just thought that was one more. Josh, there's one more. You can't run for senator of your state.
[00:46:33] Unknown:
Well, I believe you, but he he didn't tell me that. He just told me No. I couldn't vote in federal elections, and you couldn't hold a federal job. That was what he knew on top of his head. But Right. I was just, dumped on the when when he told me that they're getting a lot of requests, so they're putting on trading classes, and then he had one ten days ago. Yeah. So I was I was just amazed by that, but I I went, went over to, you know, after I got off the phone with that guy, went over to Christie's place and, told her about the conversation. And then I tried calling back, the same number, and I kept getting directed to a different person. And I could not find another person that would, repeat that information. So I don't know, you know, how widely widely spread out there, but I did get that one guy. So
[00:47:22] Unknown:
You got lucky. Josh, you got lucky.
[00:47:25] Unknown:
I guess I could.
[00:47:28] Unknown:
Well, look. Yeah. We heard about that yesterday briefly, not in-depth like you've given it to us today, and and I think that's wonderful feedback. It's not the first time we've heard it, by the way, at least, from the national and that they're having classes for the employees on how to process them correctly. But, glad you got that. We'll get that. So now I'm a little confused. You got your passport book back, didn't you? And then you get a bluff letter saying they're not gonna send it to you?
[00:48:03] Unknown:
No. So I listened to yesterday's show, Christy Ford, yesterday's show to me, and you had me confused. So she has another friend that she's,
[00:48:12] Unknown:
helped me. Okay. Okay. And,
[00:48:15] Unknown:
yeah, his name his name is Duke, and he was the one who got the bluff letter. That was not me. I just got the book and then we laid her on the card and then my old passport. But and then I also watched the video footage, Christy sent me over interaction with the deputy sheriff, and I've I've got a left foot. I've been pulled over more times than I can count. And I was, just dumbfounded by his response, you know. Like I said, I literally watched the video that she sent me and listened to the whole thing a couple times, and she just plainly plainly told him, nope. This is all you're getting is the is the passport card and go running with the go running with the state department and, it should say do not detain, let me go. And he, We
[00:49:00] Unknown:
you one of the reasons I'm sorry to interrupt. One of the reasons that that that I like that sort of thing coming up and have hearing those personal experiences is because we got to discuss it a little bit. And her situation where she Brent, for you and Frannie, she got pulled over a little one hick town, and she handed the officer the passport card. And, he went back and and if I remember right, did for about two minutes and came back and said, okay. You're free to go. Whatever. But he said, why didn't you give me your driver's license? She said, do you have a driver's license? I said, I've got one. I just didn't give it to you. I gave you the passport card. And someone in the audience said, this is really good for everybody because I'm I'm traveling here. If I was driving in commerce, I would have given you the the driver's license.
Now I think that I thought that was a very good response. Okay? And so, anyway, she got let go and all that stuff. And as we go further in these situations, we find out a little bit more. But this driving thing is still one of the big traps because it's in individual jurisdictions, and some of these people don't think like this guy did or react that way. So, anyway, great. Well, anything else, Josh? We're really glad to hear from you today. And, I wanted to tell you something else. Someone told me one of the greatest compliments that I've had was someone told me that George was teaching my way of citizenship before he died.
I'd like to consider that quite a compliment. And for anybody else. Excuse me, Josh. Hold on a second. For anybody else in the audience, you want another legitimate source of of of law information, even though it's on tape and stuff, you still got a website. I believe it's georgegordon.org. But George was a, a fixture in the old days of somebody that was doing it correctly too. So go ahead, Josh. I just wanted to add that.
[00:51:06] Unknown:
So no. Actually, George talked extensively about, legal status in his, tax and status class, and he he was very, very close to getting to where you are, but he never got there. He actually legally, he called himself a dentist, and that was what he legally titled himself. But he did not know about, I mean, his tax and status CDs. I'd have to go back and listen to him again, but he cites a specific section of, title 26 of the US code that says if you have a Social Security number, you're liable to file and pay a tax. And I they need to go back and listen to those and he's gonna try to find, find what he says and go research that section.
[00:51:50] Unknown:
I'm not sure that's correct. He might have had some bad information because you don't have to be a citizen of The United States to have a Social Security account. Anybody in the world can sign up with Social Security, and they don't get dinged.
[00:52:04] Unknown:
K? So may just be Correct. And I'm I still talk with this. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I still I still communicate with his I still communicate with his, ex wife from time to time, and I've, been keeping she's met Christie before, and I've been keeping her posted on, the proceedings, from last year where Christie began her dealings with ATF. And then also I called her recently and told her about Christie's stop. And, you know, she's got a new husband now, and she's been very they've been very resistant to this. I've sent them your website, your YouTube show, the science of law, and, they've been resistant to it. But I think George was right on the edge, and that's a shame, you and George never got to meet because I think you guys would have Yes. You would have Well, I see George on a few things. But Well, I certainly knew about him, and I I just we never got to meet personally. And,
[00:53:05] Unknown:
once again, I would say the big piece that most of the people in the patriot community have missed is this is the feudal system, and they don't can't understand that. And if you don't understand that, there's a lot that you're missing. So that's what I do to comment on that, and I can understand why she's remarried and gone off on another path in her life and doesn't want anything to do with this stuff. I can understand that perfectly. So, anyway, what else, Josh?
[00:53:36] Unknown:
Well, I have to comment also. So I've I went to George Gordon's memorial service in 02/2014, and, it was pretty cool that people showed up from all over the world to a service in Isabella, Missouri. But I have not I've not seen a single person that, you know, he preaches break all connecting links and all contracts with the state. No no driver's license. Resend your Social Security number, your birth certificate, and
[00:54:04] Unknown:
I have not seen anybody that has, done all that and been able to successfully operate in the site. So There's no reason to do all that. There's no reason to do all that. The affidavit takes care of all that.
[00:54:18] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's the beautiful thing about about what you do to me is because you can go and still live a normal life and not have to deal with all the hassles of trying to convince somebody why you don't have to have a Social Security number and everything else. So Well, let me tell you this. This. I mean, it still feels like it's too
[00:54:38] Unknown:
We got a little there part of what's going on, We've got about yeah. That you're not the first to say that. We've got a little lag here because of some adjustments Paul's made in the audio thing. So that's kinda why we're stepping on each other a little bit. I would tell you, when I opened my Social Security account fourteen years ago in Argentina, I sent them a copy of my affidavit. K? So and I've been getting Social Security for fourteen years now. So there's just a lot of things out there that people have believed as gospel in the patriot community that just isn't. It's not a slide on them.
Everybody's looking for what we've got here, quite frankly, of what's the nexus connection. And they see something that they think attaches and and and and connects, and they connect it like Social Security number, all caps, letters, or gold fringe flag, or whatever all that stuff is. And they make that connection, but none of them are the nexus. Okay. So, that's where all the other misinformation stems from. Hold on just a second, Josh. Larry's our good listener, Larry, here's got something to interject, Larry.
[00:55:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I just was gonna ask Josh a question. Of course, mister Gordon was was a big time teacher on the common law. Correct?
[00:56:01] Unknown:
Correct.
[00:56:03] Unknown:
Yeah. So, there's other teachers out there that say, when you go into into the lower courts, because my understanding that the only true common law court, that, you know, is this well, it's been said. It's not my understanding, but it's been said that the Supreme Court is the only true common law court and all of the, other courts are inferior courts, and they rely more on on prosecuting on statutes and codes. And so there's a because of that belief, there's a number of common law teachers out there that teach that when you go into the lower courts, you have to invoke a common law court on your documents.
And, of course, they they say they teach that that the court is in the documents. It's not necessarily in the judge. The judge is not the court. The the, the participants are not the court. The court is in the documents. And so from the get go, when you start filing your your initial paperwork, they teach that you are to invoke a common law court. Do you agree with that? Because Brent Winters teaches that the courts start out as a common law court, and and they may end up in equity depending on the situation. What are your thoughts on all of that?
[00:57:27] Unknown:
Me or Roger?
[00:57:29] Unknown:
No. He's asking you, Josh.
[00:57:33] Unknown:
Well, I I have to say that I don't have enough knowledge on that to to make a meaningful comment. What I will say, like, in the case that I read at the US Supreme Court, when I refused to identify myself so I went and looked up all the the statutes in Montana code annotated, and they charged me with obstructing a peace officer for refusing to identify myself. And in Montana, it differentiates. It says, if you were stopped while in a vehicle, the officer shall ask you for identification, driver's license. And if you are on foot and you were stopped, the officer may ask you for identification.
And if you go up go and look up the word shall and may in a Portuguese or a black law dictionary
[00:58:17] Unknown:
No. They're very good. The word may
[00:58:19] Unknown:
the word may is well, the word may is voluntary and the word shall have a legal corresponding duty. Yep. Yep. And so that which makes sense if you have a driver's license, you have a contractual agreement. Well, I actually argued those words and, you know, I made it a made a example of, my argument when my case was that my name could be the beginning link in a chain of evidence to connect me to a separate crime, and that if it had no they were arguing that my name was not protected under the fourth or fifth amendments. And I said, well, if if it's not, why is it important enough for you to charge me as a crime for not giving it to you?
And so when I went down and, met the assistant attorney general for the state of Montana, the guy that ended up, being my opposition in the US Supreme Court, he he actually told me he said, I thought you were gonna win this case. And, he said, you had the correct argument. He he told me he said, I was actually very excited about your case. And I thought, well, that's kinda wild for my opposition to say this. And I asked him, I said, well, why don't you think I wanted that? And he said, because if you won this case, it would change the identification law of the entire United States.
[00:59:27] Unknown:
Well And then we got Josh, hold on. Josh, hold on just a second. We gotta pause here to say goodbye to some folks, and we'll come right back. Okay? Go ahead, Paul. One zero six point nine WBOU
[00:59:38] Unknown:
FM Chicago. Thank you for joining us for the first hour. I don't think you're gonna wanna miss this. So go to the matrixdocs.com and click on either the eurofolkradio.com link or the Global Voice Radio link. Follow us into the second hour and throughout the end of the program, including the after show if you join us on Global Voice Radio. Thanks so much for being with us. We love you, Chicago. Ciao.
[01:00:05] Unknown:
Alright. Bye bye, y'all. Okay, Josh. We're back on the the group here. I wanted to say a couple of things and address some of the dialogue that Larry had, if I may, about the Supreme Court being the only common law court. You can go find this online. Every year, Harvard Law School invites, Supreme Court justices up to talk to the law students. And the one you wanna find is when they had Clarence Thomas up there a couple years ago. And one of the students in the audience asked him, how do you decide between an administrative case and a, basically, common law case? And he and he goes, well, if it's an administrative case, we may sneak around and look at the original intent of the legislation.
So they handle both. Okay? And that's straight from Clarence Thomas's mouth, so I would assume he knows. K? And I wanted to thank and and congratulate Josh. I don't know very many patriots that have gotten a case through certiori to the Supreme Court. So just that fact alone, and it you're right. You you said you spent thousands of dollars. How many thousands of dollars did you have to spend to do that, Josh?
[01:01:26] Unknown:
Well, so initially well, I I figured that I paid roughly $7,000 for George Gordon's, quarterly strategy and procedure class. I, took a couple weeks off work, drove down there to take the class. And, and then in terms of printing costs, the local coffee shop in the little town that I live in, they they weren't too bad. But, the thing that people don't realize, like, a petition for writ of certiorari, if I remember right, just the rule book to do that with the US Supreme Court is a hundred and three pages thick. And the US Supreme Court gets about 10,000 requests for certiorari a year.
Yeah. And I believe they hear about 1% of them. So they so they look for any possible reason to toss your case out. And this rule book, I had to read this rule book five times at least, and it, it's very it's somewhat difficult to understand. And if you make a single mistake, they throw your whole case out just for technicality. Well, I know And then also if I remember
[01:02:39] Unknown:
I I'm sorry. We're getting a our signal's getting a little muddy. Our signal's getting a little muddy. I'm getting a somebody's got a mute on that. Yeah. Somebody's
[01:02:49] Unknown:
got a mute on that. That's why that goes there.
[01:02:52] Unknown:
Do we think we could get that straightened out, please? Do we think we could get that straightened out, please? It's very difficult to have a conversation when you got that echo. That is Jay Jay. Mute your line, or I'll remove you.
[01:03:05] Unknown:
Who is it? I'm having it was JJ. I'm having trouble catching him on the list. Okay. Alright.
[01:03:11] Unknown:
But it's gone now. So sorry, Josh. I I know I I know that it's it's extremely complex. Okay. Well, I either we got the gist of it. It cost thousands of dollars, and you did it yourself. So you didn't have to pay somebody to do that for you. That saved you thousands.
[01:03:30] Unknown:
But it's not an easy No. That's well, it's not completely correct. It it so the the the red is on six and eight by nine and a quarter paper, and I was able with the help of a a fellow at the college to get everything properly collated on a USB drive. And then I, sent it to a place called Cockle Law Briefing Company out of Omaha, Nebraska. That's all they do is is, US Supreme Court documents. And, anyway, I was pretty shocked. He said he told me he said they didn't have to make any changes to what I sent them. He said he did a better job on this than most attorneys that we He said we usually have to correct all the a lot of stuff from, attorneys on this, but it was, another, I think it was about $1,800 to talk a law brief printing because I recall it's 50 copies total, like 40 copies of US Supreme Court and then another 10 copies of their clerks.
So, yeah, it's about 50 copies in total and, it's good learning experience. I mean, I was told by, the assistant attorney general that I cost the state of Montana about $22,000 to collect an $85 fine out of me. So but once again, though, I mean, after after well, after I had my opposition, the assistant attorney general told me that I should have won the case, but I didn't because it would change the identification laws and everybody that was his opinion anyway. It would change the identification laws in this country to the point where nobody had to identify themselves. And if nobody has to ID themselves, then at that point in time, well, what does the state do with its its property?
So Yeah. I kinda got disheartened after that, you know, in a way. But like I said, I'd pretty well given up on all this until, Christy got ahold of me and said, hey. Have you ever heard of this? So, you know, like I said, after having a front row seat with her, case with the ATF, I mean, I've seen things that I just never would have thought possible. So Yep. I'm I'm extremely excited about all of it. And, Well,
[01:05:33] Unknown:
Josh, well, for welcome. We we love having people with that kind of experience. What we'll do, no doubt, even though you went through George's class, is as we go forward, we'll have to erase some stuff that's back there in that memory and implant it with correct stuff, but that's okay. It'll it'll take a little time. We're tickled to death to have you. And thanks for telling us your story and your background. I want to go to our, my cohost here, Brent Winters, who is a practicing attorney and, get his way in on what you've said here because he's been exceedingly quiet. Brent, are you there?
Did Brent go away? Great. I'm trying to set you up here, Brent.
[01:06:19] Unknown:
That's probably why he's been quiet.
[01:06:21] Unknown:
It might have been. He might have had to Oh, I'm I'm here, Roger. Go see a man about a horse or something. I know how bad it is. See him. Hey, Brent.
[01:06:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, that was a fascinating story. I'm glad he told it. And, but I wanna ask you quickly, what year did that happen?
[01:06:39] Unknown:
So that case initially started in 2007 when I was, harassed by the cops, and then I was adjudicated, I believe, in 02/2010. So it'd be on Josh Allen versus state of Montana if you wanna look it up.
[01:06:56] Unknown:
Cool. The, the case in 02/2004, the US Supreme Court came down with a case that settled that issue, and so I'm assuming that your case was settled on the basis of that one, but I don't know. You never know what Supreme Court's gonna do. Of course, they didn't hear the case. I should say the lower courts, but I remember this case in the US Supreme Court because I had a fellow that, I had a fellow who was trying to help the police officer ask him for his identification. He wouldn't provide it. Well, right at that time, there was a case out of Nevada that, was, pending in the US Supreme Court on that very question, and the court decided the case. It was about a a fellow named Hybel who had a daughter, and the daughter was out on a, desert road, we call them. You know, Nevada Highway, they call them out in Nevada. Just a road through the dry desert out in the middle of nowhere in the county, and and father found her or saw her and pulled off, was talking to her, and she was being rebellious and stupid and all the things that young girls do.
And, he was arguing with her pretty loudly, and somebody happened a pickup truck happened to go by and heard him arguing loudly. There was no violence, but there was loud arguing. And, of course, fathers get so they can't understand why their daughters hate them so much. I mean, I see how this work. So he was trying to persuade her with words, but that didn't work, of course. And fell in the pickup truck, called the sheriff's deputy. Sheriff's deputy came back, came out, and said, give me your identification. And he said nothing doing. I don't owe you nothing. I'm not talking, and I'm not saying anything.
And so he arrested him, took him to jail, and, somebody went his bail. I don't know who it was. And then he, he took it to court and lost, took it to appellate court and lost. And, there was a but there was a difference in that case, and I don't know about Montana. But in in Nevada, if you didn't give your driver's license or give your identification or whatever you they wanted to a law enforcement officer. It was a $250 fine. There was a statute on the books that said that. So the question in that case was, is this statute constitutional under the fifth amendment to The United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Nevada.
Of course, it's not gonna get in the Supreme Court unless it focuses on the constitution of The United States and the fifth amendment there, which it did. The thing went all the way to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, at that time by that time, I'd been made temporarily appointed the state's attorney for thirty glorious days in a small rural county to finish up another fellow's term because he left early, for reasons, out of his control. And I finished up the term, and I was I had a another case in that case that had to do with that. A fellow wouldn't give his identification. So I decided as a prosecutor for thirty days. I didn't stay long, but I learned a lot real quick. But I decided that I would withhold prosecution till that Supreme Court case was handed down, and I thought I predicted that that Supreme Court case would come down and say, of course, you don't have to give the police officer your identification under the fifth amendment because he could use that to provide a link and a chain that could lead you to a crime.
Oh, that's been the position of the federal courts for many decades. They don't provide information if it could, link you to a crime. You're not obligated to do that. Well, the Supreme Court surprised me, and they came back opinion written by a a swing vote on the Supreme Court that spent her career according to her one of her, one of her clerks spent her career playing the men on both sides, trying to get them to compromise and holding her vote, to the person who would treat her the nicest. That's really what he said happened. I'm I'm giving you his testimony, not mine. I wasn't there. But I was on a case where that justice was sitting, on the appellate court by invitation, a case that involved me, and she was called in to settle on that case so that what happened to me wouldn't be overturned. I mean, me personally. It was a brutal situation.
Never thought much of her after that, but that's what happened. So she's the one that wrote that opinion and said, absolutely. Absolutely. He has to provide his identification. If and that case said this, if there's a statute or a law on the books that says you gotta provide your identification, then that is being upheld as constitutional if that's all you're asked for. Well, her policy, having read her other cases she had written other opinions, her policy was I remember back in 02/2002, I was involved in a case where the federal courts had been had been for a long time, bringing men in for sentencing and women and then, retrying the some of the facts of the case in front of the judge to determine if they were gonna add if they were gonna add years to the sentence.
The Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Scalia, came back and said, you can't do that. Good gravy. If there's anything that goes to the influencing the sentencing of a client, it must be or a client, a defendant, it must be tried before the jury, not before the judge after the trial is over at the sentencing hearing. Hell, he said that, so we had a case before the federal courts. And, the judge said, well, we're gonna wait to see what, what people do here. We don't know what the courts are gonna do because they've been doing that so long. Isn't that a travesty? And these people are the people that are supposed to know how to protect our due process, our common law. And that's what common law is, by the way. It's just due process. That's what it is. Not what, but how we go about doing things. How?
The process, the course of our common law as some of our ancient documents have said. Well, the judge said, well, wait. That was a wise thing to do. But then after the judge waited, he went right back to doing the same thing they've been doing before, and the federal courts continue to do the same thing they were doing before justice Scalia wrote that opinion. In in some and substance, that's it. Well, in this case, in that case rather, in that case, the justice Scalia wrote, this particular justice on the Supreme Court that handed down the opinion that said you gotta provide your identification, this justice said, well, we can't rule in favor of this, petitioner.
If we do, it'll back the courts up beyond it'll load them up beyond anything the courts can deal with. And what's a sensible, patriotic, law abiding person gonna say to that? I I'll tell you what I said. I don't care how much it backs up the courts. Injustice is injustice. Deal with it. That's what you gotta do, not me. And I'm not interested in you making excuses that there's an administrative backup. Therefore, people's fundamental God bestowed duties can't be observed. I believe that with all of my heart, by the way. And if we need more federal courts, we need to spend the money on more federal judges so we can take care of things, and judges can give attention at the state level and the federal level. We need more judges. We need some bad judgment in every state. And you're gonna have more freedom with more judges that can relax and listen to cases and provide due process than you are, not hiring judges and focusing on the president, the governor, and what they're doing because they don't have the power to be final arbiters. We need more juries, more judges.
We need more courts without question. If we're a common law country and a common law tradition, the foundation of the whole thing is the jury. We can't have a common law tradition without a 12 man jury, and you need more courts. And to have more 12 man juries, you gotta have more courts, which means more judges. By the way, I see that everywhere. We will we'll be more productive as a country by far and away if we provide justice. If we don't provide justice, we will be nothing. You've got to provide justice. Justice is one of the two fundamental duties of our common law tradition of the militiamen. Number one, defense of the land by arms if necessary. That's a defense of the land. That's enemies that's enemies foreign.
Number two, enemies domestic. That means the militiaman's willingness to serve on the jury. And without I never law of the land, you don't defend the land. That's the jury duty. Without defense of the land, that's militia duty. You don't defend the law of the land. And without that, you don't have nothing. You don't have freedom. You live like the rest of the world. But that case, Hybel, came down wrong. But what they're doing now is they're upholding, statutes. It it was a misdemeanor. You're talking about your case was a small fine, and they spent $22,000. That that's patriotism. That's what you did. You decided to test the government's point of view, and you have every duty, not right. A right is a duty. You have every duty to do that. I don't care how much money they spend. What is personal freedom worth? All you got in this life is life, liberty, and property. You take any what you take away or impede any one of those three. And by it will, it will lessen the others by that degree. You take away liberty. You take away property at the same time, and you take away quality of life.
So what you did was a patriotic thing to do. It love of land, love of the law of the land, and you were doing your best, and I applaud people that do that. And it it is a duty that costs money. It takes time. I'm glad some people do it. But getting back to the point, the sixth or the fifth amendment is at stake here. Why should I have provide, why should I have provide anything to, an employee of government that they could use against me to maybe conjure up? And us that are guilty. It doesn't make any difference. That's not even relevant.
[01:17:39] Unknown:
I have a question.
[01:17:41] Unknown:
To conjure up to conjure up a criminal prosecution.
[01:17:44] Unknown:
Somebody said they have a question. Yeah. They did. Yeah. I don't recognize the voice. Allen out of out of Chicago. Okay.
[01:17:54] Unknown:
This is something that I've actually argued in court, as a matter of giving an ID. The question is whether I'm required to have one. Not required to have an ID on me. I have twenty four hours in order to present ID, and that includes a driver's license if you're pulled over. So how is it that they're jumping the gun and playing leapfrog
[01:18:17] Unknown:
in order to sit there and create a crime out of something that there isn't even a statute to cover? Well, I'm surprised. I'm surprised as long as you've been doing this that you don't recognize the sinful nature of mankind and say, oh, I can tell you how to do it because they're sinners. That's why. That's the way they were born, just like you and me. And that's the world we live in. I'm being facetious. I just say that for other people's benefit, not to criticize you. You're trying to do the right thing. But, what this statute said was you have to provide you have to give identification. You have to tell them your name. And, also, of course, is included in that. You make a good point that, well, I'm not required to have an ID that I I don't have to give you one. But in Nevada, you they would have said, well, you've got to tell us your name. See? That's what they have said. Now I had a client down in Missouri who, it's a fascinating I don't wanna give I wanna give his name.
I wanna give his name, but I'm not going to simply because he might not want me to, but it was fascinating. He said when he was born from above, when he had received the spiritual birth, that he decided he would change his name just like, Israel. God changed his name to Jacob. And, Saul, God changed his name to Paul. And he My my name. Wait a minute. I'm not done. Allen, Lane, finish. One. No. Don't break in. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Stop talking. Don't break in. When Roger and I are talking, everybody else has to stop. That's the rule here. And that rule exists because we can't have order otherwise, and somebody's gotta be in that position, and it's Roger and I. But, when I'm done, then you can chime in.
I think what you've got to say is just as important what I got to say, but it's just a matter of order. That's the way it works here. So when I'm done and now you've got me off my game. Don't do that. I forgot where I was going, but the bottom line, oh, this fell he changed his name. You know, like, in if you have a middle name in the West, we have middle names, in the biblical pattern because one name is acknowledgment of our birth in the in the flesh, and the other name is acknowledgment. Traditionally, we forgot this, but our parents believe that our baptism and we're that's the way they used to do it, that we would be born from above, born spiritually. Well, he decided he'd change his name.
And, when people found out about it in the community, especially the state police, they decided they were gonna send him to prison for a long time. Because if you change your name, which by the way, you have every right to do and far as I know, You have every right to go into court and be called by the name you wanna be called by. Right. That's something I discovered in that case as a matter of law in that state. If you wanna be prosecuted by the name Joe instead of John, you can do that. Whatever. Well, anyway, he did that, and, boy, they had him tied up for years. Had him arrested, had an ankle bracelet on him because he would not provide a birth certificate, and he wouldn't provide, what they said was his birth name. He wouldn't say nothing. He went to jail. He wouldn't eat. He said, I'm not accepting anything from you, Reason they let him out of jail holding him he wouldn't let him out on bail. Amazing.
This is how important this is, and this explains too why, listen to me, why baptism for centuries in Europe was absolutely required. And if you were an Anabaptist and said, well, I I think we ought to be baptized by pouring or dunking, They they wouldn't just, they wouldn't just, put you at the stake and strangle you before they burned you. They'd burn you alive. All Anabaptists, by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, were burned alive. That means a rebaptizer. If you were, another in another group like the Dutch reform church or something and you, you weren't an Anabaptist, you accepted the baptism of of Rome, in your Protestantism, well, then they wouldn't they just burn you they'd burn you at the stake after they strangled you. That's how important this whole thing about birth certificates are. Well, that came from that came from baptism certificates.
If you don't take cognizance of the Christian history of the West, it it nothing makes much sense, frankly, friends. But this whole thing about what what are they they're trying to find a way to identify everybody. That's why this national ID this is the same problem they had in Europe, and baptism became the the thing under Roman church. Baptized as an infant. You entered the law of the city community. You see the canon civil laws of Rome. You were a citizen. That means you were citified. That's what the word means. And on and on the madness went. And I'm gonna make one more point, and then, whoever was trying to talk a minute ago can get back in.
One more point, and that is this. Things never change, and we're struggling still with that. What is a nation? I started out in the discussion before. A nationhood America is the only nation that's ever achieved the point of nationhood. The word nation is French, and it has to do with nativity. It's the same root word. It has to do with birth, and there are two two things attached to your birth. Number one, where you were born, on what land. That's biblical. Number two, who was your who were your birth parents? We still recognize that a lot of ways under our constitution. But then to what degree is important? Well, whoever was trying to talk a while ago, it's your turn. Okay. Alan, go ahead.
[01:23:52] Unknown:
Go ahead. Alan, you're muted.
[01:23:57] Unknown:
If Alan's not on, Josh is on still.
[01:24:00] Unknown:
Okay. Everybody's on. But, Alan, we're gonna give you another chance, buddy.
[01:24:05] Unknown:
Right here. I'm sorry. It takes me a few seconds in order to find all the different units. I got three I have to clear, and two of them are across the room. But, Sounds like me. Yeah. No. The point I wanted to make was the fact that these people are are actually overstepping when they ask for ID. And I do have an answer for, you know, you want my name. Well, what name do you want me? You know? A lot of people call me asshole. A lot of other people call me a jerk. What name do you want? Okay? And and quite honestly, they're not being specific. But if they wanna sit there and demand something from me, I will give it to them. It's just not the way that they expect it. And, as far as common law is concerned, I have seen, and I've actually, been an observer. I've been a for several times in the courtroom as well.
And, I have seen the court flip between statutory and common common law, and, it it's actually incorporated in both. The question is, are you gonna follow what has already been, set by other cases, or are you gonna make an entirely new, determination for that? And a lot of people don't understand the separation between statutory and common common law or statutory common law and international law, which they constantly misidentify with the fringe on the flag, which is something that I've, taken time in order to find out about it. It's a recognition of a treaty. And the recognition of the treaty in the court is absolutely mandated, for the for the, formality of that, treaty. And that is if someone in North Korea owns a restaurant in California and the restaurant is then fined, does the owner still responsible? Yes. They are. And that, treaty that makes the owner responsible and the restaurant within their jurisdiction for proper, there was a better word for that. I don't have it right now. But, basically, in order to address the fact that, yeah, maybe a foreign, owner, but that doesn't mean you don't pay the bill or you don't keep a clean restaurant. It allows the jurisdiction to continue.
So, yeah, I I yield, but I I thought I might bring you know? It's it's it's a matter of the last interpretation or whether you're following precedents or whether you're following a a new statute. And let me tell you something. When we say the word statute, we are talking in complete sentences just the same way as, oh, you look suspicious. Suspicious of I don't talk to people that talk in incomplete sentences. So, basically, a statute is not a statute. It's a statute at large, meaning it has never been, constitutionally
[01:26:48] Unknown:
challenged. I yield. That's correct. Ellen. It's assumed to be constitutional when it's passed by the house and the senate and the president signs it. And it goes into the statutes at large, the presumption of constitutionality is there. Go ahead. Alan,
[01:27:04] Unknown:
for the purposes of this discussion, you may address me as, oh, captain, my captain.
[01:27:12] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that must be a personal joke. I would like to because we didn't get to in the first hour, and and Josh is here. And I think, Josh, this is gonna perk your ears up. Brent, why don't you tell him a little bit about you and your website and your, Winters Inn and all that?
[01:27:32] Unknown:
Thanks, Roger. Commonlawyer.com. W w w Common lawyer Com. And if you go to that website, you can, take law classes, and we focus on the common law. I wanna make a comment after I introduce the website about, what he said about statutory law. There's much patriot mythology. I would say that most of the people, I I like some of them, that I call them common law gurus, are not only a little wrong, they're so far off, they're just distracting everything and everybody. It's it it gets too complicated. People make it too complicated, and these common law gurus make it too complicated. I'm not necessarily including anybody that you like.
But just recognize there is no there is no grand distinction between statutory law and our common law. That's not the distinction. Is there a difference? Oh, there can be, but that's not really it. It's more it's it's more overarching than that. It's greater. You don't have to get into that kind of minutia. And that's why I talk about the common law. I went into this years ago. I'll give my personal experience again. I mean, decades ago. And, as a patriot, having been around patriots, having heard people talk about the common law and all that, and and I said, this isn't making any sense. And the friends on the this doesn't make any sense what they're telling me about the fringe on the flag, all that. I said, I'm gonna find out. I'm gonna get inside and find out what I can. I was one of those kind of guys, so I got inside. And I spent, my life and everything I had to try to go to law school and discover what they were telling these people.
I got in. I struggled through it. Got through it. Had a well, I had to stop at one point, quit, and I got in the mining business, and then I went back again. And, what I'm fortunate because I one of my professors, I told people on this presentation before, he'd been a prosecutor at Nuremberg. And he was an older fellow then. He's gone now, and I'd sit and listen to him. He was I found out later, one of the foremost common lawyer comparative lawyers in the country. Comparative law is a comparing and contrasting the law of the land, our common law with the law of the city. And I'll say it again. I wanna say it again because it's absolutely true. Our common law is not a list of laws. It is not about outcome standards. Like the Bible says, do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder your neighbor. Those are outcome standards. There's no process mentioned there. Our common law is process.
Our common law doesn't include due process. That's what our common law is. Period. And God has given to us in this life as men down here on this on land in the day of man as opposed to the day of the Lord as distinguished from the day of the Lord. We are now in the day of man, the day of God's delegation of administration to government and justice. And in this day in this day, we are given jurisdiction over process, over how things are done, not what's done, not what the outcome is. Do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder. That's not our jurisdictions. Statutory law fundamentally is God's jurisdiction. That dictates what the outcome has to be. That's what it is, and that's the check we can put on our process. But God has given to us as men discernment discernment to make sure that all things are done according to the adversarial tradition, not the inquisitorial tradition.
And our common law governs everything. It governs all statutes, how we go about. I've I've been in cases where argued the statute of frauds, and the statute of frauds never quoted once in the whole proceeding. What did they quote instead? We were quoted cases that overlay the statute of frauds. Why? Because we're in the judicial branch. The judicial branch knows what the judicial branch does. We follow precedent. That precedent applies to the judicial branch. Does it apply to the executive branch and the legislative? Not if they don't want it to, it doesn't. That's why lawyers argue precedent because they're officers of the judicial branch. They're not officers of the other branches. And the our common law, part of it is precedent.
That's how we go about doing things in the judicial branch. The judicial branch is the first branch of government. It it it has to come first. It's not the governing branch, but it's the branch that happens first, and that's the only branch where justice can happen. The only branch where justice can happen. It can't happen anyplace else. Every our legislation legislation, statutes ain't with a wide brush. No justice there. Justice is only individual, and it's only individual if you take a case to court like these gentlemen have said they've done, and we're glad they have. It doesn't exist anywhere else. But our common law tradition is due process, but go to www.commonlawyer.com.
I don't profess my everything, but there are things that I know for sure. And the things I know for sure, I assert hard. And one of them is that there's much patriot mythology about there out there about what our common law tradition is. And the only way to know our common law tradition, the only way to know it is to compare and contrast it with the law of the city. There isn't any other way. Men have said that for centuries. I can go back a little to the 13 hundreds. In the fifteenth century, Fortescue, they said the same thing. They're absolutely correct. Comparing and contrasting our common law.
[01:33:00] Unknown:
Well, I Paul, can you see where that ambient noise is coming from? It sounds like somebody's driving with a window open.
[01:33:06] Unknown:
Yeah. When people unmute and just leave their mic open, it causes interference. So unmute and then say something. And when you're done talking, mute again.
[01:33:18] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Please. I I need to do that more too. I need to mute when I'm not talking. I'd make noises. So thank you for that admonition from every angle. But what I struggle with, Roger, is, my what I struggle with did somebody say something? Somebody's trying to. They just never learn. I don't care how many times you Well, you're not going to. No. Not now. Not now. You have to wait till clearly. Can you please wait till we say what we're saying? Clearly, I quit. I don't I don't get paid to do this. And so I call the shots along with Roger. He's got a quick question.
No. Not now. No. No. Not now. I'm gonna finish, but I'll I'll get to you, and I appreciate all the questions. Well, that helps everybody, and you're important to what's going on here, but not now. So may finish up. I'll finish up and do what Roger asked me to do. Roger said, tell him so we're about the course. So we're teaching a course at the Winter's Inn. We're teaching a course. I just noticed, George Gordon used to have what he called, something in. He called it an in, but he changed it to George Gordon Gordon School of Law. Right. But we we'd call it Winter's Inn just because that's the ancient common law schools that, taught common law. They did it privately. The government had nothing to do with it, by the way, and we call it Winter's Inn. And we're teaching a course on comparative law. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. We've taught maybe a dozen or so courses, sheriff Darleaf and I from Barrick County, Michigan. And I want you to take the course. I live to get the points across if I can about the difference between our law of the land and the law of the city. And the law of the city, the code of canon civil laws of Rome govern almost every country in the world with the exception of the common law countries, and we're one of those countries. And our freedom is attributed to our common law tradition. It's a Christian tradition, friends, anciently and now. And that's what we have whether people understand it or not, whether they admit it or not. I know the patriots just say, oh, the common law courts are gone. Oh, there is no common law jury. That's utter absolute hogwash.
That's not true at all. And I we can explain why. Well, well, I know they're not doing it right. Well, you go you can listen to the gurus. They'd say that because they make money. Here I am. They make money saying it because that kind of negative talk makes money just like sells newspapers. I'm not getting paid to do what I'm doing here, but I like to do it. And if you wanna take that course, you can you can, make a donation and can and, appreciation of a donation. We'll, we're gonna we're gonna teach the course. But sheriff Darleef and I, sheriff Darleef is not a lawyer, but he's been a sheriff for over twenty years, and he had been studying our common law tradition, and I'm fortunate to have ran into him for years. We've had him on this show.
[01:36:04] Unknown:
We have. He's an important him back too.
[01:36:07] Unknown:
Yeah. And, well, we're gonna do that. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do claim this, and I claim it with all of my might. I don't have all the answers, and I don't know everything. But I know my nose is pointed down the right road. I know that for a fact. Amen. I'm not gonna apologize for it. And a lot of what you're hearing, these fellas noses are not pointed down the right road. I don't know them all because I don't spend time listening to them. I do remember some of them. I spend my time I'll tell you where I spend it, and I spend all my time in the laws of nature, our common law tradition. I read cases. I read comparative law, and the laws of nature's god, our Bible. Now maybe give you an idea. And those are the two volumes, the laws of nature's god unwritten and the laws of nature that, govern our common law tradition, which is a Christian tradition.
And and points of apparent inconsistency between those two volumes, we have established and see clearly that the laws of nature's god, our Bible, is the court of last resort. Well, go to commonlawyer.com. Thank you, Roger. Take the course. We have a comparative law text there. Mhmm. Utterized translation of the Bible from the original tongues. We have that. I've gone to great lengths to try to establish these two volumes. I still am. I'm enjoying it very much. You can partner with us to do that, but it just comes down to learning. It's just the fundamentals, friends. Don't get caught up in all this patriot mythology detail. The longer I live you know, Sam Johnson said that patriotism is the refuge the last refuge of the scoundrel. Yep. Boy, have I seen that, and I see it more as I get older. Yep. The place for people to hide back the truth.
[01:37:44] Unknown:
Well, I I want Roger, go ahead. Roger. I want the question to be asked. Hold on. Hold on. But I want Brent to go back and tell the story about Blackstone and how all of this originated. Because if you have not heard that, you probably can't appreciate what he and Darleaf are gonna do, sheriff Narr. Okay. Who was it that had the question a minute ago?
[01:38:08] Unknown:
It was Larry, and I apologize. It was me making a noise. I was trying to ask a question, but Paul with lightning fast speed muted me. But I have four questions for Brent. The first one is, does he believe Brent, do you believe no no matter what court you walk into, whether it's state or federal, it is as when you're walking into that court or start or start, you know, initiating any type of filing in that court, that that is a common law court right off the bat? That's my first question.
[01:38:46] Unknown:
No. No. I don't believe it is. Next question.
[01:38:52] Unknown:
Okay. And, getting back to the ID, are you suggesting and and politely advising students that if they're stopped by a police officer, seeking identification in any of the 50 states, that they should present identification or at the very least, tell the officer their name?
[01:39:18] Unknown:
No. And I'm not given any legal advice to any particular case. I can't do that as a lawyer and do that's not proper because I don't know anybody's case. I'm telling you what the courts have done. But, so I'm not giving any advice. Next question.
[01:39:34] Unknown:
Okay. A lot of the gurus teach these common law gurus teach that when you get into a court, you should invoke a common law court in your paperwork. Do you feel that's necessary?
[01:39:49] Unknown:
No.
[01:39:53] Unknown:
Okay. Last question. In our in Arkansas, there's a I believe it's a statute that says that all courts in Arkansas will be deemed a court of record. Can you explain what you believe a court of record to be, and why is it that Arkansas has that particular, statute in place? Like, what what's so unusual about a court of record that they had to, you know, you know, put that in the statute?
[01:40:29] Unknown:
A court of record is a court that keeps records word by word for word of everything that happens in the court. Don't make this complicated. The common law gurus have every other every other imaginable definition for a court of record. But a court of record is a common law court that records every word. The rest of the world does not do that. That's the grand distinction. One of the grand distinction, but that's the grand distinction on that point. The rest of the world, some may some may that maybe ever seen that a police officer, he he writes down after an incident, he writes down his take on it.
Yeah. And that's why they hate you recording them. Yeah. That's a common law way of doing things, word for word. That's the Christian way of doing things. We have word for word what God said. The Hebrew phrase all through the old hundreds of times. Ko Amor Adonai. We should say Ko Amor Yahuha. Thus, Seth Yahuha. Meaning the Hebrew phrase meaning this is what he said. Exactly. Jesus Christ says every jot, every tittle, every yod, that's the Greek way and the Koine Greek of saying the smallest signifying the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Every tittle, that's a serif on the end of the Hebrew, of a Hebrew letter that could change it from one letter to another, which could change a word from one word to another. Jesus Christ said every dot, jot, and every tittle shall come to pass. That's the common law view of law.
We don't mess around. You know, people complain. Well, the this, the amendment to the constitution, this amendment or that amendment that was passed, that's not the same amendment that was offered to the States. Well, that's true. That happens. That means that they didn't follow due process the way we go about doing our amendment. We believe in our common law tradition. Justice Scalia said, listen. When I get a statute to interpret it, I'll interpret it just the way the legislator wrote it. Legislature wrote it. And if you legislators don't want the statute to be ambiguous, you better start making up your minds to be more precise.
Well, he approaches he approached legislation that way. We approach the constitution that way. Our common law tradition says every word of a writing of legal significance, every word of a writing of legal significance must be allowed to tell, t e l l. There is no such thing in our common law tradition as superfluous words and writings of legal significance. That was the position of Jesus Christ about the Bible, by the way. There are no superfluous words. Every word must count. When I translate the Bible, there are particles in the Hebrew and the Greek that the grammarians say are untranslatable.
I have found that not to be true. No. They're translatable, and I always translate them. What it does make clumsy English, but you get the point. I wanna know what it says. That's important to me. Why? Because it was important to my master, Jesus Christ. That's why he dictates to me what is proper. And it all comes back to our common law tradition as a Christian tradition, and that's simply what a court of record is. Don't make it complicated. And if they won't take if they don't wanna, the court doesn't have somebody there recording every word, you have the option of hiring somebody to come in and do that. That doesn't go on in the rest of the world. It's always a summation of what government some government employee has said. Well, that's that question. Now I answered the other three yes or no, but I wanna go back and qualify and elaborate. Is that alright?
[01:44:14] Unknown:
Larry, is that alright? Yeah. Go ahead, Brent. I'll give you permission. Go ahead. Question number one is every court at common law perfect.
[01:44:21] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Is that okay. Question number one, is every court a common law court in America? And I said no. Why did I say no? Well, number one, because Jesus Christ said to answer that way. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. And I decided when you asked me a question, I'd say yes or no and then hope I had time to go back and unpack what I meant by yes or no. I that's a good idea, but I should say yes or no upfront, and I'm working on that, by the way, to try to be better at that, and I hope you are too. No. Not every count law. For example, you go into Louisiana, there aren't any common law courts in Louisiana.
Louisiana is the only what, Roger? What?
[01:44:59] Unknown:
True dat. Yeah. Louisiana
[01:45:01] Unknown:
is the only law of the city jurisdiction in America and Quebec is the only law of the city jurisdiction in Canada. And those are the only two law of the city jurisdictions North of the Rio Grande River clean up to the North Pole if whatever the North Pole is. Well, law of the city, the code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, Quebec, and Louisiana. Why? Because the French speaking people there are by the way, the people in Louisiana are from Quebec, and they like the canon civil laws in their heart of hearts and the religious conviction as Roman Catholic Roman church, French speaking people, and they like that like they do in Mexico. They like it too. And so they have dictators and emperors, and they want that law that allows tyranny. They want it. They love it. We call that to be enthralled.
You know, a throl is an Anglo Saxon word that means slave. And to be enthralled is to be enslaved and slobber over it. Love it. Love it. Yeah. And if you're not Christian, that's what you are. You're enslaved and you love it. It's sick, isn't it? It's damnable sick. And some of you are more concerned about the about me staying damned than you are that it's damnable sick that people love slavery, but they do. So that was from Bertrand Russell. Some of Roger. Are you Roger? Yes. Some of the architects of this, like Bertrand Russell,
[01:46:26] Unknown:
stated they will love their slavery.
[01:46:29] Unknown:
Yeah. People why do people why do people said somebody smarter than me? Why do people rattle their chains to proclaim to proclaim their freedom? Why is it that the the Pharisees came to Jesus Christ and ticked off and mattered fire and said, we have never been enslaved to no man. Well, they were enslaved to Rome when they said that. They've been enslaved in Babylon. They've been taken away in chains more than once. Why did they say that? Because people that are enthralled love their slavery. The people that came out of Egypt came out with their heels in the dirt. They didn't wanna come out, and they had been enslaved for a few centuries.
They were subject to all the gods of of of Egypt, and they loved it. The Bible says so. That's what it means to not be a Christian man or woman. You can't take yourself out of that. A slave needs a deliverer, and that's who Jesus the Christ is. He delivers men from their slavery to the moments their own selves and the other to the they fall they fall down, as the Bible says, like a a wet a wet willing whore before a man. That's pagan religion, friends. You got I hope you aren't in it. If you are, I hope you get out. That's what will destroy you and destroy your family and destroy our country. Well, anyway, getting back to the questions. Appreciate them. So common law court, no. You got the tribunals.
You've got, for example, the the tax court of the federal government. That's not a common law court. All of these states are not common law courts. Those are courts of the executive branch. That's not a common law court. They're not we we shouldn't even have them there. The executive branch doesn't like, the governors and presidents, they have no power of decision banking any more than they have power of legislating, but they do it. Oh, yeah. They have a regulations that, bureaucracies passed that's under the authority of the president or the state governor. That was a transformation that occurred under Roosevelt in the nineteen thirties. He loved that civil law government too. He didn't care about due process. So, no, every court is not a common law court, but if you go into a judicial branch court where they impanel the 12 man jury, chances are you got a common law court, and I will believe that's true until proven otherwise in any particular instance. The beauty of our common law is that if everything isn't done right, it still works. If the jury is stacked, it can still work. I had it happen to me.
A a 12 man jury sprung me and it was stacked. I'll never forget it. How could I forget something like that? Resilience of our common law tradition. God ordained the 12 man jury. It works. It's the way he want it's the way he wants us to do things. It's the way our common law is processed. The course of our common law is the way he wants us to come to decisions about, a justice. A second question. Am I suggesting am I advising people to do this or that? No. I don't do that. As a lawyer, the law I live under says, no. You're not supposed to advise people unless you have an attorney client relationship with them. And that's a well defined relationship in our common law tradition. And I don't have an attorney client relationship with most all these people I'm talking to, so, no, I'm not giving any advice.
But I will tell you what the what the what the cases say, and you must make a decision. You must make a decision. Now it's my personal conviction that it is against a God given God given directly to the man duty over his tongue that he not talk if he doesn't want to. And it's a duty that he decides when he will talk. That's called freedom of speech under the first amendment and when he will not talk. Freedom to not talk and shut your tater trap under the fifth amendment. That's your jurisdiction that God, your creator, has given you over your tongue.
And you should, according to God, your creator, all over the Bible, be quick to hear, as James says, and slow to speak. Jesus Christ invoked the right to the duty to remain silent before the evil empire and the under governor Pilate. He refused to talk and Pilate said, I can't believe you're not responding to my questions. Don't you know that I can have you killed? That's essentially what he was saying. And Jesus Christ said, I ain't talking. It says he stood moot. Dumb. The old English word d u m b, d u m b means he didn't talk. He didn't talk. Well, that's the answer to that question. Number three, do you need to invoke a common law court when you go into a court in state or federal court?
If you do, the judge won't know what you're talking about. It what? What do you mean invoke a common law court? What are you talking about? It just make you him look at you like an, like a blooming idiot. Now you can do that. It's called the right of petition. The right of petition means you can take a piece of paper and submit it to some government employee like a judge and tell them that you object or you wanna say something. That's your duty to do that. Yeah. It's not against the law. I'm just giving you what I understand about judges. I know how they were educated. I know kinda what they went through. I don't know everything. Like, I know what I went through, but I can't testify.
I'll give you my my take on it. I've been into court more times than I could possibly count and what goes on there. If I went in and said, judge, I invoke a common law court. No. That's not the way it works. Traditionally, by custom, this isn't written down anywhere. Our common law is largely unwritten. You go into court and you say, judge, in my first response to the pleading, right on the front, I don't make a motion, for my client to be tried by jury. And I put it right on the front page, big letters, jury trial demanded. That's a demand.
Well, if I'm demanding a jury trial, what am I demanding? I'm demanding something that doesn't exist in the entire world except in the common law countries of which they're only, well, all common law countries are England, the Britain, I should say. Yes. And, Cornwall and Wals, Wals, Wals, Cornwall and Wals, and, of course, Northern Ireland and Ireland and all of the colonies that arose out of those. Those are our common law countries, not many, not that many. And we're the most powerful common law country, and we're more common law than any country in the world. And when and we go into a common law country and a common law country, and you could go into a country that's not a common law country and demand a jury trial if you want to. Maybe they give you one. I doubt it. And if they did, they wouldn't know how to do it because how you do it is what makes it work.
Process, friends. How do you impanel a jury? How do you sequester a jury? Who sequesters the jury? Who's in charge of the jury? What power does the jury have? How do they go about deciding the case? How do you form a jury pool? That's all common law, unwritten, much of it, tradition. We can't write it all down. We've tried. It doesn't work. You try to write things that's what legislators try to do. Right? When they write a statute, they try to cover every possible contingency that could occur. And then you know what happens next? Immediately almost, something bobs forth from the flux of human relationships that they never thought of, nobody ever thought of before, and the statute doesn't cover it.
Statutes do confuse. There's nothing wrong with statutes. Some statutes are very good and are calculated to invoke common law freedoms like the statute of habeas corpus. They tried to fulfill the whole idea of, of addressing false imprisonment for centuries. And finally, there's somebody lighted upon this with a writ of habeas corpus and, it's worked real good. But every legislator has a duty to make sure that legislation conforms to our common law tradition. Every governor and every president in the executive branch has the same responsibility and duty.
When they swear an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States against enemies, foreign and domestic, that didn't create any new duty. That just strengthens the duty they already got as an American. And what does that mean? That means that they support and defend how the general government in Washington DC is supposed to work according to that document we call the constitution. Yeah. It applies to government, not us. And it is a document that tells us the processes of how government is supposed to work. It does not give us outcome standards. It has nothing to say about contract law except just to mention it, but doesn't say anything about it. It had nothing to say about trial by jury except to say you have a right to it. Doesn't unpack any of it. It'd take a train load of stuff to unpack the history of the jury trial. It doesn't say anything about what a dollar is. It mentions it. There's nothing there. It doesn't explain anything. It is a brief of how government applies to common law and compact, quoting the Supreme Court of the United States in compact draft.
Our common law tradition, friends, is our second greatest blessing, quoting Fratcher. Well, what's our first greatest blessing? If a common law tradition, the laws of nature is God, that's what that phrase means from our declaration. If that's the second greatest blessing, according to common lawyers, what's our first greatest blessing? Comparative lawyers, that's a a discipline of our common law tradition. That doesn't exist anywhere else in the world either, like it does here. Well, what is the first greatest blessing? It is the laws of nature's God.
That's a phrase as Blackstone tells us that means the Bible. He said that in 1765, '11 years before our declaration of '76, the phrase arose out of the Scottish enlightenment. But that's what it means. The laws of nature, our common law tradition, process, course of process, the laws of nature is God, our Bibles, Outcome standards included there and process too. How many witnesses does it take to establish any material fact? At least two according to the Bible. At least two. But no more than three. Well, what does our common law tradition say? Well, all common all lawyers in America know in our common law tradition, you need at least two witnesses to really make something stick in at a jury trial in front of the jury.
Three is, two is best. Three is okay. Four or more will hurt you. You don't need all those. And if you do, of course, our common law tradition says that the judge has authority to say no. We've got a couple. That's enough. Cumulative evidence, they call we call it a common law. You don't you gotta draw the line someplace. The Bible does draw the line on that one. So the laws of nature and the laws of nature is God. Focus on those friends and listen to these common law gurus. Maybe there's a good one out there. I don't know. But most of them get caught up in minutiae. Most of them, I won't say which one. I will listen to enough to know they're wrong headed. They're going down the wrong road. If you ask them what our common law was, they couldn't give you a definition.
They couldn't give you a definition. Why? They think they know. They'll say they'll say, well, it's anything that's not statutory. That's not true at all. No, sir. Now they'll say a lot of things. Our common law tradition can only be known as it, our common law is compared and contrasted with its ever present antagonist, the law of the city. The civil canon laws of Babylon, of Rome, of Pergamos, and how they exist today in the Roman empire primarily. The Roman empire with the Canon laws of the church of Rome and the code of Justinian of the sixth century, that is the code that governs every country in the world. It gives opportunity for tyrannical power. Our common law tradition does not do that. We're gonna go over those fundamentals.
They're biblical. They're biblical too, but that doesn't mean it arose from the Bible. Our common law did not. Our bible our common law arises from our observations of creation and the relationships, as Blackstone puts it in his commentaries on the laws of England Seventeen Sixty Five. It our common law arises from our observation of the relationships and how they work, how, not what, how they work between men and men, men and things, things and things, men and animals. That's all our common law tradition. And we observe, hey. Wait a minute. We've been watching this for centuries. Oh, we get it. Oh, this is what we're gonna say we're gonna do here. This is how we apply and to be calculated to achieve these unchangeable outcome standards that God has given us. Our Puritan forebearers, which were the pilgrim, they were a sect, a part of the Puritan tradition.
They said when they got here, what's the first thing they established? Well, the first thing they established is what they established all over the North American continent no matter where they got. First thing they established were courts and they impaneled juries being English speaking people. That's all they knew. They impaneled juries. What's the next thing they established? Well, they finally got around to establish an executive branch to fulfill the rulings of the courts. The legislation, they said, we don't need that. We got the outcome standards in the Bible. Why do we need more than that? Well, these are the three branches of our of our common law tradition. This is Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com common lawyer dot com. Join us for that website. Join us for the comparative law course we're teaching there.
And, you can also get the winterized translation of the Bible and the comparative law text, but that will be included, 958 pages, comparing and contrasting our law of the land with the law of the city. That will be included with the course. Thank you, Roger.
[02:00:06] Unknown:
No, Brett. As always Questions and comments. Just a pleasure to have you, buddy. And, all these many years of doing these Friday shows, for the, we'll stick around after the show here. I wanna explain something to the guys on the board, And, we'll, see you again Saturday. That's tomorrow. And, of course, Brent and I are on opposite each other tomorrow. Sometimes that works out, and sometimes it's a opposition, but you can listen to one of the other, recorded your choice. Otherwise and that will, look forward to seeing you tomorrow and see, see what happens today. There's a lot of, a lot of stuff flying for sure.
So, Brent, thank you so much, Franny. Always a pleasure to see you, sweetie, and, we'll, look for you next Friday and see where the world is at that point. But thanks, for all your explanation and your expertise. It's just a wealth of knowledge, and I will tell you it's hard to do a bad show with Brent Winters on board. So we'll see you tomorrow or soon. Take care. Ciao. Ciao. Okay. Hold on, Larry. Hold on. You, your questions have taken about thirty minutes here. I wanted to put into and buttress Brent's upcoming seminar on the comparative law. And what stuck with me that I was amazed at, I'm gonna tell it. I'm gonna attribute it to you, Brent, that, a rich Jewish guy hired Blackstone to go into Oxford and teach the law of the city.
Now at that point, correct me if I'm wrong, Brent, but the common law had never been written down. And so what Blackstone did was figured out the only way to go teach the law of the city was to teach the comparative differences between the two schools. And out of that came Blackstone's Commentaries. And out of that, Blackstone's Commentaries was the second most read book in the colonies. And was the first time it had ever been written down. I was astounded when Brent told us that, but that's what he's got coming up with sheriff Darr, one of the, few there's few common law sheriffs kind in the country.
And,
[02:02:29] Unknown:
I will be very anxious. That starts in July what, Brent? Tenth? July the tenth is scheduled. Thanks, Roger. And, yeah, you're fundamentally correct. Werner was a wealthy Jewish merchant in England, and he established a chair of of lecture at Oxford. And, he used the back he was supposed to teach about the law of the city, the civil laws of Rome. That's what this what Werner wanted him to do. But he said, I can't really demonstrate what it is without comparing and contrasting the only other tradition of religion, law, and government in the world. And that it is the only there's only two. Yep. And a thousand different labels, the law of the city, the the false one comes under, making people think there are a lot of traditions, different religions, and no. Not at all. Not at all. Just one. You just learn, like, our common law. Somebody said, is Brent still here or a question or hey. Go ahead. Yeah. It was Paul. Paul, your question? Hold on. I've been trying to get it in for about a half hour.
Well, hang on, Paul. Paul. Thank you. Alright, Samuel. Woah. Woah. Woah.
[02:03:28] Unknown:
I'll get to you. No. No. No. No. He Yeah. Go ahead. He's in here. I defer to him because he has been on mute as well as to the show.
[02:03:37] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to ask Brent, what year did he start lawyering full time?
[02:03:49] Unknown:
What year did I start lawyering full time? And I'm taking the words for what you said. Now I started lawyering, full time in the year '19, '88.
[02:04:09] Unknown:
Thank you.
[02:04:11] Unknown:
Okay. You know where that lawyering term came from was John. He he had about a three hour conversation with Larry Beecraft on the tax thing, all that old tax stuff they'd accumulated. And after the when Larry didn't get it, and John John said Larry's been lawyer in too long. Go ahead, Paul.
[02:04:33] Unknown:
But wait, Paul. Our other caller.
[02:04:35] Unknown:
Paul? Paul? Yeah. Can I make one more comment? I distinguish there between the word lawyering and attorney. And, attorneys are people that are licensed, but I've been working for lawyers since 1988. Well, if that answers the question. Thank you. Go ahead.
[02:04:51] Unknown:
I have a question for you real quick, and it's something that I'm actually working on right now. Well, hang on a minute. I think Paul was ahead of you. Weren't you, Paul? Okay. Go ahead.
[02:05:00] Unknown:
Well okay. Hang on a minute, Alan. Our new caller that's been unmuted for most of the show. I wanna know if he's got anything else that he wants to ask.
[02:05:13] Unknown:
You mean Josh? Yeah. Josh. Josh. Did you get a drink out of a fire hydrant today or what?
[02:05:23] Unknown:
Well, I've I've got a got a number of number of comments after listening to Brent. I'll touch on high volt really quickly and the what he said with the Supreme Court saying if the state law or if the state had a law that's, mandated ID provided. Well, in my case, it didn't. Like I said, the word shall and may are legally distinct, and the assistant attorney general in the state agreed with me on that. So I'll leave it there. And then the second thing I would like to add is, one of the things that differentiates, as far as I know, between common law and civil law would be in common law, there has to be a damaged party for a crime to occur, whereas law, like much of our statutes in this country, you have two types of crimes, malakose and malakrohibita.
Malakose and malakrohibita. Malakose is the same as things that are evil in and of themselves. Okay. That's pit that's patriot
[02:06:20] Unknown:
that. That is patriot mythology. No. There doesn't have to be in there. That's centuries of reality. And that's patriot mythology because there are a lot of crimes that have been around for centuries that don't require a damaged party. I'm glad you brought that up, though, and I appreciate it. And what you were saying about malaproheembitant, all that's very important. And, but I wanna flesh that out in the course. I'm glad you said that. I wanna write that down, and I don't wanna forget it. Thanks.
[02:06:49] Unknown:
So, anyway, Josh, we have to add to that. Yeah. Go ahead.
[02:06:53] Unknown:
So and so, like, and, again, I'm not gonna divulge too much into it. But, like, in Christie's case, you know, she's being charged with a she well, she's not being charged with a crime, but people that weren't are are not a national would be charged with a crime in her situation. And what she did was,
[02:07:14] Unknown:
Now Josh. Josh. Josh. Josh. Yes. Josh.
[02:07:19] Unknown:
Christie hasn't even told this story yet. Don't take her thunder away. Okay? Okay. Fair fair enough. You got sorry. I wasn't trying too too far into it, but I'll use other examples. Like, in United States, we have, federal firearms laws. For instance, we have situations where the laws gradually change. For instance, the 1934 NFA act when they prohibited the sale of suppressors and machine guns without paying a $200 tax stamp. Well, in 1934, '2 hundred dollars was equivalent to about $4,000 in today's dollars. So the attempt of that was not to, keep people safe and regulate them. It was to make it financially unaffordable for people to own suppressors and and machine guns.
And so there is no damage to the party if I have a machine gun, but I don't go hurt anybody with it. But yet I'm a That's not that's not the reason. And that is That but
[02:08:14] Unknown:
yeah. That that that that there's no connection there. You're forgive me for just being point blank. There never has been a law in our common law tradition that said there has to be a damaged party. For instance, a lot of times, the under the police powers of the states, the police powers of the states are the power to dictate the future behaviors of men, for the health, education, and welfare of the people that live in your state. That's always been true in our constitution. We recommend and the the federal government doesn't have that power in your states. It's called the police powers. It's a very powerful power, and that's the great danger of legislation, but there it is. And the police power say, for example, you have to educate your children.
States have every right in the interest of the people of the state to pass a law saying you have to educate your children, but however you do it. And most states have I think all states have those kind of laws. Then the question comes, do they have the power to direct to tell you how to direct that education and what kind of education? And our supreme court said no, that you don't. Under the under the our common law tradition, that's against the law. In the bible, that's against the law. The state doesn't have that power. What about the the the power to haul dynamite and nitroglycerin?
In my part of the world, there's oil production. People have been hauling dynamite for years. But in order to haul dynamite, you commit a crime if you haven't gotten permission from the state to store it and haul it the way they say to do it. Why? Police powers, the health and educate the health and the the safety of the people in the state. There have been a lot of people where I'm from, not more than two miles from where I grew up, a nitroglycerin factory
[02:10:01] Unknown:
blew up. Killed a lot of people.
[02:10:03] Unknown:
Killed a lot of people. Well, there was a rule that said they had to put the factory away from an, a city or a town or an habitable place. That's a Oh, a branch. But that it's a crime even though nobody got hurt. So you'd have to find them.
[02:10:18] Unknown:
Somebody's got their mic open and we got, like, rubbing sandpaper or something noise. It's extremely distracting. Okay.
[02:10:28] Unknown:
Well well, fair fair enough on that. But I I've I study second amendment cases weekly. And, like, for instance, we have Bruin versus New York, decided by the US Supreme Court a couple years ago. And god bless bless that justice, Clarence Thomas because he's he's been, very pro second amendment on the US Supreme Court, but we have lower federal certain courts of appeals that, blatantly disregard previous US Supreme Court decisions and do not apply the same, the standards that have been decided by the US Supreme Court in previous cases. So I I lose, faith as time goes on in the ability of these judges to make a non politically biased decision because when you can read things in plain English, like the Eller test from 02/2007, it says if a firearm is in common use, then it's protected. Well, we have a hundred million AR fifteens in this country, and we have, numerous states that have banned them along with normal capacity magazines that are in use by the billions.
And yet US Supreme Court refuses to step in and hear those cases in Grant Sertiori. So in situations like that, you have the US Supreme Court refusing to, enforce their own decisions upon courts that are blatantly defying them. So Well, you've got a second amendment. A whole lot of hate measures.
[02:11:56] Unknown:
The second amendment trumps all that, and the police power don't matter in that case. So that doesn't violate the police power. So Oh, please find that noise where it's coming from, please.
[02:12:05] Unknown:
Does nobody else hear that? It's like a spray gun or somebody using sandpaper or something.
[02:12:12] Unknown:
It's going from Josh. Do you hear that?
[02:12:16] Unknown:
I I don't hear it. I'll I'll I'll mute it. No. That's it. Okay. But gosh. Hush.
[02:12:21] Unknown:
Okay. It's gone. Thank you, Paul. Okay.
[02:12:26] Unknown:
Can I inject now? I have a little thing that you might wanna enjoy.
[02:12:31] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead, Alan.
[02:12:33] Unknown:
Going back to the common law part of this, and it's it's as much as a question, it's a statement. But, basically, when you're working in common law, you have to remember the filing that you're making as as applied to you, not as applied to the statute. And I just recently had a petition that the judge came out and applied the statute rather than applying how it affected me or the case that I had brought. And, that is a distinct difference between, common law and statutory law and how they are improperly mixed or by error because it would be how the law applies to me, not the fact that there is a law. Can someone, express on that a little bit better than I am?
[02:13:20] Unknown:
I don't think you made your well, to me, I'm I'm not clear on what you're driving at. Statutes, our courts look at statutes. First thing they say is it does it pass constitutional muster? If it passes if they say, well, yeah, pass a constitutional muster, then they'll try to apply it, and they'll try to apply it according to rules of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, that means rules of interpretations of writings of legal significance such as the Bible, such as our constitution, such as a a statute, a trust indenture, a written contract. The rules are all the same. And what they come down to fundamentally, Justice Scalia wrote a book, and I think something like 35 canons of interpretation.
He wrote it with another fellow. I looked at all of them. Yeah. I get it. But I could categorize all of those under two rules. And if you follow these two rules, you'll not make a mistake. And they're in the Bible, and they're fundamental, and they come right in the law of Moses. And what it says in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, do not add to and do not take away from this law. Well, that's what Jesus Christ said. Every jot and every tittle, don't add to it. Don't take away from it. If you add something to it that's not there, well, you're watering it down. You're taking away from it. If you take away from it, it's something's gonna fill that void and add to it. See, it just you can't win doing that. And all every rule that justice Scalia puts down, I'm glad he did it, blesses it out. But just remember those two rules, my friend. I've been doing this for a long time and I've just in my mind, I say, okay. I get it. Let's make it simple. I like to make things simple because I wanna make it something I can understand. And if I can get the big big picture and then boil it down, and I pass this along to you for what it's worth. When you go to the Bible, just remember, don't add anything to it, and don't take anything away from it. When you go I think I can clarify what I was saying. When you get to the constitution of The United States, do the same thing. Go ahead.
[02:15:28] Unknown:
Basically, let's say the EPA comes out and says any small body of water over 500 gallons is navigable, and and it's our control. Well, as it is applied, does that include my swimming pool? So as it applied, it does not include my swimming pool. It includes natural bodies of water, would be one example. So as it applied, does not apply. It's it's infringement upon my right in that case, and the statute is designed to where if it is not mentioned in the statute, then it is lawful. So as it applies, that statute does not apply. And that was the, point I was trying to make. A lot of judges will sit there and look at the statute and say, oh, well, that applies. Just simply because the statute was determined to be constitutional, but not as applied.
And, as applied seems to be a very, important, milestone in in describing, law when we're discussing common law versus statutory.
[02:16:31] Unknown:
I yield. Let's let's go let's do it this way. I'm glad you brought that up, and it took me a while. Say, well, how can I talk I wanna talk about this a little, and I need to add this point to the course and make sure I cover it? Here it is. Here's the principle of interpretation of writing his legal significance put in another way. And this is pretty simple too. Any interpretation of any particular pericope, that mean any statute, only has one interpretation. Period. If there are if there are 40 interpretations to, for example, thou shall not steal in the Bible, if there are 40 interpretations of that, I guarantee a 39 of them are wrong.
And possibly all 40, maybe 40 people missed it entirely. Well, that's true of every law. It has to be looked at that way. Now watch. There's only one fundamental principle in every law. Only one. And it's your, it's the court's job and your job to find it by the way. But the application of that principle is without limit to the human condition. The fact patterns that arise and how it's applied are beyond anything you could ever imagine. And the court's job is to see to that proper application. There's a distinction. Let me say it again. There's a distinction between the principle and the application.
And it's important, of course, we are given discernment as mere mortals as members of Adam's race in this day of man to make that discernment of the application. For instance, Paul the apostle says the law of God the law of Moses says, he's quoting, do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. And Paul the apostle says, what does that mean? Well, there's a lot of ways to apply it. Number one, if, if a man's working, he's entitled to be fed. I remember watching people with hay crews, having young men, old men, vagabonds come in and wanna work. And the one thing that I watch men say to people that came in and wanted to work, they said, I'll feed you. I'll feed you good. Well, that was an incentive right there. Bottom line, the law of God in first principle, the one interpretation of all we see in it when it comes to master servant, employer, employee, you feed the man that's working. You let him partake of the fruits of the of the harvest.
You gotta feed him and probably pay him too. And Paul the Apostle says, and by the way, if you're gonna not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain, pay your preacher if he's teaching the Bible. Pay him. Not only pay him, says Paul, pay him double. That's axiomatic. The Bible says, for example, do not when you harvest your fields, don't harvest the corners and do not go through and try to glean the grain that you dropped on the ground, first time through. Leave that for the birds and the wild beast and the widow woman and the orphan and the stranger who's there who doesn't have a job, doesn't have any way to make money. Well, how do we apply that? I remember people setting, old furniture out in their alleys when I lived out in Whittier, California A Hundred Years ago. Old furniture, even sometimes food for the homeless people and the vagabonds to come through the alley and pick up what they wanted.
Is that a good application of that principle? You better believe it is. Don't be a skin flint and say you've got to take advantage of every dollar and every parcel of food you have. If you've got a extra loaf, day old leftover, give it to the rescue mission downtown. Is that an application of the first principle? Yes. And it's our job as members of Adam's race to look at the law, whatever it is, and say, oh, what's the principle here? The overarching principle that has many applications. That's our job. So that's the distinction that needs to be made in our common law tradition as the court's job to say when people argue, what is the principle? Now we know that what is this the application to these specific people in this specific circumstance. That's right. That's very right. Well, thanks for bringing that up.
[02:20:44] Unknown:
Alright.
[02:20:46] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[02:20:48] Unknown:
I have a question. I actually have a number of questions. Roger. Oh, Larry. Hang on a minute, Larry. Hang on a minute. Mute, please. Thank you. You had mentioned that the Supreme Court, was of the opinion that if a state, put in their statutes the requirement to provide identification or to identify yourself. Now some would say that that flies in the face of fifth amendment protections against self incrimination. So rather than argue the fact that your Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the state insisted that you provide identification, could you not go at it with another angle and challenge the constitutionality of that legislation at the state level?
Because Well, that's why any Yeah. That's what he did. Because anything abhorrent to the constitution is null and void on its face. Well, that's true. But to put it a little more
[02:22:03] Unknown:
further. To put it a little more to put it a little more Stop. Stop. Alan, hang on. Alan.
[02:22:09] Unknown:
Alan, please.
[02:22:11] Unknown:
We love it. We love it that these fellows are chafing at the bit to get involved, but, we have to show restraint at some points, please. And you're you're helping. But, the point here is that it's against the law as the Supreme Court has observed and other courts to penalize somebody with a criminal penalty for exercising and enjoying a fundamental duty God has given him, namely jurisdiction over his own tongue. And I'm not to be penalized for saying I don't wanna talk. I'm not be to be penalized for talking, free freedom of speech. That's the principle. They said a $250 fine. That's a penalty for enjoying a responsibility that God has given you. That's not to be allowed. That's the theory. So when you say unconstitutional, yeah, that's what Haibol, this fellow from Nevada argued.
You're infringing upon my responsibility that God gave me and you're not in the mix. God gave it directly to me. He didn't come through government like a civil right. A civil right is something that come through government or come through another person. No. No. Fundamental rights are the rights that come straight from God to the individual and government has no authority to interfere. Right to remain silent, freedom of religion, the duty to keep and carry a gun. The government has no authority according to our Christian understanding. And don't tell me, do not tell me that those men that ratified the constitution of The United States and the 13 colonies would ever allowed anybody, even the ones that would never darken the door of a church, would allow anybody to talk ugly or go against the Bible. They wouldn't have. That was the culture. That was serious business, and it still is with a lot of people.
So, yeah, that's what it is, Paul. I I think you hit the nail, as they say, with your head, and that's that's the whole point. Alan?
[02:24:05] Unknown:
Fumbling with my, mute. I'm sorry. I I couldn't hear, someone, talking. But, a couple of points that I'd like to make out. First of all, if we go back to World War two, identification was a form of a, well, a tattoo on your arm that was a numerical tattoo. Exactly what limit is that, identification limited to? And then the other point I wanted to make was the fact that none of these states, none of them, can actually make a law or a statute that would infringe upon any right, including your second amendment rights banning in one state an expanded magazine in another state allowing it.
That's not even a legal impossibility in The United States. However, they have violated that from the get go. And how I can describe that is simple. Yeah. Only the federal government has the power to reduce or limit your rights, meaning that the states only have the power to expand your rights. If the federal government says you only can have maybe six, rounds in your shotgun when you're going hunting and you're capable of carrying more or, there are a couple of states I think that you only can have three, one in the chamber and two in the rack. So the question is, can the states limit your rights further? The answer is absolutely no.
[02:25:27] Unknown:
Wait. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Where do you come off saying that the federal government has jurisdiction to limit your rights? We're we're As a matter of fact, they're the only ones that can define the limitation of your rights. But but but wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Who who says the federal government where do you get this idea that any government has authority to interfere with a right, a duty, that's a duty, that god has given to me?
[02:25:52] Unknown:
Okay. Well, let's let's take it out outside of the duty of firearm.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
Okay? No. No. No. No. No. No. Let's just stay where we are. You you were there. That's a good one. That's like any other right that God gives to men, any other duty. So how is it the federal government has the authority to do that when the constitution says they don't?
[02:26:14] Unknown:
Actually, I'm not exactly I'm looking it up right now, but I do know it's a fundamental principle
[02:26:21] Unknown:
doctrines that they've ever Now wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. You don't have to look this up. This is easy. Does the government, the general government in Washington, DC, have any authority, and that means a right, that means lawful, to interfere with anybody's duty to keep and carry a firearm loaded. You tell me. Well, I'll tell you what. How about if we use No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No. I I said yes or no a while ago. I want yes or no. With your air sight. No. No. No. Yes or no?
[02:26:54] Unknown:
Yes or no? Well, the the question was phrased in, in,
[02:26:58] Unknown:
favor of the state, not the government. Or I'd ask you again. I'd ask you again. Does the general government in Washington, DC have any lawful authority, that's the only kind there is, to interfere with my or anybody else's duty to keep the security of power?
[02:27:15] Unknown:
No. Okay.
[02:27:18] Unknown:
And the federal law. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Yes or no. Then you can explain or give me provisos. I want yes or no. The answer is yes. Oh, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Now, secondly, you're saying they have authority. Where do they get that authority to do that? Do you say they have On the constitution. Now where does the constitution say they have authority? The general government in Washington, DC has authority to enter fear with duties in the bill of rights, for example. And and the principle of creating the constitution itself, The US constitution and federal law established minimum standards of individual rights and protections. Well, I have to say no. I have to say you're just flat wrong. You don't know, Moe. No. No. No. No. No. I do want you to hear that. You're so flat wrong. That explains what I was saying a while ago. Wrong headedness. You're headed the wrong direction. Okay. Let me use a different, let me use a different example.
[02:28:12] Unknown:
Now There are no example. There are always one It's not well No. No. No. No. No. The constitution of The United States is final.
[02:28:19] Unknown:
Period. That's why it's there. If you approach it any other way, you're going down the wrong road and everything you do I'm not approaching it. Off kilter, and that it appears it is. I That's that's No. I'm I'm not approaching it that way, and I could see where you got that
[02:28:35] Unknown:
misunderstanding, especially when I use that example. However, the marijuana in most states are not lawful because it is not lawful at a federal level, and the states adopt that restriction on your rights not to have or possess marijuana. However and this is how it works. The sovereignty of the state is given by the sovereignty of the people. And upon demand of the sovereignty of the people to the state, the state can remove that restriction allowing legal sale of marijuana.
[02:29:09] Unknown:
A lot of people do not understand that, and this is where I bumped into this principle. Oh, you're not talking about fundamental rights here. Talk you were talking about fundamental marijuana as a different subject. No government has any authority that I can see it even mess with. Pass laws respecting it. But let's get back to why you're taking the position that the general government has authority to interfere with, fundamental God given, directly bestowed responsibilities.
[02:29:38] Unknown:
Because they're the ones that set the parameters
[02:29:40] Unknown:
of those rights. Okay. Oh oh oh oh oh oh. So they're the authors. So I can't stand up. The government, the general government in Washington, DC can tell me there's certain things I can't teach out of the Bible. That's what you're saying. Clearly. Technically, you are absolutely correct. No. No. No. You are absolutely correct. No. No. No. No. You are absolutely correct. Okay. No. I don't let this by the way. I'm gonna go eat lunch. You're still gonna hit it. Thanks, Brent. That explains why you're just going off in rabbit trails and you're going backwards on most everything you say. And we don't want you to air those things here. You're off because you're following a different law giver. You're not following the God of creation that I know about. You're going the wrong way. You're thinking that government has that authority. And if you don't start by saying no, they don't, everything you say is gonna be wrong. It's just that simple.
[02:30:37] Unknown:
Hey, Brent.
[02:30:38] Unknown:
Yeah. Paul, go ahead.
[02:30:40] Unknown:
Because federal law sets a minimal floor of rights.
[02:30:46] Unknown:
That's you just need to stop talking. You're wrong. You're just flat wrong.
[02:30:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I I see what the problem is. The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the government what they cannot do, and it's very clear that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people. The problem where it's getting all muddied up is when the original states were created, the original states were sovereign because they got their sovereignty from the will of the people. And then the states followed the golden honeypot, and they joined with the corporate United States federal government for the goodies, and they signed away that which they never had the authority to compromise in the first place.
They sold their sovereignty to the federal government. They are nothing more than little whipping boys for whoever the federal government wants to attack at any given moment. This is a new day. This is a new year.
[02:31:52] Unknown:
Paul, thank you. I just want everybody to know who's listening. I won't discuss I won't discuss this question if somebody's gonna go off like that, there's nothing to discuss. Life's too short. We gotta get our, if we're not going to get on the same page, go the right direction. I'm not willing to talk to people that are going the wrong direction. He's going the wrong direction. Clearly. But, be it that as it may, Paul and the rest of you, I appreciate all the questions. I even appreciate that. It gives me an opportunity to make clear what the truth is. Now you if you start out with the wrong foundation, thinking that somehow governments have authority to say what the law is, you got a problem.
And that's the problem that all America is struggling with. It was true at one time, and is still in some men's minds that the law is a brooding omnipresence. Mhmm. And if we don't have that point of view about law, then all of our freedoms are gone. And that's what I heard him saying. Now if somebody can tell me otherwise and say, Brent, no. You didn't understand what he was saying, but, no, I think I do at this point. And he, is pretty forthright about it. I don't want people to air that point of view here. We don't want people to think there's any legitimacy to it.
As long as I'm in charge of being here, I'm in charge of microphones, I don't want it aired because it's false. We can entertain it as a falsity, but not as truth. That's my responsibility, and I'm going to follow it through. Well, Paul, did you have something else you want to say?
[02:33:22] Unknown:
Yeah. It's it's been very clear over the last two or three years, like, particularly with our process. We're we can very easily make the government, the federal government, stand down. We can tell them, look. You don't have jurisdiction over us, and you're never gonna have it again. Problems that we're having is with the state level, and it's those state entities that were created by contract in our political subdivisions of the federal government. We are dealing with the tyrants on our own shores, on our own ground.
You have to do nothing more than to walk a mile down a sidewalk if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time. A cop is going to pull you aside, and he's gonna force you to identify yourself or he's gonna try to, and he is going to try once he finds a person, he's going to find a crime to associate with that person. Now the way it used to be many years ago was if there was a crime, they would investigate to find the guilty party. Now they have a person, and they investigate to find something to hang him with. And one of those indicators, one of those differences throughout history can be very simply between the definition of jury trial and trial by jury. It's interesting that jury trial doesn't exist in the fourth edition of Black's Law, but trial by jury does.
But in sixth edition of Black's Law, it goes into a nice long healthy description of the jury trial. And that was that was born in the nineties.
[02:35:10] Unknown:
By the way, Paul, the fellow that edited the sixth edition, was the coauthor with Justice Scalia, under his book on principles of interpretation. And he's not a lawyer, by the way. He's an etymologist. He's a he's a word a man a man that studies words and the history of words, and that's why it's such a good addition, but one of the reasons. But, anyway, go ahead, Paul. Thanks.
[02:35:37] Unknown:
I would challenge Alan who has hold on one second. I would challenge Alan that is on first name basis with ChatGPT to actually pose the question. What are the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a trial by jury. I would love to see what JPG comes up with about that. Was that our new guy?
[02:36:08] Unknown:
Sorry. No. It's Larry.
[02:36:10] Unknown:
Okay, Larry.
[02:36:12] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I do. I can't remember if it's the, the the earlier constitution of California or the later constitution. I've read them both. And within the opening paragraphs of the California constitution, it uses trial by jury and jury trial synonymously. So in other words, I think it starts out in, like, the first couple of sentences to mention that the that California will be a state with that which will include a trial by jury, and then maybe another sentence or two later, it says jury trial. So it's almost like it's using it synonymously. It's not making out making it out that there's some, you know, extreme distinction like what goes on today in patriot mythology.
And, another thing is, I wanna let Brent know that I was using the word advice loosely. I was not seeking legal advice. You know, I was kinda use it using it synonymously with the words, you know, what do you suggest. And then the other thing is, Roger teaches us, Brent, that when we file our paperwork with the Department of State rebutting the presumption that we're federal citizens, that that is a court of record. And I was wondering if you agree that, like, according to the definition that you gave earlier when I asked, you know, what a court of record was, is is that the same thing, or is that a different kind of court of record?
[02:37:48] Unknown:
Well, the judicial branch has courts of record. But when you're filing your papers with the executive branch, the Department of State, that's under the president and his authority, then you're not in a court. You're in you may have they have in those bureaucracies what we call administrative tribunals, and they applied administrative law. I've discovered in the bureaucracies, the administrative courts, they will use the common law rules of evidence as long as they to make it look real nice and gives them something to do. But if they don't get what they want, they'll abandon them. Why? Well, that's the executive branch. That'd be like a a police officer stopping you on the road. That's the executive branch and, writing you a ticket. He holds court right there when he does that. He makes up his mind what you're doing. That's why he stopped you. But, of course, in our common law tradition, that decision of the executive branch is is, subject to the judicial branch if you want it to be.
But the, executive branch wants to have all the power. So now they have tribunals like the tax court at the federal level, and they make it look like a real court to have judges with black robes. And the Supreme Court of the United States has not even been able to land and say for sure whether or not that's, a common law judicial branch court. Well, it's obvious to me it isn't. Who appoints the judges? Do they follow the process, the course of process for appointment of judges and establishment of courts? Well, you get that's what you have to have to look at to decide whether it's part of the judicial branch or part of the executive. And the way I read the Supreme Court of the United States, haven't looked recently, they have been unable to land. It seems odd to me that people from Ivy League law schools can't land on that. That's shocking, frankly.
But you discover too, as I've said in the beginning, that judges are just like, everybody else, but more so. They're weak. They're mortal. They're stupid. They're sinners. They're blinded. They're unenlightened. They know some things and not others. That's why we have due process. That's why we go through all this process hoping that in the midst of all of our mortal, difficulties and our weaknesses, the truth will somehow in this adversarial common law tradition, bob forth and just bang, there it is. That, that it does happen sometimes. But we believe in our Christian tradition, which is our common law tradition, that the truth is buried with an overburden over top of it of unrighteousness, evil.
And we believe the only way to get down and mine it out is to fight. And that's what a common law trial is. Now, while ago, you're talking about the difference between common law, trial by jury and and jury trial. It's been my observe observation that, the the way the courts use the word and and the legislators, that that phrase, I don't see that they make any distinction, and I don't think most people would just know the English language. They wouldn't make a distinction. If, Black's law dictionary makes a distinction, that's good. But remember, Black's law dictionary is not final for anything. Black's law dictionary does not dictate by any binding of by custom or law, anybody.
The only thing that binds the courts is the way that the way the the legal opinions use words. That's a tradition that it binds the courts that's unwritten. No place, histori decisis, written down in statute or anything. No. The separate and coequal doctrine of our common law says the courts operate on their own. They don't need anybody else tell them what to do or how to do it. The legislature tries to tell them how to do it. They pass statutes about evidence and process. And if the court wants to follow it, they do. But they get to interpret it. And here's where the power is, friends, And this is our common law tradition. Whoever I'm I'm again, I'm just repeating what people have said for thousands of years.
Whoever has a power to be the final arbiter Now that a final arbiter is one who makes a decision and is not obligated to give any reasons for it. Whoever has the final power of arbiter in any specific instance, like in a court case, is the most powerful person in that jurisdiction. Period. And boy, the more you read law and the more you, think about what justice is, the more you see that justice only occurs in that individual instance. It doesn't occur anywhere else. And who has the power in our common law tradition to make that decision? And the answer is the 12 man jury.
They are the arbiters. They're not required to give any reasons, and they can do as they blame well, please. Well, in the rest of the world, who's the final arbiter? I'll tell you who the final arbiter is. It's the legislator, whether it be a single emperor, an empress, a king, a bevy of a small bevy of men, or a legislature. However they define it, it's government by a single will and the final arbiter. My honey. Well, who does who's the jury? Right. In a common law country, the 12 man jury. They're not they're not representatives of anything or anybody.
They are a cross section sample of the people themselves, the militia. The militia. Yeah. That's who the people are. And they make the decision, and they're not obligated to tell anybody why. Makes sense. These are the fundamentals we want to cover in more detail in our course. And if I could, hell, here's what I've discovered is funny, and I just be forthright with you here. You folks that listen to me, and I, again, appreciate all your questions. It's frustrating to me as a fellow that I have a testimony to give about what I've seen and what I've heard, and I see clearly which direction truth is and which it isn't. People will actually fight to defend the common law gurus.
And the common law gurus, many of them are wrong headed. I'll say it point blank. I've watched them. I won't say which ones. I'm just saying there's this either you're headed down the right road or you're going the the wrong direction. And if you follow most all the ones I've listened to, you're gonna go the wrong direction because they miss it. And I might add this also. I seldom meet a lawyer who is going the right direction. The only thing that keeps our country on the right road now is that the machinery, the common law customs are in place, and the lawyers follow them out of habit. They don't have a clue why. They don't know the difference. They don't even know there are two traditions of religion, law, and government in the world. They're not taught it. They're not required to learn about it in law school. Used to, but not anymore. And it's been my quest for what all I can do is give my testimony.
I can't make anybody believe anything. But like any man who delivers testimony of the truth, it, it's it's a burden to watch my own people reject it. That's the truth. But it's not my job to worry about that, and I just my job is to continue to say what I know to be true. So that's why I do it. And I hope you can join us for the course, whoever you are, whether you like me, whether you hate me, whether you agree with me or disagree with me. Some of you disagree with me and love me. I love you disagree with me and hate me. Some of you agree me agree with me and hate me. I mean, you got all these different combinations. That's not the concern. The concern is, what did God say? What has God revealed to us in those two volumes? That's the only thing that matters, friend.
Let's let's look at it and find out what it is. Back to you, Paul. Well Well, quick one.
[02:45:33] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:45:34] Unknown:
I got an answer for your chat GPT question.
[02:45:37] Unknown:
Okay. Oh, hang on. Hold the hold the phone. Is that Rick?
[02:45:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, real quick. Someone in the chat is saying that supremacy clause gives federal government the right to violate the bill of rights. Can you speak briefly on that? Clearly. A supremacy clause, we debated this with a well known man in some circles in the identity movement that wrote a book on the subject over 500 pages saying the supremacy clause is antichrist because it puts, the constitution above the Bible. Bottom line, here it is. The supremacy clause says that this constitution is the supreme law of the land. This constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well, the bill of rights is the cons part of the constitution.
All our understanding of interpretation of writings of legal significance like the constitution says, we must interpret it and apply it in a way that all of its parts are consistently that consistently tell, and we don't want to when we interpret this part of it, we don't we want to interpret it so it's all consistent and it all has full force. So that's one way to look, and that's not that hasn't, that doesn't happen. The as a matter of lawfulness, our our our supremacy clause, doesn't make any one part of the constitution trump any other part. That's silliness. And number two, the phrase law of the land is but is lifted from Magna Carta, written in Latin, by the way, by the greatest old testament commentator of his day, Stephen Langton. He's the chief drafter, and he is the one that gave us our chapter divisions to our bibles.
And he said lexeterum, which is translated into English law of the land. Well, where'd that come from? As part of our common law tradition going back way before Magna Carta, our common laws had different names through the centuries, and one of them is law of the land or land law. The law of the land. What is the our, our common law? I said a while ago. It is due process. It doesn't include due process. It is due process. And they used to call it the law of the land. Those that drafted our constitution in The United States lifted that phrase out of chapter 39 of Magna Carta. Why? Because they thought it was that important that we say that our constitution in The United States is the way the courses of process we are to use, imply to the government of the United States in Washington, DC.
That's what that clause says. Now that it doesn't trump the constitution, that's just silly. That's inconsistent silliness to say that. It is part of the constitution. Secondly, to say that trumps the Bible is it would be silliness to say that the ratifiers of our constitution, which were the militiamen of the 13 colonies, become states. It would be utter silliness to say they would have done anything that would have trumped the Bible, and they didn't. And that's not what that phrase means. What is the Bible? I mentioned a while ago. Our Bible includes the outcome standards that God has given us and some due process, quite a bit. But God has delegated to us the authority of discernment as militiamen to decide what is fair and how to have a fair fight. That's a common law phrase. He fought me a fair fight.
May the best man may the best man win. May the best case win. Those are common law phrases from our common law world. We go to court and we fight. They do not fight in the rest of the world. They go to tribunals. Inquisitions. The the rest of the world is fundamentally inquisitorial. Our common law tradition is fundamentally adversarial. We fight. Trial a battle by trial used to be trial by battle, friends, and all of the same rules apply. If you had a dispute over land in the old country, you could challenge a man up until the eighteen hundreds to battle or trial by battle. But amazingly, again, all the same rules of due process applied. You had to give him notice, opportunity of the place of a battle, etcetera.
And, that was done according to various specific rules. Those rules are transferred and used in our common law trials now. You have to give notice, opportunity to of the place and time of the contest and the trial or the hearing, all of those things. So we fight. That's why I say we fight before the jury. And the, the trial is we call it trial because that's what it is. It's, it's a fight. That's a pretty tough fight. They don't have them in the rest of the world at all. It takes a lot of energy. Now here's the point I'm gonna make now. I again, all of you, this has been adversarial today a little bit. That's our common law tradition. That's what we do.
And I hope the truth is bobbed forth. And I I have to go because I have to attend a meeting, but I'm enjoying the discussion. And I hope you all come back and I hope you take that course, friends. Go to commonlawyer.com. Take advantage of what's there for what it's worth. I'd be happy if you did. Paul, are you still there? Yes. I am.
[02:51:04] Unknown:
Thank you, Brett. It's
[02:51:06] Unknown:
I think that you run for this answer.
[02:51:10] Unknown:
I It was shot
[02:51:12] Unknown:
What's that?
[02:51:13] Unknown:
I think it's gonna be healthy adversarial. Go ahead go ahead on what chat GPT says is the difference between jury trial and a trial by jury. Go ahead, Alan. Alright. Okay. Now this surprised me,
[02:51:28] Unknown:
initially, but, you have to understand. This is where lawyers actually make their money. In addition to that, there is so much dogma about, different principles and things like that. This actually now makes sense. Let me get it here. I I put it in the chat for you too. Oops. What happened to it? Here it is. Okay. The question is, what is the difference between a trial by jury as opposed to a jury trial? The answer is the meaning refers to legal right of concept where a person is entitled to have a group of peers of jury to decide the outcome of a case.
The usage more commonly used when discussing rights or constitutional guarantees is a trial by jury. However, a jury trial is in reference to the procedure. Nothing to do with altering the procedure. It is used to describe the court process or the event itself, not the right that you're discussing.
[02:52:35] Unknown:
So the the the reason Top. Top. Top. Top. All of this is getting too anal. Our common law tradition is not anal. Our common law tradition does not seek this kind of preciseness. Our common law tradition does not haggle over chicken manure. Our common law tradition is about substantial justice and not a precise fight, but a fair fight. Our common law tradition is not about equality. It's about fairness. So men are not capable of precise justice. Men will fight and haggle over words like this. You're wasting your time. Trial by jury, jury trial. It's nice that there's a distinction, but don't get caught up in that. There are big issues here that we're missing. You're like being like the man that was out trimming his bushes, making sure his grass is all the same size and the same height while a bulldozer bull bulldozes down his house. That's what this kind of discussion is. Let's talk about the big principles. What distinguishes the problem you want from that? From the law of the city. On that. But the point is there's so much dog crap there. It's interfering with our actual research. There's just so much distraction
[02:53:39] Unknown:
Uh-huh. In in these things, and it's it's been, adopted into a lot of our arguments. And the argument of a jury trial or or whatever, however you wanna phrase it, you're absolutely right. It's a distraction. But it's Okay. Very common out there, and and that's my point I was trying to make. Well, thank I get it. No. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[02:53:59] Unknown:
Appreciate it. I gotta go, gentlemen. Appreciate y'all. Yeah. Go ahead.
[02:54:05] Unknown:
Real quick. I found it. It's in the, this is Larry. It's in the California constitution of 1849, and it's con the trial by jury and jury by trial is contained within the same section three. It says the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain invalid invalid let's see. Inviolate Inviolate. Forever, but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. It uses them synonymously, and that was from a very early constitution.
[02:54:43] Unknown:
And that lang well, that constitution is quoting language from the North Northwest ordinance of 1787. Thank you again, Paul. Appreciate you trying to help keep order. We like to we like to have an adversarial procedure with order. That's a common law trial, and we'll talk to you again.
[02:55:03] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Okay. Let's drill down a little bit deeper into the jury trial as opposed to the trial by jury. I've got both definitions here, right in front of my face. God save multiple monitors, honestly. The jury trial definition, as found in the sixth edition of, Black's Law. Jury trial. Trial of matter or cause before a jury as opposed to trial before a judge. Such right is guaranteed with respect to criminal cases by article three section two clause three of The US constitution and with respect to suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20 by the Seventh Amendment.
Such right is also preserved by rule of court, example, fed our civil p 38, and by the fifth amendment, which provides inter alia for indictment by grand jury, and the sixth amendment, which contains further specifications respecting jury trial in criminal cases. In addition, state constitutions provide for right to jury trial, and the Supreme Court has held that the fourteenth amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all state criminal cases, which were they to be tried in federal court would come within the sixth amendment's guarantee. That Duncan v Louisiana three ninety one US one forty five eighty eight, s c t fourteen forty four.
Okay. Now jury trial gobbledygook Just for grins, let's look at the definition of the fourth edition, Black's Law trial by jury.
[02:57:03] Unknown:
Can I inject your probe because Hang on? Hang on. About you.
[02:57:08] Unknown:
Hang on. The hang on. The comparisons are are are necessary to not be interrupted. Trial by jury. A trial in which the issues of factor should be determined by the verdict of a jury of 12 men duly selected, empaneled, and sworn. The terms jury and trial by jury were used at the adoption of the constitution. And always, it is believed before that time and almost always since in a single sense. A jury for the trial of a cause was a body of 12 men described as upright, well qualified, and lawful men, disinterested and impartial, not of kin nor personal dependence of either of the parties, having their homes within the jurisdictional limits of the court drawn and selected by office officers free from all bias in favor of or against either parties.
No. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Okay. Duly empaneled under the direction of a competent court sworn to render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence given them, who after hearing the parties and their evidence and receiving the instructions of the court relative to the law involved in the trial and deliberating when necessary apart from all extraneous influences must return their unanimous verdict upon the issue submitted to them. And that's it. That's where the gobbledygook ends.
Therein, as far as I'm concerned, is the difference between common law and law that makes sense and gobbledygook that was put in place to screw us at every opportunity. Okay. Go ahead, Alan.
[02:58:59] Unknown:
Basically, the the problem comes from the fact that we're looking and we're we're trying to explore what is actually happening and and how are these things happening. And the opposition has given us terminology that distracts us, and then we try to present that argument. It sounds logical because there's obviously a distinction between these two phrases. One, trial by jury, and the other one, a jury trial. There's obviously a distinction between them. The distinction is not in operation. The distinction is not in the rules governing. The distinction is the difference between a hamburger and McDonald's.
If you order a hamburger, you order a hamburger. If you order a Big Mac, you order a Big Mac. There's obviously different construction in that. But when we say we're going to McDonald's or a jury trial, that's proper. But if you try to apply that as any other procedure, it is not. So these things have crept in with our critical observation or someone else critically observing and getting away with, abuse of the, English language by confusing it even further. And one thing that we do have to concede is that lawyers are even if you're 100% wrong, they are hired in order to make you look 100% right. And the only way that they can do that is by, well, desanctifying the human language.
They just literally lie. Yeah.
[03:00:31] Unknown:
Yeah. This is Larry. Yeah. Go ahead. So a couple of weeks ago, I asked Brent if there's a difference between maybe it was about a month and a half ago, if there was a difference between a jury trial and a trial by jury. And he said he gave this illustration, and he heard it from some guy, a friend of his or some someone. He heard he heard this definition, quite a while back, and it was this. Is there is there a difference between a den of lions and a lions' den? And that's exactly how we should look at the trial by jury and a jury trial because a den of lions definitely has lions in it, but a lions' den may not have lions in it. But, again, the California Constitution uses those two phrases synonymously within the same sentence.
So there is no distinction.
[03:01:29] Unknown:
Rather than the rules of the procedure, trial by jury is the rules of the procedure. Jury trial. So and and when you when you quoted that, if you go back and look at it again, that's exactly how they used it. They used it as this procedure you were entitled to, how that procedure is and what that procedure is at trial by jury. But when you try to speak that in in English, in the terms that they're using, they're trying to express that you can waive that procedure and describing the procedure rather than rules inclusive of that procedure.
So, yes, the this is, one of the biggest landmines, and it I've heard this phrase a lot of times. This is the first time I looked it up, and I wasn't surprised at the answer. It's dogma. Okay? It's a it's a way of leading us down a destructive argument so we defeat ourselves and things that we know damn well is right because we adopted their terminology.
[03:02:33] Unknown:
That's a good point, about the procedure versus the actual, you know, event. That's a good point. I could see that.
[03:02:42] Unknown:
Okay. It's president's day. It's not Washington or Trump day. It's it's just president's day. Yeah. So, one of the things that I have found and, again, I am not at all in disagreement with with him. He jumped to a different level. Okay? He jumped to a higher level than the constitution. I was below the constitution in my description and the powers of the federal government as compared to the state government after you accept the constitution as being true, not the other way around. And, the prohibitions is what the, description of the constitution is. In those prohibitions, there is our bill of rights. Okay? And if you describe it anywhere else, you wind up with a lion's den versus, a den of lions. One is definitely occupied.
Which would you rather be tossed into? So, this this same abuse has been repeated over and over again. And when I was describing federal supremacy, which is some of your junior high civics class, you will learn that the only ones that can create restrictions upon your body, anything, okay, is the federal government. You wanna fly an airplane? Well, they wanna make rules for that and give you a license. Well, obviously, we already know we don't need a license, but following those might be good practice. And if you're commercialized, then we have all these set practices that you have to follow, which is, you know, stages of of enforcement. Yes. Go ahead. That's that's the whole thing between,
[03:04:19] Unknown:
firearm or arms.
[03:04:22] Unknown:
Well, that's what I that's my biggest argument because the the federal government Let me finish.
[03:04:28] Unknown:
Let me finish. Do it. Cannot prohibit. Dude, let me finish. Good grief. The only limitation that they have on firearms is by forcing people to buy them through a federally licensed firearm dealer. And as a result of that purchase entering into a contract giving the federal government authority over you and that weapon. It's contract.
[03:04:55] Unknown:
Based on something else. And and you're absolutely right as far as the contract is concerned. But it it has to do with possession and manufacture. It does not have to do with the fact that it's a gun. It also applies to cars. You have a VIN number on the car, which is identifying, factor that all of these other things have been taken care of, and your and your taillights when you bought it worked. Okay? And that's a commercial operation. They have not restricted your access to firearms at all. Why? You can build your own. And how is it how come they can't sit there and patent that or prevent a three d printer from making it? Real easy. There's no patent on the mouse trap.
[03:05:37] Unknown:
Well, I talk about that guy in New York that during but I talk about that guy in New York when during the lockdown, he decided to get some 80% lowers, and he decided to occupy his time by, milling and assembling firearms, weapons, and arms. He can do that.
[03:05:58] Unknown:
He can do that all day long. No. No. To come No.
[03:06:03] Unknown:
No. Because the companies that he bought the 80% lowers from reported his name and his spending, activity to the ATF, and the ATF stormed and raided his house. They seized all of his weapons. They charged him with having an arsenal of ghost guns, and he's in jail right now.
[03:06:26] Unknown:
I know. But, well, who is that? That's the federal government, not the state. In addition to that, he was making his own, which is perfectly legal. You can. I can build my own car, and I don't need a VIN number. I just sit there and put my my name on it. It's done. Okay? The the problem is whether it is in commercial manufacturer or private manufacturer commercially. Because as soon as you cross that commercial boundary, and and and it's also defined in cars as well, you only can buy and sell so many cars within a year before you're considered a dealer.
[03:07:00] Unknown:
Right. Well, he hadn't sold, traded, or loaned. Wait a wait a minute. He had not sold, traded, or loaned any of the weapons that he built to anyone.
[03:07:13] Unknown:
Breakage of our law, and that's what I'm referring to. That I I cannot sit there and say, oh, well, currently, slavery is absolutely legal. Currently, it is. There's a prohibition against it, but I can sign a contract that I would e would equalize me being treated as a slave and have only that right. I can write that contract to myself. And guess what? If I make it a corporation, and there's a lot of people who have done that, they've incorporated their name, wrote their name in lowercase, okay, as a form of a contract to themselves, putting them in slavery, meaning there's no taxes.
And they've and these aren't loopholes. It's loopholes that they have created for themselves to be able to restrict you. Now I'm I can't talk about the broken parts of the law. They obviously are broken. Oh, well, this guy's in jail. Yes. He's definitely in jail. They broke the law, not him. But you see, that's where this dogma comes into. And and the the reason why it was permitted because everyone, oh, well, you you you shouldn't even have a gun, people. They're they're uneducated. And that and I diseducation, miseducation is adding to the actual education and creating a blend in between that is is blurring all of our laws and all of our principles.
It's the reason why I go back to the absolute foundation, and that's where the federal supremacy comes in. The absolute foundation after we are governed by laws and after we're governed by the constitution. That's after the fact, not before the fact, not god given rights. We're not talking about that. We're talking about something that we're aft after we're engaged these laws. These principles apply. The federal government cannot say or excuse me, can say that you cannot have a a swimming pool. That's it. Swimming pools are dangerous, and the federal government determined that. Okay? Well, weapons are dangerous. The federal government determined that. Well, the federal government also gave descriptions of which ones we can have and which ones we cannot.
And in those descriptions, I can have a fully operational Bradley sitting in my my driveway fully uploaded. It's ready to go. All you ain't gonna do is pull the trigger by law.
[03:09:37] Unknown:
Hey, you know?
[03:09:38] Unknown:
That's true. But the fact is we have blurred these laws so badly that they have trickled down into believing the states have the ability to restrict that and say you cannot have an extended magazine. That's bullshit. And don't tell me about magazine compared to clip. I well, I'm sorry. It's a difference between 1952 and 1987. I I just don't care. It's the same terminology. Okay? So when they when they say, oh, well, the state says you can't have it, that's a lie. They they don't have the authority to do it. It's just prohibited at the federal level that they can even make that legislation.
So how much legislation in the states do we already have that's bay made on this misnomer and that they can actually restrict anything? They can't. They can't even restrict, all the way down to an HOA. Now you've got a different problem. You have a commercial contract, the same as a slavery contract. But if you sit there and you follow and say, oh, well, the city ordinance says you have to have an awning or you have to have the shutters at least looking like they're shutters on your house. That's absolutely illegal. They can sit there and say, oh, you have to have your lawn mowed.
That's illegal. They don't have that authority. They never did.
[03:10:58] Unknown:
Except except by contractual agreement when you signed the papers on the house. When it was put on the tax rolls agreement.
[03:11:07] Unknown:
You can you can void that contractual agreement why the previous owner is no longer involved. If you're involving the bank, the old bank has no authority to enforce through the city anything. And remember, we're dealing with the executive branch here. Right? Oops. So we have four or five different lines here have been blurred to allow these infractions against our constitution, and that is the actual fight that we have, okay, is to is to correct these gray areas from all these lawyers sitting there confusing them. And then on top of it, okay, we have all these other people that are voting for laws or not to have law that have no clue of what that is that they're actually voting for. So the education level needs to be brought up. But that's the whole idea of Yeah. You know, America with drugs. It's the whole idea of sitting here having this drug war. It's the whole idea of letting the CIA sell all the drugs they like or to have paid stoolies sitting there responsible for more deaths than the actual drug dealer they justified going after.
[03:12:15] Unknown:
Okay. Okay. When I Open up the coin mech and let the quarter fall out. Firearm. What is the is Hang on, Samuel. I'll get to you in just a second. Hang on just a second. It's time to open up the coin mech and let the quarter that somebody put in you this morning fall out, Alan. So hang on just a second. Let's get some more people in here to talk about this. I know we've got Larry on deck. I know he's probably got a question or two. We've got Samuel. We're going to Samuel next. And let's make sure that we realize that there is a half second delay between FCC and, Zoom, which is where Alan is. So everybody just take calm down, take a breath, have some dip, and let's have a a fun after show. Go ahead, Samuel.
[03:13:06] Unknown:
Yeah. One of those blurs that was done right here is referring to these things in their term, which is firearm when the constitution protects arms. They have a specific definition of what a firearm is, and it ain't an arm.
[03:13:25] Unknown:
So, you know One of the tricks that they do quite commonly, they just simply rename it into something that isn't. Okay?
[03:13:34] Unknown:
Yes. Your dog is now a cat.
[03:13:36] Unknown:
Or or, giving new definitions. Hey. Listen. You wanna know something? One of the most basic arguments in this is 18 USC 31. Go look it up. 18 USC 31. That is definitions for all federal all states. What is driving? Only in a commercial form, and it's only defined there. That's it. There isn't no other definition because they can't make another definition at the state level violating the principle I just talked about. So they they sit there and they use the word drive and then the living word, living language word, drive, that we use, hey. Can you drive me to the store?
Are you are is that really a commercial operation like store?
[03:14:20] Unknown:
Can you yield a little bit, man? Holy mackerel.
[03:14:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Slow down. Slow down, Alan. Like I said, open the coin, Mac. Let the quarter out. Certainly do.
[03:14:32] Unknown:
But, you know, one of the reasons I asked Brent of what year he started lawyering, and he didn't even answer that clearly. He I guess he was doing clerk work in '88, and he started lawyer in somewhere thereafter. Well, and he's talking about the common law. Well, I remember when I was reading Stamper's book where the the district attorney says in 1955 is when we stopped doing our common law pleadings and started doing statutory. So when you take a guy down to 1988, it's just like if I'm a plumber and I asked a guy fifty years ago, how do you put text in? He not gonna know what I'm talking about.
[03:15:23] Unknown:
Okay. I I can answer that question. I mean, it raises so many. First of all, there is nothing that he has said I disagree with. It's absolutely the the only time that we've actually had contact or, conflict is when we have been at two different, talking levels, in the same topic. It's at two different levels that we're talking about. I go back to the fundamentals.
[03:15:47] Unknown:
Okay? I have one more point I'd like to make, Alan, and and I gotta get back to work. Okay? So with with that being said, he also, you know, used the exception to the rule to make a statement that you don't need an injured party or property to have an a judgment against it. Okay? That person well, in reality, when we were really in common law, it the indictment had to come back down from a grand jury, a common law grand jury. And I tell you what, they they had the power to have the exception to the rule, but they'd be hard pressed without damage to a party or a person to bring an indictment.
I'll leave it at that. Okay.
[03:16:37] Unknown:
I I okay. Stop. First of all, this business between common law and statutory needs to have a better foundation than what we're looking at, and even the lawyers fail at this. Okay? I get it from straight civil. Okay? And I date back to 1974 for civil class, meaning that I don't have the common law or the common fad, okay, teaching on this. It's very simple. If you wanna sit there and work on common law, it's something that's already been decided in that case and also that case. And, oh, by the way, precedence was set by that case. So I have three cases that are nearly identical to mine, but that was my, specification earlier.
As it applies to you, as it applies to the specifics of this case, and all three of those other cases was determined how? Whether or not the statute applied. Oops. So even if you go back to common law, how was that applied? Oh, well, they applied the statutes to the common law that created a record of how the court would normally handle this. Okay? And that's your common law. Well, if I go out and shoot somebody for no bloody reason, do I go to jail? No. You get dead because that's
[03:17:57] Unknown:
established principle. How is that established principle? Agree with you on if I may agree with you on saying it this way, the reason the common law didn't get written down till way later is because it was whatever that law was in that community, that middle village because the next one over, it wasn't the same damn thing because it was their local customs and rules. Written down.
[03:18:22] Unknown:
Dylan, stop interrupting him. Let him play. No. I that's the first fault. Where do you get that it was not written down? That is They didn't write. They didn't read.
[03:18:33] Unknown:
They didn't read and write.
[03:18:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Sorry, Alan. Alan. I'm going back a ways here. Alan, it wasn't written down, Alan. It wasn't written down until Blackstone's commentaries. It didn't exist before then.
[03:18:48] Unknown:
When did that exist?
[03:18:50] Unknown:
Well, I I asked GPT when Blackstone's commentaries were written and why. Okay. That okay. Well, here's the problem.
[03:18:58] Unknown:
When they started up The US, for almost twenty years, we didn't have a record of anything the Supreme Court was doing, but we did. The findings of Supreme Court was instead published in the newspaper when they did. And mind you, they weren't, you know, over overrun as they are today. So there wasn't as many findings in order to create a book out of it. It wouldn't be, almost twenty five years before they they actually had an first book. I think there was only eight of them, that was originally published, two more after that that was requested. I found one of that exact book at the supreme, at the, Supreme Court, Missouri, library.
On the Thirteenth Floor, I actually found that. And when I found that, I gave it to the librarian, and now nobody touches it without gloves on because it's that old. It's that fragile. Okay? You just fold the page, it'll break. And, they weren't aware that they actually had that book there, and I had discovered it there. A little claim to fame for me. But the thing of it is, they finally did publish that. Those are your common law. The Supreme Court is your common law. This is case by case as it applies to that case. The only reason why they can sit there and bring you to court to begin with is, oh, that doesn't apply to your case.
And that is the argument whether or not these statutes and these precedents apply to your case. That's the argument actually happening, not whether or not you're guilty or otherwise, and that's the reason why they can find you guilty without an actual victim. Does it apply to you? And, again, you have the human factor of anything applies if I say so because we haven't written it down yet. Yes. That that's there too. Well, they say you can indict a ham sandwich.
[03:20:55] Unknown:
And if you focus on procedure, it is possible for you to get hung out to dry and even if you're absolutely innocent. Because as long as the procedure is correct, it's presumed that the outcome is correct. But the problem is their procedure is based on a presumption of guilt before innocence. So what do you do? Where do you go from here? Let's, let's go to all of the state statutes, find the ones that are abhorrent to the constitution, and get them get them stripped get them stripped out of the legislations. Let's change it that way.
Let's dismantle the states from the inside out.
[03:21:40] Unknown:
They they have a lot of procedure. Unfortunately, it's all unlawful.
[03:21:46] Unknown:
Exactly. Their procedure is not necessarily the correct procedure. It's the one that works for them and allows them to pay the guy that polishes the marble in the courthouse. Tony, do we have anybody else that wants to jump in here? Alan, hang on. Take a breath for a second. Holy crap. Thank you for being here, by the way. Anybody else wanna comment on on this great discussion? This is fun. Paul. Yeah. Larry.
[03:22:24] Unknown:
Yeah. Can you explain, like, what was the underlying argument between Brent and Allen? They seem to disagree. What was in a very simple statement, what was it?
[03:22:37] Unknown:
The very simple statement was Alan said that through the supremacy clause, the federal government has the authority to restrict your rights and that the states have the authority and the ability to expand your rights. However, the problem with that is number one, the federal government doesn't have, doesn't have the right to infringe on any of your rights because the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. And the state is not going to expand your rights because they want you to be guilty of breathing so they can securitize your incarceration and whack you with a big fine.
There's the therein lies the problem. There's the disconnect. The federal government cannot impose on us, and the state government, which shouldn't be doing it, is doing it because it helps the bottom line.
[03:23:32] Unknown:
They could make everything illegal. They could make everything illegal. The problem is, does it apply to you?
[03:23:40] Unknown:
In the way Well, it doesn't apply to me.
[03:23:42] Unknown:
Absolutely not. The argument, to better better word that the the difference between what I was saying, what he was saying was I already accepted the constitution. I already accepted that, yes, the federal government can make laws. I accepted those two facts. He went backwards two two prongs in order to say, well, they don't have any right at all in order to sit there and infringe upon you, okay, which technically is also true. And the constitution describes the prohibitions in order to prevent them from infringing on you, but they have grayed that so badly. We're not talking about cons the constitution as a prohibition anymore. We're referring to it as our rights. It's never been our rights. They gave us that term to defend our rights. Oh, you're defending your rights. No. You're attacking me.
Give me another word. Myself. You're you're attacking me. You're infringing upon me instead of, you know, that's been replaced by you're attacking my rights. It's improper phrases to begin with, and we've adopted that. And we walk into court with that, and it's an outright admission. I wasn't driving. I was going or traveling or however you wanna sit there and describe it. If you boil it down to the fundamental, no. I was just going to the store. What the hell are you talking about? Driving.
[03:25:03] Unknown:
Okay. Did you intend to buy anything at the store? Well, you were engaging in commerce.
[03:25:08] Unknown:
That's That's ridiculous. They wanna play leapfrog. They wanna leapfrog for the first, fault, and, that was the first thing that was taught to me. Don't leave the first fault. That doesn't matter how many times they wanna talk about all these subtopics and categories. Don't leave the first fault. Okay? And that most of these people that are losing, that that that, that you see that are educated. Let's say one of us from the show goes to jail or something. It has been because we have adopted their language, okay, allowing them in order to do this. When I say the word prohibition or I say you have you have no ability in order to license my right by get demanding a permit.
Okay? That's the truth. And as long as you stick with that, the guy and that made those weapons would not be in jail. You have to stick with the truth. He he got sucked into their vacuum of all of these complications and all of these subtopics. Well, then that means just like, what happened to me and him earlier. I got involved in the subtopic after the constitution. He was before the constitution with
[03:26:22] Unknown:
the
[03:26:25] Unknown:
guy what happened with the guy in New York with the guns, what he did was he agreed to be under their jurisdiction, and they just hung him out to try. Plain and simple. There was no justice there. Yeah. There was no justice there. There was a there was a photo opportunity, and there was a news clip hanging in the balance where they could demonstrate to New Yorkers or everybody on the Eastern Seaboard, if not all the way across the country, that, you cannot have these guns. And this guy sitting behind gray bars proves it. Now we've got another comment in here. We've got a may I from Brent. Hang on. I need you to mute for a minute, Alan, because I don't want Brent interrupted. Let's hear what he has to say. Go ahead, Brent.
[03:27:13] Unknown:
Okay. That document you call the constitution or constitution, that thing takes away your rights right from the get go, the supremacy clause. It overrides everything. And then what was that other one? The law of necessity. It abrogates the bill of rights or the bill of goods. Wow. So You've hit You you were screwed you were screwed right at the beginning.
[03:27:44] Unknown:
Okay.
[03:27:44] Unknown:
The I wear improper clause.
[03:27:47] Unknown:
Yeah. That's what it is.
[03:27:49] Unknown:
Thanks, Eddie. The federal clause the federal supremacy clause comes only after, well, basically, Puerto Rico. If you were going to be involved in what we're doing, you have to adopt our prohibitions to your government. Okay? That's a that's a supremacy clause. Each one of these, quote, states are actually what? Nations. They're separate from the government. That's the reason why they have different names. Nebraska, Illinois. Okay. They are actually governments of their own, but they have conceded to the restrictions and the prohibitions of the federal government. That is the actual federal supremacy. Then we can get into the subtopics of what you're talking about, which they've abused. Yes. But that's also the safeguard against that even though it's not humanly, viable. It's not something that we normally try to do if you're a politician, is the fact that the states can expand those rights. As the federal government says you can't have guns, well, the state can say you can.
[03:28:59] Unknown:
But the power of the state comment on that. The state by the sovereignty of the city some, you know, Missouri, after the feds said they were banning some guns or something, the the Missouri came out and said, no. We're not gonna, apply any of the laws the federal government makes about guns in our state. And a federal judge came out and told them that the federal government's gonna send in the military if they don't follow that law, and they're following it. That's the supremacy clause. I might add.
[03:29:34] Unknown:
Multiple breaks of law. I might add, right from the get go, the whiskey the whiskey rebellion, they assembled an army larger than what fought in the what Washington commanded for the revolutionary war against the whiskey rebellion people in Pennsylvania.
[03:29:54] Unknown:
Well, that's kinda just the secret. Themselves. That's the very reason why we have the second amendment is to be able to say no because they've ignored our sovereignty. Technically, the way it's supposed to be balanced is those people should have just went to court and says no. Sorry. Here's a here's a, 10,000 people that signed this. Go to hell. Okay? That's instead of having to raise a gun. The gun, the government has no reason not to
[03:30:28] Unknown:
Hamilton was a lieutenant general put in charge of that, and he was going to kill those people Right. Over making a living.
[03:30:39] Unknown:
And they made him president. Uh-huh.
[03:30:43] Unknown:
Not him. The government
[03:30:45] Unknown:
wanted their share. We got him.
[03:30:47] Unknown:
Kind of a district. Well, he was the president. Hamilton wise. Yes.
[03:30:53] Unknown:
Washington was as flunky. Uh-huh.
[03:30:58] Unknown:
We have a real life example here with Missouri in '21. They had made the, and Sam Andrews helped write this, and I have a call in stuff linked in the numeral two radio ranch dot chatango dot com. But they put together second amendment preservation act and had it through. It was signed by Parsons, the governor. But an Obama appointee appointee, Brian Weems, federal judge, said no, and it was due to the supremacy clause. And the local police were in on it because with the feds because this would prevent them enforcing federal laws. And I don't know if y'all remember, but they had a big parade there in Missouri and, everybody wearing their guns on their hips. And, there were infiltrators in there and trying to make trouble. But at the end of it, all these guys went around picking up all the trash, cleaned up everything as well.
You know? So it went to appellate court, which also used the supremacy clause. And so now it stands that you're gonna have to pay, like, a half a million bucks to try to even get it before the Supreme Court. Okay. Well, here's here's one.
[03:32:18] Unknown:
Here's a here's a point that we're missing on that. Was there a petition with x amount of people that signed in order to overturn that? You see that's the direct make any difference.
[03:32:30] Unknown:
It would make any difference. Once it's
[03:32:32] Unknown:
once a federal judge
[03:32:34] Unknown:
It's done. Once the fed once the federal judge Ellen, let her speak. Thank you. Once a federal judge stepped in, then it's beyond that point. Alright? And then we have the appellate court. And now the procedure means that it has to go to the Supreme Court if they'll hear it, and it will cost a lot. So it listen. The states have been subordinate to the federal government ever since the constitution. That was illegal. The law of the land at the time was the articles of confederation and perpetual union. The delegates sent to Philadelphia were supposed to improve that, but they didn't intend that at all. Most of the ones that were behind this, coup. It was a coup d'etat is what it was. And the ones that figured that out left and wouldn't participate in it, and some just never went at all. Now Luther Martin, this longest serving attorney, in Maryland, went late because he was tied up with, legal business.
And so he didn't know that they took a pledge to be quiet about this for fifty years, and they covered all the windows. They had guards at the door. This whole constitution was a sham that has been put put on us. See, in the articles, there was no unlimited taxation. There was no standing army. There was no implied powers or supremacy clause. They were much better for the states, and the states would stand with the people. And they had to have a majority of the states to get anything done. And anyone that was sent to congress, they'd be yanked back immediately if they weren't following what the state legislatures had proposed. I yield.
[03:34:23] Unknown:
Yes. If I may, I think one thing we forget, and we this group should not, for sure. These are not state citizens anymore. These are all federal subjects. So when you talk about the supremacy clause, that has a lot of effect on who it covers.
[03:34:44] Unknown:
I yield. And one correction, Murr, it wasn't a majority. It was you had to be unanimous. All 13 states or those coming after had to agree to any changes made to the, the articles And the yeah. You're correct. The the that was a coup. It was a coup d'etat to overthrow the articles just like they overthrew the king of England, but then they made it illegal to overthrow the new federal government who who was king, with the constitution, not yield.
[03:35:16] Unknown:
Right. They wanna be kings themselves. Very careful to hear. That's exactly that's exactly what Patrick Henry said. He said I he wouldn't go to this convention. He said, I smell a rat leaning towards a monarchy. And he would he spoke many times in the ratifications there in Virginia, and he would not take an oath to that constitution no matter what. No. You can't. He was he was he was asked to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and he wouldn't even take it then. And so Brent Winters says that Patrick Henry accepted the constitution eventually. No. He did not.
[03:35:56] Unknown:
And, also, let's look at the words. He smelled a rat leaning towards the monarchy, the word ratification. There you go.
[03:36:05] Unknown:
Can I can I get Good point? Seriously. Give me one second here. First of all, we're talking about the creation, the very beginning of something that was not on this planet prior to the constitution. And can anyone tell me what that is? Because it's one word. It starts with an r. Right now, everybody thinks that we live in something that's starts with a d, which is a transitional government. It doesn't matter. Republic.
[03:36:34] Unknown:
Transitional
[03:36:35] Unknown:
government to to monarchy or okay? The only reason it was called a republic the only reason it was called a republic is because they had to put a name on it.
[03:36:46] Unknown:
That's right. Because the ruling sense was the fact that there had to be a monarchy. And these people were calling out against the constitution claiming all sorts of things because it created a new format, a new model for that government where the people were actually running things, not the government. Okay? And there was no such thing. So when we're sitting here saying that this was a coup on top of a coup, you're absolutely right, but you're describing it in the negative instead of the positive of what they had at that time. Okay?
[03:37:20] Unknown:
There so you're saying that the articles of confederation were a were a negative?
[03:37:28] Unknown:
It did not establish the model. It didn't establish the prohibitions.
[03:37:34] Unknown:
Do you have you read them? Do you know anything about them? Do you know anything about the anti federalist?
[03:37:41] Unknown:
Yes. I do. And, unfortunately, that doesn't quite work either because, again, they're based on dogma. Up until just a few years ago, everybody at the national was based on dogma. Oh, you're a sovereign citizen and all this other stuff. Right? Aren't we fighting that dogma still to the day? Do you realize how how many you had over two hundred and twenty five years, okay, almost 250 now. Right? Okay. That has defined It was two hundred and twenty five years. April 19 Of dogma.
[03:38:20] Unknown:
Don't be confused with the federalist and the anti federalist.
[03:38:25] Unknown:
I'd like to white point out one thing that you pro pro, you know, articles of Confederation are saying, cool. Well, you know, I'm not a big fan of what they did at the constitutional convention either and how they went about it. However, this was given back to the states for ratification. Took almost a year, and they needed at least nine according to the rules. Out of those 13, Rhode Island wasn't present to get a a a mandate to put it into law, and that happened. Those the it was debated. The the articles of con of confederation were debated. This was all debated at the state level.
[03:39:13] Unknown:
Let's use a whole let's use a whole name for that. Alright? The articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Thank you. I think people know what I'm talking about, but, you know Well, good to hear. As proof as possible. Public had not yet been established and how that operation would be established. The balances that they put in there is the petition that you're looking for. You need to have that petition signed and forward it because that is the only way to lawfully engage the rights of the state. It isn't until the infringement of the government, whether it be state or federal, that you have the other rights such as second amendment. Okay? In order to exonerate between
[03:39:51] Unknown:
the states the deliberations between the states after the signing of the constitution brought in the bill of rights.
[03:40:00] Unknown:
There there were no amendments in the in the constitution originally. There's No. There weren't everything on them. Those guys want a complete control. Right. And many of them were just totally discounted. In fact, the second amendment was actually came in fourth and, but they deleted a bunch of stuff in between. So
[03:40:21] Unknown:
There are actually 200, rights in the bill of rights that was brought forward, and they they chiseled it down to what they gave us.
[03:40:32] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. I wish we could just hold them to 10.
[03:40:36] Unknown:
Right. Can you go out can you go out and get me a list of that? Because I got news for you. You can sit there and and and delegate, phrases and stuff like that to infinity. Okay? And that's what they were dealing with, and you have to boil that down to a single paragraph. How do you do that? Well, we got all these considerations. They boiled it down so all those considerations are in a single paragraph. And that is the you know, the full of the constitution itself because it is so broad and so specific in its prohibition.
It's so broad to the people and so specific in its prohibition. I yield.
[03:41:17] Unknown:
Governor Morris in the committee of style, after everything was supposedly completed and agreed upon in the constitution, changed it. And he brags about that.
[03:41:29] Unknown:
And that was the committee of style and arrangement.
[03:41:33] Unknown:
The biggest mistake the federalists made was trying to put back into power a king, and they gave way too much power to the presidency. That was probably their biggest mistake.
[03:41:46] Unknown:
And we wouldn't even know about the anti federalist if it weren't for someone that was kind of against it. They came across it and put it out in just not that many years ago comparatively, but they weren't allowed to be published. One is 48. You weren't allowed
[03:42:01] Unknown:
Because they weren't more cases.
[03:42:04] Unknown:
May I finish, please? You weren't allowed. They weren't allowed to publish it and circulate it to show that there was any, disagreement with the Federalist. I yield.
[03:42:18] Unknown:
But then again, those are the people that were in power in these separate states that was trying to direct it to their cause, okay, and their own specific cause. And as long as they could sit there and limit their power to these borders, okay, fine. But the politics, I mean, for us in order to be arguing these points is moot today because there's still two hundred and fifty years of dogma since it has happened. Every generation has picked up a piece of dogma removing the original intent.
[03:42:50] Unknown:
Well, you know, there was a lot there was a lot more went on. These people had to fight Indians, so they knew about that. And it wasn't just within their states or commerce was involved with moving their products down the Mississippi, which was then, given basically to Spain. So they had a lot of contentions going on. It wasn't just a small group in one place. This was overall, and it was made, they even have it in there that the, states were made subordinate to the federal government, and you see the monster we have now.
[03:43:29] Unknown:
And the second amendment still survived. Imagine that. Even after we got done with all these internal wars, the second amendment survived. It was utilized in the, prohibition for alcohol. Right? It was used as an expression in Chicago. But, you know, when you have that kind of power, corruption follows. When you have that kind of money, corruption follows. So we justify the, moon shining in Tennessee and condemn Capone. It's political. And that that Well, not entirely.
[03:44:07] Unknown:
The the what's like the whiskey rebellion. If we go back to the whiskey rebellion, that wasn't just about drinking. They used that as currency, and that's what they couldn't stand because, Washington and the others, they had breweries themselves, and they weren't being taxed. But Hamilton is the one that got 13,000 soldiers together to go make them not use this whiskey because they wanted to tax them, and so they couldn't have it. And they rousted people out of bed and made them march barefoot to Philadelphia from Western Pennsylvania.
Many didn't survive.
[03:44:47] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. I I agree. There's just a lot of, corruption, but that doesn't change the fact that we do not need more laws. We just simply need to follow the ones that we have under the original intent as it applies. Gotta eliminate the ones that that don't apply to us.
[03:45:06] Unknown:
No. The original intent will have been carried it out.
[03:45:11] Unknown:
As long as you follow the defense as it applies to you. That's what the key is because they can sit there and say that wearing your hair in a bun is illegal.
[03:45:25] Unknown:
Or I'm speaking about that.
[03:45:28] Unknown:
They can say that that does not apply to you. You are a citizen. You're a national. You have other statutes. You have rights. It does not apply to you. It might apply to somebody in Cambodia that's standing on two inches of American soil that came on there by accident, and that we can argue. But as far as me, as a national, it doesn't apply to me. Not applied in this case. That is the definition that we started this conversation with. It's such an, important distinction that they can and they have. They've made all these laws. But just like that guy in New York that's sitting in jail due to guns, I'm sorry. As it applies to him, does not apply. They apply to statute instead.
And that's the argument that we're having because it's a dodge for a judge to either do something or not do something as whatever the political fad that week is. How do you how do you get marriage between two men or two women That that's not a marriage. What what that is is opposite sexes that can have the possibility of procreation being regulated by religion or however. Let's boil it down to the fundamental. That has nothing to do with your civil contract as marriage. You can all these people that wanna get married, the only thing I do is just make a civil contract. They're married. They're gonna break up. They're gonna have to split it down the middle just like in a regular marriage. They have to agree to those terms, and that's all they need to do. Make a contract. There you go. You don't even need to get Obama's nation.
Well, yeah. But then again, I mean, that was just when you started becoming aware of it. I I was aware of it in 1974. I'm 62 years old. I actually seen some of these things occur. Example, in 1972
[03:47:28] Unknown:
Well, I'm 66, and I I didn't just discover it when Obama came into office. That's pretty funny.
[03:47:37] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. I think, Anthony Bernal was running the country for the last four years, not Obama.
[03:47:46] Unknown:
Who?
[03:47:48] Unknown:
Anthony Bernal, the chief of staff chief of staff in control of the autopin.
[03:47:55] Unknown:
Another sodomite and also Peter Thiel.
[03:48:01] Unknown:
Hey, Alan. Do me a favor. So is is the basic premise of this whole discussion that that, that, Alan is arguing that he is glad for the protections of the constitution and many of the other students can't stand it, and they think of it as a con institution. Okay. Is that the basic premise?
[03:48:26] Unknown:
Let's get rid of a little bit of the talk contained in the national. First of all, as a citizen, everything that you're enjoying as a national is already covered in 18 USC two four excuse me, 18, which prohibits as a criminal act all of these things that you're claiming as a natural now, which means that they can't even look at these things in order to either protect you or prosecute you. But if you are a citizen, they can have the protection of title 18, which makes it criminal to do these things, and the protection of the constitution. And when you become a national, by the way, what do you think that you're actually declaring as the law of the land under the state?
[03:49:13] Unknown:
Allen. Allen. It's not it Allen. Allen. Allen. Allen. I need you to do something. I need you to turn your microphone down a little bit, and I need you to turn your headphones up so you can hear when other people are talking. The constitutional protections the constitutional protections as they apply to us, do so through the limitation of government.
[03:49:39] Unknown:
There you go.
[03:49:41] Unknown:
Same thing. Yeah. I mean, we can We don't have constitutional rights. We don't have constitutional rights. We have constitutional protections as long as the federal government and the federalized states pay attention and follow the constitution and its and its prohibitions. That's the problem we have There were never states. Nope. There were never constitutional
[03:50:09] Unknown:
rights. The way it was sold was constitutionally protected, god given rights.
[03:50:15] Unknown:
Yes. Constitutional protections. Okay. I
[03:50:19] Unknown:
Okay. I'm sorry, Murr. I'm sorry. I abbreviated it. You know? Like, simple minds, simple pleasures. That's fine. That's fine. No need to apologize. It's just we cut got out of things and we suffer. I heal.
[03:50:32] Unknown:
Right. Okay.
[03:50:34] Unknown:
There are key phrases in lawyer lawyering that are protected phrases. If you have sat in enough rooms, you will find out based on the cases that win and cases that lose, the phrase as applied is used. The cases that you're losing, you're not using the words as applied. Whether you're pro se or have a lawyer or anything else, he's getting off on a technicality within this statute, not the fact that you were never supposed to be bothered. Okay? When we're looking at which side of the court you're sitting on when you become a national, you are now sitting outside the court. There's five planes to the court, and that's ridiculous. But the audience of the court is the fifth plane before you go up to, on the fourth plane to talk to the judge. Okay?
So, the fifth plane is a citizen. The sixth plane is the people outside the courtroom. That is who you are, and they cannot force you to enter that courtroom unless it is a capital well, Christian offense, we'll put it. Okay? And that's the only way they can force you into it because you are on the sixth plane, not the fifth plane as a citizen. Anybody that's in the courtroom as part of the audience is a witness and a participant in a public venue, which is the same as going down and seeing cats at the the local theater. The problem is we're basing our, actual restrictions and our regulation of society. Without the regulation of society, we have anarchy.
And the only thing lower than republic is anarchy. If we do not follow the republic, then we've lost a democracy too because a democracy does have nothing to do with us. We Well, anarchy doesn't we have
[03:52:38] Unknown:
And and the definition of anarchy, I mean, there's the colloquially colloquial definition where the word anarchy is demonized. However, the actual definition of anarchy is not no rules. It's no rulers. It is self Ding ding. And self governance.
[03:52:58] Unknown:
It's not achievable. The same way democracy is not achievable or sustainable. Because one way or the other, the mob rule will turn on itself, and that's democracy. Democracy is is a is a a lynch mob. Then we all vote in your job. Them.
[03:53:16] Unknown:
This is your problem. The ones that moment the violence.
[03:53:21] Unknown:
This is your problem, Alan. You've got absolutely no self governance. You have no capacity for self control. I'm sorry. You know? I mean, you know, even even coming out in a conversation, you know, having a push and pull conversation, you know, with somebody else. I mean, they'd say a sentence or two and you say you say a chapter. And then they say another sentence or two and then you say a chapter.
[03:53:47] Unknown:
I try to get include the background in case somebody, you know, forgot a point earlier or something like that. I'll add them all up and give it to you. But that's all. Just just make sure you just make sure you have your yardsticks so you can whack it on the table and wake us all up after your
[03:54:03] Unknown:
twenty minute diatribe.
[03:54:06] Unknown:
What are you speaking as if you're the ruling class?
[03:54:14] Unknown:
This is an what's really ruined this country is people not following the advice of Jesus Christ. It's okay. If we did if we did, we'd be in awesome shape right now. But, you know, for money, for sex, for whatever your weakness
[03:54:36] Unknown:
is, if you go there first,
[03:54:38] Unknown:
that's the kind of country you end up in.
[03:54:41] Unknown:
That's one of the strongest sentences I've heard in a long time. Following the advice of Jesus Christ rather than saying, oh, the advice in the Bible or so. No. It's you you've got a lot of elements there you put together, and you can't argue with that at all. I love that phrase. I'm gonna write that down right now.
[03:55:01] Unknown:
And his example.
[03:55:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Follow follow his example. I mean, that's what we're doing as nationals. We are overturning
[03:55:10] Unknown:
the money changers' teams. How many people here know what the term of the great commission means?
[03:55:18] Unknown:
I am shrugging.
[03:55:21] Unknown:
Everybody gets paid.
[03:55:24] Unknown:
That was Jesus telling his disciples to go out and make followers of him. We used to all know that in this country, and I had looked at a survey the other day that said maybe 25% know what the great commission is anymore in the Christian community. I didn't know about it. I mean, we're supposed to be going out and not bombing the crap out of people. We're supposed to be Jesus like. I don't think he'd approve. None of us are doing that, Samuel.
[03:55:53] Unknown:
Well, it's like Walter says As a country. Know, it's like Walter says. You know, Jeff Dunham's puppet? Is that his wife was upsetting him. So he thought to himself, what would Jesus do? So he tried to turn her into a fish.
[03:56:10] Unknown:
And feed her to the to the masses.
[03:56:14] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm I'm glad that, that Brent mentioned that it was nice to be missed. You know, I always appreciate being missed, particularly by my ex wife when she is armed, locked, and loaded. I'm just saying. Anyway,
[03:56:38] Unknown:
we've got a lot of unrecognized blasphemy going on. Alright? We've got people cutting out parts of the bible because guess what? Jews told them to. Okay? They talk about Paul as being Pauline and his forgeries. His, works, ones that came after him, yeah, they wrote stuff too. But it's in there for a reason. Alright? And it's in there for a reason for a long time. Yeah. You need to check and see about the translations, how they made god seem harsh, and he's not. He's pure love. And Christ came in the flesh to exemplify that, but they are one. I agree that there's no trinity.
You know? This is one of the contentions, but then they wanna throw everything out, the baby with the bathwater. So beware when you hear all this stuff because then they'll say, oh, well, any religion is alright and, you know, Buddha and Hindu and Mohammed and everything. It's just fine. It's it's a it's a great consciousness, the great consciousness. No. And Ken's Ken in Texas is gonna be on my show, and so I hope we talk more about the maseroths and all that good stuff where Jesus is everything. Now you'll Mhmm.
[03:57:52] Unknown:
Thank you, Murrah. You know what, guys? We've been doing this for Samuel. One more comment. We've been doing this for four hours. I'm gonna take the stream down. So go go ahead, Samuel.
[03:58:04] Unknown:
The, the the Trinity thing, Murr, was actually discussed in the Old Testament, not in three persons, but in two in a number of sites I've found so far. But the other thing is, this these new translations of the bible and you gotta think this is on purpose. Where it used to say Jesus Christ, it's not Jesus taking away his divinity. And so they're very subtle on how they do these things, but, you gotta be careful.
[03:58:46] Unknown:
You have to pray for guidance before you study.
[03:58:51] Unknown:
One last question. Can you exchange dogma for colorable or colorable law? Or
[03:59:02] Unknown:
Or false doctrine.
[03:59:08] Unknown:
I don't know. The only thing I know for sure my karma ran over there, dog. This has been the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters, the Friday edition. Thank you so much for joining us. We are on a number of platforms, homenetwork.tv, freedom nation. Tv, go live TV, stream life.tube, eurofolk radio Com, global Com, Global Voice Radio Network, 1 0 6 point 9 WVOU FM in Chicago, and radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy Paul Lip across the drink. We're here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM Eastern. Our website is thematrixdocs.com, and you will find means of escaping the matrix right there on that website. Thank you so much for joining us. That's me. I'm out of here.
I am on with my day. So thank you so much for joining us. We'll catch you back here next time for the Sabadeau edition, 11AM eastern, tomorrow on the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales. Bye now. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network. Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
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 PhatPhix, 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. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:51] Unknown:
Ah, yes. And, as would we, and we do take a stab at it here on a pre regular basis six days a week at the Radio Ranch. And, today being Friday, we think when he pulls up here outside the saloon, mister Winters will be with us and, gets his horse all hitched up and all that stuff. It is June June June the sixth of '20 '20 '5. And, of course, Roger Sales, and I think Brent be with us if he's not already in a second. I think today is, like, pretty important today, wouldn't it, d day, June 6? Yes. Do you remember? Yes. Okay. Well, that's certainly something worth recognizing for a lot of different reasons. Otherwise, I heard Alan earlier, so maybe we've got Alan's bunch with us today. We wanna go over all the folks who are helping us today and give them their proper recognition and do?
[00:02:42] Unknown:
I can sure do that. Thank you very much, Roger. This is the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales. We are on 106.9 W B 0 U F M in Chicago for the first hour of the program. We're on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul, across the drink. We're on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James and his diligent efforts to freedom and truth. We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. That's radio.globalvoiceradio.net. WDRN productions and the net family of broadcast services not only brings us w, BOU, they also bring us homenetwork.tv, freedom nation Tv, go live TV, and stream life.tube.
Our website is thematrixdocs.com. Our, call in line is a free conference call room. We've got room for about a thousand of you, and the links to Global Voice, EuroFolk, and free conference call are right on the matrixdocs.com. Among other things, fabulous stuff. Fabulous stuff. It's a Friday. That means it's Brent day. Right, Raj?
[00:03:57] Unknown:
Well, it does. And he is he keeping us in suspense, or did he show up? It looks like he might have showed up. Brent, you there? I don't have questions. My eyes. Okay. Well, of course, yesterday during the show and, you know, we had a a new caller telling us this traffic story from Minnesota with a wonderful name, Aloysius. Mhmm. I don't think I've ever met anyone with the name Aloysius. I've heard it before. I don't know much about its origin. It's an interesting name, and I wanted to query him about that. But, somehow, something happened to the Internet in our area here, and, it was out for six, seven hours, something like that.
Supposed to be two days, so I'm grateful it was only six or seven hours. In the middle of that, of course, I missed, what I had anticipated a lot was, the show with Paul English. And, of course, no Internet, no show. And, so I hope Paul I'm sure he did. He managed somehow, and, we'll hopefully get that rescheduled. But that's, when the day before, there was some mix up and didn't get that interview done. So, boy, this week is the weeks have not been real kind to me, it seems, Paul. Hopefully, this will straighten out. I've been sick. You know, Internet's off. All these missed interviews that I hate missing. And, anyway, hopefully, things will turn around a little bit as we get a little bit deeper into the summer if we have a summer here, which we're still waiting for, unfortunately.
Otherwise, in that, are you sick of hearing about the big, beautiful bill?
[00:05:38] Unknown:
Absolutely. Yes. And as a matter of fact, just purely by virtue of the fact that they named it the big, beautiful bill makes me break out in hives. Well because you know it's anything but.
[00:05:52] Unknown:
No. You're getting mixed opinions on it. What I don't like is they pulled the same old Democrat scheme of there's a rule up there in DC that I think seventy two hour rule that you can't put out legislation without seventy two hours for them to read it. Well, they broke that. And what what I see here is the, influence of the Israelites on on the Congress to try and thwart Tom Trump. That's what I think is going on there. But, I don't know. It's it's banter, banter. Now him and the the Democrats dream, him and Elon having a urinating contest on each other. And, just one thing after another, we'll see how it, unfolds.
Boy, there's just a lot of tension everywhere. The Ukraine situation's horrible. The Gaza situation's not much better a little bit. Not as crucial anyway, it seems. And all this other stuff, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Do you remember that movie?
[00:06:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's a Yeah. I It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. From, Andy this morning that, Russia actually started bombing Ukraine. Yes. I believe they have. A bitch.
[00:07:04] Unknown:
I best I guess they have, and I I I have to applaud Putin for having resolved through all of this, garbage they've been throwing at him. And then, of course, they go over and do that. And then and then and then Zelensky coming, no. We want cease fire. We want cease fire. We're not bombing anymore. And then, of course, the news doesn't cover what they've done, to Russia. And so they take the clip of him going, we want peace. We're not bombing any anymore. And and then they turn that around on you. So it's just all this it's just sickening, man. And, they've they've sabotage or they're sabotaging mister Trump, obviously.
He wasn't informed. He's not getting briefed on this stuff. And, it's a mess. And, it's this new world order fronted by Zionists as usual. As usual. Did I see Brent show up up there?
[00:08:01] Unknown:
Uh-huh. No. I have. Yet? Nope. Not yet.
[00:08:06] Unknown:
Okay. Roger.
[00:08:08] Unknown:
Yeah. Hey, Larry. Yeah. I was trying to I've got yeah. Anyway, just a lot of frustrations. Yeah, Larry. What you got?
[00:08:16] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm worried about you. You're starting to look at the world like it's a glass half empty.
[00:08:21] Unknown:
And Well, no. I'm just you know, I I I've always got hope. I try to look on the positive side, but I am a realist, Larry, and I will put the facts out in front of us. So, the facts are, there's an awful lot of real critical situations happening. And,
[00:08:38] Unknown:
I'm I'm I'm just referring to the way your week went.
[00:08:42] Unknown:
Oh, the way my last couple of weeks have been, anyway.
[00:08:46] Unknown:
Hopefully, we'll get back bright side. We did figure out how to respond to the new improved, bluff letter from the state department.
[00:08:54] Unknown:
Yeah. New oh, well, I'm yeah. I guess it's new and improved. It's the same old bluff letter. Same old searching. Yeah. We have the Kelly Robinson ones around. So No. She quit. See, that's what happens. They they'll start that little campaign thinking it's gonna have some some, deterrence on what's happening here, this tidal wave of, of truth that's coming on them, which appears like it, a little one anyway at this point. And they try and do something, and they see that it doesn't work, and then they stop doing it and go to something else. But, none of them are successful, and none can be successful because as Christie told us yesterday, I guess, with her buddy Josh, they called the passport office and the guy said, well, do you know what a national is? And the guy in the passport office said, yeah. You don't have to follow any of the statutes or the codes.
So when the understanding's getting down to that level, I, you know, keep keep flooding them with paper, folks.
[00:09:55] Unknown:
It's the only thing I know said, we're in the education business.
[00:09:59] Unknown:
Really? We are. You know? Because you can't just file paper and expect things to happen, and that's what those bluff letters are for. They're going, are you just a paper filer, or do you really understand what's going on here? That that's what that's all about. K? And, it's yes.
[00:10:18] Unknown:
And that and that's why I use the, code of federal regulations Yeah. I know. Because we don't have to follow them, but they have to follow them. So
[00:10:28] Unknown:
it's very important to acknowledge that. Well, it's their rules, and I agree with you. And I just said I wouldn't have done that, but I like to work on concepts. You go to the specifics of work both of them work. There's nothing wrong with either one of them. So, anyway, that's, we are making an impact up there to some degree. Don't know yet. We just don't have enough numbers. But should we ever get on one of these big platforms where that's got millions of listeners. The sample, I would think, outside of Jeff Rents, the normal Patriot people, I would think, are very interested in what we have to offer for free, their freedom. So, anyway, we'll see. All I know to do is take it a step at a time, put one foot in front of the other, and, see, where where the the good lord takes us, because we're certainly doing his work. Yes.
[00:11:20] Unknown:
Yeah. So, that the observation we made yesterday, I think her name was Christie or was it Christine?
[00:11:27] Unknown:
No. It's Christie, t y.
[00:11:31] Unknown:
Christie. Yeah. So the the bluff letter she received, I believe they received that more recently than the bluff letter that that that I received helping the student. He actually received it. But, it so they took out that little phrase, except as provided by law, and it's my understanding based upon what you've taught us over the years, that has to be in there. And so what how can they take that phrase out of Christie's bluff letter, and yet it was in my bluff letter. Oh, well, it goes all the way back to h j r one ninety two or '92 back in the thirties is in there.
[00:12:11] Unknown:
I don't know. Just, because we've accented on that, and maybe they said, well, we'll take that out and see if that's what's giving them the, the advantage. And it won't, because they still always quote the fourteenth amendment, and it does say and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and not are. That right there is enough to spring you.
[00:12:33] Unknown:
K? But it's my understanding that they they would have to have that in there because that they have to provide an an outlet, a way out. Otherwise, it's tyranny. They in other words, they have to have that in there.
[00:12:48] Unknown:
I I I don't know if they do or not, but they've dropped it evidently. And, maybe that's how desperate they are, Larry. I don't know. It should be in there. I was surprised when it wasn't, but I don't know that there's any recourse that it's not. Yes.
[00:13:05] Unknown:
Yeah. So, when I when I applied for my passport, it took about a year. And, if you remember, when you were on Sunday nights well well, it took a year before I I'm I filled out the application because I'm still trying to learn about the whole process. Okay? Yeah. So if you remember on Sunday nights, you used to come on, and I had all a a whole bunch of questions for you about the passport. Do you remember that?
[00:13:34] Unknown:
I vaguely.
[00:13:36] Unknown:
Yeah. So anyway, it took about a year before I finally filled out an application and attached my app, my affidavit. And then, you know, within a couple of weeks, I I received it in the mail. And one of the things I noticed was they they because this was the first time I was applying for a passport, I had to, I had to get a certified copy of my birth certificate out of Pennsylvania. And I included that. Yeah. I included that with the application. And so a few weeks later, I got the card. All all I did was get a card because it was $30. So, anyway, a few weeks later, they sent me back in a in a Manila like like a mini Manila envelope, my my birth certificate and my affidavit.
And I'm wondering, do a lot of students get their affidavit back? And is do you think they sent it back? And I know I know you don't have a crystal ball, but just your best educated guess. Do you think they sent the affidavit back because they saw I already had my naked affidavit, the exact same affidavit on file in, you know, with the secretary of state? So they felt they thought to themselves, well, we don't need to have two of them in this file, so we're just gonna send it back. And I know another student who didn't file a d s 11. They did a d s 82, and they didn't have to include their birth certificate.
[00:15:05] Unknown:
And he also got his affidavit back. So any any thoughts on that? Well, I've got a little bit of knowledge on that, but I'll let Paul go first. Go ahead, Paul.
[00:15:15] Unknown:
I think just because we call it the permanent administrative file, I don't think there's a physical file. I think all that stuff is digitized. Computerized. It's all computerized now. Yeah. So they can send the originals back to you because they already made a certified copy for themselves.
[00:15:32] Unknown:
Alright. Well, I'll tell you what I know. If you've got apply for a passport, there's a website site that you can go to where you can track the process of the applications processing. I don't know what it is. I know it exists. And so, yeah, years ago, a girl that was freaky out because, freaking out because hers wasn't back fast enough or something. And, you know, people are here. And, so they the she called them, and they said, well, you can track it online. And that's what that's what she did, and she sent me some screen grabs of it. And, as you go along, it'll say, this is where we got the term citizenship evidence.
It comes from the state department in this process because that's the terms they use. And so, it said your passport and your app your citizenship evidence and whatever, like this, birth certificate will be returned to you under separate cover. Now some people get them back and some people don't. And I don't know why, but the reason is because over the years when somebody gets one back that they send back to them, they freak out and think they didn't take my affidavit. They sent it back to me. So we've had that reaction out of people, but, no, our experience is, and it's confirmed by these people we talk to inside, by and far the most part, they do their job. And when one is included in the application, it's processed as it states in the instructions that you can include those types of documents.
And the people that have gone back and done privacy requests have found that those documents are in there. So I think it's I don't think there's a a real consistent thing on it, Larry, is the best answer I can give you. Some people get them back and some people don't, but it does say they will send it back to you if you go and check the processing thing in the little notes they've got attached. So is that as good a answer as I can give you?
[00:17:39] Unknown:
Yeah. It is. Thank you.
[00:17:41] Unknown:
Alright. Okay. Well, is Brent maybe you think Brent see, him and I are we're a victim again, both of us, of being old men and not real good with all these equipments. I don't know about Brent's eyesight. I'm sure it's better than mine. And, my fat fingers. And, so I tried to get I've got his, a phone for him from his son. I have a relationship with his son, Caleb, his oldest boy, and he sent me a contact, but I I can't get it put in a cell phone correctly because of my fat fingers and my bad eyesight, and I hate cell phones. I just hate them, okay, because of these limitations they put on me. So I do have a contact to get to Brent, which I tried to input this morning, and I can't seem to get it to work. It's probably not right. So, you know, my fat fingers, when those little letters and I've I've got my bad vision, and I'm with a magnifying glass over those little letters, And I'm trying to hit the right letter, and I always hit the next one.
And it's some kind of, perspective with my eyesight. Just terrible. Cell phones are just horrible for me, and, I don't like them. I answer them if they ring, and that's about mostly my interoperation with them. I know some folks love them. But, anyway, I have a lot of trouble with them. I tried to put in or Britt and I could connect because since Skype went away, we can't connect now like we used to and say good morning and all that stuff. So, anyway, I don't know if he got caught in that, Franny, or if he got Right. If he just forgot about us or what.
[00:19:18] Unknown:
No. He's, well, he sent me a message earlier. But, Roger, we need to get you on found or signal or one of those. That's how Brent and I are communicating now. Found is pretty much like Skype. Paul, do you know what I'm talking about? I've never even heard of that one. It's p f o u n d. It's part it's from free conference call guy. That that's who started the whole thing. And you can screen share. You can talk. You can, you know, you can do everything we did on Skype. So we need to get you on the Well, I'll have to get that loaded and all kinds of stuff. I got his number through on WhatsApp, and I was trying to put him in as a WhatsApp
[00:19:53] Unknown:
because he does have that already. Oh, he's here. He's joined us. He's joined us. He's joined us. Alright. There's mister Winters dragging him, comfortably, late. Hey, Brent. How are you doing this morning?
[00:20:06] Unknown:
Alright. What have you been talking about, Roger?
[00:20:09] Unknown:
Oh, aggravation. Trying to get, your your son sent me a profile of you on WhatsApp, and I tried to put it into my cell phone this morning. And with my bad eyes and fat fingers and everything else, it's just a real challenge to do that sort of thing. We've basically been talking about how much we missed you, my friend. Yeah. That's right. Where you were and and and all that. So I appreciate this. It's nice to be missed. I,
[00:20:38] Unknown:
have a friend. As a family, we're very small in stature. And, a piece of a guy is gone now. I should say I have a friend. He passed away not too long ago, but his first cousin went to Vietnam, way back when, and he wasn't over there just a few days and lost both of his legs. And he was a wasn't a very tall man. But, of course, he was reduced to being in a wheelchair or moving around, but he got really efficient, moving around on his on his arms. And, he'd work, do different things one time, so I'm out, changing the tie a tire on his car, sitting on the ground, you know, and, I remember he his eyes were getting bad because he was getting older, and he couldn't see, the threads that he wanted to see clearly.
And, he said, boy, he said, sitting there on the on the gravel by the car, he said, it sure is a bummer getting old. Can't even see anymore. Yep. I thought to myself of course, my eyes aren't what they used to be either, and I know yours aren't, Roger, but I thought to myself, here he's lived his life like hell, like he had, and he wasn't complaining about that at all. And, back when, Reader's Digest was popular, they had an article in there about him. And he was, the neighbors that had having supper or something, and he heard a sound. He'd moved up north to Chicago area and heard a sound, kinda funny, in the neighbor's swimming pool, which was across the fence.
And he decided nobody was outside. He'd better go investigate, and he somehow climbed over the fence. And if you can picture that, he his arms were developed pretty strong. Wow. And he went over in there and saw, an infant in the swimming pool drowning. And, of course, he hightailed it to the swimming pool as fast as his arms could take him and got in the water and pulled the child out and saved his life. And, somehow, I don't know where they are how the article got in Reader's Digest, but they put it in there. He lived a productive life. What I'm saying is I know getting old, somebody advised me re recently, whatever you do, Brent, don't grow old. Just it doesn't work that well. So I said, oh, sure. I won't do that. But, I think about him, and I think about how he attacked life. And I said, now doggone it. I can keep going no matter what aches and pains I have. And I'm fortunate, frankly, very fortunate, and that I can just I'm I can still locomote.
I can visit with my friends, and I can do things here, like, on the computer, Roger, with you. And I know you feel the same way, but, well, just a little story from, for a little testimony from personal experience. Yeah. I wanna know what you're talking about. I just found out not long ago that, there are about 60,000,000, illegal aliens in our country. No. No. No. 60,000,000 aliens. 60,000,000 aliens out of 300 and some million. 60 million are aliens. 40,000,000 of those aliens are around terms of 40,000,000 are on green cards, so they're here legally. They're here legally. Resident resident aliens. That's the words I'm wanting to talk about. Hope maybe you'd talk about a little bit.
Then 20,000,000 are here, against the law. Mhmm. 20,000,000 are here against the law. They're voting in school board's elections. They're even running for office in Yep. Places like California.
[00:24:25] Unknown:
Yep. Hired as policemen.
[00:24:28] Unknown:
What are you doing for us?
[00:24:30] Unknown:
Yeah. The whole the whole caboodle. And here's what we could talk about a little bit and the history well, we could if people want to, the history of nationalism. Because nationalism is a is pretty new on the scene of world history. There ancient Israel was a nation. That was new, by the way, in most of the world. City states had become the way the world was organized. Even in the ancient world, the city states, for example, of Babylon and Pergamos and and even in the land that that became Israel's, the nation the nation, I say Israel, very important word, nation. Of course, the Hebrew word is goy, plural, goyim, and the germ the, Semitic tongues are like the Germanic tongues.
Nationhood is feminine, not masculine. So to the Israelite, it was it was that way. Just like in Germany, they talk about the fatherland. And, in England, they talked about the fatherland until the French speaking Normans invaded. And then with the French tongue, it became the motherland when I was in school in the first grade. It's odd to think about this now, but I went to school in a schoolhouse and had a picture of George Washington up in front and a picture of of, Abe Lincoln. You know? And and they had the American flag flag hanging out over between them. You know? And we had a strong sense going that that that building was built in 1910, so it was structured that way. And by the way, we still had the 48 state flag on the wall. I didn't know that till later when they tore the building down. I went and retrieved the flag just to take it home as a souvenir.
But, we don't stop to consider maybe that in America, something has happened that never happened, has never happened in the whole world. Never. We're the only country that has achieved a strong sense of nationalism that are made up of many towns and tribes, and we've always been that way even when we were nothing but pretty much Brits and Dutch. And I say Brits, the Scots, the Welsh, the and the Irish. They were here in English in the beginning, and the Dutch. They had settled New York. As you remember, it was New Amsterdam before the English got it.
And, but all of those people considered each all of them considered each other foreign races. They weren't the same people. And, when you go back and read, about them in the 13 original colonies, they'd talk about people from other colonies like they were foreigners, and they'd be surprised that, for example, they had pretty girls there. They figured they were all ugly. I remember reading about, a fellow from Connecticut. They wrote the only memoirs of a revolutionary continental soldier from the perspective of a rank and file fellow that joined when he was 16 and got out when he was 23. When the war ended at Yorktown, he was there. But he talked about the girls from New Jersey, and he couldn't he was surprised. He was from Connecticut. He was surprised that they were so pretty because he figured they were of another race and and and probably weren't attractive to him. Well, of course, that's expanded in America in a way it hasn't anywhere in the world. Now in Rome, of course, they achieved, unity with, among many tongue tongues and tribes and nations, but we don't forget Rome also had a common tongue throughout the empire.
And we have a common tongue also in America. Without a common tongue, you're not gonna hold anything together. Fortunately, we do have a common tongue, and that's what's enabled a lot of this. Rome had a common tongue, Koine Greek, the New Testament, therefore, was pinned in that tongue, and that, in the providence of God, did a lot to spread Christianity rapidly. But Rome, did that, but they weren't a nation. They were an empire. They were still built on the old model before of the city state that had arisen in Genesis chapter 10 with the settling of the city of Babylon. And the city state became everything in the ancient world up until Rome.
Rome still had a city state. Your loyalty in the Roman Empire was not to the empire. The loyalty was to the city of Rome called the mother city. And in the Greek tongue before Latin took over, the Koine Greek, that mother city is metros metropolos, mother city, metro and polos, polos, city, metropolis. And even then the Roman church that is built on the model of the Roman Empire with an emperor at the top calls the church the same thing, the mother church. And without the mother church, there is no life in the Church Of Rome because that's the way it was built on the model of empire. Empire is an outgrowth of the city state, but where the city state extends its terror over what came to be called the territory of the empire.
The territory is the area over which a city state extends its terror, and that's the constant never ending danger we're suffering from it now where the cities have extended their terror terror over the states individually and control the governments of the states now in a way that has never happened in the history of our country. But our country took, didn't we didn't do it consciously. This is just the way in the providence of God things go. We began to say, well, we're not an empire. We're a common law country. Therefore, we can accept, people that speak other languages. Of course, it started out just white folk just white folk White folk, frankly, from the North Of Europe. That's the way it started out, and it stayed that way. But then came the influx of the Irish.
Well, they were white folk too, but they were viewed in a very low state because they were in a very low state. They didn't even know they were Irish until they started migrating by the hordes to America. They didn't know who they were. They didn't have government. They were reduced to digging in the ground with their fingers to try to find something to eat, and that's why they came to America. Well, they gained their national identity in America. The Irish didn't call themselves Irish. They didn't group together. They didn't have any pride in who they were. They didn't, of course, suddenly got to America more and more. They recognized they weren't Protestant. That was a big deal, and that was part of their commonness. But then, of course, the migration from the sub from Southern Europe came, and they came in absolute droves.
And then we slowly began to accept them even though they spoke a different tongue, but they learned English. And on and on, people like Joe DiMaggio, remember, he was a very well known, famous, accepted, but that little things like that begin to happen. And we don't wanna leave out, of course. There were, vast numbers of African Negro slaves in America, and they were not accepted and still aren't to a great degree. Well, that's but that's fundamentally what's happened here. And what's happened here, we didn't take the idea of the city state, although we're coming back to that as the useful idiots of the Democratic Party. I used to say the useful idiots of the evil empire, but now I say the Democratic Party because some of the hardest known Democrats, hardest core Democrats I've known around where I'm from, volunteer to me now when I meet them. I never could understand why they were following the party like that, but now they're saying to me finally, well, you'd be hard pressed to find a a Democrat that'll claim to be a Democrat around here anymore than because the party has gone from the rails. So I say That's good to hear. Yeah. The yeah. It's really happening, but, useful ideas of the evil empire, the Democratic Party want to make America tribal and revert back to the city state model. They want the law of the city, not the law of the land or common law to govern, and they want, us to capitulate to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San well, I should say, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Las Vegas. Those are the cities that govern otherwise vast territories of, sparsely populated land. Yeah. And and many of it are highly productive land. And once you the cities begin to con the consumptive culture of cities begins to control the rural count culture production, well, then you've got a problem because they will tick. They'll suck the life out of it sooner or later. For example, in agricultural states, I know where I'm from in the Midwest and out West, also in the states that are agricultural like Idaho, Montana, agricultural land, the the taxes on it are pretty pretty low, pretty reasonable in different ways. Well, that won't last. You see?
They'll want that money, and they'll start raising taxes on farmland. And once that happens, the production is gonna suffer. Well, if our production suffer, our country suffers. This is nothing new. Tom Jefferson and the the rest of the folk that lived around him at that time, they wrote about it profusely. And they said Tom Jefferson said, I'm quoting pretty much the words he's using. If we ever pile up in cities, we're done. If more people begin are living in the cities in America that are in the countryside, the the the nation won't last. They weren't stupid. They had they understood ancient history. They saw it happen in Rome. Well, back to us now, though. We've got all these illegals here, and, they're here trying to govern and and, gaining the ascendancy.
That means a different culture will gain the ascendency. Friends, it is really true. I don't say this lightly. Our culture has always been Christian. It isn't our our, the color of our skin that has made us powerful as much as our Christianity. As a matter of fact, as I've said some of my Mexican friends, I said, what why are you so poor down there, and why are we, so prosperous up here? And they come here because we're prosperous. And I ask them, is it because we are, as white folks, smarter than you? And they'll say, well, no. That can't be it. We know we're smart people. I say, yeah. I can see that. It's not because we're smarter. That's not it. Well, then what is it? It is because we have a book, a book that has overcome our culture, and that book is the Bible.
That has overcome our culture. It has not overcome the culture of Southern Europe. It has not overcome the culture of now most of Europe or even the rest of the world, but it overcame our culture, and we're it's still dominant in our culture. I'm surprised pleasantly as I travel, and I travel as you know a lot, that I meet folk a lot just out. I talk to folk. I'm one of these fellows that talk too much, fundamentally, and that's why I'm thankful for an opportunity where it's socially acceptable that I can talk like this. But when I'm out, I talk to people too one on one a lot.
I listen. I don't tell them about myself as much. I do talk enough to try to weasel information out of them. Try to do that because or wheedle. I shouldn't say weasel. Wheedle is a better word, w h I d d, e l. It wheedle information out of them. Most people don't if you most people, nobody asks them anything about themselves. And if you get them in the right environment, get them relaxed, they'll they'll tell you a lot of things. And you'll find out that people do a lot of thinking, but they don't do much talking generally. And the ones I talk to, I find out they're intensely Christian in many, many cases, most, as a matter of fact, and intensely committed to the truth of the Bible.
There is no true Christianity without a commitment to the truth. The reliability of those manuscripts we call the Bible. We have that here in America. Now viewing the past, we see the trajectory we're on that knows which way, that tells us which way we're heading. We can know it. And knowing that, the question is, do we want to cultivate the trajectory that we're on so we won't have bias? Bias. Now that's a French word, French word from what I read. I don't speak French, but I read about French. Oh, I I do read a little French. I remember when I was in school, I got right to the end of school one time, and, my adviser got me aside. I was supposed to go see him, and he said, hey. I just discovered here you got about a month before you're supposed to graduate, and it says here you have to prove efficiency in scholarly French, German, or Latin.
I said, I do? He said, yeah. I think you can do that. I said, I said, I went to the library, and I got a German bible down. I looked at that. Well, that didn't work very good. I said, I could recognize some words being a German's a Germanic tongue like English. You know? But, I noticed that the verbs were hard to find, and I had a fellow tell me one time he heard about a German author. The verbs are always at the end of the sentence. Had a German author, and he, of course, used to. They'd write their manuscripts. They weren't on computers, and men would that wrote would, habitually keep all their manuscripts in a briefcase at the end of the day, and they would set the briefcase by the door of their by the entrance door of their house. So if the house got on fire, they'd run out the house and grab the briefcase. See?
I guess the people really understood that back then because they had no other way to preserve their work. You know, now we have backup and we back our what's on our computer up. Well, they did it that way. And, some fella, his house got on fire and some German author, and he ran out of the house and grabbed his briefcase. And then he discovered that he'd left the the, the final page of the manuscript, and it happened to have the verb on it. And he he panicked because he couldn't remember what the sentence was about. Well, that's the way German was. So I put that aside. I said, I don't know. I can't learn that in a month. So I said, well, Latin. Of course, I knew a little bit about that because you're constantly working with it. It's not that I ever took Latin. I just it's just a part of our English tongue very much here in America more even than England. They use more Anglo Saxon words, fortunately for them and unfortunately for us, but I could have done that. But I got the French Bible down, French translation of the Bible, and I was pleasantly surprised that I could follow it pretty good.
And by the way, you can. It's, that kind of a tongue. It's it's not a Germanic tongue, but it's like but it is a European tongue, so it is related to English. This is Latin based, I believe. Yes. It's Latin based like the rest of the southern European tongues. And the northern European tongue, we call them German based, but all those tongues are, from what anybody can figure out are descended from what people call Proto Indo European, p I e, which is a tongue we can't find. We'll accept tongues like Welsh and and, people in Southern France. I they have a tongue nobody can figure out. They're all over America. I can't remember the name. But, anyway, I said I can do that.
So I did learn a little French and kinda read it for him to show him I could do it. But other than that, I don't know much about it. Well, I've been talking long enough. I talked about, our problem, and the question is we wanna cultivate what we have. Go ahead, Roger.
[00:39:59] Unknown:
Well, I'm a let Paul get in there first. I got a couple of comments. Go ahead, Paul. Well, I've I've I've got something. First of all, I think we have a new person
[00:40:08] Unknown:
that joined us named Josh. They are unmuted, and, I don't know if they have anything to say. If they do, speak up. If you don't, please press 6 and mute your line because we've got some noise coming in.
[00:40:23] Unknown:
Hey, Josh. I think that's Christie's friend, and, welcome aboard. And, of course, on Fridays, we have mister Winters here with all his incredible depth of knowledge and, learning over a lifetime. And so welcome. If you got something to say, we'd like to talk to you. And if not, welcome aboard. Anyway, glad to hear from you. And, we heard about your letter yesterday and spent a bit of time before the Internet knocked me down. So, anyway, I did wanna say I had a really good idea this week. Somebody came up with a You have something to say. Okay, Josh. Well, go ahead, man.
[00:41:00] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I did. So I am Christie's friend. My name is Josh Allen. I'll give you a little bit of a history and a backdrop. So I was a student of the late George Gordon. Oh, yes. I took his courtroom strategy and proceed yeah. I took his courtroom strategy and procedure class, his tax status class. And, a long time ago, I actually ran a case to the US Supreme Court with Georgia's help. The issue was I was jogging home from a bar, got ordered to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffed, by some cops in Hickville, Montana, and I refused to identify myself.
So I, anyway, I read that case to the US Supreme Court. I did get the petition for writ of certiorari docketed successfully the first time. The court did demand a response to my response or, excuse me, demanded a response from the assistant attorney general of the state Of Montana. And then, I ended up getting that one page letter that says petition denied, but it's pretty interesting because, the assistant attorney general invited me to his office, in Helena, Montana. And so I was passing through there one day and stopped in. And, we were, I guess, on friendly terms, but he, he was in disbelief that I would run the run the case all the way to the US Supreme Court over, an $85 court cost.
And I had deliberately spent four and a half days in jail to create damages for false arrest and false imprisonment if I did win the case. So, yeah, he was in he was in complete disbelief that I would spend a couple thousand dollars to run that case to the US Supreme Court, and it was kind of hilarious. He said, did you realize you wrecked my hunting season? I'm having to I'm having to respond to you. And, so, anyway, I guess that's how I got started down this path a long time ago, and, Christy has also listened to a lot of Georgia's materials. But I had kind of given up, on ever, achieving any sort of freedom just because, you know, I've seen the sovereign citizen stuff fail over and over again, and I had no idea that, this existed, this national status.
So Christy is the one that got me started down the path. Last year, I've had a front row seat to her case with the ATF. I won't comment beyond that. But, with the passport that she was referring to yesterday, so I had actually filed that paperwork. I think it's been about three months ago. I paid for the expedited shipping and, the expedited service, and I got, tracking number, the USPS tracking number for priority mail, and an email that said your passport book card and substantiated documents will be mailed back to you. So I received just the the passport book, and, I thought there was some sort of an error. So I called the, passport number, and, the guy proceeds to explain to me that the passport card and the substantiated documents were gonna be coming in a separate envelope, not priority mail.
Right. And so I'd I've been renewing my passport, and, so if I what I was really curious as to what the substantiated documents were gonna be because I, of course, mailed in a copy of my affidavit that I sent to the Department of State during, I'm no longer a fourteenth amendment slave. And so, anyway, I he said, yeah. Those, supporting documents will be mailed separately. And I I said, well, I said, I think, you might think this is a little bit crazy, but I said there's a legal status called national. And I said I filed the paperwork for the Department of State, and I sent, copies of that to you. And I said, am I gonna get those back as well? And he said, well, if they're a copy, we keep them. And if they're original, we send them back.
[00:45:20] Unknown:
So Oh, that's nice to know. Anyways,
[00:45:24] Unknown:
well, yeah, that was what he told me. But I thought I got this guy on the phone. I'm gonna pick his brain a little bit, and I if I would have known the course of the conversation's gonna take, I guess I would have been recording it. But it was very interesting to me. I said, well, do you know anything about this national status? And he says, yeah. He said, I just took a class on it about ten days ago. We're getting a lot of requests to do this now. So I said, okay. Well, what what else do you know about it? And he said, why why do they tell you that people do it? And he said, well, they tell us that people do it because then they're no longer liable to file and pay a federal income tax, and then they're not under, large parts of the US code.
And, oh, I'm trying to remember what else he said to me. Then I I asked him. I said, well, what are what are the downfalls? What do they teach you with that? And he said, well, they tell us that you can no longer hold a federal government job. You can't vote in federal elections anymore. And
[00:46:22] Unknown:
that was about it. You can't run it. I just thought that was one more. Josh, there's one more. You can't run for senator of your state.
[00:46:33] Unknown:
Well, I believe you, but he he didn't tell me that. He just told me No. I couldn't vote in federal elections, and you couldn't hold a federal job. That was what he knew on top of his head. But Right. I was just, dumped on the when when he told me that they're getting a lot of requests, so they're putting on trading classes, and then he had one ten days ago. Yeah. So I was I was just amazed by that, but I I went, went over to, you know, after I got off the phone with that guy, went over to Christie's place and, told her about the conversation. And then I tried calling back, the same number, and I kept getting directed to a different person. And I could not find another person that would, repeat that information. So I don't know, you know, how widely widely spread out there, but I did get that one guy. So
[00:47:22] Unknown:
You got lucky. Josh, you got lucky.
[00:47:25] Unknown:
I guess I could.
[00:47:28] Unknown:
Well, look. Yeah. We heard about that yesterday briefly, not in-depth like you've given it to us today, and and I think that's wonderful feedback. It's not the first time we've heard it, by the way, at least, from the national and that they're having classes for the employees on how to process them correctly. But, glad you got that. We'll get that. So now I'm a little confused. You got your passport book back, didn't you? And then you get a bluff letter saying they're not gonna send it to you?
[00:48:03] Unknown:
No. So I listened to yesterday's show, Christy Ford, yesterday's show to me, and you had me confused. So she has another friend that she's,
[00:48:12] Unknown:
helped me. Okay. Okay. And,
[00:48:15] Unknown:
yeah, his name his name is Duke, and he was the one who got the bluff letter. That was not me. I just got the book and then we laid her on the card and then my old passport. But and then I also watched the video footage, Christy sent me over interaction with the deputy sheriff, and I've I've got a left foot. I've been pulled over more times than I can count. And I was, just dumbfounded by his response, you know. Like I said, I literally watched the video that she sent me and listened to the whole thing a couple times, and she just plainly plainly told him, nope. This is all you're getting is the is the passport card and go running with the go running with the state department and, it should say do not detain, let me go. And he, We
[00:49:00] Unknown:
you one of the reasons I'm sorry to interrupt. One of the reasons that that that I like that sort of thing coming up and have hearing those personal experiences is because we got to discuss it a little bit. And her situation where she Brent, for you and Frannie, she got pulled over a little one hick town, and she handed the officer the passport card. And, he went back and and if I remember right, did for about two minutes and came back and said, okay. You're free to go. Whatever. But he said, why didn't you give me your driver's license? She said, do you have a driver's license? I said, I've got one. I just didn't give it to you. I gave you the passport card. And someone in the audience said, this is really good for everybody because I'm I'm traveling here. If I was driving in commerce, I would have given you the the driver's license.
Now I think that I thought that was a very good response. Okay? And so, anyway, she got let go and all that stuff. And as we go further in these situations, we find out a little bit more. But this driving thing is still one of the big traps because it's in individual jurisdictions, and some of these people don't think like this guy did or react that way. So, anyway, great. Well, anything else, Josh? We're really glad to hear from you today. And, I wanted to tell you something else. Someone told me one of the greatest compliments that I've had was someone told me that George was teaching my way of citizenship before he died.
I'd like to consider that quite a compliment. And for anybody else. Excuse me, Josh. Hold on a second. For anybody else in the audience, you want another legitimate source of of of law information, even though it's on tape and stuff, you still got a website. I believe it's georgegordon.org. But George was a, a fixture in the old days of somebody that was doing it correctly too. So go ahead, Josh. I just wanted to add that.
[00:51:06] Unknown:
So no. Actually, George talked extensively about, legal status in his, tax and status class, and he he was very, very close to getting to where you are, but he never got there. He actually legally, he called himself a dentist, and that was what he legally titled himself. But he did not know about, I mean, his tax and status CDs. I'd have to go back and listen to him again, but he cites a specific section of, title 26 of the US code that says if you have a Social Security number, you're liable to file and pay a tax. And I they need to go back and listen to those and he's gonna try to find, find what he says and go research that section.
[00:51:50] Unknown:
I'm not sure that's correct. He might have had some bad information because you don't have to be a citizen of The United States to have a Social Security account. Anybody in the world can sign up with Social Security, and they don't get dinged.
[00:52:04] Unknown:
K? So may just be Correct. And I'm I still talk with this. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I still I still communicate with his I still communicate with his, ex wife from time to time, and I've, been keeping she's met Christie before, and I've been keeping her posted on, the proceedings, from last year where Christie began her dealings with ATF. And then also I called her recently and told her about Christie's stop. And, you know, she's got a new husband now, and she's been very they've been very resistant to this. I've sent them your website, your YouTube show, the science of law, and, they've been resistant to it. But I think George was right on the edge, and that's a shame, you and George never got to meet because I think you guys would have Yes. You would have Well, I see George on a few things. But Well, I certainly knew about him, and I I just we never got to meet personally. And,
[00:53:05] Unknown:
once again, I would say the big piece that most of the people in the patriot community have missed is this is the feudal system, and they don't can't understand that. And if you don't understand that, there's a lot that you're missing. So that's what I do to comment on that, and I can understand why she's remarried and gone off on another path in her life and doesn't want anything to do with this stuff. I can understand that perfectly. So, anyway, what else, Josh?
[00:53:36] Unknown:
Well, I have to comment also. So I've I went to George Gordon's memorial service in 02/2014, and, it was pretty cool that people showed up from all over the world to a service in Isabella, Missouri. But I have not I've not seen a single person that, you know, he preaches break all connecting links and all contracts with the state. No no driver's license. Resend your Social Security number, your birth certificate, and
[00:54:04] Unknown:
I have not seen anybody that has, done all that and been able to successfully operate in the site. So There's no reason to do all that. There's no reason to do all that. The affidavit takes care of all that.
[00:54:18] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's the beautiful thing about about what you do to me is because you can go and still live a normal life and not have to deal with all the hassles of trying to convince somebody why you don't have to have a Social Security number and everything else. So Well, let me tell you this. This. I mean, it still feels like it's too
[00:54:38] Unknown:
We got a little there part of what's going on, We've got about yeah. That you're not the first to say that. We've got a little lag here because of some adjustments Paul's made in the audio thing. So that's kinda why we're stepping on each other a little bit. I would tell you, when I opened my Social Security account fourteen years ago in Argentina, I sent them a copy of my affidavit. K? So and I've been getting Social Security for fourteen years now. So there's just a lot of things out there that people have believed as gospel in the patriot community that just isn't. It's not a slide on them.
Everybody's looking for what we've got here, quite frankly, of what's the nexus connection. And they see something that they think attaches and and and and connects, and they connect it like Social Security number, all caps, letters, or gold fringe flag, or whatever all that stuff is. And they make that connection, but none of them are the nexus. Okay. So, that's where all the other misinformation stems from. Hold on just a second, Josh. Larry's our good listener, Larry, here's got something to interject, Larry.
[00:55:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I just was gonna ask Josh a question. Of course, mister Gordon was was a big time teacher on the common law. Correct?
[00:56:01] Unknown:
Correct.
[00:56:03] Unknown:
Yeah. So, there's other teachers out there that say, when you go into into the lower courts, because my understanding that the only true common law court, that, you know, is this well, it's been said. It's not my understanding, but it's been said that the Supreme Court is the only true common law court and all of the, other courts are inferior courts, and they rely more on on prosecuting on statutes and codes. And so there's a because of that belief, there's a number of common law teachers out there that teach that when you go into the lower courts, you have to invoke a common law court on your documents.
And, of course, they they say they teach that that the court is in the documents. It's not necessarily in the judge. The judge is not the court. The the, the participants are not the court. The court is in the documents. And so from the get go, when you start filing your your initial paperwork, they teach that you are to invoke a common law court. Do you agree with that? Because Brent Winters teaches that the courts start out as a common law court, and and they may end up in equity depending on the situation. What are your thoughts on all of that?
[00:57:27] Unknown:
Me or Roger?
[00:57:29] Unknown:
No. He's asking you, Josh.
[00:57:33] Unknown:
Well, I I have to say that I don't have enough knowledge on that to to make a meaningful comment. What I will say, like, in the case that I read at the US Supreme Court, when I refused to identify myself so I went and looked up all the the statutes in Montana code annotated, and they charged me with obstructing a peace officer for refusing to identify myself. And in Montana, it differentiates. It says, if you were stopped while in a vehicle, the officer shall ask you for identification, driver's license. And if you are on foot and you were stopped, the officer may ask you for identification.
And if you go up go and look up the word shall and may in a Portuguese or a black law dictionary
[00:58:17] Unknown:
No. They're very good. The word may
[00:58:19] Unknown:
the word may is well, the word may is voluntary and the word shall have a legal corresponding duty. Yep. Yep. And so that which makes sense if you have a driver's license, you have a contractual agreement. Well, I actually argued those words and, you know, I made it a made a example of, my argument when my case was that my name could be the beginning link in a chain of evidence to connect me to a separate crime, and that if it had no they were arguing that my name was not protected under the fourth or fifth amendments. And I said, well, if if it's not, why is it important enough for you to charge me as a crime for not giving it to you?
And so when I went down and, met the assistant attorney general for the state of Montana, the guy that ended up, being my opposition in the US Supreme Court, he he actually told me he said, I thought you were gonna win this case. And, he said, you had the correct argument. He he told me he said, I was actually very excited about your case. And I thought, well, that's kinda wild for my opposition to say this. And I asked him, I said, well, why don't you think I wanted that? And he said, because if you won this case, it would change the identification law of the entire United States.
[00:59:27] Unknown:
Well And then we got Josh, hold on. Josh, hold on just a second. We gotta pause here to say goodbye to some folks, and we'll come right back. Okay? Go ahead, Paul. One zero six point nine WBOU
[00:59:38] Unknown:
FM Chicago. Thank you for joining us for the first hour. I don't think you're gonna wanna miss this. So go to the matrixdocs.com and click on either the eurofolkradio.com link or the Global Voice Radio link. Follow us into the second hour and throughout the end of the program, including the after show if you join us on Global Voice Radio. Thanks so much for being with us. We love you, Chicago. Ciao.
[01:00:05] Unknown:
Alright. Bye bye, y'all. Okay, Josh. We're back on the the group here. I wanted to say a couple of things and address some of the dialogue that Larry had, if I may, about the Supreme Court being the only common law court. You can go find this online. Every year, Harvard Law School invites, Supreme Court justices up to talk to the law students. And the one you wanna find is when they had Clarence Thomas up there a couple years ago. And one of the students in the audience asked him, how do you decide between an administrative case and a, basically, common law case? And he and he goes, well, if it's an administrative case, we may sneak around and look at the original intent of the legislation.
So they handle both. Okay? And that's straight from Clarence Thomas's mouth, so I would assume he knows. K? And I wanted to thank and and congratulate Josh. I don't know very many patriots that have gotten a case through certiori to the Supreme Court. So just that fact alone, and it you're right. You you said you spent thousands of dollars. How many thousands of dollars did you have to spend to do that, Josh?
[01:01:26] Unknown:
Well, so initially well, I I figured that I paid roughly $7,000 for George Gordon's, quarterly strategy and procedure class. I, took a couple weeks off work, drove down there to take the class. And, and then in terms of printing costs, the local coffee shop in the little town that I live in, they they weren't too bad. But, the thing that people don't realize, like, a petition for writ of certiorari, if I remember right, just the rule book to do that with the US Supreme Court is a hundred and three pages thick. And the US Supreme Court gets about 10,000 requests for certiorari a year.
Yeah. And I believe they hear about 1% of them. So they so they look for any possible reason to toss your case out. And this rule book, I had to read this rule book five times at least, and it, it's very it's somewhat difficult to understand. And if you make a single mistake, they throw your whole case out just for technicality. Well, I know And then also if I remember
[01:02:39] Unknown:
I I'm sorry. We're getting a our signal's getting a little muddy. Our signal's getting a little muddy. I'm getting a somebody's got a mute on that. Yeah. Somebody's
[01:02:49] Unknown:
got a mute on that. That's why that goes there.
[01:02:52] Unknown:
Do we think we could get that straightened out, please? Do we think we could get that straightened out, please? It's very difficult to have a conversation when you got that echo. That is Jay Jay. Mute your line, or I'll remove you.
[01:03:05] Unknown:
Who is it? I'm having it was JJ. I'm having trouble catching him on the list. Okay. Alright.
[01:03:11] Unknown:
But it's gone now. So sorry, Josh. I I know I I know that it's it's extremely complex. Okay. Well, I either we got the gist of it. It cost thousands of dollars, and you did it yourself. So you didn't have to pay somebody to do that for you. That saved you thousands.
[01:03:30] Unknown:
But it's not an easy No. That's well, it's not completely correct. It it so the the the red is on six and eight by nine and a quarter paper, and I was able with the help of a a fellow at the college to get everything properly collated on a USB drive. And then I, sent it to a place called Cockle Law Briefing Company out of Omaha, Nebraska. That's all they do is is, US Supreme Court documents. And, anyway, I was pretty shocked. He said he told me he said they didn't have to make any changes to what I sent them. He said he did a better job on this than most attorneys that we He said we usually have to correct all the a lot of stuff from, attorneys on this, but it was, another, I think it was about $1,800 to talk a law brief printing because I recall it's 50 copies total, like 40 copies of US Supreme Court and then another 10 copies of their clerks.
So, yeah, it's about 50 copies in total and, it's good learning experience. I mean, I was told by, the assistant attorney general that I cost the state of Montana about $22,000 to collect an $85 fine out of me. So but once again, though, I mean, after after well, after I had my opposition, the assistant attorney general told me that I should have won the case, but I didn't because it would change the identification laws and everybody that was his opinion anyway. It would change the identification laws in this country to the point where nobody had to identify themselves. And if nobody has to ID themselves, then at that point in time, well, what does the state do with its its property?
So Yeah. I kinda got disheartened after that, you know, in a way. But like I said, I'd pretty well given up on all this until, Christy got ahold of me and said, hey. Have you ever heard of this? So, you know, like I said, after having a front row seat with her, case with the ATF, I mean, I've seen things that I just never would have thought possible. So Yep. I'm I'm extremely excited about all of it. And, Well,
[01:05:33] Unknown:
Josh, well, for welcome. We we love having people with that kind of experience. What we'll do, no doubt, even though you went through George's class, is as we go forward, we'll have to erase some stuff that's back there in that memory and implant it with correct stuff, but that's okay. It'll it'll take a little time. We're tickled to death to have you. And thanks for telling us your story and your background. I want to go to our, my cohost here, Brent Winters, who is a practicing attorney and, get his way in on what you've said here because he's been exceedingly quiet. Brent, are you there?
Did Brent go away? Great. I'm trying to set you up here, Brent.
[01:06:19] Unknown:
That's probably why he's been quiet.
[01:06:21] Unknown:
It might have been. He might have had to Oh, I'm I'm here, Roger. Go see a man about a horse or something. I know how bad it is. See him. Hey, Brent.
[01:06:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, that was a fascinating story. I'm glad he told it. And, but I wanna ask you quickly, what year did that happen?
[01:06:39] Unknown:
So that case initially started in 2007 when I was, harassed by the cops, and then I was adjudicated, I believe, in 02/2010. So it'd be on Josh Allen versus state of Montana if you wanna look it up.
[01:06:56] Unknown:
Cool. The, the case in 02/2004, the US Supreme Court came down with a case that settled that issue, and so I'm assuming that your case was settled on the basis of that one, but I don't know. You never know what Supreme Court's gonna do. Of course, they didn't hear the case. I should say the lower courts, but I remember this case in the US Supreme Court because I had a fellow that, I had a fellow who was trying to help the police officer ask him for his identification. He wouldn't provide it. Well, right at that time, there was a case out of Nevada that, was, pending in the US Supreme Court on that very question, and the court decided the case. It was about a a fellow named Hybel who had a daughter, and the daughter was out on a, desert road, we call them. You know, Nevada Highway, they call them out in Nevada. Just a road through the dry desert out in the middle of nowhere in the county, and and father found her or saw her and pulled off, was talking to her, and she was being rebellious and stupid and all the things that young girls do.
And, he was arguing with her pretty loudly, and somebody happened a pickup truck happened to go by and heard him arguing loudly. There was no violence, but there was loud arguing. And, of course, fathers get so they can't understand why their daughters hate them so much. I mean, I see how this work. So he was trying to persuade her with words, but that didn't work, of course. And fell in the pickup truck, called the sheriff's deputy. Sheriff's deputy came back, came out, and said, give me your identification. And he said nothing doing. I don't owe you nothing. I'm not talking, and I'm not saying anything.
And so he arrested him, took him to jail, and, somebody went his bail. I don't know who it was. And then he, he took it to court and lost, took it to appellate court and lost. And, there was a but there was a difference in that case, and I don't know about Montana. But in in Nevada, if you didn't give your driver's license or give your identification or whatever you they wanted to a law enforcement officer. It was a $250 fine. There was a statute on the books that said that. So the question in that case was, is this statute constitutional under the fifth amendment to The United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Nevada.
Of course, it's not gonna get in the Supreme Court unless it focuses on the constitution of The United States and the fifth amendment there, which it did. The thing went all the way to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, at that time by that time, I'd been made temporarily appointed the state's attorney for thirty glorious days in a small rural county to finish up another fellow's term because he left early, for reasons, out of his control. And I finished up the term, and I was I had a another case in that case that had to do with that. A fellow wouldn't give his identification. So I decided as a prosecutor for thirty days. I didn't stay long, but I learned a lot real quick. But I decided that I would withhold prosecution till that Supreme Court case was handed down, and I thought I predicted that that Supreme Court case would come down and say, of course, you don't have to give the police officer your identification under the fifth amendment because he could use that to provide a link and a chain that could lead you to a crime.
Oh, that's been the position of the federal courts for many decades. They don't provide information if it could, link you to a crime. You're not obligated to do that. Well, the Supreme Court surprised me, and they came back opinion written by a a swing vote on the Supreme Court that spent her career according to her one of her, one of her clerks spent her career playing the men on both sides, trying to get them to compromise and holding her vote, to the person who would treat her the nicest. That's really what he said happened. I'm I'm giving you his testimony, not mine. I wasn't there. But I was on a case where that justice was sitting, on the appellate court by invitation, a case that involved me, and she was called in to settle on that case so that what happened to me wouldn't be overturned. I mean, me personally. It was a brutal situation.
Never thought much of her after that, but that's what happened. So she's the one that wrote that opinion and said, absolutely. Absolutely. He has to provide his identification. If and that case said this, if there's a statute or a law on the books that says you gotta provide your identification, then that is being upheld as constitutional if that's all you're asked for. Well, her policy, having read her other cases she had written other opinions, her policy was I remember back in 02/2002, I was involved in a case where the federal courts had been had been for a long time, bringing men in for sentencing and women and then, retrying the some of the facts of the case in front of the judge to determine if they were gonna add if they were gonna add years to the sentence.
The Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Scalia, came back and said, you can't do that. Good gravy. If there's anything that goes to the influencing the sentencing of a client, it must be or a client, a defendant, it must be tried before the jury, not before the judge after the trial is over at the sentencing hearing. Hell, he said that, so we had a case before the federal courts. And, the judge said, well, we're gonna wait to see what, what people do here. We don't know what the courts are gonna do because they've been doing that so long. Isn't that a travesty? And these people are the people that are supposed to know how to protect our due process, our common law. And that's what common law is, by the way. It's just due process. That's what it is. Not what, but how we go about doing things. How?
The process, the course of our common law as some of our ancient documents have said. Well, the judge said, well, wait. That was a wise thing to do. But then after the judge waited, he went right back to doing the same thing they've been doing before, and the federal courts continue to do the same thing they were doing before justice Scalia wrote that opinion. In in some and substance, that's it. Well, in this case, in that case rather, in that case, the justice Scalia wrote, this particular justice on the Supreme Court that handed down the opinion that said you gotta provide your identification, this justice said, well, we can't rule in favor of this, petitioner.
If we do, it'll back the courts up beyond it'll load them up beyond anything the courts can deal with. And what's a sensible, patriotic, law abiding person gonna say to that? I I'll tell you what I said. I don't care how much it backs up the courts. Injustice is injustice. Deal with it. That's what you gotta do, not me. And I'm not interested in you making excuses that there's an administrative backup. Therefore, people's fundamental God bestowed duties can't be observed. I believe that with all of my heart, by the way. And if we need more federal courts, we need to spend the money on more federal judges so we can take care of things, and judges can give attention at the state level and the federal level. We need more judges. We need some bad judgment in every state. And you're gonna have more freedom with more judges that can relax and listen to cases and provide due process than you are, not hiring judges and focusing on the president, the governor, and what they're doing because they don't have the power to be final arbiters. We need more juries, more judges.
We need more courts without question. If we're a common law country and a common law tradition, the foundation of the whole thing is the jury. We can't have a common law tradition without a 12 man jury, and you need more courts. And to have more 12 man juries, you gotta have more courts, which means more judges. By the way, I see that everywhere. We will we'll be more productive as a country by far and away if we provide justice. If we don't provide justice, we will be nothing. You've got to provide justice. Justice is one of the two fundamental duties of our common law tradition of the militiamen. Number one, defense of the land by arms if necessary. That's a defense of the land. That's enemies that's enemies foreign.
Number two, enemies domestic. That means the militiaman's willingness to serve on the jury. And without I never law of the land, you don't defend the land. That's the jury duty. Without defense of the land, that's militia duty. You don't defend the law of the land. And without that, you don't have nothing. You don't have freedom. You live like the rest of the world. But that case, Hybel, came down wrong. But what they're doing now is they're upholding, statutes. It it was a misdemeanor. You're talking about your case was a small fine, and they spent $22,000. That that's patriotism. That's what you did. You decided to test the government's point of view, and you have every duty, not right. A right is a duty. You have every duty to do that. I don't care how much money they spend. What is personal freedom worth? All you got in this life is life, liberty, and property. You take any what you take away or impede any one of those three. And by it will, it will lessen the others by that degree. You take away liberty. You take away property at the same time, and you take away quality of life.
So what you did was a patriotic thing to do. It love of land, love of the law of the land, and you were doing your best, and I applaud people that do that. And it it is a duty that costs money. It takes time. I'm glad some people do it. But getting back to the point, the sixth or the fifth amendment is at stake here. Why should I have provide, why should I have provide anything to, an employee of government that they could use against me to maybe conjure up? And us that are guilty. It doesn't make any difference. That's not even relevant.
[01:17:39] Unknown:
I have a question.
[01:17:41] Unknown:
To conjure up to conjure up a criminal prosecution.
[01:17:44] Unknown:
Somebody said they have a question. Yeah. They did. Yeah. I don't recognize the voice. Allen out of out of Chicago. Okay.
[01:17:54] Unknown:
This is something that I've actually argued in court, as a matter of giving an ID. The question is whether I'm required to have one. Not required to have an ID on me. I have twenty four hours in order to present ID, and that includes a driver's license if you're pulled over. So how is it that they're jumping the gun and playing leapfrog
[01:18:17] Unknown:
in order to sit there and create a crime out of something that there isn't even a statute to cover? Well, I'm surprised. I'm surprised as long as you've been doing this that you don't recognize the sinful nature of mankind and say, oh, I can tell you how to do it because they're sinners. That's why. That's the way they were born, just like you and me. And that's the world we live in. I'm being facetious. I just say that for other people's benefit, not to criticize you. You're trying to do the right thing. But, what this statute said was you have to provide you have to give identification. You have to tell them your name. And, also, of course, is included in that. You make a good point that, well, I'm not required to have an ID that I I don't have to give you one. But in Nevada, you they would have said, well, you've got to tell us your name. See? That's what they have said. Now I had a client down in Missouri who, it's a fascinating I don't wanna give I wanna give his name.
I wanna give his name, but I'm not going to simply because he might not want me to, but it was fascinating. He said when he was born from above, when he had received the spiritual birth, that he decided he would change his name just like, Israel. God changed his name to Jacob. And, Saul, God changed his name to Paul. And he My my name. Wait a minute. I'm not done. Allen, Lane, finish. One. No. Don't break in. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Stop talking. Don't break in. When Roger and I are talking, everybody else has to stop. That's the rule here. And that rule exists because we can't have order otherwise, and somebody's gotta be in that position, and it's Roger and I. But, when I'm done, then you can chime in.
I think what you've got to say is just as important what I got to say, but it's just a matter of order. That's the way it works here. So when I'm done and now you've got me off my game. Don't do that. I forgot where I was going, but the bottom line, oh, this fell he changed his name. You know, like, in if you have a middle name in the West, we have middle names, in the biblical pattern because one name is acknowledgment of our birth in the in the flesh, and the other name is acknowledgment. Traditionally, we forgot this, but our parents believe that our baptism and we're that's the way they used to do it, that we would be born from above, born spiritually. Well, he decided he'd change his name.
And, when people found out about it in the community, especially the state police, they decided they were gonna send him to prison for a long time. Because if you change your name, which by the way, you have every right to do and far as I know, You have every right to go into court and be called by the name you wanna be called by. Right. That's something I discovered in that case as a matter of law in that state. If you wanna be prosecuted by the name Joe instead of John, you can do that. Whatever. Well, anyway, he did that, and, boy, they had him tied up for years. Had him arrested, had an ankle bracelet on him because he would not provide a birth certificate, and he wouldn't provide, what they said was his birth name. He wouldn't say nothing. He went to jail. He wouldn't eat. He said, I'm not accepting anything from you, Reason they let him out of jail holding him he wouldn't let him out on bail. Amazing.
This is how important this is, and this explains too why, listen to me, why baptism for centuries in Europe was absolutely required. And if you were an Anabaptist and said, well, I I think we ought to be baptized by pouring or dunking, They they wouldn't just, they wouldn't just, put you at the stake and strangle you before they burned you. They'd burn you alive. All Anabaptists, by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, were burned alive. That means a rebaptizer. If you were, another in another group like the Dutch reform church or something and you, you weren't an Anabaptist, you accepted the baptism of of Rome, in your Protestantism, well, then they wouldn't they just burn you they'd burn you at the stake after they strangled you. That's how important this whole thing about birth certificates are. Well, that came from that came from baptism certificates.
If you don't take cognizance of the Christian history of the West, it it nothing makes much sense, frankly, friends. But this whole thing about what what are they they're trying to find a way to identify everybody. That's why this national ID this is the same problem they had in Europe, and baptism became the the thing under Roman church. Baptized as an infant. You entered the law of the city community. You see the canon civil laws of Rome. You were a citizen. That means you were citified. That's what the word means. And on and on the madness went. And I'm gonna make one more point, and then, whoever was trying to talk a minute ago can get back in.
One more point, and that is this. Things never change, and we're struggling still with that. What is a nation? I started out in the discussion before. A nationhood America is the only nation that's ever achieved the point of nationhood. The word nation is French, and it has to do with nativity. It's the same root word. It has to do with birth, and there are two two things attached to your birth. Number one, where you were born, on what land. That's biblical. Number two, who was your who were your birth parents? We still recognize that a lot of ways under our constitution. But then to what degree is important? Well, whoever was trying to talk a while ago, it's your turn. Okay. Alan, go ahead.
[01:23:52] Unknown:
Go ahead. Alan, you're muted.
[01:23:57] Unknown:
If Alan's not on, Josh is on still.
[01:24:00] Unknown:
Okay. Everybody's on. But, Alan, we're gonna give you another chance, buddy.
[01:24:05] Unknown:
Right here. I'm sorry. It takes me a few seconds in order to find all the different units. I got three I have to clear, and two of them are across the room. But, Sounds like me. Yeah. No. The point I wanted to make was the fact that these people are are actually overstepping when they ask for ID. And I do have an answer for, you know, you want my name. Well, what name do you want me? You know? A lot of people call me asshole. A lot of other people call me a jerk. What name do you want? Okay? And and quite honestly, they're not being specific. But if they wanna sit there and demand something from me, I will give it to them. It's just not the way that they expect it. And, as far as common law is concerned, I have seen, and I've actually, been an observer. I've been a for several times in the courtroom as well.
And, I have seen the court flip between statutory and common common law, and, it it's actually incorporated in both. The question is, are you gonna follow what has already been, set by other cases, or are you gonna make an entirely new, determination for that? And a lot of people don't understand the separation between statutory and common common law or statutory common law and international law, which they constantly misidentify with the fringe on the flag, which is something that I've, taken time in order to find out about it. It's a recognition of a treaty. And the recognition of the treaty in the court is absolutely mandated, for the for the, formality of that, treaty. And that is if someone in North Korea owns a restaurant in California and the restaurant is then fined, does the owner still responsible? Yes. They are. And that, treaty that makes the owner responsible and the restaurant within their jurisdiction for proper, there was a better word for that. I don't have it right now. But, basically, in order to address the fact that, yeah, maybe a foreign, owner, but that doesn't mean you don't pay the bill or you don't keep a clean restaurant. It allows the jurisdiction to continue.
So, yeah, I I yield, but I I thought I might bring you know? It's it's it's a matter of the last interpretation or whether you're following precedents or whether you're following a a new statute. And let me tell you something. When we say the word statute, we are talking in complete sentences just the same way as, oh, you look suspicious. Suspicious of I don't talk to people that talk in incomplete sentences. So, basically, a statute is not a statute. It's a statute at large, meaning it has never been, constitutionally
[01:26:48] Unknown:
challenged. I yield. That's correct. Ellen. It's assumed to be constitutional when it's passed by the house and the senate and the president signs it. And it goes into the statutes at large, the presumption of constitutionality is there. Go ahead. Alan,
[01:27:04] Unknown:
for the purposes of this discussion, you may address me as, oh, captain, my captain.
[01:27:12] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that must be a personal joke. I would like to because we didn't get to in the first hour, and and Josh is here. And I think, Josh, this is gonna perk your ears up. Brent, why don't you tell him a little bit about you and your website and your, Winters Inn and all that?
[01:27:32] Unknown:
Thanks, Roger. Commonlawyer.com. W w w Common lawyer Com. And if you go to that website, you can, take law classes, and we focus on the common law. I wanna make a comment after I introduce the website about, what he said about statutory law. There's much patriot mythology. I would say that most of the people, I I like some of them, that I call them common law gurus, are not only a little wrong, they're so far off, they're just distracting everything and everybody. It's it it gets too complicated. People make it too complicated, and these common law gurus make it too complicated. I'm not necessarily including anybody that you like.
But just recognize there is no there is no grand distinction between statutory law and our common law. That's not the distinction. Is there a difference? Oh, there can be, but that's not really it. It's more it's it's more overarching than that. It's greater. You don't have to get into that kind of minutia. And that's why I talk about the common law. I went into this years ago. I'll give my personal experience again. I mean, decades ago. And, as a patriot, having been around patriots, having heard people talk about the common law and all that, and and I said, this isn't making any sense. And the friends on the this doesn't make any sense what they're telling me about the fringe on the flag, all that. I said, I'm gonna find out. I'm gonna get inside and find out what I can. I was one of those kind of guys, so I got inside. And I spent, my life and everything I had to try to go to law school and discover what they were telling these people.
I got in. I struggled through it. Got through it. Had a well, I had to stop at one point, quit, and I got in the mining business, and then I went back again. And, what I'm fortunate because I one of my professors, I told people on this presentation before, he'd been a prosecutor at Nuremberg. And he was an older fellow then. He's gone now, and I'd sit and listen to him. He was I found out later, one of the foremost common lawyer comparative lawyers in the country. Comparative law is a comparing and contrasting the law of the land, our common law with the law of the city. And I'll say it again. I wanna say it again because it's absolutely true. Our common law is not a list of laws. It is not about outcome standards. Like the Bible says, do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder your neighbor. Those are outcome standards. There's no process mentioned there. Our common law is process.
Our common law doesn't include due process. That's what our common law is. Period. And God has given to us in this life as men down here on this on land in the day of man as opposed to the day of the Lord as distinguished from the day of the Lord. We are now in the day of man, the day of God's delegation of administration to government and justice. And in this day in this day, we are given jurisdiction over process, over how things are done, not what's done, not what the outcome is. Do not covet, lie, steal, commit adultery, or murder. That's not our jurisdictions. Statutory law fundamentally is God's jurisdiction. That dictates what the outcome has to be. That's what it is, and that's the check we can put on our process. But God has given to us as men discernment discernment to make sure that all things are done according to the adversarial tradition, not the inquisitorial tradition.
And our common law governs everything. It governs all statutes, how we go about. I've I've been in cases where argued the statute of frauds, and the statute of frauds never quoted once in the whole proceeding. What did they quote instead? We were quoted cases that overlay the statute of frauds. Why? Because we're in the judicial branch. The judicial branch knows what the judicial branch does. We follow precedent. That precedent applies to the judicial branch. Does it apply to the executive branch and the legislative? Not if they don't want it to, it doesn't. That's why lawyers argue precedent because they're officers of the judicial branch. They're not officers of the other branches. And the our common law, part of it is precedent.
That's how we go about doing things in the judicial branch. The judicial branch is the first branch of government. It it it has to come first. It's not the governing branch, but it's the branch that happens first, and that's the only branch where justice can happen. The only branch where justice can happen. It can't happen anyplace else. Every our legislation legislation, statutes ain't with a wide brush. No justice there. Justice is only individual, and it's only individual if you take a case to court like these gentlemen have said they've done, and we're glad they have. It doesn't exist anywhere else. But our common law tradition is due process, but go to www.commonlawyer.com.
I don't profess my everything, but there are things that I know for sure. And the things I know for sure, I assert hard. And one of them is that there's much patriot mythology about there out there about what our common law tradition is. And the only way to know our common law tradition, the only way to know it is to compare and contrast it with the law of the city. There isn't any other way. Men have said that for centuries. I can go back a little to the 13 hundreds. In the fifteenth century, Fortescue, they said the same thing. They're absolutely correct. Comparing and contrasting our common law.
[01:33:00] Unknown:
Well, I Paul, can you see where that ambient noise is coming from? It sounds like somebody's driving with a window open.
[01:33:06] Unknown:
Yeah. When people unmute and just leave their mic open, it causes interference. So unmute and then say something. And when you're done talking, mute again.
[01:33:18] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Please. I I need to do that more too. I need to mute when I'm not talking. I'd make noises. So thank you for that admonition from every angle. But what I struggle with, Roger, is, my what I struggle with did somebody say something? Somebody's trying to. They just never learn. I don't care how many times you Well, you're not going to. No. Not now. Not now. You have to wait till clearly. Can you please wait till we say what we're saying? Clearly, I quit. I don't I don't get paid to do this. And so I call the shots along with Roger. He's got a quick question.
No. Not now. No. No. Not now. I'm gonna finish, but I'll I'll get to you, and I appreciate all the questions. Well, that helps everybody, and you're important to what's going on here, but not now. So may finish up. I'll finish up and do what Roger asked me to do. Roger said, tell him so we're about the course. So we're teaching a course at the Winter's Inn. We're teaching a course. I just noticed, George Gordon used to have what he called, something in. He called it an in, but he changed it to George Gordon Gordon School of Law. Right. But we we'd call it Winter's Inn just because that's the ancient common law schools that, taught common law. They did it privately. The government had nothing to do with it, by the way, and we call it Winter's Inn. And we're teaching a course on comparative law. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. We've taught maybe a dozen or so courses, sheriff Darleaf and I from Barrick County, Michigan. And I want you to take the course. I live to get the points across if I can about the difference between our law of the land and the law of the city. And the law of the city, the code of canon civil laws of Rome govern almost every country in the world with the exception of the common law countries, and we're one of those countries. And our freedom is attributed to our common law tradition. It's a Christian tradition, friends, anciently and now. And that's what we have whether people understand it or not, whether they admit it or not. I know the patriots just say, oh, the common law courts are gone. Oh, there is no common law jury. That's utter absolute hogwash.
That's not true at all. And I we can explain why. Well, well, I know they're not doing it right. Well, you go you can listen to the gurus. They'd say that because they make money. Here I am. They make money saying it because that kind of negative talk makes money just like sells newspapers. I'm not getting paid to do what I'm doing here, but I like to do it. And if you wanna take that course, you can you can, make a donation and can and, appreciation of a donation. We'll, we're gonna we're gonna teach the course. But sheriff Darleef and I, sheriff Darleef is not a lawyer, but he's been a sheriff for over twenty years, and he had been studying our common law tradition, and I'm fortunate to have ran into him for years. We've had him on this show.
[01:36:04] Unknown:
We have. He's an important him back too.
[01:36:07] Unknown:
Yeah. And, well, we're gonna do that. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do claim this, and I claim it with all of my might. I don't have all the answers, and I don't know everything. But I know my nose is pointed down the right road. I know that for a fact. Amen. I'm not gonna apologize for it. And a lot of what you're hearing, these fellas noses are not pointed down the right road. I don't know them all because I don't spend time listening to them. I do remember some of them. I spend my time I'll tell you where I spend it, and I spend all my time in the laws of nature, our common law tradition. I read cases. I read comparative law, and the laws of nature's god, our Bible. Now maybe give you an idea. And those are the two volumes, the laws of nature's god unwritten and the laws of nature that, govern our common law tradition, which is a Christian tradition.
And and points of apparent inconsistency between those two volumes, we have established and see clearly that the laws of nature's god, our Bible, is the court of last resort. Well, go to commonlawyer.com. Thank you, Roger. Take the course. We have a comparative law text there. Mhmm. Utterized translation of the Bible from the original tongues. We have that. I've gone to great lengths to try to establish these two volumes. I still am. I'm enjoying it very much. You can partner with us to do that, but it just comes down to learning. It's just the fundamentals, friends. Don't get caught up in all this patriot mythology detail. The longer I live you know, Sam Johnson said that patriotism is the refuge the last refuge of the scoundrel. Yep. Boy, have I seen that, and I see it more as I get older. Yep. The place for people to hide back the truth.
[01:37:44] Unknown:
Well, I I want Roger, go ahead. Roger. I want the question to be asked. Hold on. Hold on. But I want Brent to go back and tell the story about Blackstone and how all of this originated. Because if you have not heard that, you probably can't appreciate what he and Darleaf are gonna do, sheriff Narr. Okay. Who was it that had the question a minute ago?
[01:38:08] Unknown:
It was Larry, and I apologize. It was me making a noise. I was trying to ask a question, but Paul with lightning fast speed muted me. But I have four questions for Brent. The first one is, does he believe Brent, do you believe no no matter what court you walk into, whether it's state or federal, it is as when you're walking into that court or start or start, you know, initiating any type of filing in that court, that that is a common law court right off the bat? That's my first question.
[01:38:46] Unknown:
No. No. I don't believe it is. Next question.
[01:38:52] Unknown:
Okay. And, getting back to the ID, are you suggesting and and politely advising students that if they're stopped by a police officer, seeking identification in any of the 50 states, that they should present identification or at the very least, tell the officer their name?
[01:39:18] Unknown:
No. And I'm not given any legal advice to any particular case. I can't do that as a lawyer and do that's not proper because I don't know anybody's case. I'm telling you what the courts have done. But, so I'm not giving any advice. Next question.
[01:39:34] Unknown:
Okay. A lot of the gurus teach these common law gurus teach that when you get into a court, you should invoke a common law court in your paperwork. Do you feel that's necessary?
[01:39:49] Unknown:
No.
[01:39:53] Unknown:
Okay. Last question. In our in Arkansas, there's a I believe it's a statute that says that all courts in Arkansas will be deemed a court of record. Can you explain what you believe a court of record to be, and why is it that Arkansas has that particular, statute in place? Like, what what's so unusual about a court of record that they had to, you know, you know, put that in the statute?
[01:40:29] Unknown:
A court of record is a court that keeps records word by word for word of everything that happens in the court. Don't make this complicated. The common law gurus have every other every other imaginable definition for a court of record. But a court of record is a common law court that records every word. The rest of the world does not do that. That's the grand distinction. One of the grand distinction, but that's the grand distinction on that point. The rest of the world, some may some may that maybe ever seen that a police officer, he he writes down after an incident, he writes down his take on it.
Yeah. And that's why they hate you recording them. Yeah. That's a common law way of doing things, word for word. That's the Christian way of doing things. We have word for word what God said. The Hebrew phrase all through the old hundreds of times. Ko Amor Adonai. We should say Ko Amor Yahuha. Thus, Seth Yahuha. Meaning the Hebrew phrase meaning this is what he said. Exactly. Jesus Christ says every jot, every tittle, every yod, that's the Greek way and the Koine Greek of saying the smallest signifying the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Every tittle, that's a serif on the end of the Hebrew, of a Hebrew letter that could change it from one letter to another, which could change a word from one word to another. Jesus Christ said every dot, jot, and every tittle shall come to pass. That's the common law view of law.
We don't mess around. You know, people complain. Well, the this, the amendment to the constitution, this amendment or that amendment that was passed, that's not the same amendment that was offered to the States. Well, that's true. That happens. That means that they didn't follow due process the way we go about doing our amendment. We believe in our common law tradition. Justice Scalia said, listen. When I get a statute to interpret it, I'll interpret it just the way the legislator wrote it. Legislature wrote it. And if you legislators don't want the statute to be ambiguous, you better start making up your minds to be more precise.
Well, he approaches he approached legislation that way. We approach the constitution that way. Our common law tradition says every word of a writing of legal significance, every word of a writing of legal significance must be allowed to tell, t e l l. There is no such thing in our common law tradition as superfluous words and writings of legal significance. That was the position of Jesus Christ about the Bible, by the way. There are no superfluous words. Every word must count. When I translate the Bible, there are particles in the Hebrew and the Greek that the grammarians say are untranslatable.
I have found that not to be true. No. They're translatable, and I always translate them. What it does make clumsy English, but you get the point. I wanna know what it says. That's important to me. Why? Because it was important to my master, Jesus Christ. That's why he dictates to me what is proper. And it all comes back to our common law tradition as a Christian tradition, and that's simply what a court of record is. Don't make it complicated. And if they won't take if they don't wanna, the court doesn't have somebody there recording every word, you have the option of hiring somebody to come in and do that. That doesn't go on in the rest of the world. It's always a summation of what government some government employee has said. Well, that's that question. Now I answered the other three yes or no, but I wanna go back and qualify and elaborate. Is that alright?
[01:44:14] Unknown:
Larry, is that alright? Yeah. Go ahead, Brent. I'll give you permission. Go ahead. Question number one is every court at common law perfect.
[01:44:21] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. Is that okay. Question number one, is every court a common law court in America? And I said no. Why did I say no? Well, number one, because Jesus Christ said to answer that way. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. And I decided when you asked me a question, I'd say yes or no and then hope I had time to go back and unpack what I meant by yes or no. I that's a good idea, but I should say yes or no upfront, and I'm working on that, by the way, to try to be better at that, and I hope you are too. No. Not every count law. For example, you go into Louisiana, there aren't any common law courts in Louisiana.
Louisiana is the only what, Roger? What?
[01:44:59] Unknown:
True dat. Yeah. Louisiana
[01:45:01] Unknown:
is the only law of the city jurisdiction in America and Quebec is the only law of the city jurisdiction in Canada. And those are the only two law of the city jurisdictions North of the Rio Grande River clean up to the North Pole if whatever the North Pole is. Well, law of the city, the code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, Quebec, and Louisiana. Why? Because the French speaking people there are by the way, the people in Louisiana are from Quebec, and they like the canon civil laws in their heart of hearts and the religious conviction as Roman Catholic Roman church, French speaking people, and they like that like they do in Mexico. They like it too. And so they have dictators and emperors, and they want that law that allows tyranny. They want it. They love it. We call that to be enthralled.
You know, a throl is an Anglo Saxon word that means slave. And to be enthralled is to be enslaved and slobber over it. Love it. Love it. Yeah. And if you're not Christian, that's what you are. You're enslaved and you love it. It's sick, isn't it? It's damnable sick. And some of you are more concerned about the about me staying damned than you are that it's damnable sick that people love slavery, but they do. So that was from Bertrand Russell. Some of Roger. Are you Roger? Yes. Some of the architects of this, like Bertrand Russell,
[01:46:26] Unknown:
stated they will love their slavery.
[01:46:29] Unknown:
Yeah. People why do people why do people said somebody smarter than me? Why do people rattle their chains to proclaim to proclaim their freedom? Why is it that the the Pharisees came to Jesus Christ and ticked off and mattered fire and said, we have never been enslaved to no man. Well, they were enslaved to Rome when they said that. They've been enslaved in Babylon. They've been taken away in chains more than once. Why did they say that? Because people that are enthralled love their slavery. The people that came out of Egypt came out with their heels in the dirt. They didn't wanna come out, and they had been enslaved for a few centuries.
They were subject to all the gods of of of Egypt, and they loved it. The Bible says so. That's what it means to not be a Christian man or woman. You can't take yourself out of that. A slave needs a deliverer, and that's who Jesus the Christ is. He delivers men from their slavery to the moments their own selves and the other to the they fall they fall down, as the Bible says, like a a wet a wet willing whore before a man. That's pagan religion, friends. You got I hope you aren't in it. If you are, I hope you get out. That's what will destroy you and destroy your family and destroy our country. Well, anyway, getting back to the questions. Appreciate them. So common law court, no. You got the tribunals.
You've got, for example, the the tax court of the federal government. That's not a common law court. All of these states are not common law courts. Those are courts of the executive branch. That's not a common law court. They're not we we shouldn't even have them there. The executive branch doesn't like, the governors and presidents, they have no power of decision banking any more than they have power of legislating, but they do it. Oh, yeah. They have a regulations that, bureaucracies passed that's under the authority of the president or the state governor. That was a transformation that occurred under Roosevelt in the nineteen thirties. He loved that civil law government too. He didn't care about due process. So, no, every court is not a common law court, but if you go into a judicial branch court where they impanel the 12 man jury, chances are you got a common law court, and I will believe that's true until proven otherwise in any particular instance. The beauty of our common law is that if everything isn't done right, it still works. If the jury is stacked, it can still work. I had it happen to me.
A a 12 man jury sprung me and it was stacked. I'll never forget it. How could I forget something like that? Resilience of our common law tradition. God ordained the 12 man jury. It works. It's the way he want it's the way he wants us to do things. It's the way our common law is processed. The course of our common law is the way he wants us to come to decisions about, a justice. A second question. Am I suggesting am I advising people to do this or that? No. I don't do that. As a lawyer, the law I live under says, no. You're not supposed to advise people unless you have an attorney client relationship with them. And that's a well defined relationship in our common law tradition. And I don't have an attorney client relationship with most all these people I'm talking to, so, no, I'm not giving any advice.
But I will tell you what the what the what the cases say, and you must make a decision. You must make a decision. Now it's my personal conviction that it is against a God given God given directly to the man duty over his tongue that he not talk if he doesn't want to. And it's a duty that he decides when he will talk. That's called freedom of speech under the first amendment and when he will not talk. Freedom to not talk and shut your tater trap under the fifth amendment. That's your jurisdiction that God, your creator, has given you over your tongue.
And you should, according to God, your creator, all over the Bible, be quick to hear, as James says, and slow to speak. Jesus Christ invoked the right to the duty to remain silent before the evil empire and the under governor Pilate. He refused to talk and Pilate said, I can't believe you're not responding to my questions. Don't you know that I can have you killed? That's essentially what he was saying. And Jesus Christ said, I ain't talking. It says he stood moot. Dumb. The old English word d u m b, d u m b means he didn't talk. He didn't talk. Well, that's the answer to that question. Number three, do you need to invoke a common law court when you go into a court in state or federal court?
If you do, the judge won't know what you're talking about. It what? What do you mean invoke a common law court? What are you talking about? It just make you him look at you like an, like a blooming idiot. Now you can do that. It's called the right of petition. The right of petition means you can take a piece of paper and submit it to some government employee like a judge and tell them that you object or you wanna say something. That's your duty to do that. Yeah. It's not against the law. I'm just giving you what I understand about judges. I know how they were educated. I know kinda what they went through. I don't know everything. Like, I know what I went through, but I can't testify.
I'll give you my my take on it. I've been into court more times than I could possibly count and what goes on there. If I went in and said, judge, I invoke a common law court. No. That's not the way it works. Traditionally, by custom, this isn't written down anywhere. Our common law is largely unwritten. You go into court and you say, judge, in my first response to the pleading, right on the front, I don't make a motion, for my client to be tried by jury. And I put it right on the front page, big letters, jury trial demanded. That's a demand.
Well, if I'm demanding a jury trial, what am I demanding? I'm demanding something that doesn't exist in the entire world except in the common law countries of which they're only, well, all common law countries are England, the Britain, I should say. Yes. And, Cornwall and Wals, Wals, Wals, Cornwall and Wals, and, of course, Northern Ireland and Ireland and all of the colonies that arose out of those. Those are our common law countries, not many, not that many. And we're the most powerful common law country, and we're more common law than any country in the world. And when and we go into a common law country and a common law country, and you could go into a country that's not a common law country and demand a jury trial if you want to. Maybe they give you one. I doubt it. And if they did, they wouldn't know how to do it because how you do it is what makes it work.
Process, friends. How do you impanel a jury? How do you sequester a jury? Who sequesters the jury? Who's in charge of the jury? What power does the jury have? How do they go about deciding the case? How do you form a jury pool? That's all common law, unwritten, much of it, tradition. We can't write it all down. We've tried. It doesn't work. You try to write things that's what legislators try to do. Right? When they write a statute, they try to cover every possible contingency that could occur. And then you know what happens next? Immediately almost, something bobs forth from the flux of human relationships that they never thought of, nobody ever thought of before, and the statute doesn't cover it.
Statutes do confuse. There's nothing wrong with statutes. Some statutes are very good and are calculated to invoke common law freedoms like the statute of habeas corpus. They tried to fulfill the whole idea of, of addressing false imprisonment for centuries. And finally, there's somebody lighted upon this with a writ of habeas corpus and, it's worked real good. But every legislator has a duty to make sure that legislation conforms to our common law tradition. Every governor and every president in the executive branch has the same responsibility and duty.
When they swear an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States against enemies, foreign and domestic, that didn't create any new duty. That just strengthens the duty they already got as an American. And what does that mean? That means that they support and defend how the general government in Washington DC is supposed to work according to that document we call the constitution. Yeah. It applies to government, not us. And it is a document that tells us the processes of how government is supposed to work. It does not give us outcome standards. It has nothing to say about contract law except just to mention it, but doesn't say anything about it. It had nothing to say about trial by jury except to say you have a right to it. Doesn't unpack any of it. It'd take a train load of stuff to unpack the history of the jury trial. It doesn't say anything about what a dollar is. It mentions it. There's nothing there. It doesn't explain anything. It is a brief of how government applies to common law and compact, quoting the Supreme Court of the United States in compact draft.
Our common law tradition, friends, is our second greatest blessing, quoting Fratcher. Well, what's our first greatest blessing? If a common law tradition, the laws of nature is God, that's what that phrase means from our declaration. If that's the second greatest blessing, according to common lawyers, what's our first greatest blessing? Comparative lawyers, that's a a discipline of our common law tradition. That doesn't exist anywhere else in the world either, like it does here. Well, what is the first greatest blessing? It is the laws of nature's God.
That's a phrase as Blackstone tells us that means the Bible. He said that in 1765, '11 years before our declaration of '76, the phrase arose out of the Scottish enlightenment. But that's what it means. The laws of nature, our common law tradition, process, course of process, the laws of nature is God, our Bibles, Outcome standards included there and process too. How many witnesses does it take to establish any material fact? At least two according to the Bible. At least two. But no more than three. Well, what does our common law tradition say? Well, all common all lawyers in America know in our common law tradition, you need at least two witnesses to really make something stick in at a jury trial in front of the jury.
Three is, two is best. Three is okay. Four or more will hurt you. You don't need all those. And if you do, of course, our common law tradition says that the judge has authority to say no. We've got a couple. That's enough. Cumulative evidence, they call we call it a common law. You don't you gotta draw the line someplace. The Bible does draw the line on that one. So the laws of nature and the laws of nature is God. Focus on those friends and listen to these common law gurus. Maybe there's a good one out there. I don't know. But most of them get caught up in minutiae. Most of them, I won't say which one. I will listen to enough to know they're wrong headed. They're going down the wrong road. If you ask them what our common law was, they couldn't give you a definition.
They couldn't give you a definition. Why? They think they know. They'll say they'll say, well, it's anything that's not statutory. That's not true at all. No, sir. Now they'll say a lot of things. Our common law tradition can only be known as it, our common law is compared and contrasted with its ever present antagonist, the law of the city. The civil canon laws of Babylon, of Rome, of Pergamos, and how they exist today in the Roman empire primarily. The Roman empire with the Canon laws of the church of Rome and the code of Justinian of the sixth century, that is the code that governs every country in the world. It gives opportunity for tyrannical power. Our common law tradition does not do that. We're gonna go over those fundamentals.
They're biblical. They're biblical too, but that doesn't mean it arose from the Bible. Our common law did not. Our bible our common law arises from our observations of creation and the relationships, as Blackstone puts it in his commentaries on the laws of England Seventeen Sixty Five. It our common law arises from our observation of the relationships and how they work, how, not what, how they work between men and men, men and things, things and things, men and animals. That's all our common law tradition. And we observe, hey. Wait a minute. We've been watching this for centuries. Oh, we get it. Oh, this is what we're gonna say we're gonna do here. This is how we apply and to be calculated to achieve these unchangeable outcome standards that God has given us. Our Puritan forebearers, which were the pilgrim, they were a sect, a part of the Puritan tradition.
They said when they got here, what's the first thing they established? Well, the first thing they established is what they established all over the North American continent no matter where they got. First thing they established were courts and they impaneled juries being English speaking people. That's all they knew. They impaneled juries. What's the next thing they established? Well, they finally got around to establish an executive branch to fulfill the rulings of the courts. The legislation, they said, we don't need that. We got the outcome standards in the Bible. Why do we need more than that? Well, these are the three branches of our of our common law tradition. This is Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com common lawyer dot com. Join us for that website. Join us for the comparative law course we're teaching there.
And, you can also get the winterized translation of the Bible and the comparative law text, but that will be included, 958 pages, comparing and contrasting our law of the land with the law of the city. That will be included with the course. Thank you, Roger.
[02:00:06] Unknown:
No, Brett. As always Questions and comments. Just a pleasure to have you, buddy. And, all these many years of doing these Friday shows, for the, we'll stick around after the show here. I wanna explain something to the guys on the board, And, we'll, see you again Saturday. That's tomorrow. And, of course, Brent and I are on opposite each other tomorrow. Sometimes that works out, and sometimes it's a opposition, but you can listen to one of the other, recorded your choice. Otherwise and that will, look forward to seeing you tomorrow and see, see what happens today. There's a lot of, a lot of stuff flying for sure.
So, Brent, thank you so much, Franny. Always a pleasure to see you, sweetie, and, we'll, look for you next Friday and see where the world is at that point. But thanks, for all your explanation and your expertise. It's just a wealth of knowledge, and I will tell you it's hard to do a bad show with Brent Winters on board. So we'll see you tomorrow or soon. Take care. Ciao. Ciao. Okay. Hold on, Larry. Hold on. You, your questions have taken about thirty minutes here. I wanted to put into and buttress Brent's upcoming seminar on the comparative law. And what stuck with me that I was amazed at, I'm gonna tell it. I'm gonna attribute it to you, Brent, that, a rich Jewish guy hired Blackstone to go into Oxford and teach the law of the city.
Now at that point, correct me if I'm wrong, Brent, but the common law had never been written down. And so what Blackstone did was figured out the only way to go teach the law of the city was to teach the comparative differences between the two schools. And out of that came Blackstone's Commentaries. And out of that, Blackstone's Commentaries was the second most read book in the colonies. And was the first time it had ever been written down. I was astounded when Brent told us that, but that's what he's got coming up with sheriff Darr, one of the, few there's few common law sheriffs kind in the country.
And,
[02:02:29] Unknown:
I will be very anxious. That starts in July what, Brent? Tenth? July the tenth is scheduled. Thanks, Roger. And, yeah, you're fundamentally correct. Werner was a wealthy Jewish merchant in England, and he established a chair of of lecture at Oxford. And, he used the back he was supposed to teach about the law of the city, the civil laws of Rome. That's what this what Werner wanted him to do. But he said, I can't really demonstrate what it is without comparing and contrasting the only other tradition of religion, law, and government in the world. And that it is the only there's only two. Yep. And a thousand different labels, the law of the city, the the false one comes under, making people think there are a lot of traditions, different religions, and no. Not at all. Not at all. Just one. You just learn, like, our common law. Somebody said, is Brent still here or a question or hey. Go ahead. Yeah. It was Paul. Paul, your question? Hold on. I've been trying to get it in for about a half hour.
Well, hang on, Paul. Paul. Thank you. Alright, Samuel. Woah. Woah. Woah.
[02:03:28] Unknown:
I'll get to you. No. No. No. No. He Yeah. Go ahead. He's in here. I defer to him because he has been on mute as well as to the show.
[02:03:37] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to ask Brent, what year did he start lawyering full time?
[02:03:49] Unknown:
What year did I start lawyering full time? And I'm taking the words for what you said. Now I started lawyering, full time in the year '19, '88.
[02:04:09] Unknown:
Thank you.
[02:04:11] Unknown:
Okay. You know where that lawyering term came from was John. He he had about a three hour conversation with Larry Beecraft on the tax thing, all that old tax stuff they'd accumulated. And after the when Larry didn't get it, and John John said Larry's been lawyer in too long. Go ahead, Paul.
[02:04:33] Unknown:
But wait, Paul. Our other caller.
[02:04:35] Unknown:
Paul? Paul? Yeah. Can I make one more comment? I distinguish there between the word lawyering and attorney. And, attorneys are people that are licensed, but I've been working for lawyers since 1988. Well, if that answers the question. Thank you. Go ahead.
[02:04:51] Unknown:
I have a question for you real quick, and it's something that I'm actually working on right now. Well, hang on a minute. I think Paul was ahead of you. Weren't you, Paul? Okay. Go ahead.
[02:05:00] Unknown:
Well okay. Hang on a minute, Alan. Our new caller that's been unmuted for most of the show. I wanna know if he's got anything else that he wants to ask.
[02:05:13] Unknown:
You mean Josh? Yeah. Josh. Josh. Did you get a drink out of a fire hydrant today or what?
[02:05:23] Unknown:
Well, I've I've got a got a number of number of comments after listening to Brent. I'll touch on high volt really quickly and the what he said with the Supreme Court saying if the state law or if the state had a law that's, mandated ID provided. Well, in my case, it didn't. Like I said, the word shall and may are legally distinct, and the assistant attorney general in the state agreed with me on that. So I'll leave it there. And then the second thing I would like to add is, one of the things that differentiates, as far as I know, between common law and civil law would be in common law, there has to be a damaged party for a crime to occur, whereas law, like much of our statutes in this country, you have two types of crimes, malakose and malakrohibita.
Malakose and malakrohibita. Malakose is the same as things that are evil in and of themselves. Okay. That's pit that's patriot
[02:06:20] Unknown:
that. That is patriot mythology. No. There doesn't have to be in there. That's centuries of reality. And that's patriot mythology because there are a lot of crimes that have been around for centuries that don't require a damaged party. I'm glad you brought that up, though, and I appreciate it. And what you were saying about malaproheembitant, all that's very important. And, but I wanna flesh that out in the course. I'm glad you said that. I wanna write that down, and I don't wanna forget it. Thanks.
[02:06:49] Unknown:
So, anyway, Josh, we have to add to that. Yeah. Go ahead.
[02:06:53] Unknown:
So and so, like, and, again, I'm not gonna divulge too much into it. But, like, in Christie's case, you know, she's being charged with a she well, she's not being charged with a crime, but people that weren't are are not a national would be charged with a crime in her situation. And what she did was,
[02:07:14] Unknown:
Now Josh. Josh. Josh. Josh. Yes. Josh.
[02:07:19] Unknown:
Christie hasn't even told this story yet. Don't take her thunder away. Okay? Okay. Fair fair enough. You got sorry. I wasn't trying too too far into it, but I'll use other examples. Like, in United States, we have, federal firearms laws. For instance, we have situations where the laws gradually change. For instance, the 1934 NFA act when they prohibited the sale of suppressors and machine guns without paying a $200 tax stamp. Well, in 1934, '2 hundred dollars was equivalent to about $4,000 in today's dollars. So the attempt of that was not to, keep people safe and regulate them. It was to make it financially unaffordable for people to own suppressors and and machine guns.
And so there is no damage to the party if I have a machine gun, but I don't go hurt anybody with it. But yet I'm a That's not that's not the reason. And that is That but
[02:08:14] Unknown:
yeah. That that that that there's no connection there. You're forgive me for just being point blank. There never has been a law in our common law tradition that said there has to be a damaged party. For instance, a lot of times, the under the police powers of the states, the police powers of the states are the power to dictate the future behaviors of men, for the health, education, and welfare of the people that live in your state. That's always been true in our constitution. We recommend and the the federal government doesn't have that power in your states. It's called the police powers. It's a very powerful power, and that's the great danger of legislation, but there it is. And the police power say, for example, you have to educate your children.
States have every right in the interest of the people of the state to pass a law saying you have to educate your children, but however you do it. And most states have I think all states have those kind of laws. Then the question comes, do they have the power to direct to tell you how to direct that education and what kind of education? And our supreme court said no, that you don't. Under the under the our common law tradition, that's against the law. In the bible, that's against the law. The state doesn't have that power. What about the the the power to haul dynamite and nitroglycerin?
In my part of the world, there's oil production. People have been hauling dynamite for years. But in order to haul dynamite, you commit a crime if you haven't gotten permission from the state to store it and haul it the way they say to do it. Why? Police powers, the health and educate the health and the the safety of the people in the state. There have been a lot of people where I'm from, not more than two miles from where I grew up, a nitroglycerin factory
[02:10:01] Unknown:
blew up. Killed a lot of people.
[02:10:03] Unknown:
Killed a lot of people. Well, there was a rule that said they had to put the factory away from an, a city or a town or an habitable place. That's a Oh, a branch. But that it's a crime even though nobody got hurt. So you'd have to find them.
[02:10:18] Unknown:
Somebody's got their mic open and we got, like, rubbing sandpaper or something noise. It's extremely distracting. Okay.
[02:10:28] Unknown:
Well well, fair fair enough on that. But I I've I study second amendment cases weekly. And, like, for instance, we have Bruin versus New York, decided by the US Supreme Court a couple years ago. And god bless bless that justice, Clarence Thomas because he's he's been, very pro second amendment on the US Supreme Court, but we have lower federal certain courts of appeals that, blatantly disregard previous US Supreme Court decisions and do not apply the same, the standards that have been decided by the US Supreme Court in previous cases. So I I lose, faith as time goes on in the ability of these judges to make a non politically biased decision because when you can read things in plain English, like the Eller test from 02/2007, it says if a firearm is in common use, then it's protected. Well, we have a hundred million AR fifteens in this country, and we have, numerous states that have banned them along with normal capacity magazines that are in use by the billions.
And yet US Supreme Court refuses to step in and hear those cases in Grant Sertiori. So in situations like that, you have the US Supreme Court refusing to, enforce their own decisions upon courts that are blatantly defying them. So Well, you've got a second amendment. A whole lot of hate measures.
[02:11:56] Unknown:
The second amendment trumps all that, and the police power don't matter in that case. So that doesn't violate the police power. So Oh, please find that noise where it's coming from, please.
[02:12:05] Unknown:
Does nobody else hear that? It's like a spray gun or somebody using sandpaper or something.
[02:12:12] Unknown:
It's going from Josh. Do you hear that?
[02:12:16] Unknown:
I I don't hear it. I'll I'll I'll mute it. No. That's it. Okay. But gosh. Hush.
[02:12:21] Unknown:
Okay. It's gone. Thank you, Paul. Okay.
[02:12:26] Unknown:
Can I inject now? I have a little thing that you might wanna enjoy.
[02:12:31] Unknown:
Okay. Go ahead, Alan.
[02:12:33] Unknown:
Going back to the common law part of this, and it's it's as much as a question, it's a statement. But, basically, when you're working in common law, you have to remember the filing that you're making as as applied to you, not as applied to the statute. And I just recently had a petition that the judge came out and applied the statute rather than applying how it affected me or the case that I had brought. And, that is a distinct difference between, common law and statutory law and how they are improperly mixed or by error because it would be how the law applies to me, not the fact that there is a law. Can someone, express on that a little bit better than I am?
[02:13:20] Unknown:
I don't think you made your well, to me, I'm I'm not clear on what you're driving at. Statutes, our courts look at statutes. First thing they say is it does it pass constitutional muster? If it passes if they say, well, yeah, pass a constitutional muster, then they'll try to apply it, and they'll try to apply it according to rules of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, that means rules of interpretations of writings of legal significance such as the Bible, such as our constitution, such as a a statute, a trust indenture, a written contract. The rules are all the same. And what they come down to fundamentally, Justice Scalia wrote a book, and I think something like 35 canons of interpretation.
He wrote it with another fellow. I looked at all of them. Yeah. I get it. But I could categorize all of those under two rules. And if you follow these two rules, you'll not make a mistake. And they're in the Bible, and they're fundamental, and they come right in the law of Moses. And what it says in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, do not add to and do not take away from this law. Well, that's what Jesus Christ said. Every jot and every tittle, don't add to it. Don't take away from it. If you add something to it that's not there, well, you're watering it down. You're taking away from it. If you take away from it, it's something's gonna fill that void and add to it. See, it just you can't win doing that. And all every rule that justice Scalia puts down, I'm glad he did it, blesses it out. But just remember those two rules, my friend. I've been doing this for a long time and I've just in my mind, I say, okay. I get it. Let's make it simple. I like to make things simple because I wanna make it something I can understand. And if I can get the big big picture and then boil it down, and I pass this along to you for what it's worth. When you go to the Bible, just remember, don't add anything to it, and don't take anything away from it. When you go I think I can clarify what I was saying. When you get to the constitution of The United States, do the same thing. Go ahead.
[02:15:28] Unknown:
Basically, let's say the EPA comes out and says any small body of water over 500 gallons is navigable, and and it's our control. Well, as it is applied, does that include my swimming pool? So as it applied, it does not include my swimming pool. It includes natural bodies of water, would be one example. So as it applied, does not apply. It's it's infringement upon my right in that case, and the statute is designed to where if it is not mentioned in the statute, then it is lawful. So as it applies, that statute does not apply. And that was the, point I was trying to make. A lot of judges will sit there and look at the statute and say, oh, well, that applies. Just simply because the statute was determined to be constitutional, but not as applied.
And, as applied seems to be a very, important, milestone in in describing, law when we're discussing common law versus statutory.
[02:16:31] Unknown:
I yield. Let's let's go let's do it this way. I'm glad you brought that up, and it took me a while. Say, well, how can I talk I wanna talk about this a little, and I need to add this point to the course and make sure I cover it? Here it is. Here's the principle of interpretation of writing his legal significance put in another way. And this is pretty simple too. Any interpretation of any particular pericope, that mean any statute, only has one interpretation. Period. If there are if there are 40 interpretations to, for example, thou shall not steal in the Bible, if there are 40 interpretations of that, I guarantee a 39 of them are wrong.
And possibly all 40, maybe 40 people missed it entirely. Well, that's true of every law. It has to be looked at that way. Now watch. There's only one fundamental principle in every law. Only one. And it's your, it's the court's job and your job to find it by the way. But the application of that principle is without limit to the human condition. The fact patterns that arise and how it's applied are beyond anything you could ever imagine. And the court's job is to see to that proper application. There's a distinction. Let me say it again. There's a distinction between the principle and the application.
And it's important, of course, we are given discernment as mere mortals as members of Adam's race in this day of man to make that discernment of the application. For instance, Paul the apostle says the law of God the law of Moses says, he's quoting, do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. Do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. And Paul the apostle says, what does that mean? Well, there's a lot of ways to apply it. Number one, if, if a man's working, he's entitled to be fed. I remember watching people with hay crews, having young men, old men, vagabonds come in and wanna work. And the one thing that I watch men say to people that came in and wanted to work, they said, I'll feed you. I'll feed you good. Well, that was an incentive right there. Bottom line, the law of God in first principle, the one interpretation of all we see in it when it comes to master servant, employer, employee, you feed the man that's working. You let him partake of the fruits of the of the harvest.
You gotta feed him and probably pay him too. And Paul the Apostle says, and by the way, if you're gonna not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain, pay your preacher if he's teaching the Bible. Pay him. Not only pay him, says Paul, pay him double. That's axiomatic. The Bible says, for example, do not when you harvest your fields, don't harvest the corners and do not go through and try to glean the grain that you dropped on the ground, first time through. Leave that for the birds and the wild beast and the widow woman and the orphan and the stranger who's there who doesn't have a job, doesn't have any way to make money. Well, how do we apply that? I remember people setting, old furniture out in their alleys when I lived out in Whittier, California A Hundred Years ago. Old furniture, even sometimes food for the homeless people and the vagabonds to come through the alley and pick up what they wanted.
Is that a good application of that principle? You better believe it is. Don't be a skin flint and say you've got to take advantage of every dollar and every parcel of food you have. If you've got a extra loaf, day old leftover, give it to the rescue mission downtown. Is that an application of the first principle? Yes. And it's our job as members of Adam's race to look at the law, whatever it is, and say, oh, what's the principle here? The overarching principle that has many applications. That's our job. So that's the distinction that needs to be made in our common law tradition as the court's job to say when people argue, what is the principle? Now we know that what is this the application to these specific people in this specific circumstance. That's right. That's very right. Well, thanks for bringing that up.
[02:20:44] Unknown:
Alright.
[02:20:46] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[02:20:48] Unknown:
I have a question. I actually have a number of questions. Roger. Oh, Larry. Hang on a minute, Larry. Hang on a minute. Mute, please. Thank you. You had mentioned that the Supreme Court, was of the opinion that if a state, put in their statutes the requirement to provide identification or to identify yourself. Now some would say that that flies in the face of fifth amendment protections against self incrimination. So rather than argue the fact that your Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the state insisted that you provide identification, could you not go at it with another angle and challenge the constitutionality of that legislation at the state level?
Because Well, that's why any Yeah. That's what he did. Because anything abhorrent to the constitution is null and void on its face. Well, that's true. But to put it a little more
[02:22:03] Unknown:
further. To put it a little more to put it a little more Stop. Stop. Alan, hang on. Alan.
[02:22:09] Unknown:
Alan, please.
[02:22:11] Unknown:
We love it. We love it that these fellows are chafing at the bit to get involved, but, we have to show restraint at some points, please. And you're you're helping. But, the point here is that it's against the law as the Supreme Court has observed and other courts to penalize somebody with a criminal penalty for exercising and enjoying a fundamental duty God has given him, namely jurisdiction over his own tongue. And I'm not to be penalized for saying I don't wanna talk. I'm not be to be penalized for talking, free freedom of speech. That's the principle. They said a $250 fine. That's a penalty for enjoying a responsibility that God has given you. That's not to be allowed. That's the theory. So when you say unconstitutional, yeah, that's what Haibol, this fellow from Nevada argued.
You're infringing upon my responsibility that God gave me and you're not in the mix. God gave it directly to me. He didn't come through government like a civil right. A civil right is something that come through government or come through another person. No. No. Fundamental rights are the rights that come straight from God to the individual and government has no authority to interfere. Right to remain silent, freedom of religion, the duty to keep and carry a gun. The government has no authority according to our Christian understanding. And don't tell me, do not tell me that those men that ratified the constitution of The United States and the 13 colonies would ever allowed anybody, even the ones that would never darken the door of a church, would allow anybody to talk ugly or go against the Bible. They wouldn't have. That was the culture. That was serious business, and it still is with a lot of people.
So, yeah, that's what it is, Paul. I I think you hit the nail, as they say, with your head, and that's that's the whole point. Alan?
[02:24:05] Unknown:
Fumbling with my, mute. I'm sorry. I I couldn't hear, someone, talking. But, a couple of points that I'd like to make out. First of all, if we go back to World War two, identification was a form of a, well, a tattoo on your arm that was a numerical tattoo. Exactly what limit is that, identification limited to? And then the other point I wanted to make was the fact that none of these states, none of them, can actually make a law or a statute that would infringe upon any right, including your second amendment rights banning in one state an expanded magazine in another state allowing it.
That's not even a legal impossibility in The United States. However, they have violated that from the get go. And how I can describe that is simple. Yeah. Only the federal government has the power to reduce or limit your rights, meaning that the states only have the power to expand your rights. If the federal government says you only can have maybe six, rounds in your shotgun when you're going hunting and you're capable of carrying more or, there are a couple of states I think that you only can have three, one in the chamber and two in the rack. So the question is, can the states limit your rights further? The answer is absolutely no.
[02:25:27] Unknown:
Wait. Wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Where do you come off saying that the federal government has jurisdiction to limit your rights? We're we're As a matter of fact, they're the only ones that can define the limitation of your rights. But but but wait. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Who who says the federal government where do you get this idea that any government has authority to interfere with a right, a duty, that's a duty, that god has given to me?
[02:25:52] Unknown:
Okay. Well, let's let's take it out outside of the duty of firearm.
[02:25:57] Unknown:
Okay? No. No. No. No. No. No. Let's just stay where we are. You you were there. That's a good one. That's like any other right that God gives to men, any other duty. So how is it the federal government has the authority to do that when the constitution says they don't?
[02:26:14] Unknown:
Actually, I'm not exactly I'm looking it up right now, but I do know it's a fundamental principle
[02:26:21] Unknown:
doctrines that they've ever Now wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait. You don't have to look this up. This is easy. Does the government, the general government in Washington, DC, have any authority, and that means a right, that means lawful, to interfere with anybody's duty to keep and carry a firearm loaded. You tell me. Well, I'll tell you what. How about if we use No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No. I I said yes or no a while ago. I want yes or no. With your air sight. No. No. No. Yes or no?
[02:26:54] Unknown:
Yes or no? Well, the the question was phrased in, in,
[02:26:58] Unknown:
favor of the state, not the government. Or I'd ask you again. I'd ask you again. Does the general government in Washington, DC have any lawful authority, that's the only kind there is, to interfere with my or anybody else's duty to keep the security of power?
[02:27:15] Unknown:
No. Okay.
[02:27:18] Unknown:
And the federal law. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Yes or no. Then you can explain or give me provisos. I want yes or no. The answer is yes. Oh, woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Now, secondly, you're saying they have authority. Where do they get that authority to do that? Do you say they have On the constitution. Now where does the constitution say they have authority? The general government in Washington, DC has authority to enter fear with duties in the bill of rights, for example. And and the principle of creating the constitution itself, The US constitution and federal law established minimum standards of individual rights and protections. Well, I have to say no. I have to say you're just flat wrong. You don't know, Moe. No. No. No. No. No. I do want you to hear that. You're so flat wrong. That explains what I was saying a while ago. Wrong headedness. You're headed the wrong direction. Okay. Let me use a different, let me use a different example.
[02:28:12] Unknown:
Now There are no example. There are always one It's not well No. No. No. No. No. The constitution of The United States is final.
[02:28:19] Unknown:
Period. That's why it's there. If you approach it any other way, you're going down the wrong road and everything you do I'm not approaching it. Off kilter, and that it appears it is. I That's that's No. I'm I'm not approaching it that way, and I could see where you got that
[02:28:35] Unknown:
misunderstanding, especially when I use that example. However, the marijuana in most states are not lawful because it is not lawful at a federal level, and the states adopt that restriction on your rights not to have or possess marijuana. However and this is how it works. The sovereignty of the state is given by the sovereignty of the people. And upon demand of the sovereignty of the people to the state, the state can remove that restriction allowing legal sale of marijuana.
[02:29:09] Unknown:
A lot of people do not understand that, and this is where I bumped into this principle. Oh, you're not talking about fundamental rights here. Talk you were talking about fundamental marijuana as a different subject. No government has any authority that I can see it even mess with. Pass laws respecting it. But let's get back to why you're taking the position that the general government has authority to interfere with, fundamental God given, directly bestowed responsibilities.
[02:29:38] Unknown:
Because they're the ones that set the parameters
[02:29:40] Unknown:
of those rights. Okay. Oh oh oh oh oh oh. So they're the authors. So I can't stand up. The government, the general government in Washington, DC can tell me there's certain things I can't teach out of the Bible. That's what you're saying. Clearly. Technically, you are absolutely correct. No. No. No. You are absolutely correct. No. No. No. No. You are absolutely correct. Okay. No. I don't let this by the way. I'm gonna go eat lunch. You're still gonna hit it. Thanks, Brent. That explains why you're just going off in rabbit trails and you're going backwards on most everything you say. And we don't want you to air those things here. You're off because you're following a different law giver. You're not following the God of creation that I know about. You're going the wrong way. You're thinking that government has that authority. And if you don't start by saying no, they don't, everything you say is gonna be wrong. It's just that simple.
[02:30:37] Unknown:
Hey, Brent.
[02:30:38] Unknown:
Yeah. Paul, go ahead.
[02:30:40] Unknown:
Because federal law sets a minimal floor of rights.
[02:30:46] Unknown:
That's you just need to stop talking. You're wrong. You're just flat wrong.
[02:30:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I I see what the problem is. The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the government what they cannot do, and it's very clear that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people. The problem where it's getting all muddied up is when the original states were created, the original states were sovereign because they got their sovereignty from the will of the people. And then the states followed the golden honeypot, and they joined with the corporate United States federal government for the goodies, and they signed away that which they never had the authority to compromise in the first place.
They sold their sovereignty to the federal government. They are nothing more than little whipping boys for whoever the federal government wants to attack at any given moment. This is a new day. This is a new year.
[02:31:52] Unknown:
Paul, thank you. I just want everybody to know who's listening. I won't discuss I won't discuss this question if somebody's gonna go off like that, there's nothing to discuss. Life's too short. We gotta get our, if we're not going to get on the same page, go the right direction. I'm not willing to talk to people that are going the wrong direction. He's going the wrong direction. Clearly. But, be it that as it may, Paul and the rest of you, I appreciate all the questions. I even appreciate that. It gives me an opportunity to make clear what the truth is. Now you if you start out with the wrong foundation, thinking that somehow governments have authority to say what the law is, you got a problem.
And that's the problem that all America is struggling with. It was true at one time, and is still in some men's minds that the law is a brooding omnipresence. Mhmm. And if we don't have that point of view about law, then all of our freedoms are gone. And that's what I heard him saying. Now if somebody can tell me otherwise and say, Brent, no. You didn't understand what he was saying, but, no, I think I do at this point. And he, is pretty forthright about it. I don't want people to air that point of view here. We don't want people to think there's any legitimacy to it.
As long as I'm in charge of being here, I'm in charge of microphones, I don't want it aired because it's false. We can entertain it as a falsity, but not as truth. That's my responsibility, and I'm going to follow it through. Well, Paul, did you have something else you want to say?
[02:33:22] Unknown:
Yeah. It's it's been very clear over the last two or three years, like, particularly with our process. We're we can very easily make the government, the federal government, stand down. We can tell them, look. You don't have jurisdiction over us, and you're never gonna have it again. Problems that we're having is with the state level, and it's those state entities that were created by contract in our political subdivisions of the federal government. We are dealing with the tyrants on our own shores, on our own ground.
You have to do nothing more than to walk a mile down a sidewalk if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time. A cop is going to pull you aside, and he's gonna force you to identify yourself or he's gonna try to, and he is going to try once he finds a person, he's going to find a crime to associate with that person. Now the way it used to be many years ago was if there was a crime, they would investigate to find the guilty party. Now they have a person, and they investigate to find something to hang him with. And one of those indicators, one of those differences throughout history can be very simply between the definition of jury trial and trial by jury. It's interesting that jury trial doesn't exist in the fourth edition of Black's Law, but trial by jury does.
But in sixth edition of Black's Law, it goes into a nice long healthy description of the jury trial. And that was that was born in the nineties.
[02:35:10] Unknown:
By the way, Paul, the fellow that edited the sixth edition, was the coauthor with Justice Scalia, under his book on principles of interpretation. And he's not a lawyer, by the way. He's an etymologist. He's a he's a word a man a man that studies words and the history of words, and that's why it's such a good addition, but one of the reasons. But, anyway, go ahead, Paul. Thanks.
[02:35:37] Unknown:
I would challenge Alan who has hold on one second. I would challenge Alan that is on first name basis with ChatGPT to actually pose the question. What are the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a trial by jury. I would love to see what JPG comes up with about that. Was that our new guy?
[02:36:08] Unknown:
Sorry. No. It's Larry.
[02:36:10] Unknown:
Okay, Larry.
[02:36:12] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I do. I can't remember if it's the, the the earlier constitution of California or the later constitution. I've read them both. And within the opening paragraphs of the California constitution, it uses trial by jury and jury trial synonymously. So in other words, I think it starts out in, like, the first couple of sentences to mention that the that California will be a state with that which will include a trial by jury, and then maybe another sentence or two later, it says jury trial. So it's almost like it's using it synonymously. It's not making out making it out that there's some, you know, extreme distinction like what goes on today in patriot mythology.
And, another thing is, I wanna let Brent know that I was using the word advice loosely. I was not seeking legal advice. You know, I was kinda use it using it synonymously with the words, you know, what do you suggest. And then the other thing is, Roger teaches us, Brent, that when we file our paperwork with the Department of State rebutting the presumption that we're federal citizens, that that is a court of record. And I was wondering if you agree that, like, according to the definition that you gave earlier when I asked, you know, what a court of record was, is is that the same thing, or is that a different kind of court of record?
[02:37:48] Unknown:
Well, the judicial branch has courts of record. But when you're filing your papers with the executive branch, the Department of State, that's under the president and his authority, then you're not in a court. You're in you may have they have in those bureaucracies what we call administrative tribunals, and they applied administrative law. I've discovered in the bureaucracies, the administrative courts, they will use the common law rules of evidence as long as they to make it look real nice and gives them something to do. But if they don't get what they want, they'll abandon them. Why? Well, that's the executive branch. That'd be like a a police officer stopping you on the road. That's the executive branch and, writing you a ticket. He holds court right there when he does that. He makes up his mind what you're doing. That's why he stopped you. But, of course, in our common law tradition, that decision of the executive branch is is, subject to the judicial branch if you want it to be.
But the, executive branch wants to have all the power. So now they have tribunals like the tax court at the federal level, and they make it look like a real court to have judges with black robes. And the Supreme Court of the United States has not even been able to land and say for sure whether or not that's, a common law judicial branch court. Well, it's obvious to me it isn't. Who appoints the judges? Do they follow the process, the course of process for appointment of judges and establishment of courts? Well, you get that's what you have to have to look at to decide whether it's part of the judicial branch or part of the executive. And the way I read the Supreme Court of the United States, haven't looked recently, they have been unable to land. It seems odd to me that people from Ivy League law schools can't land on that. That's shocking, frankly.
But you discover too, as I've said in the beginning, that judges are just like, everybody else, but more so. They're weak. They're mortal. They're stupid. They're sinners. They're blinded. They're unenlightened. They know some things and not others. That's why we have due process. That's why we go through all this process hoping that in the midst of all of our mortal, difficulties and our weaknesses, the truth will somehow in this adversarial common law tradition, bob forth and just bang, there it is. That, that it does happen sometimes. But we believe in our Christian tradition, which is our common law tradition, that the truth is buried with an overburden over top of it of unrighteousness, evil.
And we believe the only way to get down and mine it out is to fight. And that's what a common law trial is. Now, while ago, you're talking about the difference between common law, trial by jury and and jury trial. It's been my observe observation that, the the way the courts use the word and and the legislators, that that phrase, I don't see that they make any distinction, and I don't think most people would just know the English language. They wouldn't make a distinction. If, Black's law dictionary makes a distinction, that's good. But remember, Black's law dictionary is not final for anything. Black's law dictionary does not dictate by any binding of by custom or law, anybody.
The only thing that binds the courts is the way that the way the the legal opinions use words. That's a tradition that it binds the courts that's unwritten. No place, histori decisis, written down in statute or anything. No. The separate and coequal doctrine of our common law says the courts operate on their own. They don't need anybody else tell them what to do or how to do it. The legislature tries to tell them how to do it. They pass statutes about evidence and process. And if the court wants to follow it, they do. But they get to interpret it. And here's where the power is, friends, And this is our common law tradition. Whoever I'm I'm again, I'm just repeating what people have said for thousands of years.
Whoever has a power to be the final arbiter Now that a final arbiter is one who makes a decision and is not obligated to give any reasons for it. Whoever has the final power of arbiter in any specific instance, like in a court case, is the most powerful person in that jurisdiction. Period. And boy, the more you read law and the more you, think about what justice is, the more you see that justice only occurs in that individual instance. It doesn't occur anywhere else. And who has the power in our common law tradition to make that decision? And the answer is the 12 man jury.
They are the arbiters. They're not required to give any reasons, and they can do as they blame well, please. Well, in the rest of the world, who's the final arbiter? I'll tell you who the final arbiter is. It's the legislator, whether it be a single emperor, an empress, a king, a bevy of a small bevy of men, or a legislature. However they define it, it's government by a single will and the final arbiter. My honey. Well, who does who's the jury? Right. In a common law country, the 12 man jury. They're not they're not representatives of anything or anybody.
They are a cross section sample of the people themselves, the militia. The militia. Yeah. That's who the people are. And they make the decision, and they're not obligated to tell anybody why. Makes sense. These are the fundamentals we want to cover in more detail in our course. And if I could, hell, here's what I've discovered is funny, and I just be forthright with you here. You folks that listen to me, and I, again, appreciate all your questions. It's frustrating to me as a fellow that I have a testimony to give about what I've seen and what I've heard, and I see clearly which direction truth is and which it isn't. People will actually fight to defend the common law gurus.
And the common law gurus, many of them are wrong headed. I'll say it point blank. I've watched them. I won't say which ones. I'm just saying there's this either you're headed down the right road or you're going the the wrong direction. And if you follow most all the ones I've listened to, you're gonna go the wrong direction because they miss it. And I might add this also. I seldom meet a lawyer who is going the right direction. The only thing that keeps our country on the right road now is that the machinery, the common law customs are in place, and the lawyers follow them out of habit. They don't have a clue why. They don't know the difference. They don't even know there are two traditions of religion, law, and government in the world. They're not taught it. They're not required to learn about it in law school. Used to, but not anymore. And it's been my quest for what all I can do is give my testimony.
I can't make anybody believe anything. But like any man who delivers testimony of the truth, it, it's it's a burden to watch my own people reject it. That's the truth. But it's not my job to worry about that, and I just my job is to continue to say what I know to be true. So that's why I do it. And I hope you can join us for the course, whoever you are, whether you like me, whether you hate me, whether you agree with me or disagree with me. Some of you disagree with me and love me. I love you disagree with me and hate me. Some of you agree me agree with me and hate me. I mean, you got all these different combinations. That's not the concern. The concern is, what did God say? What has God revealed to us in those two volumes? That's the only thing that matters, friend.
Let's let's look at it and find out what it is. Back to you, Paul. Well Well, quick one.
[02:45:33] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:45:34] Unknown:
I got an answer for your chat GPT question.
[02:45:37] Unknown:
Okay. Oh, hang on. Hold the hold the phone. Is that Rick?
[02:45:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Brent, real quick. Someone in the chat is saying that supremacy clause gives federal government the right to violate the bill of rights. Can you speak briefly on that? Clearly. A supremacy clause, we debated this with a well known man in some circles in the identity movement that wrote a book on the subject over 500 pages saying the supremacy clause is antichrist because it puts, the constitution above the Bible. Bottom line, here it is. The supremacy clause says that this constitution is the supreme law of the land. This constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well, the bill of rights is the cons part of the constitution.
All our understanding of interpretation of writings of legal significance like the constitution says, we must interpret it and apply it in a way that all of its parts are consistently that consistently tell, and we don't want to when we interpret this part of it, we don't we want to interpret it so it's all consistent and it all has full force. So that's one way to look, and that's not that hasn't, that doesn't happen. The as a matter of lawfulness, our our our supremacy clause, doesn't make any one part of the constitution trump any other part. That's silliness. And number two, the phrase law of the land is but is lifted from Magna Carta, written in Latin, by the way, by the greatest old testament commentator of his day, Stephen Langton. He's the chief drafter, and he is the one that gave us our chapter divisions to our bibles.
And he said lexeterum, which is translated into English law of the land. Well, where'd that come from? As part of our common law tradition going back way before Magna Carta, our common laws had different names through the centuries, and one of them is law of the land or land law. The law of the land. What is the our, our common law? I said a while ago. It is due process. It doesn't include due process. It is due process. And they used to call it the law of the land. Those that drafted our constitution in The United States lifted that phrase out of chapter 39 of Magna Carta. Why? Because they thought it was that important that we say that our constitution in The United States is the way the courses of process we are to use, imply to the government of the United States in Washington, DC.
That's what that clause says. Now that it doesn't trump the constitution, that's just silly. That's inconsistent silliness to say that. It is part of the constitution. Secondly, to say that trumps the Bible is it would be silliness to say that the ratifiers of our constitution, which were the militiamen of the 13 colonies, become states. It would be utter silliness to say they would have done anything that would have trumped the Bible, and they didn't. And that's not what that phrase means. What is the Bible? I mentioned a while ago. Our Bible includes the outcome standards that God has given us and some due process, quite a bit. But God has delegated to us the authority of discernment as militiamen to decide what is fair and how to have a fair fight. That's a common law phrase. He fought me a fair fight.
May the best man may the best man win. May the best case win. Those are common law phrases from our common law world. We go to court and we fight. They do not fight in the rest of the world. They go to tribunals. Inquisitions. The the rest of the world is fundamentally inquisitorial. Our common law tradition is fundamentally adversarial. We fight. Trial a battle by trial used to be trial by battle, friends, and all of the same rules apply. If you had a dispute over land in the old country, you could challenge a man up until the eighteen hundreds to battle or trial by battle. But amazingly, again, all the same rules of due process applied. You had to give him notice, opportunity of the place of a battle, etcetera.
And, that was done according to various specific rules. Those rules are transferred and used in our common law trials now. You have to give notice, opportunity to of the place and time of the contest and the trial or the hearing, all of those things. So we fight. That's why I say we fight before the jury. And the, the trial is we call it trial because that's what it is. It's, it's a fight. That's a pretty tough fight. They don't have them in the rest of the world at all. It takes a lot of energy. Now here's the point I'm gonna make now. I again, all of you, this has been adversarial today a little bit. That's our common law tradition. That's what we do.
And I hope the truth is bobbed forth. And I I have to go because I have to attend a meeting, but I'm enjoying the discussion. And I hope you all come back and I hope you take that course, friends. Go to commonlawyer.com. Take advantage of what's there for what it's worth. I'd be happy if you did. Paul, are you still there? Yes. I am.
[02:51:04] Unknown:
Thank you, Brett. It's
[02:51:06] Unknown:
I think that you run for this answer.
[02:51:10] Unknown:
I It was shot
[02:51:12] Unknown:
What's that?
[02:51:13] Unknown:
I think it's gonna be healthy adversarial. Go ahead go ahead on what chat GPT says is the difference between jury trial and a trial by jury. Go ahead, Alan. Alright. Okay. Now this surprised me,
[02:51:28] Unknown:
initially, but, you have to understand. This is where lawyers actually make their money. In addition to that, there is so much dogma about, different principles and things like that. This actually now makes sense. Let me get it here. I I put it in the chat for you too. Oops. What happened to it? Here it is. Okay. The question is, what is the difference between a trial by jury as opposed to a jury trial? The answer is the meaning refers to legal right of concept where a person is entitled to have a group of peers of jury to decide the outcome of a case.
The usage more commonly used when discussing rights or constitutional guarantees is a trial by jury. However, a jury trial is in reference to the procedure. Nothing to do with altering the procedure. It is used to describe the court process or the event itself, not the right that you're discussing.
[02:52:35] Unknown:
So the the the reason Top. Top. Top. Top. All of this is getting too anal. Our common law tradition is not anal. Our common law tradition does not seek this kind of preciseness. Our common law tradition does not haggle over chicken manure. Our common law tradition is about substantial justice and not a precise fight, but a fair fight. Our common law tradition is not about equality. It's about fairness. So men are not capable of precise justice. Men will fight and haggle over words like this. You're wasting your time. Trial by jury, jury trial. It's nice that there's a distinction, but don't get caught up in that. There are big issues here that we're missing. You're like being like the man that was out trimming his bushes, making sure his grass is all the same size and the same height while a bulldozer bull bulldozes down his house. That's what this kind of discussion is. Let's talk about the big principles. What distinguishes the problem you want from that? From the law of the city. On that. But the point is there's so much dog crap there. It's interfering with our actual research. There's just so much distraction
[02:53:39] Unknown:
Uh-huh. In in these things, and it's it's been, adopted into a lot of our arguments. And the argument of a jury trial or or whatever, however you wanna phrase it, you're absolutely right. It's a distraction. But it's Okay. Very common out there, and and that's my point I was trying to make. Well, thank I get it. No. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[02:53:59] Unknown:
Appreciate it. I gotta go, gentlemen. Appreciate y'all. Yeah. Go ahead.
[02:54:05] Unknown:
Real quick. I found it. It's in the, this is Larry. It's in the California constitution of 1849, and it's con the trial by jury and jury by trial is contained within the same section three. It says the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain invalid invalid let's see. Inviolate Inviolate. Forever, but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. It uses them synonymously, and that was from a very early constitution.
[02:54:43] Unknown:
And that lang well, that constitution is quoting language from the North Northwest ordinance of 1787. Thank you again, Paul. Appreciate you trying to help keep order. We like to we like to have an adversarial procedure with order. That's a common law trial, and we'll talk to you again.
[02:55:03] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Okay. Let's drill down a little bit deeper into the jury trial as opposed to the trial by jury. I've got both definitions here, right in front of my face. God save multiple monitors, honestly. The jury trial definition, as found in the sixth edition of, Black's Law. Jury trial. Trial of matter or cause before a jury as opposed to trial before a judge. Such right is guaranteed with respect to criminal cases by article three section two clause three of The US constitution and with respect to suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20 by the Seventh Amendment.
Such right is also preserved by rule of court, example, fed our civil p 38, and by the fifth amendment, which provides inter alia for indictment by grand jury, and the sixth amendment, which contains further specifications respecting jury trial in criminal cases. In addition, state constitutions provide for right to jury trial, and the Supreme Court has held that the fourteenth amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all state criminal cases, which were they to be tried in federal court would come within the sixth amendment's guarantee. That Duncan v Louisiana three ninety one US one forty five eighty eight, s c t fourteen forty four.
Okay. Now jury trial gobbledygook Just for grins, let's look at the definition of the fourth edition, Black's Law trial by jury.
[02:57:03] Unknown:
Can I inject your probe because Hang on? Hang on. About you.
[02:57:08] Unknown:
Hang on. The hang on. The comparisons are are are necessary to not be interrupted. Trial by jury. A trial in which the issues of factor should be determined by the verdict of a jury of 12 men duly selected, empaneled, and sworn. The terms jury and trial by jury were used at the adoption of the constitution. And always, it is believed before that time and almost always since in a single sense. A jury for the trial of a cause was a body of 12 men described as upright, well qualified, and lawful men, disinterested and impartial, not of kin nor personal dependence of either of the parties, having their homes within the jurisdictional limits of the court drawn and selected by office officers free from all bias in favor of or against either parties.
No. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Okay. Duly empaneled under the direction of a competent court sworn to render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence given them, who after hearing the parties and their evidence and receiving the instructions of the court relative to the law involved in the trial and deliberating when necessary apart from all extraneous influences must return their unanimous verdict upon the issue submitted to them. And that's it. That's where the gobbledygook ends.
Therein, as far as I'm concerned, is the difference between common law and law that makes sense and gobbledygook that was put in place to screw us at every opportunity. Okay. Go ahead, Alan.
[02:58:59] Unknown:
Basically, the the problem comes from the fact that we're looking and we're we're trying to explore what is actually happening and and how are these things happening. And the opposition has given us terminology that distracts us, and then we try to present that argument. It sounds logical because there's obviously a distinction between these two phrases. One, trial by jury, and the other one, a jury trial. There's obviously a distinction between them. The distinction is not in operation. The distinction is not in the rules governing. The distinction is the difference between a hamburger and McDonald's.
If you order a hamburger, you order a hamburger. If you order a Big Mac, you order a Big Mac. There's obviously different construction in that. But when we say we're going to McDonald's or a jury trial, that's proper. But if you try to apply that as any other procedure, it is not. So these things have crept in with our critical observation or someone else critically observing and getting away with, abuse of the, English language by confusing it even further. And one thing that we do have to concede is that lawyers are even if you're 100% wrong, they are hired in order to make you look 100% right. And the only way that they can do that is by, well, desanctifying the human language.
They just literally lie. Yeah.
[03:00:31] Unknown:
Yeah. This is Larry. Yeah. Go ahead. So a couple of weeks ago, I asked Brent if there's a difference between maybe it was about a month and a half ago, if there was a difference between a jury trial and a trial by jury. And he said he gave this illustration, and he heard it from some guy, a friend of his or some someone. He heard he heard this definition, quite a while back, and it was this. Is there is there a difference between a den of lions and a lions' den? And that's exactly how we should look at the trial by jury and a jury trial because a den of lions definitely has lions in it, but a lions' den may not have lions in it. But, again, the California Constitution uses those two phrases synonymously within the same sentence.
So there is no distinction.
[03:01:29] Unknown:
Rather than the rules of the procedure, trial by jury is the rules of the procedure. Jury trial. So and and when you when you quoted that, if you go back and look at it again, that's exactly how they used it. They used it as this procedure you were entitled to, how that procedure is and what that procedure is at trial by jury. But when you try to speak that in in English, in the terms that they're using, they're trying to express that you can waive that procedure and describing the procedure rather than rules inclusive of that procedure.
So, yes, the this is, one of the biggest landmines, and it I've heard this phrase a lot of times. This is the first time I looked it up, and I wasn't surprised at the answer. It's dogma. Okay? It's a it's a way of leading us down a destructive argument so we defeat ourselves and things that we know damn well is right because we adopted their terminology.
[03:02:33] Unknown:
That's a good point, about the procedure versus the actual, you know, event. That's a good point. I could see that.
[03:02:42] Unknown:
Okay. It's president's day. It's not Washington or Trump day. It's it's just president's day. Yeah. So, one of the things that I have found and, again, I am not at all in disagreement with with him. He jumped to a different level. Okay? He jumped to a higher level than the constitution. I was below the constitution in my description and the powers of the federal government as compared to the state government after you accept the constitution as being true, not the other way around. And, the prohibitions is what the, description of the constitution is. In those prohibitions, there is our bill of rights. Okay? And if you describe it anywhere else, you wind up with a lion's den versus, a den of lions. One is definitely occupied.
Which would you rather be tossed into? So, this this same abuse has been repeated over and over again. And when I was describing federal supremacy, which is some of your junior high civics class, you will learn that the only ones that can create restrictions upon your body, anything, okay, is the federal government. You wanna fly an airplane? Well, they wanna make rules for that and give you a license. Well, obviously, we already know we don't need a license, but following those might be good practice. And if you're commercialized, then we have all these set practices that you have to follow, which is, you know, stages of of enforcement. Yes. Go ahead. That's that's the whole thing between,
[03:04:19] Unknown:
firearm or arms.
[03:04:22] Unknown:
Well, that's what I that's my biggest argument because the the federal government Let me finish.
[03:04:28] Unknown:
Let me finish. Do it. Cannot prohibit. Dude, let me finish. Good grief. The only limitation that they have on firearms is by forcing people to buy them through a federally licensed firearm dealer. And as a result of that purchase entering into a contract giving the federal government authority over you and that weapon. It's contract.
[03:04:55] Unknown:
Based on something else. And and you're absolutely right as far as the contract is concerned. But it it has to do with possession and manufacture. It does not have to do with the fact that it's a gun. It also applies to cars. You have a VIN number on the car, which is identifying, factor that all of these other things have been taken care of, and your and your taillights when you bought it worked. Okay? And that's a commercial operation. They have not restricted your access to firearms at all. Why? You can build your own. And how is it how come they can't sit there and patent that or prevent a three d printer from making it? Real easy. There's no patent on the mouse trap.
[03:05:37] Unknown:
Well, I talk about that guy in New York that during but I talk about that guy in New York when during the lockdown, he decided to get some 80% lowers, and he decided to occupy his time by, milling and assembling firearms, weapons, and arms. He can do that.
[03:05:58] Unknown:
He can do that all day long. No. No. To come No.
[03:06:03] Unknown:
No. Because the companies that he bought the 80% lowers from reported his name and his spending, activity to the ATF, and the ATF stormed and raided his house. They seized all of his weapons. They charged him with having an arsenal of ghost guns, and he's in jail right now.
[03:06:26] Unknown:
I know. But, well, who is that? That's the federal government, not the state. In addition to that, he was making his own, which is perfectly legal. You can. I can build my own car, and I don't need a VIN number. I just sit there and put my my name on it. It's done. Okay? The the problem is whether it is in commercial manufacturer or private manufacturer commercially. Because as soon as you cross that commercial boundary, and and and it's also defined in cars as well, you only can buy and sell so many cars within a year before you're considered a dealer.
[03:07:00] Unknown:
Right. Well, he hadn't sold, traded, or loaned. Wait a wait a minute. He had not sold, traded, or loaned any of the weapons that he built to anyone.
[03:07:13] Unknown:
Breakage of our law, and that's what I'm referring to. That I I cannot sit there and say, oh, well, currently, slavery is absolutely legal. Currently, it is. There's a prohibition against it, but I can sign a contract that I would e would equalize me being treated as a slave and have only that right. I can write that contract to myself. And guess what? If I make it a corporation, and there's a lot of people who have done that, they've incorporated their name, wrote their name in lowercase, okay, as a form of a contract to themselves, putting them in slavery, meaning there's no taxes.
And they've and these aren't loopholes. It's loopholes that they have created for themselves to be able to restrict you. Now I'm I can't talk about the broken parts of the law. They obviously are broken. Oh, well, this guy's in jail. Yes. He's definitely in jail. They broke the law, not him. But you see, that's where this dogma comes into. And and the the reason why it was permitted because everyone, oh, well, you you you shouldn't even have a gun, people. They're they're uneducated. And that and I diseducation, miseducation is adding to the actual education and creating a blend in between that is is blurring all of our laws and all of our principles.
It's the reason why I go back to the absolute foundation, and that's where the federal supremacy comes in. The absolute foundation after we are governed by laws and after we're governed by the constitution. That's after the fact, not before the fact, not god given rights. We're not talking about that. We're talking about something that we're aft after we're engaged these laws. These principles apply. The federal government cannot say or excuse me, can say that you cannot have a a swimming pool. That's it. Swimming pools are dangerous, and the federal government determined that. Okay? Well, weapons are dangerous. The federal government determined that. Well, the federal government also gave descriptions of which ones we can have and which ones we cannot.
And in those descriptions, I can have a fully operational Bradley sitting in my my driveway fully uploaded. It's ready to go. All you ain't gonna do is pull the trigger by law.
[03:09:37] Unknown:
Hey, you know?
[03:09:38] Unknown:
That's true. But the fact is we have blurred these laws so badly that they have trickled down into believing the states have the ability to restrict that and say you cannot have an extended magazine. That's bullshit. And don't tell me about magazine compared to clip. I well, I'm sorry. It's a difference between 1952 and 1987. I I just don't care. It's the same terminology. Okay? So when they when they say, oh, well, the state says you can't have it, that's a lie. They they don't have the authority to do it. It's just prohibited at the federal level that they can even make that legislation.
So how much legislation in the states do we already have that's bay made on this misnomer and that they can actually restrict anything? They can't. They can't even restrict, all the way down to an HOA. Now you've got a different problem. You have a commercial contract, the same as a slavery contract. But if you sit there and you follow and say, oh, well, the city ordinance says you have to have an awning or you have to have the shutters at least looking like they're shutters on your house. That's absolutely illegal. They can sit there and say, oh, you have to have your lawn mowed.
That's illegal. They don't have that authority. They never did.
[03:10:58] Unknown:
Except except by contractual agreement when you signed the papers on the house. When it was put on the tax rolls agreement.
[03:11:07] Unknown:
You can you can void that contractual agreement why the previous owner is no longer involved. If you're involving the bank, the old bank has no authority to enforce through the city anything. And remember, we're dealing with the executive branch here. Right? Oops. So we have four or five different lines here have been blurred to allow these infractions against our constitution, and that is the actual fight that we have, okay, is to is to correct these gray areas from all these lawyers sitting there confusing them. And then on top of it, okay, we have all these other people that are voting for laws or not to have law that have no clue of what that is that they're actually voting for. So the education level needs to be brought up. But that's the whole idea of Yeah. You know, America with drugs. It's the whole idea of sitting here having this drug war. It's the whole idea of letting the CIA sell all the drugs they like or to have paid stoolies sitting there responsible for more deaths than the actual drug dealer they justified going after.
[03:12:15] Unknown:
Okay. Okay. When I Open up the coin mech and let the quarter fall out. Firearm. What is the is Hang on, Samuel. I'll get to you in just a second. Hang on just a second. It's time to open up the coin mech and let the quarter that somebody put in you this morning fall out, Alan. So hang on just a second. Let's get some more people in here to talk about this. I know we've got Larry on deck. I know he's probably got a question or two. We've got Samuel. We're going to Samuel next. And let's make sure that we realize that there is a half second delay between FCC and, Zoom, which is where Alan is. So everybody just take calm down, take a breath, have some dip, and let's have a a fun after show. Go ahead, Samuel.
[03:13:06] Unknown:
Yeah. One of those blurs that was done right here is referring to these things in their term, which is firearm when the constitution protects arms. They have a specific definition of what a firearm is, and it ain't an arm.
[03:13:25] Unknown:
So, you know One of the tricks that they do quite commonly, they just simply rename it into something that isn't. Okay?
[03:13:34] Unknown:
Yes. Your dog is now a cat.
[03:13:36] Unknown:
Or or, giving new definitions. Hey. Listen. You wanna know something? One of the most basic arguments in this is 18 USC 31. Go look it up. 18 USC 31. That is definitions for all federal all states. What is driving? Only in a commercial form, and it's only defined there. That's it. There isn't no other definition because they can't make another definition at the state level violating the principle I just talked about. So they they sit there and they use the word drive and then the living word, living language word, drive, that we use, hey. Can you drive me to the store?
Are you are is that really a commercial operation like store?
[03:14:20] Unknown:
Can you yield a little bit, man? Holy mackerel.
[03:14:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Slow down. Slow down, Alan. Like I said, open the coin, Mac. Let the quarter out. Certainly do.
[03:14:32] Unknown:
But, you know, one of the reasons I asked Brent of what year he started lawyering, and he didn't even answer that clearly. He I guess he was doing clerk work in '88, and he started lawyer in somewhere thereafter. Well, and he's talking about the common law. Well, I remember when I was reading Stamper's book where the the district attorney says in 1955 is when we stopped doing our common law pleadings and started doing statutory. So when you take a guy down to 1988, it's just like if I'm a plumber and I asked a guy fifty years ago, how do you put text in? He not gonna know what I'm talking about.
[03:15:23] Unknown:
Okay. I I can answer that question. I mean, it raises so many. First of all, there is nothing that he has said I disagree with. It's absolutely the the only time that we've actually had contact or, conflict is when we have been at two different, talking levels, in the same topic. It's at two different levels that we're talking about. I go back to the fundamentals.
[03:15:47] Unknown:
Okay? I have one more point I'd like to make, Alan, and and I gotta get back to work. Okay? So with with that being said, he also, you know, used the exception to the rule to make a statement that you don't need an injured party or property to have an a judgment against it. Okay? That person well, in reality, when we were really in common law, it the indictment had to come back down from a grand jury, a common law grand jury. And I tell you what, they they had the power to have the exception to the rule, but they'd be hard pressed without damage to a party or a person to bring an indictment.
I'll leave it at that. Okay.
[03:16:37] Unknown:
I I okay. Stop. First of all, this business between common law and statutory needs to have a better foundation than what we're looking at, and even the lawyers fail at this. Okay? I get it from straight civil. Okay? And I date back to 1974 for civil class, meaning that I don't have the common law or the common fad, okay, teaching on this. It's very simple. If you wanna sit there and work on common law, it's something that's already been decided in that case and also that case. And, oh, by the way, precedence was set by that case. So I have three cases that are nearly identical to mine, but that was my, specification earlier.
As it applies to you, as it applies to the specifics of this case, and all three of those other cases was determined how? Whether or not the statute applied. Oops. So even if you go back to common law, how was that applied? Oh, well, they applied the statutes to the common law that created a record of how the court would normally handle this. Okay? And that's your common law. Well, if I go out and shoot somebody for no bloody reason, do I go to jail? No. You get dead because that's
[03:17:57] Unknown:
established principle. How is that established principle? Agree with you on if I may agree with you on saying it this way, the reason the common law didn't get written down till way later is because it was whatever that law was in that community, that middle village because the next one over, it wasn't the same damn thing because it was their local customs and rules. Written down.
[03:18:22] Unknown:
Dylan, stop interrupting him. Let him play. No. I that's the first fault. Where do you get that it was not written down? That is They didn't write. They didn't read.
[03:18:33] Unknown:
They didn't read and write.
[03:18:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Sorry, Alan. Alan. I'm going back a ways here. Alan, it wasn't written down, Alan. It wasn't written down until Blackstone's commentaries. It didn't exist before then.
[03:18:48] Unknown:
When did that exist?
[03:18:50] Unknown:
Well, I I asked GPT when Blackstone's commentaries were written and why. Okay. That okay. Well, here's the problem.
[03:18:58] Unknown:
When they started up The US, for almost twenty years, we didn't have a record of anything the Supreme Court was doing, but we did. The findings of Supreme Court was instead published in the newspaper when they did. And mind you, they weren't, you know, over overrun as they are today. So there wasn't as many findings in order to create a book out of it. It wouldn't be, almost twenty five years before they they actually had an first book. I think there was only eight of them, that was originally published, two more after that that was requested. I found one of that exact book at the supreme, at the, Supreme Court, Missouri, library.
On the Thirteenth Floor, I actually found that. And when I found that, I gave it to the librarian, and now nobody touches it without gloves on because it's that old. It's that fragile. Okay? You just fold the page, it'll break. And, they weren't aware that they actually had that book there, and I had discovered it there. A little claim to fame for me. But the thing of it is, they finally did publish that. Those are your common law. The Supreme Court is your common law. This is case by case as it applies to that case. The only reason why they can sit there and bring you to court to begin with is, oh, that doesn't apply to your case.
And that is the argument whether or not these statutes and these precedents apply to your case. That's the argument actually happening, not whether or not you're guilty or otherwise, and that's the reason why they can find you guilty without an actual victim. Does it apply to you? And, again, you have the human factor of anything applies if I say so because we haven't written it down yet. Yes. That that's there too. Well, they say you can indict a ham sandwich.
[03:20:55] Unknown:
And if you focus on procedure, it is possible for you to get hung out to dry and even if you're absolutely innocent. Because as long as the procedure is correct, it's presumed that the outcome is correct. But the problem is their procedure is based on a presumption of guilt before innocence. So what do you do? Where do you go from here? Let's, let's go to all of the state statutes, find the ones that are abhorrent to the constitution, and get them get them stripped get them stripped out of the legislations. Let's change it that way.
Let's dismantle the states from the inside out.
[03:21:40] Unknown:
They they have a lot of procedure. Unfortunately, it's all unlawful.
[03:21:46] Unknown:
Exactly. Their procedure is not necessarily the correct procedure. It's the one that works for them and allows them to pay the guy that polishes the marble in the courthouse. Tony, do we have anybody else that wants to jump in here? Alan, hang on. Take a breath for a second. Holy crap. Thank you for being here, by the way. Anybody else wanna comment on on this great discussion? This is fun. Paul. Yeah. Larry.
[03:22:24] Unknown:
Yeah. Can you explain, like, what was the underlying argument between Brent and Allen? They seem to disagree. What was in a very simple statement, what was it?
[03:22:37] Unknown:
The very simple statement was Alan said that through the supremacy clause, the federal government has the authority to restrict your rights and that the states have the authority and the ability to expand your rights. However, the problem with that is number one, the federal government doesn't have, doesn't have the right to infringe on any of your rights because the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. And the state is not going to expand your rights because they want you to be guilty of breathing so they can securitize your incarceration and whack you with a big fine.
There's the therein lies the problem. There's the disconnect. The federal government cannot impose on us, and the state government, which shouldn't be doing it, is doing it because it helps the bottom line.
[03:23:32] Unknown:
They could make everything illegal. They could make everything illegal. The problem is, does it apply to you?
[03:23:40] Unknown:
In the way Well, it doesn't apply to me.
[03:23:42] Unknown:
Absolutely not. The argument, to better better word that the the difference between what I was saying, what he was saying was I already accepted the constitution. I already accepted that, yes, the federal government can make laws. I accepted those two facts. He went backwards two two prongs in order to say, well, they don't have any right at all in order to sit there and infringe upon you, okay, which technically is also true. And the constitution describes the prohibitions in order to prevent them from infringing on you, but they have grayed that so badly. We're not talking about cons the constitution as a prohibition anymore. We're referring to it as our rights. It's never been our rights. They gave us that term to defend our rights. Oh, you're defending your rights. No. You're attacking me.
Give me another word. Myself. You're you're attacking me. You're infringing upon me instead of, you know, that's been replaced by you're attacking my rights. It's improper phrases to begin with, and we've adopted that. And we walk into court with that, and it's an outright admission. I wasn't driving. I was going or traveling or however you wanna sit there and describe it. If you boil it down to the fundamental, no. I was just going to the store. What the hell are you talking about? Driving.
[03:25:03] Unknown:
Okay. Did you intend to buy anything at the store? Well, you were engaging in commerce.
[03:25:08] Unknown:
That's That's ridiculous. They wanna play leapfrog. They wanna leapfrog for the first, fault, and, that was the first thing that was taught to me. Don't leave the first fault. That doesn't matter how many times they wanna talk about all these subtopics and categories. Don't leave the first fault. Okay? And that most of these people that are losing, that that that, that you see that are educated. Let's say one of us from the show goes to jail or something. It has been because we have adopted their language, okay, allowing them in order to do this. When I say the word prohibition or I say you have you have no ability in order to license my right by get demanding a permit.
Okay? That's the truth. And as long as you stick with that, the guy and that made those weapons would not be in jail. You have to stick with the truth. He he got sucked into their vacuum of all of these complications and all of these subtopics. Well, then that means just like, what happened to me and him earlier. I got involved in the subtopic after the constitution. He was before the constitution with
[03:26:22] Unknown:
the
[03:26:25] Unknown:
guy what happened with the guy in New York with the guns, what he did was he agreed to be under their jurisdiction, and they just hung him out to try. Plain and simple. There was no justice there. Yeah. There was no justice there. There was a there was a photo opportunity, and there was a news clip hanging in the balance where they could demonstrate to New Yorkers or everybody on the Eastern Seaboard, if not all the way across the country, that, you cannot have these guns. And this guy sitting behind gray bars proves it. Now we've got another comment in here. We've got a may I from Brent. Hang on. I need you to mute for a minute, Alan, because I don't want Brent interrupted. Let's hear what he has to say. Go ahead, Brent.
[03:27:13] Unknown:
Okay. That document you call the constitution or constitution, that thing takes away your rights right from the get go, the supremacy clause. It overrides everything. And then what was that other one? The law of necessity. It abrogates the bill of rights or the bill of goods. Wow. So You've hit You you were screwed you were screwed right at the beginning.
[03:27:44] Unknown:
Okay.
[03:27:44] Unknown:
The I wear improper clause.
[03:27:47] Unknown:
Yeah. That's what it is.
[03:27:49] Unknown:
Thanks, Eddie. The federal clause the federal supremacy clause comes only after, well, basically, Puerto Rico. If you were going to be involved in what we're doing, you have to adopt our prohibitions to your government. Okay? That's a that's a supremacy clause. Each one of these, quote, states are actually what? Nations. They're separate from the government. That's the reason why they have different names. Nebraska, Illinois. Okay. They are actually governments of their own, but they have conceded to the restrictions and the prohibitions of the federal government. That is the actual federal supremacy. Then we can get into the subtopics of what you're talking about, which they've abused. Yes. But that's also the safeguard against that even though it's not humanly, viable. It's not something that we normally try to do if you're a politician, is the fact that the states can expand those rights. As the federal government says you can't have guns, well, the state can say you can.
[03:28:59] Unknown:
But the power of the state comment on that. The state by the sovereignty of the city some, you know, Missouri, after the feds said they were banning some guns or something, the the Missouri came out and said, no. We're not gonna, apply any of the laws the federal government makes about guns in our state. And a federal judge came out and told them that the federal government's gonna send in the military if they don't follow that law, and they're following it. That's the supremacy clause. I might add.
[03:29:34] Unknown:
Multiple breaks of law. I might add, right from the get go, the whiskey the whiskey rebellion, they assembled an army larger than what fought in the what Washington commanded for the revolutionary war against the whiskey rebellion people in Pennsylvania.
[03:29:54] Unknown:
Well, that's kinda just the secret. Themselves. That's the very reason why we have the second amendment is to be able to say no because they've ignored our sovereignty. Technically, the way it's supposed to be balanced is those people should have just went to court and says no. Sorry. Here's a here's a, 10,000 people that signed this. Go to hell. Okay? That's instead of having to raise a gun. The gun, the government has no reason not to
[03:30:28] Unknown:
Hamilton was a lieutenant general put in charge of that, and he was going to kill those people Right. Over making a living.
[03:30:39] Unknown:
And they made him president. Uh-huh.
[03:30:43] Unknown:
Not him. The government
[03:30:45] Unknown:
wanted their share. We got him.
[03:30:47] Unknown:
Kind of a district. Well, he was the president. Hamilton wise. Yes.
[03:30:53] Unknown:
Washington was as flunky. Uh-huh.
[03:30:58] Unknown:
We have a real life example here with Missouri in '21. They had made the, and Sam Andrews helped write this, and I have a call in stuff linked in the numeral two radio ranch dot chatango dot com. But they put together second amendment preservation act and had it through. It was signed by Parsons, the governor. But an Obama appointee appointee, Brian Weems, federal judge, said no, and it was due to the supremacy clause. And the local police were in on it because with the feds because this would prevent them enforcing federal laws. And I don't know if y'all remember, but they had a big parade there in Missouri and, everybody wearing their guns on their hips. And, there were infiltrators in there and trying to make trouble. But at the end of it, all these guys went around picking up all the trash, cleaned up everything as well.
You know? So it went to appellate court, which also used the supremacy clause. And so now it stands that you're gonna have to pay, like, a half a million bucks to try to even get it before the Supreme Court. Okay. Well, here's here's one.
[03:32:18] Unknown:
Here's a here's a point that we're missing on that. Was there a petition with x amount of people that signed in order to overturn that? You see that's the direct make any difference.
[03:32:30] Unknown:
It would make any difference. Once it's
[03:32:32] Unknown:
once a federal judge
[03:32:34] Unknown:
It's done. Once the fed once the federal judge Ellen, let her speak. Thank you. Once a federal judge stepped in, then it's beyond that point. Alright? And then we have the appellate court. And now the procedure means that it has to go to the Supreme Court if they'll hear it, and it will cost a lot. So it listen. The states have been subordinate to the federal government ever since the constitution. That was illegal. The law of the land at the time was the articles of confederation and perpetual union. The delegates sent to Philadelphia were supposed to improve that, but they didn't intend that at all. Most of the ones that were behind this, coup. It was a coup d'etat is what it was. And the ones that figured that out left and wouldn't participate in it, and some just never went at all. Now Luther Martin, this longest serving attorney, in Maryland, went late because he was tied up with, legal business.
And so he didn't know that they took a pledge to be quiet about this for fifty years, and they covered all the windows. They had guards at the door. This whole constitution was a sham that has been put put on us. See, in the articles, there was no unlimited taxation. There was no standing army. There was no implied powers or supremacy clause. They were much better for the states, and the states would stand with the people. And they had to have a majority of the states to get anything done. And anyone that was sent to congress, they'd be yanked back immediately if they weren't following what the state legislatures had proposed. I yield.
[03:34:23] Unknown:
Yes. If I may, I think one thing we forget, and we this group should not, for sure. These are not state citizens anymore. These are all federal subjects. So when you talk about the supremacy clause, that has a lot of effect on who it covers.
[03:34:44] Unknown:
I yield. And one correction, Murr, it wasn't a majority. It was you had to be unanimous. All 13 states or those coming after had to agree to any changes made to the, the articles And the yeah. You're correct. The the that was a coup. It was a coup d'etat to overthrow the articles just like they overthrew the king of England, but then they made it illegal to overthrow the new federal government who who was king, with the constitution, not yield.
[03:35:16] Unknown:
Right. They wanna be kings themselves. Very careful to hear. That's exactly that's exactly what Patrick Henry said. He said I he wouldn't go to this convention. He said, I smell a rat leaning towards a monarchy. And he would he spoke many times in the ratifications there in Virginia, and he would not take an oath to that constitution no matter what. No. You can't. He was he was he was asked to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and he wouldn't even take it then. And so Brent Winters says that Patrick Henry accepted the constitution eventually. No. He did not.
[03:35:56] Unknown:
And, also, let's look at the words. He smelled a rat leaning towards the monarchy, the word ratification. There you go.
[03:36:05] Unknown:
Can I can I get Good point? Seriously. Give me one second here. First of all, we're talking about the creation, the very beginning of something that was not on this planet prior to the constitution. And can anyone tell me what that is? Because it's one word. It starts with an r. Right now, everybody thinks that we live in something that's starts with a d, which is a transitional government. It doesn't matter. Republic.
[03:36:34] Unknown:
Transitional
[03:36:35] Unknown:
government to to monarchy or okay? The only reason it was called a republic the only reason it was called a republic is because they had to put a name on it.
[03:36:46] Unknown:
That's right. Because the ruling sense was the fact that there had to be a monarchy. And these people were calling out against the constitution claiming all sorts of things because it created a new format, a new model for that government where the people were actually running things, not the government. Okay? And there was no such thing. So when we're sitting here saying that this was a coup on top of a coup, you're absolutely right, but you're describing it in the negative instead of the positive of what they had at that time. Okay?
[03:37:20] Unknown:
There so you're saying that the articles of confederation were a were a negative?
[03:37:28] Unknown:
It did not establish the model. It didn't establish the prohibitions.
[03:37:34] Unknown:
Do you have you read them? Do you know anything about them? Do you know anything about the anti federalist?
[03:37:41] Unknown:
Yes. I do. And, unfortunately, that doesn't quite work either because, again, they're based on dogma. Up until just a few years ago, everybody at the national was based on dogma. Oh, you're a sovereign citizen and all this other stuff. Right? Aren't we fighting that dogma still to the day? Do you realize how how many you had over two hundred and twenty five years, okay, almost 250 now. Right? Okay. That has defined It was two hundred and twenty five years. April 19 Of dogma.
[03:38:20] Unknown:
Don't be confused with the federalist and the anti federalist.
[03:38:25] Unknown:
I'd like to white point out one thing that you pro pro, you know, articles of Confederation are saying, cool. Well, you know, I'm not a big fan of what they did at the constitutional convention either and how they went about it. However, this was given back to the states for ratification. Took almost a year, and they needed at least nine according to the rules. Out of those 13, Rhode Island wasn't present to get a a a mandate to put it into law, and that happened. Those the it was debated. The the articles of con of confederation were debated. This was all debated at the state level.
[03:39:13] Unknown:
Let's use a whole let's use a whole name for that. Alright? The articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Thank you. I think people know what I'm talking about, but, you know Well, good to hear. As proof as possible. Public had not yet been established and how that operation would be established. The balances that they put in there is the petition that you're looking for. You need to have that petition signed and forward it because that is the only way to lawfully engage the rights of the state. It isn't until the infringement of the government, whether it be state or federal, that you have the other rights such as second amendment. Okay? In order to exonerate between
[03:39:51] Unknown:
the states the deliberations between the states after the signing of the constitution brought in the bill of rights.
[03:40:00] Unknown:
There there were no amendments in the in the constitution originally. There's No. There weren't everything on them. Those guys want a complete control. Right. And many of them were just totally discounted. In fact, the second amendment was actually came in fourth and, but they deleted a bunch of stuff in between. So
[03:40:21] Unknown:
There are actually 200, rights in the bill of rights that was brought forward, and they they chiseled it down to what they gave us.
[03:40:32] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. I wish we could just hold them to 10.
[03:40:36] Unknown:
Right. Can you go out can you go out and get me a list of that? Because I got news for you. You can sit there and and and delegate, phrases and stuff like that to infinity. Okay? And that's what they were dealing with, and you have to boil that down to a single paragraph. How do you do that? Well, we got all these considerations. They boiled it down so all those considerations are in a single paragraph. And that is the you know, the full of the constitution itself because it is so broad and so specific in its prohibition.
It's so broad to the people and so specific in its prohibition. I yield.
[03:41:17] Unknown:
Governor Morris in the committee of style, after everything was supposedly completed and agreed upon in the constitution, changed it. And he brags about that.
[03:41:29] Unknown:
And that was the committee of style and arrangement.
[03:41:33] Unknown:
The biggest mistake the federalists made was trying to put back into power a king, and they gave way too much power to the presidency. That was probably their biggest mistake.
[03:41:46] Unknown:
And we wouldn't even know about the anti federalist if it weren't for someone that was kind of against it. They came across it and put it out in just not that many years ago comparatively, but they weren't allowed to be published. One is 48. You weren't allowed
[03:42:01] Unknown:
Because they weren't more cases.
[03:42:04] Unknown:
May I finish, please? You weren't allowed. They weren't allowed to publish it and circulate it to show that there was any, disagreement with the Federalist. I yield.
[03:42:18] Unknown:
But then again, those are the people that were in power in these separate states that was trying to direct it to their cause, okay, and their own specific cause. And as long as they could sit there and limit their power to these borders, okay, fine. But the politics, I mean, for us in order to be arguing these points is moot today because there's still two hundred and fifty years of dogma since it has happened. Every generation has picked up a piece of dogma removing the original intent.
[03:42:50] Unknown:
Well, you know, there was a lot there was a lot more went on. These people had to fight Indians, so they knew about that. And it wasn't just within their states or commerce was involved with moving their products down the Mississippi, which was then, given basically to Spain. So they had a lot of contentions going on. It wasn't just a small group in one place. This was overall, and it was made, they even have it in there that the, states were made subordinate to the federal government, and you see the monster we have now.
[03:43:29] Unknown:
And the second amendment still survived. Imagine that. Even after we got done with all these internal wars, the second amendment survived. It was utilized in the, prohibition for alcohol. Right? It was used as an expression in Chicago. But, you know, when you have that kind of power, corruption follows. When you have that kind of money, corruption follows. So we justify the, moon shining in Tennessee and condemn Capone. It's political. And that that Well, not entirely.
[03:44:07] Unknown:
The the what's like the whiskey rebellion. If we go back to the whiskey rebellion, that wasn't just about drinking. They used that as currency, and that's what they couldn't stand because, Washington and the others, they had breweries themselves, and they weren't being taxed. But Hamilton is the one that got 13,000 soldiers together to go make them not use this whiskey because they wanted to tax them, and so they couldn't have it. And they rousted people out of bed and made them march barefoot to Philadelphia from Western Pennsylvania.
Many didn't survive.
[03:44:47] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. I I agree. There's just a lot of, corruption, but that doesn't change the fact that we do not need more laws. We just simply need to follow the ones that we have under the original intent as it applies. Gotta eliminate the ones that that don't apply to us.
[03:45:06] Unknown:
No. The original intent will have been carried it out.
[03:45:11] Unknown:
As long as you follow the defense as it applies to you. That's what the key is because they can sit there and say that wearing your hair in a bun is illegal.
[03:45:25] Unknown:
Or I'm speaking about that.
[03:45:28] Unknown:
They can say that that does not apply to you. You are a citizen. You're a national. You have other statutes. You have rights. It does not apply to you. It might apply to somebody in Cambodia that's standing on two inches of American soil that came on there by accident, and that we can argue. But as far as me, as a national, it doesn't apply to me. Not applied in this case. That is the definition that we started this conversation with. It's such an, important distinction that they can and they have. They've made all these laws. But just like that guy in New York that's sitting in jail due to guns, I'm sorry. As it applies to him, does not apply. They apply to statute instead.
And that's the argument that we're having because it's a dodge for a judge to either do something or not do something as whatever the political fad that week is. How do you how do you get marriage between two men or two women That that's not a marriage. What what that is is opposite sexes that can have the possibility of procreation being regulated by religion or however. Let's boil it down to the fundamental. That has nothing to do with your civil contract as marriage. You can all these people that wanna get married, the only thing I do is just make a civil contract. They're married. They're gonna break up. They're gonna have to split it down the middle just like in a regular marriage. They have to agree to those terms, and that's all they need to do. Make a contract. There you go. You don't even need to get Obama's nation.
Well, yeah. But then again, I mean, that was just when you started becoming aware of it. I I was aware of it in 1974. I'm 62 years old. I actually seen some of these things occur. Example, in 1972
[03:47:28] Unknown:
Well, I'm 66, and I I didn't just discover it when Obama came into office. That's pretty funny.
[03:47:37] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. I think, Anthony Bernal was running the country for the last four years, not Obama.
[03:47:46] Unknown:
Who?
[03:47:48] Unknown:
Anthony Bernal, the chief of staff chief of staff in control of the autopin.
[03:47:55] Unknown:
Another sodomite and also Peter Thiel.
[03:48:01] Unknown:
Hey, Alan. Do me a favor. So is is the basic premise of this whole discussion that that, that, Alan is arguing that he is glad for the protections of the constitution and many of the other students can't stand it, and they think of it as a con institution. Okay. Is that the basic premise?
[03:48:26] Unknown:
Let's get rid of a little bit of the talk contained in the national. First of all, as a citizen, everything that you're enjoying as a national is already covered in 18 USC two four excuse me, 18, which prohibits as a criminal act all of these things that you're claiming as a natural now, which means that they can't even look at these things in order to either protect you or prosecute you. But if you are a citizen, they can have the protection of title 18, which makes it criminal to do these things, and the protection of the constitution. And when you become a national, by the way, what do you think that you're actually declaring as the law of the land under the state?
[03:49:13] Unknown:
Allen. Allen. It's not it Allen. Allen. Allen. Allen. I need you to do something. I need you to turn your microphone down a little bit, and I need you to turn your headphones up so you can hear when other people are talking. The constitutional protections the constitutional protections as they apply to us, do so through the limitation of government.
[03:49:39] Unknown:
There you go.
[03:49:41] Unknown:
Same thing. Yeah. I mean, we can We don't have constitutional rights. We don't have constitutional rights. We have constitutional protections as long as the federal government and the federalized states pay attention and follow the constitution and its and its prohibitions. That's the problem we have There were never states. Nope. There were never constitutional
[03:50:09] Unknown:
rights. The way it was sold was constitutionally protected, god given rights.
[03:50:15] Unknown:
Yes. Constitutional protections. Okay. I
[03:50:19] Unknown:
Okay. I'm sorry, Murr. I'm sorry. I abbreviated it. You know? Like, simple minds, simple pleasures. That's fine. That's fine. No need to apologize. It's just we cut got out of things and we suffer. I heal.
[03:50:32] Unknown:
Right. Okay.
[03:50:34] Unknown:
There are key phrases in lawyer lawyering that are protected phrases. If you have sat in enough rooms, you will find out based on the cases that win and cases that lose, the phrase as applied is used. The cases that you're losing, you're not using the words as applied. Whether you're pro se or have a lawyer or anything else, he's getting off on a technicality within this statute, not the fact that you were never supposed to be bothered. Okay? When we're looking at which side of the court you're sitting on when you become a national, you are now sitting outside the court. There's five planes to the court, and that's ridiculous. But the audience of the court is the fifth plane before you go up to, on the fourth plane to talk to the judge. Okay?
So, the fifth plane is a citizen. The sixth plane is the people outside the courtroom. That is who you are, and they cannot force you to enter that courtroom unless it is a capital well, Christian offense, we'll put it. Okay? And that's the only way they can force you into it because you are on the sixth plane, not the fifth plane as a citizen. Anybody that's in the courtroom as part of the audience is a witness and a participant in a public venue, which is the same as going down and seeing cats at the the local theater. The problem is we're basing our, actual restrictions and our regulation of society. Without the regulation of society, we have anarchy.
And the only thing lower than republic is anarchy. If we do not follow the republic, then we've lost a democracy too because a democracy does have nothing to do with us. We Well, anarchy doesn't we have
[03:52:38] Unknown:
And and the definition of anarchy, I mean, there's the colloquially colloquial definition where the word anarchy is demonized. However, the actual definition of anarchy is not no rules. It's no rulers. It is self Ding ding. And self governance.
[03:52:58] Unknown:
It's not achievable. The same way democracy is not achievable or sustainable. Because one way or the other, the mob rule will turn on itself, and that's democracy. Democracy is is a is a a lynch mob. Then we all vote in your job. Them.
[03:53:16] Unknown:
This is your problem. The ones that moment the violence.
[03:53:21] Unknown:
This is your problem, Alan. You've got absolutely no self governance. You have no capacity for self control. I'm sorry. You know? I mean, you know, even even coming out in a conversation, you know, having a push and pull conversation, you know, with somebody else. I mean, they'd say a sentence or two and you say you say a chapter. And then they say another sentence or two and then you say a chapter.
[03:53:47] Unknown:
I try to get include the background in case somebody, you know, forgot a point earlier or something like that. I'll add them all up and give it to you. But that's all. Just just make sure you just make sure you have your yardsticks so you can whack it on the table and wake us all up after your
[03:54:03] Unknown:
twenty minute diatribe.
[03:54:06] Unknown:
What are you speaking as if you're the ruling class?
[03:54:14] Unknown:
This is an what's really ruined this country is people not following the advice of Jesus Christ. It's okay. If we did if we did, we'd be in awesome shape right now. But, you know, for money, for sex, for whatever your weakness
[03:54:36] Unknown:
is, if you go there first,
[03:54:38] Unknown:
that's the kind of country you end up in.
[03:54:41] Unknown:
That's one of the strongest sentences I've heard in a long time. Following the advice of Jesus Christ rather than saying, oh, the advice in the Bible or so. No. It's you you've got a lot of elements there you put together, and you can't argue with that at all. I love that phrase. I'm gonna write that down right now.
[03:55:01] Unknown:
And his example.
[03:55:04] Unknown:
Yeah. Follow follow his example. I mean, that's what we're doing as nationals. We are overturning
[03:55:10] Unknown:
the money changers' teams. How many people here know what the term of the great commission means?
[03:55:18] Unknown:
I am shrugging.
[03:55:21] Unknown:
Everybody gets paid.
[03:55:24] Unknown:
That was Jesus telling his disciples to go out and make followers of him. We used to all know that in this country, and I had looked at a survey the other day that said maybe 25% know what the great commission is anymore in the Christian community. I didn't know about it. I mean, we're supposed to be going out and not bombing the crap out of people. We're supposed to be Jesus like. I don't think he'd approve. None of us are doing that, Samuel.
[03:55:53] Unknown:
Well, it's like Walter says As a country. Know, it's like Walter says. You know, Jeff Dunham's puppet? Is that his wife was upsetting him. So he thought to himself, what would Jesus do? So he tried to turn her into a fish.
[03:56:10] Unknown:
And feed her to the to the masses.
[03:56:14] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm I'm glad that, that Brent mentioned that it was nice to be missed. You know, I always appreciate being missed, particularly by my ex wife when she is armed, locked, and loaded. I'm just saying. Anyway,
[03:56:38] Unknown:
we've got a lot of unrecognized blasphemy going on. Alright? We've got people cutting out parts of the bible because guess what? Jews told them to. Okay? They talk about Paul as being Pauline and his forgeries. His, works, ones that came after him, yeah, they wrote stuff too. But it's in there for a reason. Alright? And it's in there for a reason for a long time. Yeah. You need to check and see about the translations, how they made god seem harsh, and he's not. He's pure love. And Christ came in the flesh to exemplify that, but they are one. I agree that there's no trinity.
You know? This is one of the contentions, but then they wanna throw everything out, the baby with the bathwater. So beware when you hear all this stuff because then they'll say, oh, well, any religion is alright and, you know, Buddha and Hindu and Mohammed and everything. It's just fine. It's it's a it's a great consciousness, the great consciousness. No. And Ken's Ken in Texas is gonna be on my show, and so I hope we talk more about the maseroths and all that good stuff where Jesus is everything. Now you'll Mhmm.
[03:57:52] Unknown:
Thank you, Murrah. You know what, guys? We've been doing this for Samuel. One more comment. We've been doing this for four hours. I'm gonna take the stream down. So go go ahead, Samuel.
[03:58:04] Unknown:
The, the the Trinity thing, Murr, was actually discussed in the Old Testament, not in three persons, but in two in a number of sites I've found so far. But the other thing is, this these new translations of the bible and you gotta think this is on purpose. Where it used to say Jesus Christ, it's not Jesus taking away his divinity. And so they're very subtle on how they do these things, but, you gotta be careful.
[03:58:46] Unknown:
You have to pray for guidance before you study.
[03:58:51] Unknown:
One last question. Can you exchange dogma for colorable or colorable law? Or
[03:59:02] Unknown:
Or false doctrine.
[03:59:08] Unknown:
I don't know. The only thing I know for sure my karma ran over there, dog. This has been the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters, the Friday edition. Thank you so much for joining us. We are on a number of platforms, homenetwork.tv, freedom nation. Tv, go live TV, stream life.tube, eurofolk radio Com, global Com, Global Voice Radio Network, 1 0 6 point 9 WVOU FM in Chicago, and radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy Paul Lip across the drink. We're here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM Eastern. Our website is thematrixdocs.com, and you will find means of escaping the matrix right there on that website. Thank you so much for joining us. That's me. I'm out of here.
I am on with my day. So thank you so much for joining us. We'll catch you back here next time for the Sabadeau edition, 11AM eastern, tomorrow on the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales. Bye now. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network. Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
Introduction and Announcements
D-Day and Historical Reflections
Current Events and Political Commentary
Legal Discussions and Common Law
Guest Introduction: Brent Winters
Nationalism and Historical Context
Listener Interaction and Legal Advice
Comparative Law and Common Law Tradition
After Show Discussion and Listener Questions
