Global Voice Radio Network's tracks

Share on social media:

In this episode of the Radio Ranch, host Roger Sayles delves into the intricacies of the 14th Amendment and its implications on birthright citizenship. The discussion is enriched by insights from legal experts Mark Levin and Robert Barnes, who provide contrasting views on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Levin argues for a strict interpretation, emphasizing allegiance to the United States, while Barnes explores the Lockean concept of consent and the historical context of citizenship. The episode also touches on the historical controversies surrounding the 14th Amendment's ratification and its impact on modern legal interpretations. Additionally, the conversation extends to related topics such as the implications of the 13th Amendment, the role of the IRS, and the legal status of nationals versus citizens. The episode is a deep dive into constitutional law, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of the legal frameworks that shape American citizenship.

[00:00:00] Unknown:

I need quality sleep.  

[00:00:02] Unknown:

Hang on.  

[00:00:13] Unknown:

Hit the bones   using the future of medicine, which is frequency.   This is your time. Grab your one device right now. For more information on the Itericare  

[00:00:25] Unknown:

classic terahertz frequency wand, go to   iteroplanet.com.   That's   iteraplanet.com.   This mirror stream on the Global Voice Radio Network is brought to you in part by   mymitobust   dotcom for support of the mitochondria   like   never before.   Also,   fatfix.com,   brand new product still in prelaunch.   Check it out. Phatphix.com.   It's also brought to you by iteroplanet.com   and the PIEF International   I TerraCare   terahertz frequency wand. Here's more info about that.  

[00:01:11] Unknown:

The Eye TerraCare device has the ability   to awaken   dormant stem cells in the bone marrow. Yes.   We have slipping stem cells in our bone marrows.   As you keep blowing this on your spine,   you're activating these stem cells. And guess what? You're gonna create brand new lungs, brand new kidneys. Eventually, as you keep using this over time, you will have brand new organs,   glands, and tissues in your bodies. And that's a great news. You have to keep blowing this on your spine because this is what the great Hippocrates   said. There's a way to hit the bones, then all diseases   can be treated. Activate that. Awaken that stem cells in your bone marrows. Hit the bones using the future of medicine, which is frequency.  



[00:02:02] Unknown:

This is your time. Grab your one device and focus on freedom for more you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.  

[00:02:38] Unknown:

Alrighty. Here we go.   Thank you, Alvin. Another,   episode here. Another installment,   if you will, of the radio range.   And, today is the 27th   January.   Roger Sales, your host, and,   we have, for at least an hour, we have kinda John. Might as well be considered a cohost.   Been around here long enough. So, John Kasarab's with us this morning, of course. And,   we're on, I don't think we're on a full slate of those platforms. Yes. We are. Paul, but, oh, we are. Okay. Well, pardon me. Hell yes. I stand I stand I stand corrected.   And, so we are on a full slate of them, and mister Beaner identifies them. So,   let's give them their proper recognition here.  



[00:03:27] Unknown:

Let's see if I can get through this without   Yeah. Using my cough drop button.   Okay. We're on radiosoapbox.com.   Thanks to Paul. Hi, buddy. Cross Pond. We're on 106.9   W BOU FM in Chicago for the first hour.   We are on   Eurofolks Radio dot com. Thanks to pastor Eli James.   Global Voice Radio Network, that is   radio.globalvoiceradio.netorlive.globalvoiceradio.net   because we are live right now.   We're on home network.tv,   freedom nation.tv,   go live TV,   and stream life dot tube.   At WVOU,   home network,   the livestream life.   They are brought to us by the NET family   of broadcast services driven by WDRN Productions, our   friends out in Fort Collins, Colorado.  

Good morning, Roger. I think I got through it. Now I'm gonna mute before I do something obnoxious.  

[00:04:27] Unknown:

Okay. Well, let's lord forbid. We don't want that to happen. No.   So, okay. Well, John,   I've got a real treat for the audience. Paul, if you haven't seen it yet, I sent you a link in Skype this morning, and I'd love about about a 20 minute segment or a little bit more I'd like to play.   Don't know when. I'll,   John would probably wanna hear this. I don't know if you're busy after your time with us or not, but,   we could we could squeeze it in Hey, listen. I hour. Right? If you want to. Yeah. Hold on a second, John, and we'll,   but we might hold it till the second hour, and it's,   last night's Barnes,   Viva Barnes Law, and he does about 20   little over 20 minutes on birthright citizenship.  

Quite interesting. Yes, John.  

[00:05:17] Unknown:

It's Mark Levin. I got I just sent a link to Paul last night with Mark Levin discussing 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. That was really good. Okay. Well, how is that is that a whole hour or what? 17 minutes.  

[00:05:30] Unknown:

Good. So we got about half an hour, a little bit more for 40 minutes of, discussions from people  

[00:05:37] Unknown:

that will have some a little more insight into it than the average man on the street. Oh, I think it's great. He did a great job. Also, Joby Weeks is finally they're fighting back against, you know, going after him and Bit Club. He just announced a multibillion dollar lawsuit   Really? Going after the people that shut him down.  

[00:05:57] Unknown:

Well, let's pray for that one. You better believe it.   Let's pray for that one. I might be up there with Pretty. You and I might be with Pretty. Have you ever heard Pretty on here yet? No.   She's got from Tampa. Tom,   Tom Dee brought her to us,   and she's one of these big club millionaires.   And, just somehow I hadn't got the whole story, but she's,   an avid cyber person and has done very well with Bitcoin. I really got in it, got some, and, and profited off of it at least to this point. So but she's off at the inauguration. She's gonna go to the inauguration and then hang for a couple of days somewhere.   So we hadn't heard her back yet. So, but anyway, we got one of those listeners. Yep.  

Well, that would be   great news because they took that whole company down on, if I'm correct, on just a flimsy charge of wire fraud.   And, it was set up correctly. It was really well managed.   And   I would be very  

[00:07:02] Unknown:

I'd be quite ecstatic if it came back. So let's cross They do. They do what feds do. They throw everything that they can think of and stuff that doesn't apply, Adam.  

[00:07:12] Unknown:

Well, I mean, you know, Glenn,   when they prosecuted John and Glenn, they had 90 charges against Glenn. Yeah.   And virtually none of them had to do with any of  

[00:07:22] Unknown:

this. Well, that's what they're doing to other people. Just the most egregious thing right now is is that guy down in North Carolina that the local sheriff and,   county guys, they they put him in jail for actually helping people.  

[00:07:36] Unknown:

I haven't heard this. And they,  

[00:07:40] Unknown:

they did it on basis of a   a bad check.   So apparently, he had written a check that didn't weren't enough funds in the account.   He made the check whole right away   and they still have hold him and held him in jail and they're letting him go.   And,   Bannon is   fit to be tied because this guy was out there   before FEMA. You know, he he had a location and he just stayed in that location and started distributing supplies and helping people. And they don't they didn't like that. So Yeah. No good deed goes unpunished with that branch. Let's let's hope that,  

[00:08:17] Unknown:

well, let's hope it's one of the that's one of the things that gets cleaned up. And if Bannon's on top of it, you would imagine that Trump's hearing about it if they let him get to Trump. You don't even know if they let him get to him with, this, chief of staff that he's got,   who's an establishment   person, and, I forget her name.  

[00:08:36] Unknown:

Ben and Ben and, in in there every day. Every day.  

[00:08:40] Unknown:

In the in the what? With Trump? Yes.   Okay. Well, she evidently is the keeper of the appointment book. And if she doesn't give you the okay,  

[00:08:51] Unknown:

you don't get to see him or hear him. Well, that's the way it's always been, you know, you gotta say. But those guys doesn't  

[00:08:56] Unknown:

Well,   maybe. But,   anyway,   so that's another thing here. He's did you happen to see his,   conference in LA last Friday afternoon?   Yes. I'd I'm as much as I could. It was fabulous. I mean, you wanna see about,   an administrator, how to administrate?   Man, that was a really good good,  

[00:09:18] Unknown:

what, 30 minutes on that. I love it when she shut the that mayor down. Oh, yeah.  

[00:09:25] Unknown:

And he did too. Yeah. So if any of you have not seen that, I think we talked about it briefly on Saturday.  

[00:09:32] Unknown:

That's all over the news this morning in Chicago that governor Pritzker   and the mayor in Chicago   are absolutely   defying   Homan  

[00:09:42] Unknown:

Uh-huh. To go in and get these guys out of the jails. Uh-huh. Wasn't it in Chicago over the weekend where they got a whole bunch of them, couple of 100 of them with Yeah. About 300. In front of the Trump Towers there in Chicago?  

[00:09:55] Unknown:

Well, they got about 300 in the jails, and they're actually assisting them to change their names   Yeah. Of course. And keep them in there. I can't believe that the residents   at there   haven't jerked those guys out of their offices and and  

[00:10:12] Unknown:

gave them a what for. Well, they've been doing it in at least,   in front of city council meetings and stuff. They have not   excuse me, stopped giving that, mayor, the the black communist mayor his, up his comeuppance.   We'll see. It's gonna be interesting. Pritzker and him keep screwing around with that, and then they may end up their little fat asses in jail, speaking of Pritzker.  

[00:10:36] Unknown:

That was which was discussed this morning is just going to put those guys in in in chains. Good. Denver too and anybody else,  

[00:10:45] Unknown:

LA included, any of them that do and come up again. Because you already got the ruling from the 9th Circuit. You know about that, Jack. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the most liberal circuit appellate circuit in the whole system, the 9th Circuit out there in San Fran,   said, yes. This is constitutional.   And it must have been like getting pliers and pulling it out of them. You know? They're also damn left   wackos.   But, regardless, that's happening, and, hopefully, we'll find out more about that today. Now I was referring to a picture. I saw a little,   somebody talking about it. There's about several 100 in front of I thought it was the Trump Tower in Chicago. May have been in another city, but I think it was Chicago. No. I've seen it. And and,   home Homan? Isn't that his name? Yeah. Okay. Homan. And them didn't take the bait because that was a setup.  

K? They're gonna get them to charge in there and then pull off. Somebody shoots somebody, and all of a sudden, it's it's on. You know? Yeah. And Homan didn't take the bait. See, we're getting smarter on these guys. K? Trump,   excuse me, Trump   says, the DEI stuff's gone.   And then he sends a memo to all federal employees saying if anybody in your unit is in charge of this DEI   stuff and you see them just changing the label and still doing the same stuff, you report them. So now they're even figuring in the enemy's moves that we understand   into whatever they're doing. I think it's well, it's a step in the right direction.  



[00:12:20] Unknown:

Listen,  

[00:12:23] Unknown:

Ben is not an a newbie to what's going on with the enemy.  

[00:12:28] Unknown:

I know.   I know.   So,   anyway, we're, we're making some progress. May not be as much as you want, but considering where we've been for 4 years, this is considerable progress in my mind. I what Trump did to the Colombian guy, the president Yes. Haven't we? We haven't had a chance to get to that yet. Probably some people in the audience   haven't heard from that. Our neighbor here,   to the north has got a what's the do do you remember the guy's press?   The guy that's the president, he was the guy that started the shining path.  

[00:13:01] Unknown:

He was?  

[00:13:02] Unknown:

Yes. The terrorist group down here. K? They elected him president last cycle. That's who we're dealing with here.   And Trump tried to send, I think,   at least 2.   I believe they were c one thirties or c one thirty fours. Those were pretty big cargo out, planes   and   full of really heinous criminals they'd released out of their jails.   And this Colombian president,   wouldn't wouldn't let them land.   And so Trump came in and said, okay. Well, we're gonna start putting some sanctions on you. He did stuff like, what if the tariffs were 50 per 25%,   they were raised to 50%.  

But this was the real kicker.   They couldn't do business with any US banks.   Columbia. So that probably is the one that got him off his rear end. But regardless,   I think 20   wasn't very long after   that. Wasn't very long after that at all. The presidential plane from Colombia showed up somewhere up there and got all the prison all those prisoners were brought back to Colombia.  

[00:14:08] Unknown:

He volunteered the presidential plane to help  

[00:14:11] Unknown:

Yes. People. Yeah. He sent it to to bring them back.   So,   listen.   You know, I'm I'm telling you, Trump is just a   he is an unusual individual in history.   I mean, look back through history and you won't find very many people like him. We're just, I think very blessed.   And,   I I love to see all this stuff unfold and all these liberals   getting their panties in a wad over it and trying to do all kinds of stuff like they're trying to do on this birthright citizenship thing that we're gonna   evidently spend a good bit of time today on. Now, John, do you want to,   delve into that, or do you want you got some testimonials  

[00:14:53] Unknown:

from the Itera one that we have Well, they're not gonna go away. But I'd I'd like to get on the record this Mark Levin thing and that other one that you've got. Alright.  

[00:15:04] Unknown:

Well, let's play talk, and we get both of them. I don't have access to either one of them.   You don't have I cannot get Skype to open, so I don't have yours, and I don't see it in see the link from John in my email.  

[00:15:17] Unknown:

I sent it on your phone. Systems. I sent it on your phone.  

[00:15:22] Unknown:

Okay.  

[00:15:23] Unknown:

So I don't know. Maybe I can maybe I can get it, but you guys gotta talk for a couple of minutes. And Skype is absolutely a no go. So What what's wrong with Skype? Is it the computer? Is it mine worked fine this morning. Is it your computer or what? Yeah. It's it's gonna be local.   One computer,   one computer needs an update on both Skype and the Microsoft Store, and Skype is not downloading. Any other computer won't run Skype, period.   So  

[00:15:52] Unknown:

Skype sucks. Okay. Well, here's what you do. Well, we didn't use to. It does now because Microsoft bought it.   Can you go on   I guess I could send it to you in email,   with the link to you in an email. Well, I can I can do that? I'm a little I'll Well, we can do the Mark Levin one, and then by that time I can work on that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's fine. Well, I'd like to hear Levin. And,   he used to he was I always thought he was the,   Sean Hannity's handler from the Mossad, tell you quite frankly.   But,   but he does have some pretty good legal   insight. He is an attorney and all that. So,   we can do that and then come up with the Barnes thing second and then open it up for discussion.  

There's an awful lot here. I have not heard the Levin thing. Does he mention the Lockean view of this,   John, John Locke?  

[00:16:49] Unknown:

No. I don't remember that, but he remember he he, certainly discusses all the cases that we talk about. Okay. Well, so does Barnes, but he I remember when Hannity started out here in LA, and I'll tell you, I was I've never liked the guy. The guy's just a weasel. I don't know how he's maintained where he's been for so long.  

[00:17:08] Unknown:

You wanna know why? He'd be go. You wanna know why? Yeah. Because Rush Limbaugh's brother is his agent. Oh.  

[00:17:15] Unknown:

Okay. Wow. Hey, Roger.  

[00:17:18] Unknown:

Man, away from all that bullshit, Scott Sean's a pretty nice guy. But, boy, am I disappointed in that guy. I do know him personally and met him in Atlanta. We had a pretty,   pretty good relationship there. He used to speak often and,   I'm very disappointed in what he's turned out to be. Yes, Sketch?  

[00:17:36] Unknown:

Yes. I just I I don't know if this helps, but, Paul, I it's on Rumble of Vita Fry, and it starts at   2 hour and   7   yeah. 22   07 seconds and 21  

[00:17:51] Unknown:

seconds. Yeah. 2 minutes.   Rumbling.   Yeah. Pick that up, and he covers it about 20 minutes. Does a very good overview. And I just wanna make sure some of the   terms that he mentions when we get into it that you're aware of out front, like this lock in thing.   You know, John Locke, the, guy you hear Brent talk about a lot, was   a a hero of Thomas Jefferson's, and the declaration was almost word for word from lots ideas.   And   so,   they he wrote a book, John Locke did, called 2 treaties of government. We wrote a lot of books. I'm sure this one was called 2 treaties   of government. And what he's referring to when he says the Lockean approach   is   that the second book there is is titled government by contract,   and that's where we are. K? So just so you get a little background on that, and he mentions   some of the Indian stuff, and that's   Wong Kim Ark, which I will see if Levin mentions or not. Anyway, there's a couple of things I wanted to Oh, he does mention, Wong Kim Ark. He   he does? Yep.  

What about l v Wilkins?  

[00:19:03] Unknown:

I don't quite remember. Okay. Alright.  

[00:19:06] Unknown:

Okay. Well,   Paul, are we  

[00:19:09] Unknown:

did you find what we're looking for?  

[00:19:11] Unknown:

Yeah. 11:11   should be queued,   launching it now.   You got the a little good to get caught again?  

[00:19:19] Unknown:

Yeah. He's coughing.  

[00:19:20] Unknown:

Man, we need to get you out of that New York crap and down to Georgia, buddy.   I mean, between Mark and you and Julie back in   December and all that, man, y'all sound like death warmed over. Was that you, Larry?  

[00:19:38] Unknown:

Yeah. I just wanted to mention, back in the fall, I sent you a video.   It was a, interview between Sean Hannity   and,   James Traffic, and I don't know if you ever watched it.   This was right before James Traffic,   was killed   Demised.   Or died or died depending on how you look at it.   And Sean Hannity was very condescending   for   James Trafficante.   And then, you know, Trafficante brought up this,   this idea that every time a major bill was presented to the congress,   they always ask the question,   what will Israel think about this?   And Sean Hannity just thought that was horrendous.  



[00:20:24] Unknown:

Oh, yeah. No. He's, he's they got him.   And part of the reason is because   he had some neighbors when he was young growing up that were Jewish, that were very nice to him, that were good Jews. And so he,   projects that on all of them, which we know is not true. K? And there are some good Jewish folks. Alright?   So,   we got we got a new member of our, our group here that's that's Jewish. So damn.   And, but, boy, there's some real rotten ones too. So, anyway, yeah, I know Sean's got his problems. I don't listen to him anymore,   unfortunately. But he was a nice guy when I knew him. He wasn't   totally   uncompromised  

[00:21:09] Unknown:

at that point. Yeah. He was, Sean Hannity was making him out to be a conspiratorial   nut job.  

[00:21:16] Unknown:

Oh, Travian. Yeah.   Yeah. Well, he didn't wear a CIA pin on his lapel for nothing, Larry.   So alright. Roger?   Yes. Yes.  

[00:21:32] Unknown:

Hey, Roger. I I might have listened to your show.  

[00:21:36] Unknown:

During this time, I'm gonna try to find out why. Second, Julie.   We're getting an after echo on on the conversation call. Could you see if we can find that? Got it. Please go ahead, Julie.  

[00:21:47] Unknown:

Yeah. I might have missed your show,   when I had my pneumonia.   Did you guys go over house resolution 25?  

[00:21:54] Unknown:

No.  

[00:21:55] Unknown:

I don't know what it is. Okay. Because there's a guy by the name of Earl l Carter.   He's in the House of Representatives.   He's a Republican out of Georgia, and he's just introduced   the bill   to promote freedom   freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax   and other taxes,   abolishing the Internal Revenue Service Uh-huh. And enacting a national sales tax to be administered by the by the state.  

[00:22:24] Unknown:

I kinda think the International Monetary Fund's gonna probably have something to say about that. It's just a house resolution.   It hadn't been voted on yet. It hadn't gone to the senate. It hadn't gone to Trump. So, you know, there's a lot of things being floated, but they've got to go through a process before they even come in any kind of contact with the reality. And I think you're gonna see a pretty good fight with Trump on change and getting rid of the IRS and seeing if tariffs are gonna make up for a tax difference. There was a a I don't know if any of you will remember this. Some of you may. There's a book written by a guy named Boston Tea Party, decades ago called Goodbye April 15th. I don't know if any of you have ever seen that or not. No. That guy's name was Ralph. So I guarantee if you can find one online, they'll charge you through the nose for it. Anyway, I got to meet him at one of the expos   when we were doing Silverlawn, and he's a real sharp guy.  

His real name was Ralph, I believe. But anyway, in that book, he showed a cartoon   from the late 1800. I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was a cartoon of the Well of Congress.   And in the Well of Congress were all these alligators.   Okay? And and and the caption   or the idea was that the tariffs that were being applied were bringing in so much money that the Congress was getting corrupt.   Right? So that was a cartoon, popular cartoon, back in the 1800. Tariffs worked. That's why they don't want,   our guys don't want them in there. You know? They want to drop all the tariffs and have this quote, unquote free trade, which is not quote, unquote fair trade. It's just free.  

Free for them, and they screw you on this end. So,   you know, on what China charges, etcetera, etcetera. It's all a big scam, and I'm glad to see   Trump going back to the sheriff thing. We'll see if they can get rid of the IRS or not. But let me take this opportunity after I cough right here.   I have to remind you if any of you   I got it too. Yeah.   Yeah. Now we can tell. We can all well, 1, 2, 3, we'll all cough together. Okay?   If you do have any inclination to try and take advantage of the   revocation of election as we label it, where you can apply for the last 3 years you've paid in,   I would not dilly dally on that. If you're looking at that, I'd get it in process   as quick as possible.  

And, hopefully, we'll have Mark back here pretty quick. He may be with us today. We talked yesterday   and Saturday. He was sounding much better.   So, hopefully, we'll get Mark back here pretty soon. Yes, ma'am.  

[00:25:10] Unknown:

Can you, do the can you do that at the state level too or only the federal?  

[00:25:15] Unknown:

Only the federal, to my, and to my knowledge.  

[00:25:18] Unknown:

May I make a comment on the on the business of good taxes?   You know, don't count your chickens because   what's gonna happen is is it's gonna open the door to all kinds of state actions   and fees   and,   anything they can think of to, jack up,   take up the slack for not having a federal income tax. You're gonna  

[00:25:40] Unknown:

Well, look. You're $37,000,000,000,000   in bogus debt right now. If people would listen to us, they could we can get rid of almost all of it, you know,   because it's all based on fraud. But,   regardless of that, we'll see. They're gonna fight that tooth and nail, and it's because they can use the IRS politically. They don't just use it to collect money. They use it to terrorize their enemies and their, opposition.   You wanna have a corporation   and start one that competes with one of these established corporations they control. They're gonna regulatory   shut your ass down. Okay? I mean, it's got political implications all over the place. Alright?  

So, anyway, we'll see. That's in the future. It's being talked about. There's another guy, get this, then it may be the same guy, Julie,   has has,   set up a resolution   where   a president that serves one term and then is out of office.   And if he gets reelected again, he can serve an extra term that's contiguous.   So that's being floated also. K? So, we'll see how they shake out. Yep. We'll see how they shake out.   Okay.   We go you wanna launch into the Yeah. We better get going. Yeah. Alright. Well,   well,   John, do you wanna hear on your schedule, do you wanna hear   the Barnes one, and then we can play the 11 one after you leave if you've got to or vice versa? I'll leave that decision up to you.  



[00:27:08] Unknown:

Yeah. Play whichever one you got queued. Let's go. I'm gonna stay safe.  

[00:27:12] Unknown:

I'm gonna stay free. Let's go. Let's let's go. Let's do this.  

[00:27:15] Unknown:

What? Which  

[00:27:26] Unknown:

Hello, America. I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty, and Levin, Saturday. Thank you for being here. We have 2 great guests, Molly Hemingway and Peter Schweitzer, and we're gonna dig deeply   into the Biden crime family and much, much more. But before we do,   no country can survive   open borders.   No country can survive the kind of immigration, quote, unquote, policies we have,   period.   And we won't. And Donald Trump has recognized that before anybody else, and he's talked about securing the border, and he's talked about chain migration, and he's talked about these open borders, and he's talked about what else?   Birthright citizenship.  

Wow.   Birthright citizenship. Doesn't it sound   like, well, it's a right?   What is birthright citizenship?   Where does birthright citizenship   come from?   What kind of a country would purposely have something called   birthright citizenship? We have   it. Who put it in place? Who passed it? The vast majority of countries in the world, they said no way. You can't have foreigners walking into your country having children, automatically   they're citizens.   That's insane   that they convey citizenship   under their own children by claiming the jurisdiction, by setting foot in your own country.   That's insanity.  

I went into this about a month ago. I think too many people may have been watching football at the time, but I want to address it again because it's front and center. And I am watching reporters   who have no idea what they're talking about.   I'm watching reporters who have every idea what they're talking about,   but they're   misinforming you, and intentionally so.   I'm watching the usual legal analysts   all over cable, all over the networks.   I've been watching them. They're on sonograms and airport radar, wherever they can get a gig,   misleading you and lying to you about this whole subject. So we're gonna do this. We're gonna paint by the numbers. We're gonna make it very understandable,   because this is your country.  

And despite what the New York Times said a few months back,   no.   People do not have the right to reshape our country, to change the citizenship, to change the electorate,   to change the entire culture.   We elect people, we, the American people, we, the actual citizens of the country, to represent us,   not to represent foreigners.   This is completely upside down.   So let's take this by the numbers.   It starts here. The notorious supreme court decision in 1857   called the Dred Scott decision.   That helped precipitate the civil war.   It held that no black person of African descent   could be an American citizen   even if that person was a freed slave, period.  

So black people in America   had no ability to ever become citizens.   It was an outrageous decision based purely   on the race   of individuals.   It was an unconstitutional   decision issued by the US Supreme Court.   After the bloodiest war in our history,   over 700,000   casualties,   every corner of the United States affected,   north and south.   When that war was over,   in 1866,   the Republican controlled congress   passed a federal civil rights law.   This civil rights act was the precursor to the 14th amendment.   And its citizenship provision was intended to reverse the holding in the Dred Scott case.   That is,   and I want you to listen very carefully to this, because this is the relevant part.  

In that 1866   Civil Rights Act, our first Civil Rights Act,   all persons born in the United States   and not subject to any foreign power,   excluding Indians not taxed, which we don't need to address right now,   are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, look at that, and not subject to any foreign power. Remember,   this 1866   Civil Rights Act was the basis for the 14th Amendment.   The 14th Amendment was adopted   by Congress 2 years later and sent to the states where it was ratified in 18/68.   So the Republicans rightly decided that more than a statute was needed   to deal with this Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott.  

So as part of the post civil war constitutional amendments, 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments,   they drafted the 14th amendment,   which among other things, enshrined   citizenship   for blacks of African descent into our constitution.   That states, therefore,   by adopting these amendments,   would apply it to themselves as well as the entire nation, and you needed 3 fourths of the states. Some of the states were resistant.   Some of the southern states were resistant. And you know what they were told?   You either adopt this or you're not coming back into the country. You're on your own.   And so they did, 3 fourths of the states.  

Here's the relevant language. You heard it in the 18 66 statute.   That's the precursor to the 14th amendment.   2 years later, here's the relevant language that was adopted in 18/68   by Congress for the 14th Amendment.   All persons born or naturalized in the United States   and subject to the jurisdiction thereof subject to the jurisdiction thereof   are citizens of the United States and the states wherein they reside. Okay.   Seems simple enough.   So what did they mean by subject to the jurisdiction thereof?   I noticed some big time   Sunday hosts   on other networks   have specifically excluded that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Why? Because they're pushing an agenda.  

Donald Trump issued an executive order.   He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. Why? Because he wants to protect the nation.   He wants to ensure its viability   for the next several 100 of years.   He wants to secure the border. He does not believe it's his job or the job of the people we elect   to change the makeup of the nation and certainly not to do it through the backdoor.   So what did they mean by subject to the jurisdiction, the rep? We actually know.   The then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, way back then, senator Lyman Trumbull.   Here's what he told us, quote,   subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant not owing allegiance to anybody else,   subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.  

So let's say you come here and you come from Mexico,   and you have a child in the United States.   Under this amendment, they're not automatically   American citizens. Why? Because Mexico   recognized that parent   as a Mexican citizen. Mexico represents or recognizes   that child   as a citizen of Mexico. There's not pure allegiance   to 1 nation state.   You've got more than 1 nation state involved.   Senator Jacob Howard, the actual author of this citizenship clause in the 14th amendment, he explained that   jurisdiction meant an allegiance   to the United States, not just a presence   of a baby that's born. An allegiance to the United States that is not mere presence in the United States. He pointed out that it will not, him quoting him, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,   aliens   who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.  

Could they be clear?   No.   There's absolutely   nothing,   nothing in the language,   the text of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause that confers   universal birthright citizenship.   There's nothing in the legislative   history. They can't quote a single person, the advocates for this position.   Nothing.   Either in the 1866   Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment   debates   to support the idea of universal   birthright citizenship. If there is, let's see it right now.   Right now, let's see   it. They can't produce it.   Now,   you hear people on TV say, well, the fact that the language of the of the Civil Rights Act of 1866   was specific about foreigners and so forth, and the 14th amendment differ,   congress meant to adopt the English common law understanding   that birth within a country's territory is enough   to create citizenship. I'm seeing these reporters do this too. They don't even know what they're talking about. They're reading these preposterous briefs by these 20 attorneys general, Democrats in blue states, and they just start quoting from it like it's a like it's it's a prayer from God.  

Nice try.   But there's absolutely   no support for this view anywhere.   And in fact, for decades after the adoption of the 14th amendment,   everyone,   including the Supreme Court of the United States in two rulings,   understood what was meant by jurisdiction   under the 14th amendment. We're talking about English common law.   Why would they talk about English common law? They're writing a constitution.   Even today, citizenship is not automatically conferred on the children of diplomats,   tourists,   visa holders, and alike who happen to give birth while in the United States. Gotcha. Birthright citizenship   born in the territory of the United No. No. No. You need more than that.  

Well, why wouldn't you need more than that for immigrants, especially illegal immigrants?   Doesn't even make any sense. Now advocates for universal birthright citizenship   point to a 3rd Supreme Court decision in 18/98,   127   years ago,   US versus Wong Kim Ark.   In that case, a child was born of a lawfully present immigrant   and a permanently domiciled Chinese immigrant.   Okay?   The court ruled that that child was there for a citizen under the 14th amendment. Where did he get that from? Nowhere.   A   judicial,   incredibly activist decision.   Where Where did he get the decision in Plessy versus Ferguson   that separate but equal was equal 2 years earlier in 18 96? Where did that come from? Nowhere.  

That's just what they decided to rule.   Now that court   was responding to a blatantly   racist   federal law prohibiting   Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens   due solely to their race and ethnicity.   Just like when the 14th amendment was passed   dealing with   former Black slaves. It was purely race based and this court felt it had to step in. It's an activist court   and so it decided   that in the case, at least of those   those Chinese parents, that that child   is an American citizen. Even so, it was not a decision   based on the known understanding of the 14th amendments language or legislative history, was it?  

Therefore, its presidential   value to the current Supreme Court   should be in question   should be in question as a matter of law   as a matter of law. Some have argued that this case holds that the 14th amendment conveys birthright citizenship   to the children of lawful immigrants,   like those Chinese immigrants   who are born in the United States,   well beyond the specific facts of the case. So not just with this   particular couple, but in all cases.   Where you have lawful immigrants,   if they have a child in the United States,   it's birthright   citizenship.  

Is that what the constitution says? No. Others argue that, no, this case treats individuals   discriminated against solely because of their race   and making lawful citizenship   impossible   for individuals   based solely on the race, akin to the freed black slaves   for which the amendment was adopted in the first place,   and therefore, applies narrowly to the racial class that was discriminated against. In that case, Chinese Americans at the time.   But here again,   please stick with me,   there's no   constitutional   basis for universal   birthright citizenship   to legal immigrants   or legal immigrants   in the constitution   itself,   period.  

Furthermore,   there's no holding that confers birthright citizenship on children of   illegal   immigrants   born in the United States. None. So where did this come from?   Because now it's everywhere.   And the slip and fall lawyers, the ambulance chasers,   say, well, it's in the constitution. Oh, nobody said that. Read the text, it's not in there either.   It's believed that this practice started   with the federal bureaucracy in the executive branch. It's not certain where some people think the Social Security Administration,   later on, some people think the state department,   Early on, we can't even be sure   where we can find it.  

And yet we're told it's the law of the land and it's enshrined with our constitution.   No, it's not.   The federal courts are capable of doing anything on this case,   anything. The Supreme Court will undoubtedly have the final say.   I have serious questions. There are 5 justices with the courage and commitment to actually uphold the 14th Amendment   as it was written and intended,   given the political pressures surrounding the universal   birthright citizenship   issue, given how John Roberts,   the chief justice, and justice Barrett   cowardly ducked on the issue of the New York corrupt case against Donald Trump. We had 4 brave justices who said, yeah. We need to take that case and fix this.  

Because some of these justices,   well, they go Hollywood, or they're very concerned about how they are treated   in the Washington Post and the New York Times even though those papers have   really almost no subscribers anymore.   President Trump deserves all the credit in the world for taking this on. The idea that foreigners   can create their own jurisdiction   for their yet to be born children   by simply stepping into our country,   even illegally,   and declaring citizenship   is patently absurd. It would be akin to me going to South Carolina tomorrow and say, I'm here.   I'm a citizen of South Carolina. What are you talking about?  

A citizen of anything. Just because you step into the country. Oh, no. But in America,   you step into the country, you have a baby, that baby is a citizen.   If this had been the understanding at the time the 14th amendment was drafted, which it wasn't, it never would have been adopted by Congress, let alone a super majority of both houses,   and let alone ratified by 3 fourths of the states. It never would have happened.   This is about politics pure and simple, not the rule of law.   Finally,   those who say you cannot reverse universal birthright citizenship with an executive order or even a congressional statute,   which I keep hearing now.  

You can't change the constitution   with an executive order or statute. That's true, by the way. You can't.   But they kinda miss the point entirely, aren't they?   The issue is whether the 14th Amendment itself is a constitutional   basis for universal   birthright citizenship.   It's not a presumption by me that it is, and therefore, you can't reverse it with an executive order or a statute.   That's what's being challenged.   By issuing an executive order, president Trump's taking it on head on. He's asserting it's not. Should Congress pass legislation altering birthright citizenship   or eliminating it altogether? It's Congress that's saying no. We wanna challenge this assumption.  

The issue is not whether you can alter the constitution by other means than an amendment. You absolutely   cannot.   The issue is whether the 14th amendment says   what the birthright citizenship   crowd says it says,   and it doesn't.   And we still might lose   because the law doesn't seem to be the law anymore.   But I would just warn these judges in the supreme court.   Why should we adhere to your rulings   if you don't adhere to the constitution?   Why are your rulings there, therefore,   sacrosanct,   but the text of the constitution is not?   You see what I mean? No. I don't think you on the court see what I mean or even care.  



[00:44:31] Unknown:

Wow.   For anybody that's new and you're just starting to see how, you know, I say you can take any of these issues and dig down for hours. Boy, this is one of them right here. There's a number of them in this whole   scam they got going on. But this one, you can see why it's so contentious.   Okay? Just from what Levin said there.  

[00:44:53] Unknown:

John, did you Okay. I got the other one q two if we wanna go. Next time.   Pardon me? I've got the other one q two if we wanna if we wanna blast for you. I I  

[00:45:04] Unknown:

I do, but there are some important things. We get into another one. You're you're probably won't remember them. Did you get that? About the first one then.   Okay.   So, John, can you stick around a little bit today through this? Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna do it for sure. Alright. Okay.  

[00:45:20] Unknown:

Also, I don't know if you wanna play the Joby Weeks,   video about his lawsuits. 22,200,000,000.  

[00:45:29] Unknown:

Joby Week. Who is Joby Weeks?  

[00:45:31] Unknown:

Joby Weeks was one of the main guys that was going around and promoting the big club.  

[00:45:37] Unknown:

Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Of course. And that what happened with him?  

[00:45:41] Unknown:

He's filing a 22  

[00:45:42] Unknown:

billion. Okay. Against them. Against. Right. False prosecution. Okay. Well, good.  

[00:45:48] Unknown:

Man. Oh, man. If that if they can get that turnaround, good lord have mercy. Well, there's a lot of people that were here that were involved. They they might wanna hear it. Yes. Absolutely.  

[00:45:58] Unknown:

So any,   any comments on the Levin thing?   I'm trying to think. I'll I really would like to almost hear it again. I'll tell you what. Let's go ahead and play the second one if John's gonna be able to hang around   and hear what   Barnes has to overlay on what Levin   just laid out in front of us. Pretty articulately,   by the way. And he was absolutely correct. Fourteenth amendment, the original working title was the Civil Rights Act of 1866.   I did not know that clause was in there about no, allegiance to to another government. Okay? So that's an interesting thing to discuss.  

[00:46:38] Unknown:

Yeah. I thought Levin was perfect for what we do.  

[00:46:41] Unknown:

He he was except and you'll see here's these these are I mean, see if you agree. These are 2 of the,   more acclaimed   experts on the conservative side in the country. Both attorneys,   both skilled, both with years of practice under their belt, and you're gonna hear 40 minutes of talk here, and not one of them is gonna tag it to the feudal system through assigning.   Barnes does more than Levin just did of assigning a political status at birth. Now,   John,   labeled it just tiara, the law of the land.   And now I know I heard Mark mention it, and then I heard Barnes mention it. They say just sole,   which evidently is the same thing, just a different way of saying it. But, yeah, why don't you go ahead and we'll have a brisk discussion hopefully afterwards   on, if there's something you want to ask about in that leaven one, write it down, and we'll cover it or we'll discuss it when we get finished with this other one. We just have a, yes, a pretty free for all Monday on this topic, which is right in our wheelhouse. Yes, Larry.  



[00:47:48] Unknown:

I just wanted to say Levins said he covered a very important subject in the past,   but people were probably watching football.  

[00:47:56] Unknown:

Yeah. He talked about this couple of months ago.  

[00:47:59] Unknown:

Yeah. And I find that interesting because I'm always trying to talk to people about your information   and just things in general that have to do with the constitution,   the law, and history.   And these same people, they they have all the football teams memorized. They have all the players memorized.   Yeah. But they they they are clueless when it comes to the things we discussed. Yeah.  

[00:48:20] Unknown:

You're not the first one to bring that out, Larry. It's   the way we've been engineered, buddy. As I said, you know, we don't have any freaking idea   how our enemies think, most part.   But, buddy, they know us like the back of their hands.   And this whole thing of them setting this up, what we're talking about right here, so skillfully hidden underneath   is this feudal system, and they knew damn well what they were gonna do. This was all planned out. These guys we're listening to don't get it, but we do because we know the end game and they don't.   That's the difference. K?  

So let's roll into the Barnes one and then we can have a good rich discussion. If there's anything you wanted to bring up about LaVanne again, write it down where you can remember it. Let's roll into Barnes. Here, we'll have about 40 minutes of expert overview on this topic.  

[00:49:12] Unknown:

Right. And because we don't have enough time to finish up the, the Barnes clip before   the WVOU sign off, let's take care of that right now. Radiosopbox.com   and wboU   106.9   FM Chicago.   Thank you for being with us for the first hour. You don't wanna miss any moment of this, so you might as well just go to the matrix stocks.com   and grab the eurofoakradio.com   or the link or the Global Voice Radio link, or you can use the free conference call link and join us live on the show. Because we are gonna power right through this clip and you will be left hanging if you if you're just hanging on the platforms you're on after the first hour.  

[00:49:53] Unknown:

Forewarned. Just forearmed.  

[00:49:55] Unknown:

Absolutely.   And I'm all about forearms   and and because it appears   that,   mister t is throwing down the gauntlet. Let's see if I can actually get this to play here. Donald Trump Junior here with urgent news. Crap. The world's central banks are making an unrep.  

[00:50:16] Unknown:

That's Mark?  

[00:50:21] Unknown:

It's an ad. Ah, but that leads us to our big debate topic of tonight. There we go. Unfortunately,  

[00:50:27] Unknown:

another contrary and controversial position concerning birthright citizenship. So Trump signs an executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is the idea that a child born in America of illegal nonentrant parents,   does not get   does not get granted American citizenship,   which is gonna face legal challenges, and a great many people are predicting that it will the executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional   because   the constitution provides that,   I don't know what is it, a natural born citizen.   Anyone born on American soil, whether it's of children of foreign invaders, although maybe there's an exception to that, children of slaves who were not recognized as citizens   are American citizens.  

I presume that's where you're going with your position on this that Trump's executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional.  

[00:51:15] Unknown:

A federal court has already enjoined it.   Now whether it's right or wrong, we'll get to. So first, let me try to strongman   the Trump argument.   So the professor, if you wanna read some good articles on this, read professor John Eastman,   who advocates for Trump's position. Stephen Miller does as well. A range of legal scholars have. So I don't want anybody coming coming, out with the impression the media sometimes tries to relay that this is   a, that this is beyond controversy question or debate. It is absolutely not.   The big question is the language subject to the jurisdiction   in the 14th amendment to the US constitution.  

So it says anybody born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof   is a US citizen.   Question is, what does that second phrase meant meant? We all know what born in the US means. Mhmm. What is subject to the jurisdiction mean? Now Eastman and others would argue that subject to the jurisdiction is based on a lock in concept of consent,   which is that citizenship   gives as much as it takes,   in the in its modern form. In other words, you get rights that come with citizenship,   not just obligations.   I'll get to later why that actually matters in terms of interpretation of these provisions.  

And then at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, the entire focus historical focus   was on restoring   was overturning Dred Scott   and restoring the right of,   slaves   and their descendants to be citizens.   And in particular, it was an argument that a national citizenship   existed independent of   and separate from state citizenship.   What the Supreme court decided in Dred Scott was that states couldn't give citizenship to ex slaves   or the descendants of slaves.   And that it frankly gave us the civil war was the idiocy of the Supreme Court of the United States and their corruption, because many of them were connected to the southern planner class, busy lining their own pockets.   So there's no quite so from a historical perspective, looking at the eastern perspective,   subject to the jurisdiction, the language of that is subject to debate.  

So let's go back and look at historical context.  

[00:53:21] Unknown:

If I may interject,   I can imagine,   diplomats,   but maybe that's different because they're if they're born in a in a in a, what's the word for it? A diplomat's office. An embassy. If someone's born in an embassy, they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but are they even technically on American soil?  

[00:53:37] Unknown:

That that's a separate argument. So Okay. This all goes back to just Solai,   jurisdiction based on the soil   versus jurisdiction based on Saint Gral or something like that based on the blood.   So the,   the but so the Eastman argument is that the Lockean concept is the only thing that legitimates   government   is consent.   And that the American Revolution was premised and predicated   on that idea   that it's because I consent   to government, the social contract theory, that government has any legitimate   authority over me   or that I have any obligation to it or it has any obligation to me.  

And the argument is that that,   so that subject to the jurisdiction is a broad   exclusion   of anyone born in the United States   who for any reason,   is not consenting   to being part of the United States as a citizen or   the US is not consenting to their being,   having any obligations to that individual.   Now as you point out, it's undisputed that certain people were excluded.   One category was anybody who was   excluded from jurisdiction based on their parents being diplomats.   That's diplomatic immunity.   The second,   category more more broadly,   were anybody who was part of an Indian tribe who might be within territory the United States claimed, but was primarily subject   to Indian tribal jurisdiction.  

Tribes had various treaties with the United States that governed it, but the tribes did not consider the United States in control of their tribal territory.   And so in in recognition   and respect of that, they excluded   those no. Not all not not all Indians, by the way. Just those Indians were the ones excluded.   That's, by the way, where the legal language Indians not taxed comes from. Indians not taxed is referring to a group of Indians outside of US jurisdiction,   for because   by recognition of the reality that they're not taxed. If it was   taxed and it wasn't living on a tribe, travel reservation,   or tribal territory,   then they were subject to US jurisdiction and could be US citizens. So I've seen some misrepresentation   that all Native Americans that that's not the case.  

The so but the theory that Eastman and others advocate   is at a minimum,   the there there was the the anchor baby problem was not a problem with that generation. So we don't know   whether they would have interpreted subject to the jurisdiction from an originalist perspective,   as excluding   the sons and daughters of illegal aliens born on US territory.   They argue that subject to the jurisdiction, language logically,   leads to a broader exclusion of anyone   who doesn't fit the lock in consensual model of citizenship   under the social contract theory of interpreting   US constitutional law.  

So that's the sort the that's the snap. It gets into much more detail and much more there's arguments about,   I should add 1 third category. It was undisputed historically   that someone who came in as part of an invading army Mhmm. Was also not a citizen of that country because they're not subject to the jurisdiction   because the invading army is in control,   not the country that previously existed.   So those are the 3 you know, foreign diplomats, Indian sub living on tribal reservations, not tax, and people that are part of invading armies. Undisputed that their, just so lie, does not equal,   birthright citizenship.  

The question is, does it go further   and say that in fact, there has to be some form of consensual proof, like the naturalization   process,   or   some,   or the or by blood   that you could be a US citizen by blood, that your one of your parents   was you inherited it as a matter of ancestry.   And that's   another theory of power.   That there's reasons to be worried about going down the blood route, but I'll get to that in a second. But so bay you combine those theories,   and there's many legal competent, capable legal scholars that support president Trump's announcement that he was not going to recognize citizenship  

[00:57:47] Unknown:

to those who were born to illegals who had not yet been naturalized in the United States. And if I just to pause you there because a lot of people have this, not the same misconception, but they have the idealized conception that this is, like, you know, illegal immigrants who have been here for years, paying taxes, jobs, yet you gotta have families. There's an industry to this. Like, there there Alex Jones was talking about it, and I I've I've known about it well.   Chinese,   illegals, Chinese people come.   People from China, the People's Republic of China come when they're pregnant, specifically to have babies on American soil.  



[00:58:17] Unknown:

A a known unknown confirmed Oh, yeah. Element of this. There's people who market it as a business. Let's say we can help you get you set up. We can get you here. We can so you can have your kid here, and then you have US citizenship. And then the secondary problem that concerns a lot of people on the right, especially,   is that the child, once their US citizen, is guaranteed a whole bunch of benefits   that in turn allows their parents to stay here illegally. Mhmm. And not only stay here legally, get US benefits,   get US jobs,   get,   the get you a welfare benefits, get health care, get schooling,   get food stamps. That's their concern.  

So it's a legitimate concern.   Understandable,   very respectful scholars on that side. Now let me give you the contrary argument.   Historically,   the theory of citizenship, the doctrine of citizenship   never came up, never thought of itself as empowering individuals.   Most of our law, Anglo Saxon law of the jurisdiction   comes from wanting power over people.   So it was governments.   And because of that, the legal history of interpreting the word subject to the jurisdiction   were very broad.   They didn't see it. The courts weren't sitting there saying, golly gee. Does this person really have   Why the US Safety Commission wants to ban this baseball bat shaped flashlight? Big retailers already banned this product from their stores. Rights he can enforce against us.  

Almost never. It was, do we have rights we can enforce against him?   Can we take his property? Can we tax him? Can we draft him? Can we do all these things?   So for that historical reason,   the legal interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction was very broad.   The only it was assumed you were subject to the jurisdiction   unless you fit a narrow exempt group.   Like, okay. We acknowledge if you're here as part of a foreign emissary   that you are not subject to the jurisdiction as part of diplomatic immunity   or the invading army or you're actually part of another community that we have legal control over the borders of but not within.   Like, Indians, not tax or tribe.  

Not, members of tribes and not tax.   So and I can tell you historically, the better argument is all on that side. There is very I mean, Eastman does a fantastic job. Others do as good a job as you can, but I've dug into this issue in great depth. The overwhelming because of that historical phenomenon I just talked about, all the law goes against us. The 18 98 supreme court decision strongly implies   that the sons and daughters of ill of of people who are not US citizens, who are Chinese,   were US citizens because they were born on the soil. It's strong. I mean, I get those ways to interpret and try to extrapolate. Right? I mean, the it's just and if you understand the politics of the time, that very conservative or the the conservative in, like, a corporatist way, Supreme Court, that very establishment oriented Supreme Court,   was all for Chinese immigrants being here, because it was lining their pockets and their investment in railroad companies, for example. Because it was the so called coolies,   the Chinese, immigrants working those railroads and made those railroads as profitable as they were.  

So if you dig into the if you're a true originalist,   which means you care about what people thought at the time that constitutional amendment was passed,   which means the priority is not on the people who wrote it, but on the people who passed it,   which means looking at the votes of and the public opinion that supported   it. Oh, by the way, it overwhelmingly   suggests that subject to the jurisdiction is a very narrow   exception, not a broad exception. To give you some examples, this came up.   Gipsies, the infamous Gipsies, present throughout the United States. This came up during the senate debate. People like, the the the gypsies are not citizens or or their kids are born here. Are they and and and everybody self saw the gypsies   controversially so, but they see them as this way. Saw them as,   moochers. Saw them as thieves and criminals and whatnot. It's just a very common colloquially. It's where it's where the expression you got gypped comes from. It says someone screwed you out of something, sold you something crappy, it's because they got gypped because they were gypsies. It's an offensive term. Exactly. Exactly. There's another offensive term that a friend of mine once said, and she's like, oh, I wonder if that's offensive. She's like, you know, whenever I try to do a negotiation deal, my dad taught me to try to do them down. And I was like, yes. That could be effective. You you you you're not very careful. There there's some people that will take pride in that trade, but there's plenty of people that will know.  

The but yeah. So that's the history. I'm not green lighting the history of the this negative history of GPSC saying it's accurate or anything like that. I mean, much more complicated history. But it's just to give you an idea. That was the public perception at the time. They debated whether the sun and already Chinese immigrants were here. They could not be US citizens. By the way, they had loyalty to foreign powers. Like, this one theory out there says, if you if you also have loyalty to a foreign power, you can't be US citizen. That makes no sense because US has recognized dual and triple citizens forever. So that's just never been the case. The historical argument is weak from, again, an originalist perspective. If you wanna eliminate   the originalist perspective,   then you wanna do a living constitutional   perspective,   then you have a much better argument. But then you're embracing the left's theory of law   and think long and hard about whether you really wanna do that. Well, someone over on Rumble also above average says, can they can they draft you? And although I know you know that you believe the draft is unconstitutional. But if they can draft you, you're subject to the jurisdiction, so the child born here can be drafted. Yes. And, there was an argument about that, about how that works and how that processes. But, yes, the theories of subject to the jurisdiction is that if you are subject to the king's jurisdiction, they can take your property. They can take your freedom. They can take your liberty. They can take everything. And that's how they see it. And that's why the law was written the way it was. Now it is true that today, you could make an argument there's been a seismic shift in the perception of citizenship.  

That citizenship is no longer about what you owe the state, but what the state owes you.   And in in a participatory democracy creates a whole different   animal because now they can vote and control the government. So when the arguments I had with libertarians   who were saying, hey. Look. We shouldn't have any restriction on h one b visas or anything like that. I was like, on immigration because we should have a global labor supply because it's the most affordable, most accessible, best market, free market, etcetera. And, like, the problem is, what what happens when the free market comes with a political tax? Like, all of a sudden, you have to give these people voting rights so they can control you in the future.   You you could recruit a bunch of you could bring in a bunch of people who are socialist at heart. And all of a sudden, in the name of the free market, you bring in all these, immigrants, and all the immigrants suddenly decided to create a socialist government. This actually happened in certain respects around the world over time.  

So I get there's good argument. Eastman is as good as anybody. Good historical arguments that from a living constitutional   perspective   I think if you this is where I get a kick out of the left.   The left is all arguing   original jurisdiction.  

[01:04:55] Unknown:

We all of a sudden don't want living constitution. Oh, no. Robert Robert, all of a sudden, the left loves sworn statements. Elizabeth Warren relying on sworn statements of perjury, but they don't like it when it's a a verus report of an adverse event from the from the jibby jab.  

[01:05:07] Unknown:

Exactly.   So my own view is that where the court supreme court is likely to rule, because it's ruled this way in the past, because it recognize reflects the broader history, you're gonna get all the liberals against Trump.   All you need is 2 you need 2 of his corporate centrist,   2 of the 3 corporatist   or 2 or a combination of that and the conservatives.   I think you'll get a couple of conservatives who go with Trump, but I think that's gonna be it. And there's no is likely to rule that subject to the jurisdiction   includes those who are born to citizens whose parents were not citizens of the United States unless those now the one caveat component   is Trump is exploring   pursuing an alternative theory that doesn't say birthright that there's never birthright citizenship,   but rather   that those who are part of an invading army, the invaders of of the Biden administration,   that they're not entitled to it as an invading as an invading army analogy.  

And he actually cited that provision of the constitution   for curtailing invasions as part of his authority for this executive order. I think that's an interesting argument.   I don't think it's when the courts are likely to accept at this point because of the legal history.   Because the problem is this. The liberals who believe in a living constitution are never going to go along with Trump on birthright citizenship.   The conservatives who believe in originalism   know that originalism   doesn't support Trump's position when you dig into it. I mean, there's arguments. I'm not saying there's no argument for it. I'm just saying the best arguments really don't. It's very hard to get there. My own view is very simple solution. There is broad public support   for limiting   birthright citizenship   to those whose parents have shown a commitment to be part of the United States at some level. The you know, their resident visas, they have some legally recognized   basis to be in the US other than as a diplomatic,   entree or as a tribal member.  

I think that there's enough support to amend the constitution to clarify that.   Why do I support article 5?   Because I the path to, illegal immigrant perform. Because I care about originalism in the constitution. I refuse to abandon it just because I don't like the political and public policy consequences   of the originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment. But I'm not going to pretend  

[01:07:26] Unknown:

that the history under the 14th amendment supports my political cause when the best evidence says it doesn't. Well, Robert, the the real good news for Trump is that we now know you can amend the constitution by way of a tweet. So all Trump has to do is tweet out, it is now law of the land and thus is amended. Article what was it? Article 14? Article,  

[01:07:44] Unknown:

article 5 is the amendment to amend the constitution.   The 14th amendment is the one that provides the citizenship. Yeah. And so there is a good historical argument that the that they didn't consider anything in this scale. I think the best argument is a version of the invasion argument   and the argument that philosophically we have shifted.   Citizenship is no longer obligation like it was in medieval days where these terminologies   originated,   where the words just so I come from. Yeah. Or or Citizenship is power,   not obligation. As I mean, there's some obligation,   but not as much.  

And so I think that that shift   recognizes a shift in perspective, but the best way to respect that shift is to amend the constitution through article 5, not let judicial fiat   amend the constitution. Or or they deem it to be an invasion. They deem illegals, you know, to to be an invading force. And And there's a circumstance where you could do that. I don't want that abused too much because there's risks   to saying, okay. I'm just doing my invasion.  

[01:08:41] Unknown:

The FBI recently announced that they are now advising people use an ad blocker while they're online. So I just found this off of TikTok. Right? And it says  

[01:08:56] Unknown:

Alright. Come on. Get back on track in a second.   Everybody's   scrambling for revenue, folks.  

[01:09:07] Unknown:

No. Actually, the video just crashed.  

[01:09:11] Unknown:

Oh, did it? Alright.  

[01:09:13] Unknown:

I have to I have to punch it up on something. Tail end.  

[01:09:16] Unknown:

It's towards the tail end of the discussion, but he's getting into this, how he thinks you can amend the the constitution to the 5th amendment to overcome this particular type situation.   Let me just say while you're fumbling around and doing that, those of you who've been around for a while, you've heard me   praise Robert Barnes. And I don't know if you're one of the people that have never gone and listened to their show or familiar with him. But if you didn't, I think you're getting a real good example of why I said what I did about this guy. He is an absolute   legal lawful monster.  

K?   And just wherever liberty is challenged,   that's where you're gonna find him. Go go ahead. We'll talk about it more when this is over.  

[01:10:03] Unknown:

Hang hang on just a second.   Alright. I'm trying to figure out what time offset that would have been.   I'm trying to fit I  

[01:10:12] Unknown:

QOA  

[01:10:13] Unknown:

Yeah. The rumble video crashed. I have no idea what time offset it was at. Try about 2 hours and 20. Try 2 hours and 20 minutes and see if it's something we've heard.  

[01:10:31] Unknown:

The loyalty to America and that that should be the condition of citizenship given that it affords and provides as much as it takes away. Let me read this here. By article 5, not by changing the constitution by executive or judicial fiat. S j d g says, how much of Trump's social on birthright citizenship is aimed to push the amendment? We just got that. And this one here, Robert,  

[01:10:49] Unknown:

before 14th was accepted, it was argued by Howard that foreigners and aliens were excluded. CHR 127  

[01:10:55] Unknown:

r one. There's 2 problems there. 1, to be honest with you, that's a dishonest interpretation of that. The conservatives have made that argument multiple times. You read the whole record, it doesn't support it. It just doesn't. And I get conservatives want to don't like the consequence   currently to the 14th amendment. So they want to do a living constitution, but don't want to admit they're doing that. So all of a sudden they wanna say, you know whose opinion matters? Only one senators.   Not the rest of the senators, not not the rest of Congress, not not the state legislatures, not the American public, not the long legal history of how that doctrine was interpreted. No. No. This one senator, because he says a quote that I like. You're engaging in liberal legal jurisdiction.   You're being very selective   about which quotes you take, and you're using them conveniently when they contradict   all the language. By the way, what he what does he say in that context?  

He's talking about a specific subset,   and they're pretending that when he's saying, hey, look, don't worry that the sons and daughters of   of foreign emissaries don't get automatic citizenship under this, then the nature of it is such, that they're they're pretending, oh, no. What he really meant was to say all aliens, all foreigners were all excluded. Well, that's directly contradicted by the rest of the congressional record you're choosing to ignore because you don't like it.   Don't become a liberal because you don't like the outcomes of an originalist conservative interpretation.   Stick with the originalist conservative interpretation,   and instead, follow the constitution and the founders that said, when something's not working,   use article 5   to fix it. Article 5 is the tool to fix it, not newfound not lying about the history, not being selective about the history, not being a living constitutionalist,   because those three steps make you a liberal on the court, not a conservative, not a constitutionalist.  



[01:12:38] Unknown:

What time is your flight? How much time do we have? 2 minutes. 2 minutes? Okay. I'll I'll let let's go to the the after party on Locals. I'll read the chats and and and answer them as much as I can. We're not gonna cut it that short. Rumble, Robert, what do you have this week?  

[01:12:51] Unknown:

So, heading back home.   The might may,   need to go to Philadelphia for a thing or 2.   But otherwise, we'll be the bourbons will be back, live, throughout the week. So bourbons with Barnes. You can tell me why I'm wrong.   The there's been great arguments made by member of the locals community,   on but I think some arguments better than what Trump has made so far in the birthright citizenship.   And, again, to be absolutely clear, I would agree with amending the constitution to remove that,   the   because I have a different interpretation of citizenship more broadly. I don't think governments should be able to grab and steal and everything they want all the time.   So I'm sympathetic to it. I just refuse   to not be an originalist   because the originalist interpretation doesn't give me the public policy outcome I like. I refuse to become a lefty simply because   the originalist interpretation gives me a lefty liking result.  



[01:13:41] Unknown:

Alright. Get your butts on over people. Viva barneslaw.locals.com.   I'm gonna keep Robert for as long as I can hang them in there, and then we're gonna read some of these stuff here. Updating now. Rumble, see you tomorrow. Stay tuned. It's gonna be a big week. So stay tuned.  

[01:13:52] Unknown:

Maybe. Maybe one of these days, I'll get an audience for that guy. I sure hope so.   Maybe. But I think if you were not exposed to Barnes before what you just heard,   you'll understand why I hold him in such high esteem.   Also, in the early part of that, he was in Chattanooga,   which is where he was born and raised.   And,   he he was there for his, one of his sisters. He's got 4 sisters,   funerals. And this he was going into her background and everything and how   how beloved she was. And she was the one that the oldest one went out and started working   to feed the rest of the family. I was I guess the mother wasn't around and dad died.  

And, if you wanna get a little glimpse into Barnes background and stuff, the at the beginning of this when Viva brings him in at the front, he goes into that for a bit, and it was, well, almost bring a tear to your eye, really. It was that sister, I think.   Anyway, one of them that was just beloved everywhere she went, everywhere she ever worked. She's a wonderful poet evidently and had a son. And and they're going to take her poems, which have never been published, and do a book and take the funds of that for his college fund.   But he goes into that whole story,   and it just, gives you an insight into Barnes. She was the one that got and kept at Yale until they gave him a because he couldn't afford to go there, obviously, a   a scholarship of some sort. And then I I think he had problems with them. I don't know exactly the situation,   but he was you know, you can imagine he stuck out like a sore thumb at Yale with this kind of thinking. And he ended up getting his degree from all places,   the University of Wisconsin,   which is, extremely liberal, and I don't know how he fared through all those years. But, anyway, that's Barnes' background. He,   you might remember the,   oh, the the the case,   the Snipes,   Wesley Snipes tax   case from years ago. Remember that? Well, that Barnes and Barnes handled that. He's got his own law firm,   tax firm off of his main law firm.  

But   I've just been watching him now since I stumbled on him a few years ago, and and many of you follow him. I know I know a sketch does and Mark.   The guy's just a frigging monster. You know?   And his recall of all this stuff and knowledge of what's going on week to week in these programs   in the entire law scheme from appellate   things or whatever case from wherever that's important.   He's on top of. It's just, he's an amazing guy, and, I   highly recommend if you like him, wanna hear more, you can find a bunch of them. They've got a local,   site,   viva barneslaw.locals.com.  

It's a subscription site. You can   send $10 a month or something. You can have all kind of they do an after show after this show we just heard, and it's over there exclusively for the membership. And they do little things over there. His bourbon with barn   segments, they mentioned he does a segment. It's called bourbon with barns. He's got a a bunch of pre I have a question, Roger. Hold on, Sherry. Let me finish, please. He,   does a thing called,   They're not bourbon with bars. He he get he he does a thing called,   damn. Sherry, see, when you interrupt me like that, it throws my what I'm talking about totally off the track. Okay?  



[01:17:41] Unknown:

Okay.   With Barnes.  

[01:17:43] Unknown:

He does bourbon with Barnes, and he does another thing over there. And now I can't think of it. But, anyway, all those things are involved in that membership, and you can access it for your member.   Hey. Hell of a guy. You can find him there, and,   he's all over the place. He's with Alex a lot. He's helped Alex's and served as his lawyer. He's helped Trump with the Georgia situation in the last election. He's just a a hell of a lawyer,   and does a lot of this pro bono. He's a guy that just got Amos Miller off up there in Pennsylvania.   Totally pro bono.  

Hell of a guy. Yes, Sherry. What was your question?  

[01:18:22] Unknown:

I apologize,   Roger. Didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought.  

[01:18:28] Unknown:

But didn't West That's what happened. That's what happens to me because I don't work off notes or anything. And when somebody in your arms, I'm explaining something like that, that's what it does to my mind. That's why I wanted to that bring that up because it throws me totally off track. Go ahead.  

[01:18:44] Unknown:

I will try not to do that anymore.   But didn't Wesley Snipes   do some jail time?  

[01:18:52] Unknown:

I don't remember all the exact specifications   of it, but Barnes handled the case. Okay?  

[01:18:58] Unknown:

He Yeah. He did jail time.  

[01:19:02] Unknown:

And that's dealing with IRS. And, man, would I love to get an audience with this guy and sit down and say, look what's really happening. Because he in one of his shows on Sunday night, they do a 3 hour show on Sunday evenings. They start usually in about 6,   5 and go to 8, 9, something like that. You can catch it live or you can get it taped. Okay? And then and then they have that extra little tail end segment where they take about 3 or 4 or 5 juicy cases   and discuss them for just the members of the locals community, which I understand. Good for them.   Hell of a gambler. He's really involved in gambling. He's got   gambling sites and he, on all all these political outcomes or anything in the world you wanna gamble on, you go there gamble on that.  

And a hell of a guy. So,   as for Praes and Barnes, I'll get that out of my system in a second. He just you know, when somebody comes along you really admire?   Well, yeah, Barnes. I really admire Robert Barnes. K? So if you wanna tap into that, that's where you can get ahold of him. Now   it was a very in-depth presentation.   And if you wanna hear that again, because he threw a lot of information out there in a very short period of time, you can go back and get it from last night's episode. It starts at about 8 minutes aft 208 towards   the tail end of the program.  

Did anyone have anything particularly you want to comment on that you   Alright. Right. During it?   Alright. Who's that, Samuel?   Okay. Yeah. Samuel? Oh, okay. What's what's your net? What picker net are you gonna pick?  

[01:20:45] Unknown:

Well, why doesn't he bring up that   the second election of Lincoln was illegal   along with the 14th amendment instead  

[01:20:56] Unknown:

I have no ideas to all that. He he he he he went under the assumption that it was all legitimately ratified, which there's a lot of questions about that.   If you want to find out about that, you can go back to the congressional record and there was a congressman named Rarick,   r a r I c k.   I think it must have been back in the sixties who was obviously a John Birch, a member   who, did a long thing in the congressional record about the 14th amendment   not being,   ratified.   And when they adjourned, they adjourned sine die,   which has a specific legal meaning, and I can't remember it right off the top of my head, but that they have an uns   it was that they have an unsigneditis.  

And so the all of it's illegal since that time. So, you know, you can ask a whole bunch of those questions, Samuel. Well, they they they they created West Virginia and Nevada in order to get him elected.   Well, maybe they Nevada, they didn't I don't know if they created it. They certainly did West Virginia. Okay?  

[01:22:03] Unknown:

Well, the number of people in Nevada weren't enough to have it come in as a state.   The telegraph was new and the federal government spent   $60,000 at the time   because the timing was   such that to get the document there, it wouldn't make it by land. So they telegraphed the whole damn thing.   The whole thing was a Well, I mean,  

[01:22:25] Unknown:

there's there's all kind of chicanery in our history along that time.   What about right in that same time frame, the crime of 73   went through a changing one word in the amendment from the time it was passed to the time it was entered in the books, took silver out of the circulating medium.   And we were had the biggest   load of silver,   I think still   discovered in the whole world, the Comstock load right out over there on the other side of the mountains from where you are, Samuel.  

[01:22:59] Unknown:

Yeah. And if you go back to whether it's land or whether it's people, that goes right back to Patrick Henry arguing that at the beginning they changed to, We the State to We the People   and he thought that just gave the federal government that much more power.  

[01:23:15] Unknown:

Alright. Well you know,   we're really discussing his birthright citizenship that's on the table here and how it applies to us and how that amendment is structured. You'll notice both of them, Levin and Barnes,   both centered on a bit of conversation on the middle phrase and subject   to the jurisdiction thereof.   They did mention Indians not taxed. Okay?   But if you'll remember the case that they're missing there is Elk v Wilkins.   And that was about an Indian,   and it was about the 14th amendment directly.   And that was right in the sweet spot. I believe that was 1878.   And   I'm I'm shocked that neither one of them brought this up. Okay. Really. But that's the only place to my knowledge that phrase has been judicially   examined   by a high court. Here, the supreme court. And what it said is   subject to the political   jurisdiction.  

And that was repeated   in US versus Wong Kim Ark that he did mention   briefly. Although he didn't talk about the descent where it says plain as day, it's the feudal system.   K? But anyway, that's where that came from, and that's that's   never been revisited.   So this court case as this goes up, maybe the first time in   shit, a 150 years it's been revisited.   Yes. Was that you, Julie?  

[01:24:44] Unknown:

Yeah.   Could you please comment on it appears   that Mark Levin and,   Barnes do not agree   what subject to the jurisdiction means because Barnes,   mentioned   the Lockean concept and he thinks it's based on consent, whereas Mark Levin thinks it's based on total allegiance and you can only have allegiance to 1 whereas,   it appears that Barnes,   disagreed with that.  

[01:25:12] Unknown:

I don't I'm gonna   address the first part of of your deal, of your question.   And and, yeah, they both brought it up and neither one of them well,   Barnes came the closest   because he calls it as you   correctly identified the lock in   concept there of government by contract.   He didn't expand on that he just mentions it. The average person out there don't know what the hell he's talking about, honestly.   But it's government by contract. Okay. That's what we're in. It has to be to be able to apply all this Babylonian   merchant code. You You gotta have a contract. Don't you?  

Yes. Yep. Okay.   And and so he doesn't put together,   I'm asking you, are you a 14th amendment citizen?   And are you a 14th amendment citizen again no matter what state you're in and sign something?   That's what Barnes he didn't he didn't digging down 1 or 2 more layers.   Okay? And I was gonna say a minute ago, I mean, while this is in my mind, he earlier in the show,   I've mentioned it on here before, and something came out. It was when the supreme court decisions came down last year and and, dealing with, oh, the administrative   state and all that stuff. And there was another one dealing with it, and he said,   he he, kinda beamed. You know? You see him on camera there, and he's got a a little beam on his face. And he said the 14th amendment was the great equalizer.  

And see, he's right, but he doesn't know what it equalized,   and he doesn't really realize how it operates or what's going on.   Yeah. It made it so to that point. Okay.  

[01:26:56] Unknown:

And   and allegiance  

[01:26:59] Unknown:

the same thing. Are you Sherry, please let me finish with Julie.   Yeah.   Julie?  

[01:27:07] Unknown:

What  

[01:27:08] Unknown:

could you please repeat   could you please repeat that case that the court case in 18 78   that had,   where you were talking about? I will.  

[01:27:17] Unknown:

If I had you here, I'd spank you. Okay? Elk v Wilkins.   Elk   v   Wilkins.   Elk was obviously an Indian.   It was right after the 14th amendment had been passed.   He was out in Nebraska somewhere in the in the Midwest there. It was still Indian territory, and he was on the reservation.   And so he went to register to vote and the registrar was Wilkins.   And Wilkins said, you can't register to vote in the 14th amendment. You're an Indian. Probably thinking you're not black, you know, like everybody else imputed in that. And so he goes back to the reservation. The election day comes. He comes off the reservation. He goes to the polls. Well, Wilkins at the polls,   and he won't let him vote. And that's the origins of that. And it came back and that the the real importance of that case   is, a, well he's telling Elk he's sovereign, isn't he?  



[01:28:12] Unknown:

Yep.  

[01:28:14] Unknown:

Okay. And   and it comes back and they pull that phrase, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,   and examine that key phrase in that key statement,   and no other supreme court case, to my knowledge, has ever revisited it.   That's the importance of what we're dealing with here. The importance of that phrase that we know and understand   and the importance of this situation that's gonna move it to the highest court in the land. It's gonna be revisited again. Unfortunately,   Barnes may be right. There's too many liberals up there.   So regardless, that is   subject to the political   jurisdiction.  

It was repeated and pulled out of Elk and repeated in Wong Kim Ark. It's requoted in there. Okay?   But it's the only time the court has visited it and analyzed it to my knowledge.   Okay? And I've I've showed that to lawyers who go, I've been looking for that for you know? So it's a real key little phrase, and this situation has brought it to the forefront. And as I was saying the other day, as this situation and discussion   heats up,   maybe somebody on the fringes will go, you need to go talk to this sales guy.   Okay? So cross your fingers and say a prayer. It's open a door for us potentially.  



[01:29:36] Unknown:

They're all just  

[01:29:37] Unknown:

Okay. Yeah. You're welcome.   Very astute to ask that question. Yes, Paul?  

[01:29:45] Unknown:

I disagree with him on one point.   I don't think   that the constitution needs to be amended. I think the constitution needs to go back to what it was before He doesn't   before it was bastardized.  

[01:29:58] Unknown:

It it can. That's what we do, but he doesn't understand that yet.  

[01:30:04] Unknown:

Right. But but I do believe   that slavery wasn't wrong just because the government said it was wrong. Slavery was important to God. It was a violation of human rights.   It was an absolute   travesty. It was despicable,   and it was   a result of narrow minded individuals   that did not see blacks,   Irishmen,   whoever, as humans.   They didn't see him as creations of God. They saw them as as animals, lesser beings. A lot of people and a lot of people. That's how they view all of us.   Yeah. But but that was wrong. It was wrong. It was it was important to God. And Not to God. Without without the 13th amendment without the 13th amendment, every damn person that owns slaves should have been strung up for crimes against humanity.  

[01:31:00] Unknown:

That would have fixed it. Moral or illegal in the Talmud, my friend.   It says they have the right to do that over everybody. And if you ever I'll get you a second, Larry. If you get back to, like, David Duke's   history of Jewish slavery,   they have been the slave masters   since Babylon.   1 Jew has controlled all the slavery in Europe. I can't remember that. The English   gave wanted to promote this black slave triangle trade, and they would license the Jews to do it. And that's why they owned 90% of the ships. Almost all the captains on those slave ships for 200 years were Jewish. Almost all the crew was Jewish.   And even the slave markets closed on Jewish holidays,   because both in the South America and North America because there weren't enough buyers and sellers to participate   to run a market.  



[01:31:54] Unknown:

Larry?   Yeah. Paul's painting with a broad brush.   Only   involuntary   servitude is unlawful.   Voluntary servitude   obviously is okay   because both parties are okay with it.   And with the there's one exception, of course,   the involuntary servitude of being put in prison because you were convicted of a crime.   And the second thing is   the congressional record that you're referring to is June 13,   1967, and mister   mister Rerich was speaking.   And he said, I asked to include in the record following my remarks   House concurrent resolution   2 0 8 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress   to declare the 14th Amendment illegal.  

Also, I include in the record   an informative and well   annotated treaties   on the   illegality of the 14th Amendment, the play toy of our successionist judges   which has been prepared by Judge Leander H Perez of Louisiana.   And he goes on to say, if I could read, like, 2 or 3 sentences,   whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution   was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution   because 11 states of the union were deprived of their equal suffrage   to the Senate in violation of Article 5   when 11 southern states including Louisiana   were excluded   from deliberation   and decision in the adoption of the joint resolution   proposing   said 14th Amendment.  

Said resolution was not presented to the President of the United States   in order that the same should take effect   as required by Article 1, Section 7.   The proposed amendment was not ratified by 3 fourths of the states,   but to the contrary, 15 states of the then 37 states   of the union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment   between the dates of its submission to the states   by the Secretary of State on June 16,   18, 66   and March 24,   18/68,   almost done, thereby nullifying such resolution   and making it impossible for ratification   by the constitutionally   required 3 fourths of such states.  

And that could be found in the congressional record.  

[01:34:32] Unknown:

Pardon me?  

[01:34:34] Unknown:

That could be found, like I said, in the congressional record,   June 13,   1967.   It's a PDF.   And if you scroll down in the PDF to pages 105 to 110,   those pages will be labeled   15641   to 154  

[01:34:57] Unknown:

64. You know? Paul, we should get that and put that on the website back there with some of that historic stuff. It's a very, very relevant speech.   I would love to know where what part what district Louisiana   Reerick was from.   And never  

[01:35:13] Unknown:

The other thing, Roger, is there were northern states in there as well as the southern states Well, I thought that were Well, listen.  

[01:35:20] Unknown:

Yes. And that's what I was trying to get to. Both or I believe Oregon was a state back then.   And certainly New Jersey, who had originally voted for it, went back and rescinded their vote, and they wouldn't recognize their rescission. That's another part of it. Okay? For those of you who don't know,   there's the 13th amendment now becomes even more critical, doesn't it? That would did you hear either Barnes or Levin   say, well, who is the 13th amendment written for? There was no 14th amendment yet for 6 months.   Who were those people that all amendments written for them? Well, they're the state citizens.  

They're jurisdictions   at the end,   leaving out voluntary   servitude by omission,   making it legal and lawful. The 13th amendment's the setup amendment. That's where they're gonna cast a broadcast   net over the whole country and get you all under their damn thumb.   That's what's happened. Okay? So they went in and passed. They let the southern legislators   back into congress to vote on 13th.   And then they let they voted on it. That's why it's constitutional.   You don't hear Roehrig talking about the 13th amendment   because they let them back in because here's this big glowing   softball they're throwing over the plate. Okay? And they come back in and vote on it. When they leave,   they bring up the 14th amendment. 6 months later, in the interim,   a lot of the southern states, as as Larry said, were in,   as to this issue, we're in revolt.  

Still, the 14th amendment and they didn't participate.   So the congress   kicked them out of the union.   They just fought this bloody war to try and separate,   and they didn't want them to separate to the tune of 600,000   men dead. But then they kick them out unless they've ratified the 14th amendment.   That's what all the   confusion. Hold on, Samuel. That's what all this is about. And then they ramroaded   it through there. It was introduced by a senator   who was a railroad   lawyer,   who was running all the railroads.   You when you really look at this and understand it, you can   strongly argue   that the civil war was started to get these 2 amendments into the constitution   so they could control the world with it 80 years later because they knew exactly what they were doing. Yes, Samuel.  



[01:37:57] Unknown:

Oh, there's there's so much going on this time of the the country.   First off, you've where's the old 13th amendment?  

[01:38:05] Unknown:

You have to start Nobody Right. Nobody talks about it. It's just gone. It was vamused. Even though it's in law books from the time and in the constitution is the 13th amendment.   I don't think even at that time, they'd put something in there, a part of the constitution, and leave it in a law book if it hadn't been ratified.   That's absurd.  

[01:38:28] Unknown:

There's a guy that's been pushing the reinstitution   of the 13th amendment.  

[01:38:33] Unknown:

Yeah. I know. Well, I good luck. Go go ahead, Samuel.  

[01:38:37] Unknown:

And then there's the   any   any new amendment to the Constitution will still be an equity.   The only in law   amendments   are the ones   the original   firsthand, the Bill of Rights.   That's it. That's never going to change.   And all these amendments Oh, Samuel. Are just the the democracy,   51%   makes it so instead of the individual being protected as it is in the first half.  

[01:39:06] Unknown:

Okay. That's fine. Okay. Good, Samuel. I agree. What's that? Gotcha.   Hold on. Let me get Marca. Go ahead, Marca.  

[01:39:15] Unknown:

Hey, Roger. I just wanted to share something that I saw on that document   for the 14th amendment.   They're adding,   mister Rarick as a   speaker. But what was funny is that   he they meant they say he is arrogantly   ignoring clear cut expressions   in the constitution of the United States,   the declared intent of its drafters now now withstanding our unelected   federal judges read out pro provisions of the constitution of the United States   by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th amendment   to legislate their personal ideas,   prejudice, theories, guilt, complex   aims, and whims.  

So Oh, if they they kinda made a fun of him, but he did point out, you know, that it was unqualified.  

[01:40:06] Unknown:

Well, hey. You're out talking to people about this. They're probably making fun of you too.  

[01:40:11] Unknown:

Right. Exactly. Still.  

[01:40:13] Unknown:

Okay? Exactly.  

[01:40:14] Unknown:

Yeah. So,   the, now who was the guy? Larry, was that you trying to get in? Oh, Sketch.  

[01:40:23] Unknown:

Sketch. Sketch.   I wanted to address 2, comments by the,   Sherry and   Samuel. Sherry,   Leslie   Snipes,   Robert Barnes   was his his lawyer, and he mentioned   that,   he mentioned it on his show that,   the,   juries,   the jury of that,   they they pulled him afterwards and they said he was innocent,   but because of the jury instruction by the judge, they couldn't   rule him innocent.  

[01:41:04] Unknown:

Helen, and and what is that for the audience? There's new people. What is that? That you're talking about an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association,   Fiji. Right. Fiji. And and what they've done is they've switched this over to a federalized   government hold on just a second. As they've switched this over to a federalized government,   they've changed the way the judges instruct a jury.   Before,   the jury decides the law and the facts.   Now they decide the facts, and the judge gives you the law that you could work within.   That's the difference. Okay? It's called,   jury annulment or  

[01:41:47] Unknown:

Nullification. Anyway,  

[01:41:48] Unknown:

nullification.   The fact that you as one person see none of our people, I understand why you get a jury summons. You don't wanna be involved in a jury trial. You gotta leave what you're doing. You go up there. They pay you some pittance. You gotta do all this. But you see that's the importance of one person in a jury trial, is you can throw a hitch in their entire giddy up. Because originally   that meant   that if somebody was being tried, you were on the jury, and your thought pattern was if they can do that for him and I vote that right, they can then do it on me, and I don't want them to. That's the basis of it. K? Yep. Yep. And and I wanted to address  

[01:42:31] Unknown:

yep. And I wanted to address,  

[01:42:34] Unknown:

Samuel,   mentioned that why didn't Barnes bring up this? Well, last week, it did bring up the National Archives Act and that the archivist,   the legislators,   the house, and the senate   gave the archivist   the power to if there's any controversy about an amendment being,   ratified,   that he was the main decider.   He was the indicator  

[01:43:01] Unknown:

on that. There's no check and and there's no check and balance on that. My decision. Yeah. I'm sorry. Course.   Okay. Alright. Yeah.  

[01:43:09] Unknown:

And Oregon Oregon was created in 1940   1848.  

[01:43:15] Unknown:

Okay.   Alright, Bruce. Alright, Bruce.   I'm gonna get Bruce. Yes, sir. Please, Bruce.  

[01:43:23] Unknown:

Alright.   Why don't we talk about the article of the confederation, which state had its own country?  

[01:43:29] Unknown:

Yes.  

[01:43:30] Unknown:

Article of the confederation   honored each state as their own country,   which we are still today.  

[01:43:37] Unknown:

Correct. The morning   the truth.  

[01:43:41] Unknown:

It's veneered over. It's still sitting there. They can't get rid of it. They can only veneer over this stuff. That's why the articles of the Confederation   are in the behind the front cover in volume 1 of the statutes at large.   It's innocent law books.   Duh. I think it must be legal and lawful or lawful at least.   It's just been veneered over Yep. Is what they do. Every issue   that they move on that they move forward on, all they do is pull some trick   and don't look over there, look over here. And while you're looking over there, they're veering over it. Go ahead, Bruce.  

[01:44:20] Unknown:

Each state has their own rights,   their own constitution,   and they had one vote on the   nation's side,   only one vote per state. They could have all the people they wanted to have up there on population,   but one state   had one vote.  

[01:44:40] Unknown:

And and the state, through the people or through legislature,   appointed the senators   who were their extension of their state country government   up there into DC.   That's why they had to do the 17th amendment and cut that off.  

[01:44:57] Unknown:

Well, there's another   avenue too.   If the local,   a town, small town, a county   had their representative go to the statehouse   to represent them   and what they wanted,   the little town or county or whatever   sent somebody   to be their representative.   If he didn't do what they wanted him to do, they'd recall him.   They had that power.   If he went to Washington   Yeah.   If he went all the way up to   Pennsylvania   and, represented   not what they wanted locally,   they can recall him then too, not the state hitting town. Yep.  

[01:45:43] Unknown:

That's your power.  

[01:45:45] Unknown:

And the before 17th, you could do the same thing with the senator. You could recall his ass. So,   naturally, they had to get rid of that. Okay. We're getting down to a few minutes left in the show.   Somebody wanna say something that had an opportunity?  

[01:46:03] Unknown:

I'm No. I don't know. I would just like to weigh in on Okay. Go ahead, Paul. I would just like to weigh in on painting with a broad brush.   I don't know. I I think it might be Larry that's painting with a broad brush if he's equating   voluntary servitude,   involuntary   servitude, and slavery, and throwing them all in the same bucket. Voluntary servitude is just business.   It's just doing business.   Involuntary servitude and slavery are the same. It well, it's doing business too.  

[01:46:33] Unknown:

And it guess what? Guess what else? I didn't say this. It's also, by the way, the most profitable business in the history of the world. Who who is trying to say something? That was John. I just need to let you know the the link for, Joby Weeks with the $22,200,000,000  

[01:46:49] Unknown:

lawsuit against the federal government over Bitcoin.   Yeah. The link doesn't work, but he has a website that does. Just go to Joby,   jobyweeks,  

[01:47:01] Unknown:

weeks.com.jobyweeks.com.  

[01:47:06] Unknown:

And he reads an affidavit   that explains the whole situation.  

[01:47:10] Unknown:

I tell you what, with friend with with,   Trump's   love growing love of Bitcoin,   man, let's get that thing through.   That would be,   well, man, we owned the mining company   in that. You not only got the coins, but you own the the you bought mining shares.   And I wonder   how many of those shares in all these years, what that would amount up to. Hell, I had almost a full Bitcoin in my back office they stole, bastards.   So we'll see. I hope that comes through, John. Maybe the climate for it too. That's good news.  

[01:47:49] Unknown:

Yeah. Well, it's about a 20 minute affidavit, so I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. But Right. The link that's published out there doesn't work. You just go to his website, and that's the whole website's about it. Jobyweeks.com.  

[01:48:02] Unknown:

Yep.   Hell, man. I had over $50,000   worth of mining chairs in that thing. I can't even imagine what those over how many years has this been? 4, 5, something like that? 5 years. 5 years. Would be mount up to. But,   needless to say, I might go buy me a house up on the hill.   Yes. He was trying to say something.  

[01:48:23] Unknown:

Not that he was a good deal. I just wanted to mention that Barnes did talk about   the, Bitcoin Jesus and that case of law firm. Yeah. And Roger Bears too. Yeah.   Roger Bears. Yeah. And   if if by any chance   the lawfare goes through and he gets convicted, that'll have  

[01:48:42] Unknown:

some implication for National. Yeah. You know you know what? If they convict him, I tell you, Trump will pardon him.   You got that? Or you or you want some,   accompanying evidence? Well, they gave a pardon to Ross Ulbrich, yeah, in all this too. He didn't get much attention. Do you know who he was, Sketch?   Yeah. Yeah. He was the Silk Road, founder. He's the guy that sat at the Silk Road. And they had a hard on for him before that because he had been selling they came after him and convicted him on selling fireworks through the mail.   So it was real flimsy from the start and then they got on he went on to Silk Road, I guess, after he got out and whatever. But it's quite an interesting story. And that's where the feds went in and just   confiscated, you know. There's no telling that it's the federal government's large largest holder of Bitcoin in the world. And it's because all these confiscations   are minute much of it. K? Yeah. And my question is,  

[01:49:44] Unknown:

I have one question about,   Ross,   the,   Silk Road guy. He had that Bitcoin. How did they   get his his keys? I guess they hacked his his secure  

[01:49:55] Unknown:

I I'm here. I have no idea. To get those keys.  

[01:49:59] Unknown:

I have no idea, Sketch. Don't know. I do. I can tell you. They threaten they they threaten your life and all your Family. Stuff.   There's an actual,   article right now out there about one of these guys that was,   set up by the government,   and they list all the charges they and the things they were gonna do to him if he didn't surrender the key. Right.  

[01:50:23] Unknown:

Yep. It's entrapment.  

[01:50:27] Unknown:

Okay. So, where else can we get we got?  

[01:50:30] Unknown:

We can we get back to if we can't  

[01:50:33] Unknown:

okay. Do you already have the   and,   they only   need your consent   that that's where they,   you know, threaten you.   But they already have   it, but they need your consent.  

[01:50:50] Unknown:

So you give them legally under it. Right? Well, are you talking about your keys, your your Bitcoin wallet?  

[01:50:58] Unknown:

Correct. That's what I'm saying. They go all. Alright. Keystrokes on it. I mentioned Ross Ulbrich  

[01:51:04] Unknown:

because maybe the environment would be good for this other decision. I'd rather keep the discussion to this birthright citizenship issue we've been on for the entire program, please. So if anybody else has got any observations   pardon me? Okay.  

[01:51:21] Unknown:

I yield, Roger.  

[01:51:22] Unknown:

Roger.  

[01:51:25] Unknown:

Roger? Okay.   Yes.  

[01:51:29] Unknown:

Yeah. I just had one last I just had one last question about the,   14th Amendment or or the discussion.   You had said that,   subject to the jurisdiction there is is definitely,   a contract, but then,   Robert Barnes No. Said it was No. Robert Barnes said it was a social contract. Are those two things,   those two things interchangeable?  

[01:51:55] Unknown:

No. It's just it's not it's more than a social contract. It's a contract. He just doesn't understand   what's on the front end is the 14th amendment that said the feudal system is involved underneath it and that that is what underpinning is the contract. Now if you don't believe me,   I would say, yeah. Do you know who,   Bill Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown was, Julie?  

[01:52:20] Unknown:

I can't remember, but I remember reading it. He credits him him that night.  

[01:52:25] Unknown:

He credited him that night. He was   inaugurated.  

[01:52:29] Unknown:

Okay? Gerald Quigley.  

[01:52:31] Unknown:

Thank you, Gerald Quigley.   And Carol Quigley was a blue blood and a member of the troop, the gang,   and the CFR.   And they allowed him in to the records unlimited   access to their records for 2 years, and that book came out of that. Okay?   And in that book, he makes this statement   That the world's financial leaders   met on a regular basis in private meetings   and constructed   the world's financial system   in a feudalist   fashion.   Now I dare say   that you cannot have a feudalist fashion   financial system without serfs.  

[01:53:19] Unknown:

And David Rockefeller openly admitted that he was working against the interest of the United States.  

[01:53:24] Unknown:

Yeah. Now now Quigley's deal was   he won he's in favor of what they're doing,   but he was not in favor of them doing it in secret.   He wanted them to do it in public. Well,   as dumb as most of the people are in condition, they could probably gotten away with it in public.  

[01:53:46] Unknown:

K?  

[01:53:48] Unknown:

So, Roger, what's the difference between contract and a social contract then, if I might ask? Well, a social contract just be something everybody agrees on. I don't know about the formality of it, but the contract you're in is a specific contract. It's just different. It's one nobody's ever heard of. It's a silent   generational   contract that runs generationally   from the feudal system. That's another reason they wanted this to be the feudal system so they could utilize   this. Then they don't have to remember,   they don't think like we think.  

We don't want you don't wanna go out and enslave everybody, do you, Julie?   You don't want to drink   you don't wanna drink blood,   from some murdered child who they've absolutely   gotten   freaked out so you can get all that adrenal come in his blood. You don't do that, do you?  

[01:54:41] Unknown:

That's disgusting.  

[01:54:43] Unknown:

Okay. So that's my point. We look at this and try and impute the way we think   into analyzing it and you can't do that. They don't think like we do.   K? And their deal here is, well, we get this here, hidden underneath it is this birthright citizenship thing is this little feudal system we wanna bring into operation. Oh, I don't know. 70, 80 years from now. So we do that. We get control of the money. We go in and do the roaring twenties. Why were they the roaring twenties? Because they had the credit tap open. Just like the nineties was the roaring nineties   through through the Internet revolution.  

Same type thing. They do the roaring twenties, and they shut the credit down. And that puts everybody into a destitute panic situation,   but the   bankruptcy   didn't have anything to do with that. It it may have might have had some   some small things,   but not a large part because it was in the bond market,   which they totally control, all of them really, but certainly the bond market.   And so they bankrupted the country in the bond market.   Curious to note that 10 years earlier in 2021,   they had put in a law on the federal birth certificate,   and they passed a federal birth certificate about 12 years before that.  

So that when they got bankrupt United States of America bonds,   that they could start issuing you new United States bonds   backed by at least 12 years of birth certificates   as collateral and other collateral and other commercial paper. So they they prepared for this and there's there's not no question about it. K? So,   anyway,   that's what Barnes and those folks   don't know and are not figuring in to what they're looking at and dealing with,   period. Roger. Okay? Roger. Yeah. Thank you, Roger. Alright. Hold on. I'll hold on, John.   If they do away with the birthright, is it a law or a statute or what is birthright law? They're not don't Joan. They're not gonna do away with it. It's not for doing away with. It's for not allowing this invasion of illegals   to take advantage of it. There's already been the reason that,   federal court in Washington state,   enjoined it or stopped it is because there's already almost 300 babies that are affected by it.  



[01:57:17] Unknown:

A 150,000.  

[01:57:19] Unknown:

It's not just everybody.   It's just for these people. And ambassadors,   invading armies,   Indians not taxed. Barnes went over that very specifically.   This is something that and I think   and I think Trump's got a good point here. If they wanna use the invading armies, that's exactly what it was or what it is. Now what's your comment, Joan?  

[01:57:44] Unknown:

Oh, okay. So then the 14th amend 14th,   art, article   or amendment, whatever it is,   will stay in place  

[01:57:56] Unknown:

for Well, yeah. It just won't apply to these people.  

[01:58:00] Unknown:

Okay. Thank you.  

[01:58:02] Unknown:

Yep. Alright. He was trying to ask Bory. Yeah. Bory's been trying to get in here. Okay. Bory, what you got?  

[01:58:09] Unknown:

Hey, Dreyer. I just have a question.   And then   the 14 amendment is no not going to apply to the Anka Babies anymore, but to all the other people, yes?  

[01:58:21] Unknown:

I I don't know. Well,   I don't know. Well, it can't be retroactive   that they take it away. They may try and apply it that way as we go forward.   But as Barnes was saying,   the interpretation   of US versus   Wong Kim Ark   would be that that they would not get rid of them. It would just be these select people that are considered quote unquote an army that's invaded us over the last 4 to 5 years.   That to my understanding, of course, I mean, you know, you can only read so much into this, and you don't know how all these actors are gonna play off of it. So, but it's a a hell of a a positive situation for us   because this essential part of what we do and what we're trying to accomplish   is absolutely   integral in it. But you hadn't heard either expert mention the feudal system, have you?  

You heard him talk about Jeuse Solis.   You heard him talk about   blood lineage heritage. You heard him talk about all that.   They didn't uncover that one layer further.   And that we can all thank   John Benson for, folks.   If it would not have been for John Benson,   nobody would know this.   Or myself. Can I ask you something more credit there? I'll take a little credit there. Yeah. Mark, was that you, Marka? Quick. Because we're about off the air here. I think,  

[01:59:47] Unknown:

okay. Because I was gonna say, I wonder I think Trump knows about the common law cases.   And,   you know, if we do start sending notices or lawful legal notices letting them know that we are aware and here   and a different,   citizenship status,   then I wonder if things will kinda help him.  

[02:00:08] Unknown:

Uh-uh.   Will help him? Will help any of them. None of them up there know this that we're talking about. So that's why we'll put in the in the front end of the policy of the procedures.   Once you send it to the secretary of state, you copy. Right. White   House, FBI,   DOJ.   Bam. I think And maybe even treasury.   Maybe even the secretary of the treasury.   Yes? What, Marco?  

[02:00:35] Unknown:

They know.   They know they know there's a difference in political   status that's not   federal.  

[02:00:41] Unknown:

This the damn secretary of the treasury, damn sure that he knows or should know.   Okay? But we'll see. And listen, if you've got some additional   conversation for this,   you know, in the audience here, hold it. We can revisit it tomorrow, but it's been a very full day of excellent information   from quote, unquote experts,   on our side, both of them conservative   on these key issues. And what it should show all of you   is how little they know or understand.  

[02:01:13] Unknown:

No. I heard Gary. Roger.  

[02:01:16] Unknown:

The crucial  

[02:01:17] Unknown:

the crucial operating   points of this.  

[02:01:20] Unknown:

That's We're almost off the air. I gotta I got one point to make before we go off the air. If they're talking about messing with the 14th amendment, history has proven that nothing that they do can be trusted to be good for us. Nothing.   Historically,   it's always been bad.   Maybe they do know about the futile link in the 14th amendment, and they are messing with the 14th amendment to remove   that link.   Cautiously optimistic   and always watch what they do.  

[02:01:52] Unknown:

Barnes and Levin don't know about it or they'd have brought it up. K? They hinted at it. They they kind of see it, but they don't understand the mechanism   of how it's invoked.   That, yeah, all you have to do it's the feudal system. It has to be involuntary   servitude.   And if you've done it with fraud, all you do is alert the person you're in contract with, and you're out. Not only because it's your decision, but because there's fraud in there and fraud vitiates any contracts   ab initio   from the beginning.  

[02:02:27] Unknown:

Maybe I'm a cynic. I just don't trust him.  

[02:02:32] Unknown:

Well,   Paul, they they   go trust him for what? To do what?   They they honor those affidavits. Have you heard anybody come on here and say it was dishonored?   No. No. But I don't trust anything that they do even Well, you should. Even if it's supposed to be good Yeah. Yeah. It always turns out being bad. Okay. Well, I I'm not telling you not to be suspicious as the son of a bitches. You've got every I'm a cynic. You know?   Okay.   If   you've got any other discussion, let's hold it till tomorrow, please, because we're off of the the main feeds. And,   I'd rather do it that way if we could. But does anybody have any questions right now?  



[02:03:16] Unknown:

Sure. I just wanted to share that, Gary often reminds everybody to read the 14th complete   14th amendment to understand it. And what we shared today, we should go over that too so we know that the history and what was documented.  

[02:03:31] Unknown:

You know, Myrna, in the whole history of me doing this all these years, I've never worked off anything but that first sentence. Because realistically,   the rest of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to me. When it says you can't question the national debt, that doesn't apply to us anymore. That's only the 14th amendment, people. All the rest of that crap. You wanna read it, go ahead. I agree. It's a lengthy amendment, but we've never dealt with anything on this project other than the first sentence because after that we're excluded.  

[02:04:03] Unknown:

Right. I agree with that.  

[02:04:05] Unknown:

Roger.  

[02:04:06] Unknown:

Hey, Roger.   Alright. Larry first. Can quest  

[02:04:11] Unknown:

oh. Alright. Go ahead, Joe. Can  

[02:04:14] Unknown:

national sorry, Larry. National   can question the National Debt.  

[02:04:20] Unknown:

That's what I just said.   That doesn't apply to us.   That I don't know. That's what the tax Thank you. That's what the tax paragraph is in there on the affidavit for.   That is because the way they're gonna extract it is through the IRS.   Sorry, IRS. This is me over here. These are your regulations.   And I'm not I I'm not gonna pay my fair share, you slave and murder and lying and thieving piece of crap. Okay? And have they objected?   In all these years, have they objected?  

[02:04:52] Unknown:

No. No.  

[02:04:54] Unknown:

Okay. There's your answer. Well, was it Larry?  

[02:04:59] Unknown:

Yeah. Gary also,   was   encouraging us.   Some time ago, he came on the show, and he was encouraging us that whenever we're dealing with a court case,   we should always file into and I know you teach us to stay out of court, but for those that get caught up in it for whatever reason,   he said that you should   file a copy of the congressional record like I just read from,   that the 14th Amendment was not lawfully ratified,   or at least that's the going theory, which we know to be true,   and include that into into the into the court case records on the docket.   And   I actually did that, helping a student with the IRS,   and, we   took those 5 pages.  

And, it was and I mislabeled it before. It was   15641   to 15646.   That's the way they they labeled the actual pages in the congressional record.   And, you could make a copy of those and highlight certain sections   and include that in your court case.   And, the other thing is,   what was what I missed it because I had a call coming in. What was it that, Paul is afraid of? He he doesn't trust something or something   to that nature. Yeah.  

[02:06:22] Unknown:

I'm a cynic. I don't trust anything that they are doing even if it's supposed to be good for us, not to bite us in the ass. If they mess with the 14th amendment,   I have no idea what they're gonna do to it, but they might actually wind up removing from it the very hook that we're using to get out of the system.  

[02:06:45] Unknown:

Now they Maybe they will change the and to an r. System would go away. Paul, if that happened, the whole system's gone. They've got to have this in there. It's essential. It's their power.   Because this is where they derive the financial power from.  

[02:06:59] Unknown:

But what if they do   go in, mess with the 14th amendment, and change the and  

[02:07:06] Unknown:

to an r? No. Well, no. They they well, they can't do that.   They know that because of a previous amendment's written for the r or or for the and nots. This is and subject and and not subject. Well, that's the 13th amendment. They're gonna go in and get rid of that too?   No. They're just gonna change the way it's applied.  

[02:07:29] Unknown:

K?  

[02:07:30] Unknown:

I just don't trust anything they do. Sorry. I'm a cynic. Okay. We okay. Yes. Who is Roger in there?  

[02:07:37] Unknown:

This is Sketch, and I just want I I wanted to say that,   once I saw that he was talking about Anne,   the jurisdiction thereof, I was like, oh, yeah. Let's listen to this. And,   so, you know, he he touched on consent a lot, but he just doesn't know   how he consents   his consent. We don't know. He thinks by voting or or whatever. But, you know,   marking on on,   government form, yes. I'm a US citizen. I don't think he Right. Gets that one right there. He doesn't get it at all. Okay? He doesn't get that that's the  

[02:08:12] Unknown:

accepting of a contract.   He doesn't understand the rest of this. He   clearly doesn't have a he understands it, but he only understands it from one side,   do his comment.   The great 14th amendment was the great level or whatever he said. Okay? And he's right. It was. Equalizer. He doesn't understand   that they leveled you all into the federal slavery position   and not the position of what had to be the state citizen in the 13th amendment, the previous amendment.  

[02:08:45] Unknown:

Yep.  

[02:08:46] Unknown:

Hey, Larry. If you can send me that congressional record, I'd appreciate it.  

[02:08:51] Unknown:

Yeah. We'll put that up as valuable information and okay. Well, we could continue this tomorrow.   Roger. John, thank you for sticking around, by the way. Yeah. You do. Yeah. Yes, Larry.  

[02:09:06] Unknown:

The the quote is it's the great equalizer. You've always said that in the past. Right. And if I could send you a copy   I could send you a copy of the congressional record.   The   the original credit goes to Natasha. She's the one that found it in some Heinz   online or whatever, and I couldn't get access to it.   Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't get access to it. So I actually searched it. I searched for it online in the actual US House or whatever website, and I found a copy there. So but I I can email you a copy, Paul. Yep. Yeah. And nostalgia heard us talking about it when it searched it up. But,  

[02:09:45] Unknown:

yep. So,   anyway, keep in mind if you're gonna file that in court papers, if they if they go and look at it, they're gonna find that negative stuff that other people have said about it that evidently are in there too. So but whatever you wanna do, it's okay with me. I think you'll if you if I can keep your ass out of court, I guarantee you you may not appreciate it, but you'll thank me at some point.   So,   alright. Who, anybody else, please?  

[02:10:12] Unknown:

Roger.   Roger.  

[02:10:14] Unknown:

Yes.  

[02:10:17] Unknown:

Yeah. This is Paul. I'm from Kentucky. I've heard you on   another call on Tuesdays as a guest speaker. And,   anyways, I got the information. I've been on a couple of these calls,   during the week now, and I've really enjoyed them.   I'm faced with some civil lawsuit   litigations,   and,   I don't know where to turn. I don't know a lot of people who know how to,   win   at a civil lawsuit.   It's got a lot of validity to it, a lot of evidence. But,   the courts and and I agree with your statement about   if you can keep it out of the court.   It's much better, and I wish I had known that when I filed these   4 years ago.  

However, I'm already in the system. I don't know if there's a way out of it, but,   the cases are very convoluted. I don't need to discuss them on the call right now. But I would like to see, is there a way that I can   contact you or con is there somebody you could refer me to? Because I I hear a lot about on these calls, I hear a lot about how to defend yourself, and people are getting out of jail and, you know, things that they'd normally be,   they'd have to pay fines and fees for. They don't, but I don't really hear a whole lot about civil   cases where one person is injured due to another person's   negligence,   and then you get it in the court system.  

And if you're a pro se or a self represented   and you're going up against a pretty strong attorney,   that you   what they do to you is amazing to me. I mean, it's unfathomable.  

[02:12:01] Unknown:

That's why you wanna stay out there. Well, that's why you wanna stay out there if you can.   Have you heard Brent Winters? You're in Kentucky, did you say, Paul?  

[02:12:11] Unknown:

Yeah. Kentucky Southern Indiana. I heard somebody the other day talking about Kentucky and Indiana. And I was  

[02:12:17] Unknown:

gonna dive in because that's that's my area. Well well, that was probably Brent Winters. That's his area. Okay. Well, it's probably Brent Winters. He was that's his area too on the Wabash Valley there. He is a practicing attorney. He's a practicing attorney and,   and these are you're you're the you're the plaintiff here. Right? Not the defendant.  

[02:12:40] Unknown:

Well, the interesting part is in almost all the cases, but 2, I am the plaintiff.   However, in the two cases where I'm the defendant,   in one case, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and the judge wants to go to a jury trial.   And the plaintiff has failed to state a claim of which relief can be granted.   And in the other case, the the plaintiff committed fraud by by doing a fraudulent affidavit   of complaint.   So I'm countersuing   both of those cases.  

[02:13:12] Unknown:

Well, what I'm gonna do is I'll counterpoint you to Brent. I'm gonna I don't handle this kind of stuff. I don't wanna give you any advice because I don't   know what to do, but I'm gonna say Brent Winters,   who is who I think you're referring to that said he referred to that area,   is a practicing attorney. I would assume   I would assume he's licensed in Kentucky.   He's got part of his mother's family is from Kentucky.   And, you can reach him at commonlawyer.com.   Commonlawyer.com.common.   Okay. Brent Winders. Okay. Correct. And they'll have a contact button there. And just send him a,   a, a, an email,   Paul from Kentucky.  

Put that in the subject line.  

[02:14:03] Unknown:

Sure.  

[02:14:04] Unknown:

And I'll tell him to look for your email. Okay?  

[02:14:08] Unknown:

I appreciate that. And that was my purpose for,   reaching out today was yes. I understand you might not be affluent in this or whatever, or it may not be your specialty. But I was looking for someone who  

[02:14:22] Unknown:

yeah. Right. Right. Right. Me too. I'd rather hold a gun to the side of my head than that be my specialty. Go ahead.  

[02:14:30] Unknown:

Amen. So my point of view is, but I was thinking you could refer me as you just did. So I appreciate that. And I really appreciate this call. It's been amazing. And I do wanna ask one more quick thing.   So so I'm I'm I do the tax exempt thing as well,   and I happen to have a client who refused to,   obey my wishes and ended up taking taxes out on me. And,   at at some point when I left that client,   I get a check-in the mail from the IRS because   I disputed that I did request a w four exempt, and the client took taxes out unnecessarily.   And I got a check  

[02:15:12] Unknown:

I yield. Okay. Well well, good for you then. And,   listen. Come back and hang with us more often. We'll deal with it. But Oh, absolutely. The show's kinda over. Now   for you, you're you're somewhat new. These people stay on this   channel right here, sometimes till the wee hours of the morning. K?   Wow. I don't usually participate, but if you've got a question,   members of here are very educated, certain ones, and will probably be able to answer. And if they can't, come back on the live show and we'll answer it there. I try and do that so that everybody learns from the answer   instead of me having to answer a bunch of different emails on the same damn subject.  

Okay?  

[02:15:57] Unknown:

Sure. And I agree.  

[02:15:59] Unknown:

Alright. Alright. So that's why I will I'm gonna let   you're welcome, Paul. I'll,   I'll drop Brent a message to look for your email with a subject line Paul from Kentucky.   Paul from Kentucky. Got it. Subject line. Perfect. Okay? Thank you, man. Alright. Who else? Do that. Thank you.  

[02:16:18] Unknown:

Roger, I got one last comment.   Okay. One last comment. Fri Friday with, Brent, he mentioned that,   if you lose in the courts,   well, you can there are 2 other branches of government.   And   I agree with that   to for remedy.   And so but this is why I like yours so so so much is that we   we go to the executive branch, and we get our remedy by sending in our affidavit.   So I really appreciate you, and thanks so much.  

[02:16:53] Unknown:

Yeah. Well, we,   we go to the Secretary of State. He's the guy you gotta do it with.   So, anyway, you're welcome. I mean, I look, I've known for many years how powerful this was. I might not have been able to explain it, but I have understood the, the little pivotal   edge that we're walking on and how damn important it is. And I think every one of you that's taken the time to look into this and think about it will probably agree. And thank God I know that there are some people who are not   subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So they can get you on that because I can back it up from here.   Oh, I don't know about a 1000 years of legal precedent.  



[02:17:33] Unknown:

Okay? Yep. So And when he I'm gonna Yep. Oh,  

[02:17:37] Unknown:

yes. Never mind.  

[02:17:39] Unknown:

I am. I'm in a vamoose. Okay? So I'll see y'all,   manana   in La Manana.   And, have a good day. Thank you for everything. Good things. Well, you're welcome, Bory. Hopefully, some good things will happen today. But very good show today, very meaty,   from other perspectives on what we also center on and its importance. And,   again,   I want you to know how special you are.   There's a lot of people that do not this does not resonate with them.   For whatever reason,   don't know. Anyway, we'll find the ones hopefully that it does. I'll see y'all tomorrow.   Ciao.  



[02:18:21] Unknown:

Ciao.  

[02:18:24] Unknown:

Larry? I had an up I had an applied nationality question.   Does anybody have to do a form 1583   at a UPS store?  

[02:18:44] Unknown:

What's the name of that form?   And you mean United Parcels? Basically What?  

[02:18:52] Unknown:

Yeah. It's a it's a it's a post office box there, if you will.   They require 2 pieces of current identification.   So you can give, say, the passport or passport card, but then the second form is,   an ID or driver's license, you know, with the address, current lease, mortgage, or deed of trust,   home or vehicle insurance policy,   vehicle registration card, voter card.   So,   of course, this is to   put somebody in an address situation, a commercial situation. So,   I didn't know it's I haven't I haven't read the whole form. I've gotta try to find it, besides at the UPS store and see if there's, you know,   or citizen or national kind of language, but I just figured I'd ask,   because it's a   kind of a way to for them to get your, you you know, your living man address, if you will.  

And  

[02:19:51] Unknown:

may I correct you?   It's not a form. It's a contract.  

[02:19:57] Unknown:

There you go. Yep.  

[02:20:01] Unknown:

I'd say utility bill would be the least innocuous.   I'd   like to mention the   15 statutes at large one more time. I think it's about 700 pages, but   this covers the 40th Congress   which covers the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments being passed,   the impeachment of President Johnson   and the Reconstruction   legislation.   If you want to see original   intent,   that's where you would find it. And you've also got that curious little,   Expatriation   Act passed   by the 40th Congress,   which is really interesting   and short to read   What they're talking about there is really hard   to know for sure,   but   it is argued by Liebross   that, that is a way out   for all the citizens that are going to be making with the 14th amendment   to be able to bow out of it and,   stay a state citizen. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.  



[02:21:21] Unknown:

Where can we get a copy of that, please?  

[02:21:26] Unknown:

I would assume online.   The the 15 statutes at large, it's, just over 700 pages.  

[02:21:33] Unknown:

Thank you.  

[02:21:34] Unknown:

Larry Samuel?  

[02:21:36] Unknown:

Is is Larry still back on  

[02:21:39] Unknown:

the line? Okay. Sketch, can you wait a minute? I wanna speak to what Samuel just spoke of,   about the statutes at large and why,   president   Johnson, Andrew Johnson,   was impeached twice,   and it's because he,   vetoed   the Reconstruction   Act  

[02:22:00] Unknown:

twice. And I believe the 14th amendment.   He did not wanna go along with that as well.  

[02:22:07] Unknown:

Oh,   that had to do.  

[02:22:10] Unknown:

And he just he just, you know,   was a thorn in their side,   basically, because, you know, Roger talked about the feudal system, and of course we all go back to   England for that.   Well,   England got it from the Romans,   and if you look at a lot of our language in a lot of our law,   and I think also what Lincoln did, because Lincoln did was not a Christian, he was an atheist, he did not like Christianity,   and he basically   went   from Christian common law   to Roman law.  

[02:22:50] Unknown:

Samuel?  

[02:22:51] Unknown:

Yes.  

[02:22:52] Unknown:

You know what I find very ironic,   Johnson also vetoed   the first civil rights amendment,   and then   Johnson   passed it a 100 years later.  

[02:23:07] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[02:23:08] Unknown:

Absolutely. It's sort of like those things between Lincoln and Kennedy that are Right. So many can, you know   yeah.   It's crazy.   You can't make this shit up. Only they can.   Yeah.  

[02:23:27] Unknown:

And they can make it happen   as long as we agree with it. I yield.  

[02:23:34] Unknown:

Okay. Somebody was looking for me. I was talking to someone.  

[02:23:38] Unknown:

Yeah, Larry.   By any chance, can you   slowly,   read the,   reference to the congressional record and where you find it again? And, also, can you send it to Paul?  

[02:23:53] Unknown:

Yeah. Yeah. I was gonna send it to him, the the whole PDF,   And then you can just you know, when you get it in an email or whatever, you just it'll be a PDF. You just open it up. There's all the whole files right there. It's gonna be about 200 no.   Maybe a 100 and and so pages, but you could just   scroll to the areas that I that I referenced.   Okay. Do you want me to read the actual,   you know, the link?  

[02:24:20] Unknown:

Well,   or or a search term that I can find it.  

[02:24:25] Unknown:

Okay.   Let's see.  

[02:24:31] Unknown:

Larry, if you read that link, I'll type it into the chat right now.   Read slow.  

[02:24:37] Unknown:

Let me let me look for it. Hold on. Let me just get mute it, and give me one minute.  

[02:24:43] Unknown:

Alrighty. Thank you.  

[02:24:51] Unknown:

And, Julie, you can look up   you can look up Julie, you can look up The Republic is the House That No One Lives in by Lee Cross.  

[02:25:06] Unknown:

Thank  

[02:25:10] Unknown:

you.  

[02:25:13] Unknown:

I believe the spelling of his last name is b r o b s t, Julie, if that wasn't clear.  

[02:25:20] Unknown:

Thank   you.  

[02:25:37] Unknown:

You can find that on the phone guardian dot org.  

[02:25:41] Unknown:

Samuel, were you saying to,   to submit to attach that   to any government form and just say,   thank you very little, but   I'm a national and not subject to this jurisdiction. So if you're gonna interfere with my,   the mails,   then please let me know.   That you're not able to, you know, keep this box or whatever.   Thank you.  

[02:26:15] Unknown:

Well,   before Samuel speaks, I would just say you have a right to,   change a contract   before you   sign on the dotted line.   And if they accept it, then   wonderful.   True.   And you don't necessarily have to put forth why   you're changing   it. Just change   it and see if they accept it.   It's a counter offer.  

[02:26:54] Unknown:

True.  

[02:27:03] Unknown:

Question. Where are you gonna post the link for and the pages,   from that congressional record to include with your paperwork?  

[02:27:20] Unknown:

Hey, Paul.   I tried to email it to you, but then when I went to attach the PDF,   it said it's 57 megabytes in Gmail, and it exceeded the 26 point whatever   megabytes.   So I'm gonna try to find the link,   and then I'll send you the link.  

[02:27:52] Unknown:

I think Paul just said we could find it on   famguardian.org.  

[02:28:07] Unknown:

Larry, you got a search term?  

[02:28:21] Unknown:

I can't remember what I used.   You might be able to   use that date   of June 13,   1967   congressional record.   And I think it came from the US House website,   but I'm double checking. Give me another minute.  

[02:29:43] Unknown:

June 13, 67   something called   Page   15,643   came up.  

[02:30:00] Unknown:

Yeah. I found that too. It's not complete. It's just a certain part of it. I think it's 52.8   megabytes.   On the next  

[02:30:25] Unknown:

Did you see the one from June 12th to June 20th,   volume 113,   part 12?  

[02:30:34] Unknown:

I didn't. I just have the one that starts with page 15537,   and it covers the pages that Larry mentioned, the 15641   through   15646.  

[02:30:46] Unknown:

Okay.   Okay.   If you go get in the search engine,   type in congressional record of 1967,   scroll down, like, 2 or 3 entries,   and   there should be one   there should be one that says   congress.gov,   October 19, 1967,   volume 113, part 29, bound edition.   And when you click on that, a web page is gonna come up. It's gonna say congress.gov,   and then you'll see the entire day, it'll be underlined in blue, entire day PDF of 64 megabytes.   I think if you click on that, that should bring up   yep. That's it. Because it says download file again.   And then you go down to   pages   a 105 to a 110   of the PDF,   and they're labeled as 15641dash15646.  

Anyone find it?  

[02:32:08] Unknown:

You know, I can't write that fast.  

[02:32:12] Unknown:

Oh, sorry.   So, again,   type in I'm using a Google search engine because they're my favorite.   And you type in congressional record of 1967,   and then you're gonna get your first result   And,   it should say congressional record,   June 13,   1967.   It's it's labeled as congress.gov.   And when you hit that, it brings you to a web   page, and then it'll say at the top, like, at the top under the heading, June 13, 1967, volume 113, etcetera.   It'll say entire day,   PDF,   and, you just hit that.   And then you scroll down to those pages I referenced.   So there's there's 2 types of   labeled pages.  

The PDF   is gonna count the pages, the actual PDF, and then the congressional record actually has their way of labeling the pages.   So it's 105 to 110 of the PDF, which will be considered   15641   to 15646   of the congressional record.  

[02:33:30] Unknown:

There should be just a link to that page,   isn't there?  

[02:33:39] Unknown:

I might be able to,   here's what I could do. I might be able to email   if Paul's around, I'll email him this page that I'm looking at.  

[02:33:59] Unknown:

So you're including those those pages with, what, your affidavit paperwork?  

[02:34:05] Unknown:

Yeah. Those 5 pages.   Yep. And you highlight, you know, certain parts, especially the part I read today.   Paul, are you there?  

[02:34:24] Unknown:

No. I think he stepped away for a minute.  

[02:34:27] Unknown:

Alright. I'll just read this if you guys wanna type this in.   It's a, it's the link that'll take you to   the congress web page, and then you'll see it underline the the the entire day.   So   it's httpscolon2forward/www.congress.govforward/bound,   bounddashcongressionaldashrecordforward/1967   06forward/13forward/housedashsection.  

[02:35:23] Unknown:

Okay. You're gonna have to do it again because you're you're going faster than I can even write it   and actually read my  

[02:35:35] Unknown:

Alright. Hold on.   It's  

[02:35:38] Unknown:

You could copy that link. You could copy the link. Just highlight the link and copy it and paste it into the chat.  

[02:35:47] Unknown:

John, he's on your phone. I had the chat a while ago, but for some reason, I don't know where it went on my phone. But let me read it again.   Www.congress.gov,   and it was an httpscolon2forwardslashes,   then the www.congress   dotgovgovforward/thewordboundbounddashcongressional   congressional with an AL at the end, congressional   dash   record  

[02:36:26] Unknown:

forward slash. Dude, you gotta slow down. People can't type that fast.  

[02:36:30] Unknown:

Slow mail. Typing it that fast.  

[02:36:33] Unknown:

Darnell. Do you want me to send it to you?   Did I send it to you already? In the chat.  

[02:36:39] Unknown:

Congressional.recordordashrecord/please  

[02:36:43] Unknown:

Forward slash   1967forward/  

[02:36:49] Unknown:

06forward/13forward/housedashsection.  

[02:37:02] Unknown:

And then what that'll take you to a web page, and you'll see the entire day you click on that little link, the entire day of the congressional record.  

[02:37:11] Unknown:

Okay. May I read this back to you before I post it?  

[02:37:15] Unknown:

Sure.  

[02:37:17] Unknown:

Httpscolonforwardforwardwww.congress.gov/bounddash   Yep. Congressional   Yep. Dash record   forward slash   1967   forward slash 06   forward slash 13   forward slash house   hyphen   section,  

[02:37:52] Unknown:

and that's it? That's it. Yep. Okay. Once you click on it, make sure it comes up.  

[02:37:57] Unknown:

Okay. I will do that. Just post it in.  

[02:38:02] Unknown:

Yep. Chad, are you posting it? Because I'm on Zoom.  

[02:38:07] Unknown:

Oh, I posted it to   free conference call  

[02:38:12] Unknown:

chat. I sent it to Paul.   I sent it back to Paul. Yep. June 13,  

[02:38:19] Unknown:

1967.   11/3/12,   bound edition.  

[02:38:27] Unknown:

Go.  

[02:38:31] Unknown:

Alright. Scroll down to see what it actually has to say.   Oh, it says PDFs over 25 megabytes   may cause browser performance issues and are not embedded,   but can be downloaded instead. You'll have to download it.  

[02:39:01] Unknown:

Get,   I,   I got the link that you emailed to me. It was from pages 15537   to,   15863,   I think,   or 15663.   It's a 127   page PDF   just sent me. Is that is that what you're talking about,  

[02:39:35] Unknown:

Larry? Yes. And what yes. And and what you do is you go   to pages 105   -110   of the PDF   and up at the top right hand corner, you're going to see the pages numbered as they were numbered on the day of the congressional record,   15641   to   15,646,   5 pages   about the 14th Amendment   not being properly ratified and all the arguments   of those that attended that   session that  

[02:40:22] Unknown:

day. 5, 2,  

[02:40:24] Unknown:

And I did put a link in in the chat,   and it's a I think it's PDF,   4 pages,   1560641   to 15646.   Just those pages   in the chat.  

[02:40:42] Unknown:

There should be a link just to that. I mean, right at the top.  

[02:40:47] Unknown:

I'm waiting for the PDF to come up, but I put a link in to the PDF that I am downloading, which is a   120 something pages.   The 155   well, what is it again?   15537   to   15663.   So it'd be 26   126   pages   a yield.  

[02:41:27] Unknown:

Well, we can't attach a 126 pages.  

[02:41:35] Unknown:

Alright.   Here we go. Check the chat in free conference. 57,  

[02:41:43] Unknown:

subtracted by 15630   or   whatever it is. What's the it's a 126.   15663.   I yield.   What, Paul?   I'm talking to my did my math wrong. What?  

[02:42:04] Unknown:

Paul, don't you have a way of extracting those 5 pages?  

[02:42:09] Unknown:

Already done. Already done.  

[02:42:11] Unknown:

The document is in the chat is in the chat.  

[02:42:15] Unknown:

Thank you, Paul.  

[02:42:18] Unknown:

Paul, can you drop it in Zoom?  

[02:42:22] Unknown:

No. I cannot, but I can email it to you.  

[02:42:25] Unknown:

Okay. That's great.   [email protected].  

[02:42:43] Unknown:

K.   And  

[02:42:49] Unknown:

Samuel for freedom.  

[02:42:51] Unknown:

Alright. Hang on.   About this   Marpa's   blind carbon   copies.   A m.   It and   very   and else.  

[02:43:52] Unknown:

You know, I've got a   congressional record page I use quite effectively.   Let me see. It's only 1 page, front and back. Let me see if I can put it in a   drop it   in the link here in Zoom.  

[02:44:16] Unknown:

In the FCC?  

[02:44:23] Unknown:

Sherry, check your email. Sherry, check your email.   Excuse me.   Excuse me. Jeez.   Alright. So did everybody get that?  

[02:45:18] Unknown:

Thank you again.  

[02:45:20] Unknown:

I gotta go find my email.  

[02:45:25] Unknown:

Okay.  

[02:45:26] Unknown:

I got it, Paul. Thank you.  

[02:45:29] Unknown:

You're welcome.   And, Larry, I sent the extract back to you.  

[02:45:41] Unknown:

Okay. Thank you.  

[02:45:45] Unknown:

Okay.   Got a I gotta,   skip out because I got a couple of things I gotta take care of here, and then I've gotta,   you know, do another one of those missions of mercy that may take me all afternoon. So,  

[02:46:01] Unknown:

I got it. The,   k. Cool.  

[02:46:06] Unknown:

The stream is still up. I'll be taking the stream down in about 10 minutes.   So all this, all this information will be in the archive on Pod Home   and all that stuff.   Welcome.  

[02:46:31] Unknown:

And I wanna read   a couple excerpts from from that record.   Pretty interesting.   The congressional record, June 13th,   page   15, 641 to 15646.   It says a citizen of the United States is a civilly dead entity   operating as a co trustee   and co beneficiary   of the PCT,   the Private Constructive   Quest   Quest   Questbee   Trust of USA under the 14th amendment,   which   upholds the debt of the USA   and US Inc in section 4.   Point 1,   the United States was and is bankrupt   and in receivership,   thus claim its claim of corporation   insolvency.   Point 2, a citizen of the US   is civilly dead and cannot become a real party in interest to any action.  

Point 4, the 14th Amendment said is a US citizen.   Oh, but that was point 3. Point 4, claimant is not a US citizen   nor a claimant.   A 14th Amendment citizen claimant   is a grantee and   receiver of sovereignty   as a joint tenant in common in the sovereignty   and claim interest in all funds   in trust accrued   from every aspect   category   category   and legal entity   in the nature of invested   interest from claimant's   own and claimant's   lineal   ancestry,   comma, property and pledges for, comma,   and in, comma,   insolvent US corporations,   its agents   agencies and subordinate   entities.  

Pretty good. Stop. Hey,   Sketch. This is Matt. Hey. Where are you reading where are you reading from?   I'm reading from a a a well, I don't know if it's in there. This is a comment on on it, and it is on a separate website.  

[02:48:57] Unknown:

What year is that?  

[02:49:00] Unknown:

19   just a minute.   It's from   the congressional record, June 13, 1967.  

[02:49:11] Unknown:

67.   And but I don't think you're  

[02:49:18] Unknown:

Go ahead, Sherry.  

[02:49:19] Unknown:

I think   you're reading somebody's opinion.   That is possibly true. I don't think you're reading from the record itself.   Well Otherwise, it wouldn't   what was comment 3 that you made?  

[02:49:36] Unknown:

Comment 3 was,   point 3 was 14th amendment citizen is a US citizen,   and point 2 is a citizen of the US is civilly   dead and cannot become a real party in interest   to any action.  

[02:49:57] Unknown:

The and that's the reason for the headstone name and the nom de guerre, which is a war name, because we are enemies of the state.  

[02:50:07] Unknown:

I do not disagree with that, Samuel and Sketch, but what I'm saying is is that actually a part of   of the   congressional   record   was that read   into the record.   And I would say not they're not gonna put a per 1st and foremost.   Okay. Well, we gotta figure that out. And I'm I remember  

[02:50:30] Unknown:

I remember reading that some years ago.  

[02:50:34] Unknown:

I can't remember where I I had it.   Anyway, I'm on Zoom. So I guess if I'm gonna transfer anything to you guys, I've got this senate report that I use quite a bit from 1938   that has a lot of important information on it.   Do should I send it to somebody or email it? Not.   Yeah. I can do that. Yeah. Email is right. Yeah.   And just as well.   Well, I think you guys got it. Anything you've ever requested my paperwork that I use in the classes, this was always included.  

[02:51:15] Unknown:

Oh, well, I don't have John. So I know. I don't have that.  

[02:51:20] Unknown:

Hello? Give me your give me your email. A concern.   I have a question. Based on what I just hear heard,   being a citizen,   US citizen,   how can I separate   myself,   the man   the man from   the US citizen?  

[02:51:44] Unknown:

Well, that's all we've been talking about.   I mean,   you need to fire your affidavit.   You gotta change your status to national status.  

[02:51:53] Unknown:

Just only that.   And what else can we do more?   I did the affidavit.   I did the affidavit   of national   nationality and what else.   Is it enough? I  

[02:52:09] Unknown:

guess what I would say is you have to start living it, and I think noticing people as to what this status means to you   that are around you that have some power in the government, like your attorney general in your state, your sheriff,   the prosecutor,   things like that,   but then live it.   Which is the  

[02:52:33] Unknown:

quick   when I said that the affidavit could have would that   be a way for them to,   I can say to bother me?   Did they stop my pissed?   If I could say it that way. Yeah?   It is just okay to do it, and I will still be living all my life   like a national.  

[02:53:02] Unknown:

Your phone is crackling, and your   your accent is difficult to Yeah. Let me understand you clearly.  

[02:53:10] Unknown:

Okay. Let me try slowly.  

[02:53:13] Unknown:

And we're trying also to get this other information out.   Well, we haven't finished the other thing we're working on. You can go to national status dot info and and look at the data over there. It explains the process.   Nationalstatus.info.  

[02:53:31] Unknown:

Yes. And and Telegram?  

[02:53:34] Unknown:

No. It's not in Telegram. That's our website. Nationalstatus.info.  

[02:53:40] Unknown:

Oh oh, nationalstatus.info.   Okay.   Let me write it.  

[02:53:46] Unknown:

Or or nationalstatus.com.   They both work.  

[02:53:50] Unknown:

Right.  

[02:54:00] Unknown:

Okay.   National   status dot info. Thank you.  

[02:54:10] Unknown:

Hey, John.  

[02:54:11] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[02:54:13] Unknown:

You you've got my email. If you would send that to me as well, that'd be great.  

[02:54:18] Unknown:

Yeah.   I'm I'm setting it up right now. Just  

[02:54:22] Unknown:

So you don't forget.  

[02:54:25] Unknown:

No. I'm I'm I'm setting up the email right now, so I'm gonna attach the document.   Senate report 1938.   We've highlighted this is, work by done by Ralph Winterrod.  

[02:54:39] Unknown:

Oh, lovely. Hey, John. You got my email, don't you,   Sherry?  

[02:54:43] Unknown:

I don't know. S h e r r I?  

[02:54:47] Unknown:

Correct.  

[02:54:48] Unknown:

Okay. Yeah. I got you. Alright. I got you in there. Samuel. Okay. John, Dave, and the thumb.   We got Samuel in there  

[02:55:01] Unknown:

and Dave. And the force breath.  

[02:55:14] Unknown:

Hey. You know, I don't know. What's your email? I'm sure I got it, but it's not coming up as  

[02:55:24] Unknown:

You're asking Brent?  

[02:55:27] Unknown:

Who you asking? Well, I got   Dave. You?  

[02:55:31] Unknown:

Yeah. Dave in the thumb   Yeah. Let's atgmail.  

[02:55:36] Unknown:

You should have Let's see. I think so. Let me I'm looking it up right now.   Okay.   Dave Dave Dave Dave.   I think I have you in a different   I think I have you Dave in a different,   different So it's Dave n  

[02:55:56] Unknown:

in the thumb   atgmail.com.  

[02:56:07] Unknown:

Okay.  

[02:56:11] Unknown:

I gotta put you in this system.  

[02:56:14] Unknown:

Thanks, John.  

[02:56:19] Unknown:

And don't forget, Brent.  

[02:56:21] Unknown:

I got you, Brent.  

[02:56:52] Unknown:

Just a quick comment. Sherry, I was reading from the in the chat   right below my   my entry   of good morning,   my usual good morning post   down close to the bottom.   It's   an o o m z   website that I read   those quotes from.   By Yield.  

[02:57:32] Unknown:

You know, I would say it would,   serve everybody very well to go back   to the full text   of the house document, Tuesday, June 13,   1967.   The beginning is so beautiful, and this was in 67.   Abide in me and I in you, as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,   except it abide in the vine.   No more can ye accept ye abide in me.   Scripture, John 154.   Anyway, it's very interesting that that still,   made it to the record in 67.   So   that's how the record started that day.  

[02:58:23] Unknown:

I'd like to read something about this wonderful congress.   This is under the title of enter the dragon side of the book of the 100, and he's referencing dragon to Abraham Lincoln.   Saying here 10 years before Lincoln took office,   Congress passed the limited liability act of 1851,   which in many ways a watershed bill because it marks the point   in the legislative   history of Congress where that body   made a clear determination   to depart from Christian law   and opt to legislate   the humanist   religion.   Before this act, congress passed legislation   that was often questionable   or in part contrary to God's law.  

In this, there is no doubt.   The act directly impact   on Christian churches who had incorporated   that is it provided   limited liability   for any who incorporated   I. E.   It created a veil of protection between the creator of the corporation and the fictitional   corporation itself.   In truth, it allowed   incorporators   to avoid the consequences   of unlawful   or illegal acts   by the corporation.   A Christian pastor, for example, was not liable   for some act done by his church corporation,   which violated the civil law.   The same was true   for the incorporators of regular for profit corporations.  

The law of god, of course, demands that all men be accountable for their actions   that are contrary to his law.  

[03:00:16] Unknown:

Okay. So who else anybody else want this, senate report from 1938?   So I got Sherry, Samuel, Brent, and Dave. I'd love a copy of it.  

[03:00:29] Unknown:

This is nasty. Paul in there.   Paul, he's the record keeper, the ends keeper. I yield.   And Julie Okay.  

[03:00:41] Unknown:

John, lady Linda Louise would love that if if you could, please.   I believe you have my email. If not, I'll text it to you right now. I yield.  

[03:00:53] Unknown:

Do you mind when I do that? Where were you? Oh,   I'm sorry.   Go ahead, John.  

[03:01:00] Unknown:

I'm missing all those names. I was gonna try to write them down and look them up on because I'm using a different computer system, so I don't have everybody's emailing this here this one here.   Okay. So  

[03:01:13] Unknown:

Can we email you to them?  

[03:01:17] Unknown:

Yes. You can.   It's probably easier. Jhjhk   atdsl,   dog Sierra Lima, d s l extreme   dot   com.jhk@d   Sunny?   Yeah.   Samuel. Yeah. Sunny.   [email protected].   That company came about   when they were first announcing DSL lines. Nobody much remembers DSL lines. So  

[03:01:59] Unknown:

I do.  

[03:02:01] Unknown:

That's where the name came from.   K.   And, yeah, if you if you email   email me and just put in senate report 1938, I can just attach it and send it back to you.   But, anyway, I've got the Sherry, Samuel, and Brent, and Dave. Where did it go? So here it goes.  

[03:02:29] Unknown:

Done.  

[03:02:32] Unknown:

Thank you, John.   Sam You're welcome. Can you tell me what you were reading from just then?   What year?  

[03:02:40] Unknown:

Book of the 100. Did every That was the book of the 100 to page 31.  

[03:02:47] Unknown:

Right. But what was he speaking of  

[03:02:49] Unknown:

when everything changed? What year would The the the limited liability act of 1851.  

[03:02:57] Unknown:

Oh, thank you. That's very important. So we think these 5013  

[03:03:01] Unknown:

c's are new. They came in with president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Well,   not really. 1851.  

[03:03:09] Unknown:

Right. But they just they just weren't   administered   at that time. It's just like they put a law forward, but it's not enforced until it's convenient for them, I yield.  

[03:03:25] Unknown:

Samuel, that that was page 131.   Is that right?  

[03:03:29] Unknown:

31.  

[03:03:30] Unknown:

31. Okay. And   and it covered   what again?   The   share you answered it with Sherry's.  

[03:03:42] Unknown:

Oh, it's the limited liability act of 1851.   Thank you. Limited liability act. Thank you. It's the it's the first time that corporations,   can actually,   commit crimes,   and they have the veil of the corporation protecting them as individuals.  

[03:04:03] Unknown:

Yes. The first time they can commit legal   crimes.  

[03:04:08] Unknown:

Yes.  

[03:04:09] Unknown:

Mhmm. By the way, if you wanna open up that PDF,   that I sent on the senate report,   I'll show you the   area I use most of the times when talking to people.   I've got it marked in there.   And and once you got it  

[03:04:27] Unknown:

Sorry.  

[03:04:29] Unknown:

No. Once you've got it, we can we can go over it real quick. It's all highlighted.   But I only really use   one section of it   with people.  

[03:04:44] Unknown:

And Samuel I sent you my email, John.  

[03:04:50] Unknown:

Say again?  

[03:04:51] Unknown:

I I sent you my email. This is Matt. I just sent you my email. Thank you. Let let me get over there  

[03:04:58] Unknown:

and send it to people. Let's see. Where's the email now?  

[03:05:06] Unknown:

Sam, you mentioned the limited liability act of what year   did you say   or not? 1851.   Thank you. And   that was,   you mentioned the dragon. What was the title again of the dragon?  

[03:05:25] Unknown:

Well, it it's just under   the, part of the history of this country   that is titled Enter the Dragon,   and who they're talking about is Abraham Lincoln.  

[03:05:36] Unknown:

Okay. Thank you.  

[03:05:50] Unknown:

Hey, Brent.   You remember we were talking about Myron Fagan?  

[03:06:02] Unknown:

Myron Fagan? Yeah. Yeah.  

[03:06:06] Unknown:

Government America played his,   Illuminati   lecture   yesterday.  

[03:06:15] Unknown:

Yeah. I heard you say something about it.  

[03:06:18] Unknown:

Okay. Yeah. 3 hours. It's pretty powerful.   John, you know who that guy is? Myron Faggins?  

[03:06:26] Unknown:

I've heard the name.  

[03:06:29] Unknown:

He was the playwright   from Broadway and Hollywood back in the   I think he came on the scene in 02 or something like that in Hollywood   or Broadway or something, and then somebody   approached him and said that the communists have,   infiltrated   America   and through through Hollywood and plays   and movies. And,   the melting pot was one of the movies that they were brought you know, promoting communism.   And, they asked them to write a play to, you know, to   counteract   that movement.   And he put out these 3   vinyl record albums   in the  

[03:07:11] Unknown:

I'm not sure. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.  

[03:07:14] Unknown:

Yes. Alum one was about the Illuminati, and I don't remember the other 2.   But he there is a website where he died in 72, Brent.   And,   Yeah.   He was talking about Ronald Reagan back then, but he, he exposed,   exposes   like   dozens and dozens of, of   Hollywood actors,   and, and others   that were commies. You know, they were Jews, but he didn't really say Jews in this Illuminati one. He calls them Jews. But in the other ones I've heard, he just calls them communists.   And, it it's really interesting. And we were talking about it the other day,   and and then, they played it again on Govern America. Every Sunday, they play   documentaries for 24 hours. And that's right. First heard it. And,   it is really interesting.  



[03:08:10] Unknown:

And he talked about the riotous Negroes.  

[03:08:14] Unknown:

Yes.   They use   them as a tool.   You know, the Jews   and the riotous Negroes in protest   and, and start these these, racial wars.   Yeah. It's pretty interesting what he what he came up with and exposed way back then.   Anyway, are you?  

[03:08:58] Unknown:

Okay. What was that guy's name  

[03:09:01] Unknown:

again?   Myron Fagan.  

[03:09:06] Unknown:

Myron Fagan. I was I was looking for Fagen. F a g e n, I think is what it is.  

[03:09:26] Unknown:

Iron Coravel Fagan,   Illuminati Volume 3,   DLC Capital.  

[03:09:38] Unknown:

This thing called the cinema   education   something,   and it was in Hollywood. He had a PO box, and you could send in 50¢,   and he would send you, like, a newsletter,   you know, updated newsletter about what he was,   promoting and how to fight   these communists taking over America.   I don't remember this whole name, but it was the cinema education   something.   And, I was wondering if that was still around.  

[03:10:15] Unknown:

Probably not.  

[03:10:20] Unknown:

Oh,   the, 3 vinyl records set,   Illuminati CFR by Byron Fagan   is,   used in great condition on Amazon for $795   with free delivery.  

[03:10:39] Unknown:

Ching ching. Used to be a it used to be online in YouTube.  

[03:10:48] Unknown:

Videos.   Byron Fagan.   Volumes 123   on Rumble.   The link address.   Let's see if   it's 598.2   megabytes.   Myron Fagan, Illuminati CFR volumes 123. How the Illuminati was created.   It is on Rumble   and,   it's,   40480pmp4at25framespersecond.  

[03:11:31] Unknown:

Yeah. It's an old, old, video.  

[03:11:36] Unknown:

Okay. I'm downloading it. Actually Let's see if it actually   it's it's just   it's just,   an audio Audio?   Well, there's also   one on YouTube as well.  

[03:12:02] Unknown:

Okay. Senate report's called the red rainbow.   Sorry, John. Go ahead.  

[03:12:10] Unknown:

Yeah. Anybody else want a copy of the Senate report? So, Julie, it's on its way. Matt, it's on its way.  

[03:12:27] Unknown:

Thanks, John.  

[03:12:29] Unknown:

Yeah. But if you guys open it up, I can just go through the way you're quick how I use   it. All you needed?  

[03:12:38] Unknown:

Yeah, please.  

[03:12:40] Unknown:

K.  

[03:12:44] Unknown:

Okay.   I am I am currently downloading,   the,   Myron Fagan,   3 volume set. I'm getting it from Rumble and from YouTube,   and we'll pick we'll pick the best quality copy and go from there.  

[03:13:17] Unknown:

Well, you know, I'm not quite sure. Current  

[03:13:21] Unknown:

Go ahead, Samuel.  

[03:13:24] Unknown:

Something I heard today in current news that blew me away   was   some   small Chinese computer   gurus   created an   AI system that is open source and is performing by 3rd party   evaluation   as good or better than Silicon Valley's best   systems, and it was produced   for $6,000,000.  

[03:13:59] Unknown:

Samuel,   I just read an article that somebody   has done it for a raspberry.   Open source.   You can have your own personal AI with you at all time  

[03:14:14] Unknown:

if you could program the raspberry.  

[03:14:18] Unknown:

Well, this Chinese system is open source, they say, and for $6,000,000   it's outperforming or it's equal to what they've spent 1,000,000,000 on   in Silicon Valley. This is,   this is what's happening to us   all over technology.   We are being left behind.   If if we didn't do something soon to start to catch up, we're never gonna catch up.  

[03:14:45] Unknown:

Deep sync.  

[03:14:50] Unknown:

Okay, Paul. It's gone. You should have it.  

[03:14:54] Unknown:

As, Deborah Tavares,   has would allude to, we have it's already too late. We have already been taken over by AI  

[03:15:06] Unknown:

ideals.   If you wanna open up the file take  

[03:15:10] Unknown:

oh, go ahead, John.  

[03:15:12] Unknown:

If you wanna open up the file, just go down where I mostly use it with people, and then you can look at the rest of it that's marked up.   It says some pretty important  

[03:15:23] Unknown:

yellow highlighted in the red outline. Give me just a second because I just wanna address what Samuel said.   And I think they're playing stupid   that our government has way more than what China will ever have is just not given out to the public for   our use a yield. And thank you, John.  

[03:15:45] Unknown:

Well, yeah, our   government throttles a lot of technology   because they say it's for national security and crap like that. That's true.  

[03:15:56] Unknown:

Yeah. It's really irritating, isn't it?   Okay. So I I what I use normally is I just show them that it's the congressional record senate,   page   438.   It shows January 13th on one page and then, of course, the 1938 on the on the prior page. But there's a red box there,   and there's 3 arrows on that red box.   And   what we're talking about here is the the bottom one, the third one.   It says,   in no case under these amendments so far can the present controversy   as the present controversy is concerned, can the power of Congress be made to reach   either for punishment   or correction   or redress in any way,   civil or criminal, the acts of private individuals.  

I usually stop them from reading at that point.   I hand this out at every class and let them have the rest of it they can read through.   Point is,   if you're not a US citizen, you're a private individual, which is what a national is,   they have no power over you.  

[03:17:19] Unknown:

Right.   Thank you, John. That's so important.   Don't know why I haven't heard of this before.   Anyway, thank you. That is powerful. John. It's great.  

[03:17:33] Unknown:

Hey, Sean. Hey, Sean.  

[03:17:35] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[03:17:37] Unknown:

Would you mind, just reading that again? Sorry. I was taking notes, and, I I don't like Yeah. Yeah. It's fine. Like, so I'm talking. No worries. Let me blow it up a little bit better so my glasses will work better.  

[03:17:49] Unknown:

Okay.   It's the red box   on page   438,   and it's this bottom arrow in that box.   In no case, under these amendments,   so far as the present controversy is concerned,   can the power of Congress be made to reach   either for punishment   or correction   or redress in any way,   civil or criminal,   the acts of private individuals.   And it makes a little comment down there to continue.   It just says that   on this last point, the controversy was long between a sectional majority in Congress and the constitution. But in the end, the constitution triumphed fully completely.   It'd be interesting   to trace the progress of the decisions of the court from the first to the last case   in evolving as   the facts of each case warranted the true meaning of these amendments. To do this would detain us too long, but it is well clear to quote some of the expressions of the judgments in these cases showing truths of the fundamental character.  

So   the other stuff is highlighted, but   people need to   have proof   that what we talk about is real,   and that's why I use this particular item  

[03:19:29] Unknown:

to get their attention. And the point yes. And, John, I would say this. Though it speaks to the present controversy,   the principle remains the same. There is a distinction between public and private.   There are 2   statuses.   And,   in that controversy   and all others, I would say.   It's not just,   regarding  

[03:19:57] Unknown:

that one I'm just reading their what what's actually written there. I'm not modifying it in any way.  

[03:20:03] Unknown:

Oh, correct. And I read along with you, but what I'm saying is the principle   between public and private,   is throughout   the constitution   and the history of America.   It hasn't changed.   It does not just apply to that controversy   is what I'm saying.  

[03:20:23] Unknown:

Right.   Okay. But usually, they're stunned when they just see that, and I make them read it   out loud.   Anyway, that's   starts to get some of their attention.   And then, of course, that list of court cases   that I published before,   that actually came from   Copper Moonshine Stills, but actually it was a guy here in Orange County that did all that research initially pulling up all those cases   that he was using.   Incidentally, he's redone his website. I don't know.   For a while, he didn't have any information over there, but he's completely redone his website. He's   actually improved it. But he's still doing the same thing, telling people, you know, say that your parents were not US citizens,   things like that.  

But nobody can rebut anything that's written here because it's locked in the record.  

[03:21:26] Unknown:

And you're reading from did you say January or June 13th?   January. Right?  

[03:21:32] Unknown:

No.   Page 4th It's 38?   January 13th.  

[03:21:38] Unknown:

Yes. And of what year?  

[03:21:42] Unknown:

1938.   Look at the other page. It's got the rest of the address.   See where it says on page 437? It says 1938 in the upper left hand corner.  

[03:21:56] Unknown:

Do you have the rest of the document or just that?  

[03:21:59] Unknown:

No. That's all I use is that page, front and back.  

[03:22:03] Unknown:

Just the 2 pages?  

[03:22:07] Unknown:

Yeah. And then on the backs the top one there that's in the list, and then dig on the far right, it's rights of citizens of the United States enumerated.  

[03:22:20] Unknown:

Mhmm.  

[03:22:23] Unknown:

You know, no none nobody we're talking to is gonna go read all these cases or even has an interest in this stuff. I'm just using it as a way to shock them   into situations that they   they just don't   know. This is especially good for professionals,   accountants,   insurance agents,   other people that think they know what they're doing.   And then I always push everybody over here rather than me try to educate them on all this stuff. I like to do my little class with them and go through all these papers. There's documents.   I've passed these things out before,   but, I've got an abbreviated   form of them now, just a couple pages that I use out of the ones that I've passed out to everybody,   just to get them to pay attention, to start looking at it.  

But this one page is very effective.  

[03:23:24] Unknown:

Hi, John. What's the name of that document?  

[03:23:27] Unknown:

Congressional record.   Do you did you get it? Record on June 38.  

[03:23:36] Unknown:

Is is that posted in the chat? No. But I'll put it there, Joan.   Hey, John. I think who else we should put on notice in this regard are judges and prosecutors.   I yield.  

[03:23:47] Unknown:

No. I'm I'm, you know, I I I'm learning. You know? I filed my affidavits and everything, and the first one I did was in in that 2013.   But I did it to the Internal Revenue Service and ended up with the filing penalty stuff.   And we didn't know what to do at that point. So   I have since refiled   with the secretary of state a little while ago.   Now I have to go start all my notices, and that's what I'm doing is looking for a list of people we need to send a notice to.   Because I got one of those letters that you can't I can't get a passport because I owe them taxes.  

[03:24:29] Unknown:

Oh, hey, John.   That language that Samuel is the fourth regarding his,   a loyal trust a   loyal? A loyal? I don't know. Whichever word. It's a a loyal.  

[03:24:46] Unknown:

A   loydial.  

[03:24:48] Unknown:

Like a loydial.  

[03:24:49] Unknown:

It's also called A loydium.  

[03:24:52] Unknown:

Okay. Well, okay. Let's not get off from the weeds in that. But,   this document   does not suffer   what's the language, Sam Samuel, please?  

[03:25:04] Unknown:

You know what? What I Disability   and What what I think it is and what I said the other day is not an exact quote. I'd have to look it up because I've got it in my head wrong. But, basically,   that   that   your your documents will not suffer disability and equity.  

[03:25:23] Unknown:

And that, to me, is highly important   dealing with any agency   I yield.  

[03:25:31] Unknown:

John, my I I I like what you did there with the congressional record, but, I think there's another way that we could approach it as Christians.   We we can basically say that,   the status set as of of citizenship is abhorrent   to my   my religious beliefs and the national status is the only one   that I can accept   kind of an approach.   And then you can pretty much, you know, cite chapter and verse.  

[03:26:02] Unknown:

Yeah.   Well, again, I'm all I'm doing is using this for shock effect because this is the first time they've seen a government document that says   that there's something else.   You know what I mean?   And it's not me saying it. It's it's the government documents themselves saying it.  

[03:26:22] Unknown:

That's why I like it.  

[03:26:24] Unknown:

Are you familiar with with Gary up in Montana's   2, 3 pages of sites about the national status?  

[03:26:36] Unknown:

Probably not. He doesn't share my he got all my stuff, but he doesn't share it with me. He doesn't send that stuff to me.  

[03:26:42] Unknown:

Yeah. He's been a little quiet lately. Hope hopefully, he's okay because he was suffering with heart problems and  

[03:26:49] Unknown:

I got heart problems too.  

[03:26:56] Unknown:

They bought a restaurant. You got He's a he's a short order cook now.  

[03:27:02] Unknown:

Yeah. Maybe he's just busy. Breakfast restaurant.  

[03:27:06] Unknown:

Anybody that,   anybody that has the,   the chat and free conference call,   the senate report that,   John is referring to, the link is there.   It's up in docs.exposedomatrix.com.  

[03:27:24] Unknown:

Thank you, Paul.  

[03:27:26] Unknown:

You're welcome.  

[03:27:33] Unknown:

I'm trying to find   people that deal with the Internal Revenue Service like,   enrolled agents and others, also that were kind of in my profession,   the financial side,   trying to get these people to sit down and take a look at this kind of stuff, see if I can get some of those guys working with us.   And, you you know, they they they kind of   like to see anything from the government that kind   of bolsters our cases and stuff.   This is one of the reasons why I have been so adamant about trying to get a hold of   Winraad's   research work. He was supposed to put it on a hard drive to me, but he, unfortunately,   he put some stuff on there, but not   not everything.  

And I think Michael Nail was also excited about it too because   the research he's done is tremendous, and   it's for not. You know? Nobody really has it anymore.   This is the kind of stuff he did all the time.   There's a lot of good information in here. I'm sure there's other things in there we can use,   but all I do is use it for shock effect just to get them to I make them read that one sentence, and then I stop right there and just say, have you ever heard anything like this before?   Things like that. Just to get them talking.   But, no, I'd like to see that list that Gary has.  

I actually got another document from KL. Do you guys know who KL is?   He was on the SGT report.   And, I tried to email him to get his   paperwork,   and   he he wouldn't send it to me. He wouldn't respond to me.   Some somebody else sent me his paperwork and he was using a lot of Aladask's work,   but he had a whole list of cases as well.   And,   he did finally respond to me   months months later   and hit me up with Roger.   He just, right out of the box, just said,   you know, Rogers doesn't have it all the way. You're still a national. You know, you're not outside that status. And I can see where these guys are coming from now.   By even accepting the term national,   it's placing us in kind of a box that they might be able to control in some way at some point.  

So I'm trying to research that and see what's going on. There's another group out there called Inalenable   University. Has anybody heard of them?  

[03:30:20] Unknown:

Yeah. Yes. And I've spoken to the lady,   John.   She and I have had some text messages going back and forth, and, she was quite rude to me.   I ordered her   She she's she was so rude, and she she I mean, I guess since I was trying trying to tell her about Roger, she was the one who emailed me back and said that she follows   David Strait,   Bobby Lawrence, and Annavonne Wright, and that's how they did theirs. Annette Rogers   still keeps us in stat we're still in the statutory system.   Under Rogers, she says she deals with it with birth certificates and stuff like that.  

[03:31:02] Unknown:

Yeah. Well, she's got that that guy who is, went to law school but is not a practicing attorney that's there.   She charges, what, $65 for her book?  

[03:31:13] Unknown:

Yeah. I already bought it.  

[03:31:15] Unknown:

Yeah. Did you what do you think of it?  

[03:31:18] Unknown:

I haven't read it yet. I it's supposed to be here,   today or tomorrow, but if anybody's interested, you can get it on her website   or inalienable.university   or I think you can just go to her regular   website, Gianni. Isn't that correct? I think, yes, Gianni,   g I   a n n I.  

[03:31:41] Unknown:

Yeah. Ginnamiceli.com.  

[03:31:47] Unknown:

Gianni Micelli. But,   she just wrote back to me and said she said, you are wrongfully assuming I'm offended. I'm communicating. This is not a good fit for me, and I didn't even say anything   wrong. She was the one who,   accused me. She she was the one who asked me, am I on some Telegram   or am I in some group with Roger? And I said, yeah, you can view all of his content, radio, podcasts, and everything at the matrix docs.com.   And I said he also has a Telegram   room group called PPN Radio Ranch. And she wrote me back snoodily and said, Why would I?   And she said, We are the top of the mountain.  

So then I wrote her back and said, Look, I I'm didn't mean to offend you in any way, shape, or form if I did. I was just answering your question.   And I said, I said, I hope you have a nice day. And she just berated me after that telling me that I'm wrongfully assuming that she's offended.   And I said, If I did, I didn't accuse her of being offended. I said I apologize if I offended you. It's all words and semantics, but,   she's very snooty. So I mean, I haven't joined. Have you joined anything on her group with that lawyer who does the common law trust and stuff?  

[03:33:05] Unknown:

No. I have not. I've just been, look   first off, her attitude   and their their   holier than thou attitude   and aggressive nature like she's dealing with you really kinda turns me off. She She wants a $100 a month to join the group and $65   for the book. So is it a PDF that she's sending you?  

[03:33:28] Unknown:

Pardon me?  

[03:33:29] Unknown:

Is it a PDF that she's sending you?  

[03:33:33] Unknown:

No. She sent I'm getting that book. Anybody who wants it, you it's called free, f r e e dash dum, d u m b.   And then she wrote me also and said your affidavit to the   Secretary of State has no prohibitive   value. How do you think it added to your life or your freedom? We all followed   David,   straight, Bobby Lawrence, or Anna and did those affidavits.   I was fortunate to hear the lies, see the criminal   activity, and God put Scott in my life to see the truth. You don't tell the government, Hey, I'm sovereign.   Our approach is to remove the mechanisms they created that put you in their jurisdiction   So that birth certificates, driver's licenses,   home and property recorded with the county, paying the IRS   and paying property taxes, etcetera,   our curriculum comes to a conclusion.  

Why haven't all received their IRS returns? A nonresident alien is a statutory term. So, if you're still claiming that, you're still in their clutches.   We teach you how to exercise your rights using common law as any further questions you'd like   answered requires you to become a member.  

[03:34:49] Unknown:

Well, I'm not opposed to doing it, but I've already looked at Anna's stuff and rejected that, David Strait's stuff, and rejected that. And David Strait has caused a lot of people a lot of harm,   but she does have this I had to unlearn  

[03:35:02] Unknown:

I had to unlearn all of his stuff. I mean, I had I had already looked I have Anna Von Reiss' book. I read that. I I looked at I I have all of David's great materials,   and I had to unlearn them with Roger.  

[03:35:16] Unknown:

Yeah.   Well, his his his, 33 page,   what does he call it,   a repudiation document or something like that. I can't remember exactly what his term is,   but, it's crazy.   Yeah. Well, that's just one of them, Brent. Is he files a lot more crap than just that piece.  

[03:35:38] Unknown:

Wow.  

[03:35:42] Unknown:

And he's he's refused to help people, you know? I mean, he's gotten them in trouble and and,   he just goes the other way.   And there's a Is he not a child yet? Yeah. I don't I   I'm not doing it. I'm not following him anymore. I'm tired of it.  

[03:35:59] Unknown:

Well, Julie Julie asked that Julie asked that question. Is is his wife still in jail?  

[03:36:05] Unknown:

I was just gonna say that. Is is Bonnie still in jail?  

[03:36:10] Unknown:

I think she is. I'm pretty sure she is, and he passed away.  

[03:36:15] Unknown:

Oh, David Strait's dead now.  

[03:36:17] Unknown:

That's what I think. I think I read some sort of some I I I don't know if it's fake news or not, but it was on some Telegram channels, and I I emailed it to Roger.  

[03:36:27] Unknown:

Let me tell you, David Strait was another guy by the same name, was a friend of Roger's, and he's dead.  

[03:36:35] Unknown:

He died. No. This is the David Strait on Telegram is what I saw.  

[03:36:41] Unknown:

Well, he made his international  

[03:36:43] Unknown:

status.   Okay. I could be wrong.  

[03:36:47] Unknown:

Somebody Well, I'm on the email list for a AMA, the people that promote him all the time, and I'm   not I haven't seen anything lately,   but it was fairly recent.  

[03:36:59] Unknown:

But I didn't nobody's It was it was it was,   it was recent.   I sent this on Sunday. It says,   and Procter says he doesn't need to read how   a big piece of crap this guy is.   So,   it says something like David Strait Blackwater Assassin Clinton Foundation   Instant Rape Videos and it's his picture. It's David Strait who's of,   who's on,   who teaches the national status.  

[03:37:34] Unknown:

Really? Where's that at? It says Where did you get  

[03:37:37] Unknown:

What what day did he die?  

[03:37:41] Unknown:

Oh, wait, you guys. I have to take this back.   I take that back. I made a mistake. It's about him being a,   Blackwater assassin, a Clinton Foundation,   pedophile.   It's by the Pentagon Pedophile Tax Task Force.   Do you want me to send this in the chat now?  

[03:38:06] Unknown:

Andy's a US marshal and a ninja.  

[03:38:12] Unknown:

Yeah.   I did hear a few weeks ago that David Strait has cancer.  

[03:38:18] Unknown:

And a Texas Ranger.  

[03:38:21] Unknown:

Does he have a middle name?  

[03:38:24] Unknown:

Lester.  

[03:38:27] Unknown:

Yeah. That's right. David Lester Strait.  

[03:38:32] Unknown:

He on this website, it says, evidence shows,   David Strait is a child sex trafficker and career assassin who works directly for US presidents. He is a high level player   in J-six. Evidence   showed he conspired with General Michael Flynn,   Attorney Linwood, Patrick Byrne, Navy SEALs, and others to overthrow President Trump and thereby protect their worldwide human harvesting operation.   I mean, again, this is just all speculation and propaganda. We don't know if it's true or not.  

[03:39:01] Unknown:

Julie, who wrote that?  

[03:39:04] Unknown:

This is on Timothy   Charles Holmeseth   website.   I can copy and paste it in the chat room, but then I need to get on free conference call because I'm just on a landline right now.   Yeah. And I'm still over here on Zoom. Or I can send it to you. I can send it   to you, Sherry.  

[03:39:26] Unknown:

Okay. Then I'll post it on the conference.  

[03:39:29] Unknown:

I'll send it to you.  

[03:39:31] Unknown:

I have to get on a conference call more often.   Are you guys familiar with Brandon Joe Williams?  

[03:39:43] Unknown:

I'm not. No.  

[03:39:46] Unknown:

I'm familiar with him.  

[03:39:48] Unknown:

Have you looked into any of his material?  

[03:39:52] Unknown:

Yeah. I've I've seen some interviews. I haven't I've I've just listened to some of his interviews. He's done interviews with Joe out of,   Missouri, the guitar instructor. He's he's done interviews with him.  

[03:40:05] Unknown:

Oh, okay.  

[03:40:07] Unknown:

I don't know. Okay.  

[03:40:09] Unknown:

And he I it seems to me like a lot of his stuff,   comes out of,   either, AVR or David Strait or something like that. They're that's where he got his feet wet.   And he's doing a lot of stuff with starts on. Well, he's doing doing a lot of stuff with,   accessing trust and all this happy shit. So Yeah. I think he knows enough to get people into trouble.  

[03:40:38] Unknown:

Same with,   that GN and the Shikley.   They're also trying to access this.   It is accessible. There is a way to do that,   but   I don't know why you'd wanna go further than what we're doing. I'm   I knew of an accountant who was it was dealing with another fellow that I followed for quite a long time,   and he was able to do it. Every year, he would send in a for a refund of all of his expenses and stuff like that.   It is a real thing, but   boy, it's certainly fraught with a lot of danger.  

[03:41:18] Unknown:

You really got to know  

[03:41:20] Unknown:

what you're doing to do it, and I don't think it's worth it. I think just getting out of the system and getting, you know, as much as you can   to back away. And my problem is   traffic ticket stuff.   I seem to have attracted a bunch of   them.  

[03:41:38] Unknown:

Hey. Hey, John. I know who you're talking about. He has that website called onestupidfuck.com.  

[03:41:43] Unknown:

Right? Yeah. That's it. Yeah. Mhmm.  

[03:41:46] Unknown:

Yeah. I'm familiar with him.   He has a lot   of nasty people telling him   saying things about him, and he has left responses back. Exit the matrix or enter it. He says, fuck. I don't care. Fuck off.  

[03:42:03] Unknown:

Guys, we're still streaming. Okay?  

[03:42:05] Unknown:

Oh, sorry.   Yeah.  

[03:42:09] Unknown:

Well, you're good. You were talking about important stuff, so I opted to leave the stream up. I haven't done the sign off or anything like that. So Yeah.  

[03:42:18] Unknown:

Let's let's just   let's just   remain conscious of of language   no matter what time of the day it is. Because just because it's broadcast or not being broadcast doesn't mean that there isn't somebody in here that wouldn't be offended by that. And it's not that bad. That's  

[03:42:33] Unknown:

that guy's   website. That's the whole name. That's what he's doing. He's got to advertise   it.  

[03:42:40] Unknown:

Yeah. I know. But,   personally, I Yeah. I know. I don't know. I have I have my own impression of the guy.   More power to him. I think he's out in California. He can stay out there. I don't care.  

[03:42:55] Unknown:

That's what he said.  

[03:42:59] Unknown:

And that that kinda knocked him off my train of thought. There's another fellow that I run into. It's oh, Fagiola. Anybody know about Fagiola?  

[03:43:07] Unknown:

Yeah.   Alfonzo.  

[03:43:09] Unknown:

Alfonzo   Fagioli?   Yeah.   I saw one of his, affidavits that he had his student carry with him. They didn't mail it in. They didn't send it anywhere. They just wrote this thing up and laminated it and carry it with them.   I don't think that's productive.  

[03:43:28] Unknown:

Yeah. He does a lot of stuff with property taxes,   and driving.  

[03:43:33] Unknown:

There is a guy down on his I did  

[03:43:37] Unknown:

that. I did that, because you get it notarized. You have to bring a couple witnesses, then it becomes a valid ID.   So and it's not a license or anything. So it's a way to get a valid ID because it is notarized, and you have your picture there, and you have the witnesses that are accepted by the notary that have known you for 5 years or whatever. So so I think it's a clever way of getting a valid ID,   that will be recognized because it's notarized. So  

[03:44:04] Unknown:

Yeah. There is a way there is a way to do a valid ID and has to have certain requirements on in order to be considered valid.   The one I initially saw was primarily just an affidavit   that they were supposed to present to authorities   at the moment that they're being hassled.   It's just so much easier to get your stuff already documented by the Secretary of State and do notices in advance. I don't know why you want to carry   a   I don't know why you wanna carry a bunch of stuff and argue with them on the side of the road or, you know, at the local time because there's just so many cops that just kinda run over you.   Anyway  

[03:44:45] Unknown:

Yeah. His philosophy,   I believe, was   you get   basically,   you you know, I look at it like armoring up or whatever would you know, we do our paperwork to put them on notice ahead of time to prove Yeah. That before an incident happens that we were this status, and he doesn't buy into that. He thinks he can do it the last second, right, before he goes to court or whatever. I think our way is better, obviously.  

[03:45:10] Unknown:

It's when I was when I was doing, asset protection and studying that quite a bit, using foreign trust and things like that,   we always had the the item and statement that we said old and cold.   In other words, you get the paper, and there's no controversy. You get this all this paperwork done in advance.   You let it sit there.   Nobody's rebutting it. Nobody's saying anything.   It's kind of like what Terry Lee did.   He went through and did a lot of stuff, and by the way, I've got his books. I also have the 14th amendment book,   the deluxe,   and I'm anxious to copy.  

You can't buy this thing anymore,   and   it's called the red amendment.   And that that goes into great detail on the 14th amendment,   14th and 13th amendment.   And   it was quite popular for a while. Then Terry Lee also recommends that you buy another book that   the guy is still selling online called   Straw Man,   and that's the material he used to kind of put together his is the way he does it.   And I think Terry Terry Lee is probably the most successful person that I've met.   He's doing his businesses and he's doing everything else. And then we also had Constitution man who is now dead.   He was around quite a while,   and he was regularly in court with helping people.  

Because he's not an attorney, but he's called a next friend.   You're you're in the court there, but you're allowed to have anybody you want with you to   discuss the case and what you're doing and to get advice from people.   You can actually hire attorneys to do that without them representing you.  

[03:47:00] Unknown:

But then you're gonna pay a lot of money. The very least biggest deals is the Christian name.  

[03:47:06] Unknown:

Yes. Yes. And I'm really interested more in, you know, how he did that, and and,   I need to do that myself.   Another way I've seen it done too for people, they've just gone out and gotten a d a d b a   on the all caps name or any name?  

[03:47:24] Unknown:

So I've done I've done both the d b a as well as the adult name change. So I did the adult name change in court,   and so it's in its proper form. And I will use that to challenge any, you know, anytime they wanna   because anytime we're dealing with the government, it's corporations. Obviously, you're gonna be dealing with they're gonna be dealing with you as an entity. And so so that's what I use, but I also have a I'd like to do that myself. How do you do it?   So it's a a probate court. It,   the superior court, it's probate, and, that's where it's done.   And I can   I can send you what how I filled it out? I maybe I should do that. I can send you mind scan it and send it to you. I've got your email now.  

And, yeah, you just go in there, and   you end up talking with the judge and just tell them, hey. It doesn't reflect your Christian name or whatever. It's come up with some excuse. They didn't even with mine, I didn't even talk to I've had a few of my friends who've done it also, and they've all they all ended up talking to the judge over over the phone. This was during COVID, I think,   when there weren't in person   meetings.   So but, anyway, yeah, you say, hey. This does not reflect my Christian name or whatever, and give little reason.   And and yeah. Then they'll you'll get it. And then what you do is get an exemplified   copy, which is, you know, has,   I think,   3 stamps from the judge and the clerk, 2 judges and a clerk or something that it's it's the highest whatever   form, I guess, or, you know,   and then use that anytime   they wanna try and get you as that entity.  



[03:49:05] Unknown:

When did you learn that? I haven't I personally would stay out of their courts.   I'm considering the way I'm gonna do it is when I send my notices out,   they either have to respond or if they're silent, they're in agreement with me. So I'm gonna basically tell the attorney general that I'm a Christian.   I will only   accept being   asked   any question   or to answer to anything.   You must use my Christian name   etcetera etcetera   and leave it there instead of enter their courts of law.  

[03:49:44] Unknown:

I I I I think,  

[03:49:46] Unknown:

you know, I don't I don't think you have to do the name change like I did. So I I agree with you there, Samuel, but I also think it's it's an extra piece of insurance that helps because all these other agencies of the government, they're all gonna be dealing with you in that name, and it just gives you that extra separation   when you hold them to it.  

[03:50:05] Unknown:

Yeah. I like to get my notice in the bill. Probably go to attorney general, Mike Sheriff, the local prosecutor. So   the important people will be noticed and I'm basically gonna tell them,   you know, you'll be refused for cause if you don't use the proper name   because it's my Christian it's my Christian position   that if you're using it, I'm dead and I am not and I'm gonna cite chapter and verse that shows that I'm a living soul   and make sure that they're held accountable   for you know   recognizing it.  

[03:50:39] Unknown:

You have something written, Samuel?  

[03:50:43] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[03:50:46] Unknown:

I'm not sure that reason you guys know that I gotta do your because they're all gonna be in the in the all caps name. So that's the other reason that everything, all the bonds and securities will be in that   all capital letter entity name.  

[03:51:00] Unknown:

Yeah.   Rod Class was the guy that had a court case   over a traffic ticket, and he took it quite a ways all the way up   to Washington DC,   and   he talked about the name business.   He   he told a judge told him, he says if you can show me on the books where an all caps name is a corporation,   you know, then I'll honor it. He did find it.   They found a a book   in the library of, in Dallas, one of the universities down in Texas,   that actually   had that information in it. And this was back in the eighties,   and   I I remember him talking about it, but he got all the way up. He   he won his cases. Okay.  

But they turned he told pulled him aside,   told him, look. You're right, but we're not gonna let you win.   If you don't take   a plea,   then I you're gonna go to prison.   And so,   he   had taken a plea.   He had house arrest and an ankle bracelet, and then he's been fighting it from that point   on from that point. He just did it to stay out of prison because they were just gonna put him in prison.   And the criminality that we're seeing when you win like this   is a problem. But the notices and everything we're doing is important for everyday stuff. And I got another traffic ticket I gotta fight, and so I'm trying to do what I can to shackle you know, put things together quick.   I've got a lot of things I wanna do with it. But anyway  

[03:52:39] Unknown:

John?  

[03:52:40] Unknown:

I've been remiss in not filing all my paperwork, so I'm playing catch up here.  

[03:52:45] Unknown:

Hey, John. Me too. Yeah.   John, did you ever check out A Warrior Calls?   Did you ever   check out, the, A Warrior Calls, the paperwork that, Christopher James has on his website for fighting them in paper on paper?  

[03:53:01] Unknown:

No. I don't know about that.  

[03:53:04] Unknown:

Oh, go to this website, a warriorcalls.com,   w a   r r I o r,   calls, like a telephone call,   c a l l s dot com.   And that's a guy out of Canada   and he he has, paperwork on his website   that you can modify for your own situation,   but basically,   he,   hold on here.   So he'll he has he writes them he writes the court   and he says whenever you go to court, you're making a special   appearance. So he hits them on paper. He he asks who is moving this court   because you have the right to face your accuser and the courts don't like it   and he claims the wrong of trespass   and then he also says that he's   ready to accept any and all verified claims of trespass, which means fraud, theft, wrongful harm, physical   harm, breach of contract,   but he says that   you know he has the right to accept his his accuser.  

So   he says that he tells them that there's a fraudulent need that was set up for the birth certificate and the SEFC week KV Trust and   he basically asks them 3 questions unless you can claim that I am property   or that I have a contract with them on the private side as a man   that I am their property or I have a contract with the service corporation that you're acting through that I am property, then there is no court.   And he   and so this is what he's   and he also asks them who wrote this document and where's the verified claim that I trespass causing harm or wrong.   And so and then when he writes this cover letter, he always tells that I'm trying to settle this on the private side. Is there a verified claim that I require   to be produced as evidence to establish a court first and foremost or if there is no contract that a man or woman claimed   to be   true due or past due, then that only leaves that   somebody involved in this belief I am property and he hits them with the 3 questions that you know, I just you know, unless they can claim that he's property or that he has a contract with them. Does that make sense? Okay.  



[03:55:32] Unknown:

Yeah. I can understand what he's saying.  

[03:55:35] Unknown:

My belief is once you enter their jurisdiction,   you are feudal property   and you can make all the claims you want and they're just gonna sit there and listen to you and twiddle their thumbs   until they hammer you. So if you wanna make those you wanna make those arguments,   you best do it outside that court in an abatement process.   Well, that's good. And then you could challenge their process.  

[03:56:00] Unknown:

He writes them letters, so he's actually not in court. He's writing them letters before and he's I think he says he has a success rate of around 65%.  

[03:56:11] Unknown:

Okay. Outside is good, but an abatement   according to the book of the 100, I think   maybe where we wanna go,   just bringing it up.  

[03:56:23] Unknown:

Tammy, how long does it take to learn how to do that?  

[03:56:27] Unknown:

Their jurisdiction is absolute.   If you enter that court, Stanford says, any judge who's worth his salt is gonna get jurisdiction.   And once they've got that, you're nothing more than a fuel slave again.  

[03:56:40] Unknown:

Yeah. There this is Paul from Kentucky.   I was on the call earlier today, and I was trying to call back to see if somebody could remember the attorney that Roger recommended.   I got busy and totally   escaped my mind. But,   I   personally have had a civil case   where,   the courts told me if I didn't accept   their offer, they were gonna incarcerate me or throw me in jail.   Truth of the matter is they really didn't have the jurisdiction to do that.   But as another gentleman just said on this call that they'll do whatever they wanna do. And so   I did sign the agreement, but,   through these calls,   I did sign it by threat, duress, and coercion.  

And so   they thought they won the battle,   or they thought they won the war. They had only won the battle.   But, yes,   I got into their system,   and they are doing exactly what one of these gentlemen have said.   They're pretty much doing whatever they wanna do.   One of the things I mentioned on the call,   I've got a case in May going to trial, a civil case, where I'm the defendant,   and the plaintiff has failed to state a claim   of which relief can be granted.   And the plaintiff's attorney   has failed to produce discovery.   And the judge says, well, they haven't stated a good claim or or a claim of which it can be granted, but they stated a claim.  

And I'm like, oh, you gotta be kidding me.   So I'm I'm working on that, and I I believe the attorney's name that, Roger recommended me to was Brent Williams or something of that nature. But   Brent Winters. Say that Brent Winters. Winters.   And and what was the, what was the do you remember the the web address?  

[03:58:47] Unknown:

Commonlawyer.com.   Commonlawyer.commonlawyer.com.  

[03:58:54] Unknown:

Okay. I appreciate that so much. And he mentioned Roger mentioned you all would be on here afterwards.   And I thought, well, out of the blue, I'll give it a call. This is a great conversation, guys. You I don't mean to monopolize your No. No. And I'd like to continue, but I may have to absolutely go right now. I've gotta go.  

[03:59:13] Unknown:

Thanks, guys, for all the help. Yeah. Send me whatever you can send me if you've got my email. I I accept everything. Don't ever hesitate.  

[03:59:22] Unknown:

John, don't go ahead. The best chance we have is sticking with Jesus Christ as our advocate and remaining   true to our Christian heritage, which,   would mean that they've got to use a Christian name if they want to, to Right. That's why I wanted to do the affidavit like Terry Lee did.  

[03:59:41] Unknown:

Yeah. Let's let's get you a copy of that too.  

[03:59:45] Unknown:

Yeah. And then, John, I got a quick question for you. Go  

[03:59:51] Unknown:

Yeah. Quick. Quick.  

[03:59:53] Unknown:

Okay. You and Samuel, this is to both of you. I heard something on here, and I've only heard it once. Is this true? Can you substantiate this in all courts or any court?   Before you go to arraignment or you enter the courtroom,   I heard on here   that the county somehow or whatever   does a search of the public records under your name.   I guess this is to add different charges or   whatever. Is that true, or do they just, put you in the back? I don't I don't really know.  

[04:00:26] Unknown:

I don't really know, but I know a guy that was   doing cases, and he kept   changing his buying the name, you know, DBA.   And every time he did that, his paperwork finished.   Unfortunately, I really got it good.  

[04:00:41] Unknown:

Thank you. Thank you, sir.  

[04:00:43] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[04:00:53] Unknown:

My land plant and also and this all happened by mistake.   It was done for other reasons, but   the title of it is covenant and conditions of land patent allodial title at common law.   Well,   about a year ago,   I did this paperwork and I've been learning since. So   the covenant   was to get it past the county recorder. But now I'm loving it because part of my covenant is going to be taking my inheritance through Jesus Christ, which is going to work perfectly   in my attempt to do this,   the way I see it now.   And then I said and conditions of of land patent   dash allodial title.  

I've learned allodial title doesn't exist.   It's an allodium or allodial right. So I had that wrong.   And then at common law, I put down. Well,   I'm still   worried about that being correct now because Prost says   as Nationals   we're not at common   law, we are in common law.   So that probably has. So I've got 3 major changes   just to make to my title of   my one page document here and then   there was that question about disabilities and equity, so I'll go down and I'll read that part.   The afford described parcel of land being held in absolute elodial title, which should be elodium or elodial right,   atlaw, which probably should be in law, cannot be subject to disability and equity   and is impervious to collateral attachment by city, county, state and federal government. And then it cites   the case NEF versus the U. S.  

And all the different numbers on that.   And then it says the conveyance of the said parcel of land is to be absolute   and total and is distinct   from the conveyance   of an equitable   interest under Admiralty and then it cites 3 cases there.   Now,   and in the recording box,   I've got recorded   requested by and then   my full name   and   because   a lot of people consider or in the book of the 100 any recording becomes a commercial   instrument   in that recording area, I'm going to put recording   instead of requested by   that it's a non commercial   recording requested by   and   so   in a year I've learned enough to completely rebuild this document   and I'm not sure exactly where I'm going to end up with it, but   I'm just feeling I'm being led down a path   that   the Lord wants me to go on   because that whole covenant thing came up before I even knew about the inheritance through Jesus Christ   and I put covenant in there to get it   so that the recorder could not refuse it. I had a long discussion with my,   the guy who helped me with my   chain of title and and he had all the access to   the county records because he worked for the oldest title company   in the state for about 40 years.  

And he says if you want to help get this more universal and accepted, you don't really put a land patent or the loadial claim first.   He says, they're   used to the term covenant   and conditions   and that's why I put it in there.   But   it's really looking to me more and now I can go directly into my covenant with my creator   as to why I'm doing this document etcetera.   And I have a unique quick claim deed because my county wants me   to make sure that there's not a transfer that they can tax.   So basically what I'm doing is the quitclaim   is from me the citizen   to me the national.  



[04:05:37] Unknown:

And so that's with your,   all caps names going to  

[04:05:52] Unknown:

Thank you for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales.   Press star 6 to mute or unmute. And if your line is locked, dial   941 to raise your hand. Welcome.  

[04:06:04] Unknown:

There are 29   participants in the conference.  

[04:06:09] Unknown:

And it was prior to that as a citizen   in my opinion as well. So I'm not making that distinction in this document, but I may well do that in my notices.  

[04:06:23] Unknown:

But why when you do your quitclaim deed, why wouldn't you? Because I mean, that would be significant because all the mortgages and deeds of trust have your,   your name in all caps letter, all caps.  

[04:06:37] Unknown:

It's a point,   and it's it's part of going over these documents and deciding on, you know,   how I   am going to apply them.  

[04:06:51] Unknown:

That's that's one of the ways that I used the, name change decree was I   updated the deed in my proper name   using the name change decree.   So that's the one for  

[04:07:04] Unknown:

How do you do the name how do you do the name change again? Do you have any information on that?  

[04:07:09] Unknown:

Yeah. Yeah. Give me your email, and I'll I'll send you it. It's just it's probate court.  

[04:07:14] Unknown:

Okay. Can I give you my   Yeah? Yeah. It's, it's all one word. Be grateful for life and smile at g mail dot com, all spelled out.   So [email protected].  

[04:07:40] Unknown:

So be grateful for life and and then what? F m I l e? No. Smile, s m, s as in Sunny. Smile. Smile. Smile.com?  

[04:07:49] Unknown:

Or No. [email protected].   Atgmail.com.   Okay.  

[04:07:54] Unknown:

Is this is this Julie? Is it Julie? Yeah. It's Julie. Okay. Okay. Hey, Julie.   Okay.  

[04:08:00] Unknown:

Yeah. Just give me this this afternoon. Or, yeah, I'm getting ready to go outside and and do some stuff. So Okay. I'll I'll get through at some point today. Thank you very much. I would like to do that. I mean, I know Roger doesn't like this all caps name stuff, but, everything John was talking about regarding the straw man, I've read   and everything you see that   contractually   everything is in all caps, so I don't quite understand why we don't discuss that as well.   But   I guess it's not relevant for,   you know, writing your affidavit of citizen evidence,   citizenship evidence, and so   he doesn't wanna go there. But I feel somehow like that is somewhat relevant. I don't know. What do you think?  



[04:08:43] Unknown:

100 100%, but I've I've brought it up over the years a couple of times with Roger. And you know what? Roger's an expert at what he teaches,   and he gets really agitated when you start going doing this stuff and talk you know, so I don't even go there. Just gotta take the good where it is. Yeah. Yeah. And then and and go beyond, you know, because even even being private with John was talking about. That's a real thing. It's important using that word as a good word to use, private, private capacity, private, you know, and that's what we're doing when we're nationals, when we're not 14th amendment US citizens. So there's   to be able to work and doing the DBA, using the DBA, there there's a way to be a living man and then using that entity for credit card or this and, you know, just be the authorized representative. And it's a more advanced, a little bit more, but it's not hard.  

But that's what we need to do if we're going to interact   and not   be and not create what's called Joinder with that entity. So we can do it at arms length, still be private, but use that entity,   and we pay our bills. We pay it through that as the authorized representative for that. So   it's just it's it's above what Roger talks about and what he says, but I don't take away. I I think he's an expert at what he does teach. I think he's very good.   But, yeah, I agree with you. I do way more than what he teaches.  

[04:10:02] Unknown:

And so do you when you're saying DBA, doing business as you're doing you're you're when you sign your name, you're signing it in the proper format   with, your upper case,   first and last name and then you're are you saying when you're, like, applying for credit cards and stuff, do you, put DBA in your all caps names?  

[04:10:22] Unknown:

I actually did DBA before, and I I don't do that anymore. I actually have just do power of attorney.   I actually like that better. It I've sent it in. You can do it with the in California, I'd send it to the secretary of state of California.   I got it. So I got it notarized that I have power of attorney over those entities,   and then,   got it sent to to do for whatever authorization, I forget what it's called, by the secretary of state. And so that's that's actually what I'm doing now is that power of attorney. So I have the power   to,   act on those for those entities, but it doesn't make me liable. It's like if you'd had power of attorney over your mom that got older, your dad or something. So it's to me, I think that's even better. I think that's even better than  

[04:11:07] Unknown:

Did you do a formal POA,   on that where you,   went to the bank and had it notarized and everything? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can I get a can I get a copy of that too, please?  

[04:11:18] Unknown:

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sure.   Let me let me write it down.  

[04:11:22] Unknown:

Thank you.  

[04:11:24] Unknown:

Sure.  

[04:11:26] Unknown:

My quitclaim basically covers the name by saying I'm taking it out of equity status and moving it into   this allodial   claim.   But   I don't like working with courts. I think that if you take your national status and stand on that and send this out to   a your AG of your state,   your sheriff,   prosecutor, you know, the local people, whoever you think you wanna   join in this thing, tell them who you are and what you are and that you will not respond to anything else,   I'd stay out of the courts. That's their jurisdiction.   As as a national, you don't belong there in my opinion.  



[04:12:14] Unknown:

May I, lady Linda Louise? May I?  

[04:12:19] Unknown:

Yeah. Please. Thank you.   I've been instructed   by,   a chancellor,   judge in Tennessee   to,   say power of authority.   Your thoughts, Ayil?  

[04:12:35] Unknown:

Yeah. I don't know if you guys know this, but the word attorney, it's French for twist of words.  

[04:12:42] Unknown:

Well, I'm using my heavenly father.  

[04:12:46] Unknown:

Very good, Julie.   Right. But words do count, Samuel. You know that more than most.  

[04:12:53] Unknown:

And and persons is mankind   and so on and so forth.   We stick with the biblical,   dominion,   for instance.   They have not gotten into that word.   As nationals, we have dominion.   Genesis. Hey, Samuel. Let me excited.  

[04:13:17] Unknown:

Let me, let me say something here. So I agree I agree with you in concept, a 100%.   I had an incident   back in December where I was traveling around with a private plate, got pulled over,   and got cited for not having a plate, not having a license plate   that I got.   Documents   came from finally after a month, they came,   and I called the clerk of the court.   I asked about it. I got as much information I could. I sent a notice of to abate   and sent it in. I she wouldn't give me that. There was no information of who who to send it to, so I sent it to the court. Notice abatement, I sent 2 affidavits to the officer,   1 on the incident and one basically for him to, you know, denial of corporate existence,   gave him 20 days to rebut, and I never got anything from him.  

Finally got to where,   I I got the thing from the court, and it had   a date.   And so I called him. I said, well, I you know, you guys have no jurisdiction, yada yada yada. So, basically, I said, well, you you gotta pay this or I said, what happens if I don't? Because you have no jurisdiction. It's never been proven. And, well, then we're gonna send you collections.   So you have to do this or you have to come down and give you 2 choices. So I went down   to the,   to the court,   and they tried to get me to   plead not guilty.   And I said, no. I'm not pleading. I said, I'm challenging jurisdiction. And finally, they got the supervisor and finally said, okay. So I have an arraignment hearing in 1 week from today. I have an arraignment.  

So I don't know what else I could have done because I'm challenging jurisdiction. I   sent a letter in stating   that you'll be a special appearance if, you know, if they don't abate this, dada dada dada.   So I'm not sure what else I can do. Now I'm just preparing what I'm my script when I go in there. Well, I'm right up the top, say I'm here to discuss appearance, and I may put it on it's under duress because I was told if I don't, then they're going to send collections, yada yada yada.   So I don't know what your advice would be in my situation, Sam. Stay you say stay out of the courts, well, then they're gonna   destroy your credit and,   you know, so so I mean, what's your thoughts on on that?  



[04:15:39] Unknown:

Well, first off, as Christians, we're never told we're not gonna pay a price for standing up for Christ, right? Number 1. Number 2,   pretty sure when you they're asking you for a plea,   that means you're going to pray to that court. Well, there's a good objection right there. Well, I'm going to pray to   an entity that I consider is an abomination.   And then   this abatement,   that's a loaded word and the best examples of it that I know that are out there are in the book of the 100. That's what that whole thing is about.   And there's even a distinction in there if you read about the abatement on how they want you to do it,   if you have 2   Christian brothers that are going to serve this thing for you,   the abatement's wording changes just based on that versus if you used the sheriff's department to serve it for you. This is not filed, this is served,   etcetera. I mean, they're very detailed about it in there.  

And you're basically   and Judge Stamper was in complete agreement with the abatement except he uses one that's a bit more   secular   and Judge Stamper   basically   sends a piece of paper to them telling them, I know you're going to take jurisdiction as though I show up,   and this is my objections,   for the record here on paper, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. He goes through a whole diatribe of why they he knows that they have jurisdiction as soon as he shows up.   So there's a piece of paper where he can use that's more secular, but if you really stick to probable   because that's why   the abatement process in the book of the 100 is called non statutory.  

It's outside of their statutes.   And it's pre,   adjoining   of the parties   because   in the past what was done   is to make the whole process more efficient. The abatement process was used to make sure whether   you're supposed to be in court or not, whether it couldn't be resolved, whether everything was correct or not, so that by the time the judge got it,   he could efficiently make a decision based on what was in front of him.   So it's an old, it's tried, it's true.   Do they want to recognize it? No.   And it   gives you examples of what can happen to you in the book of the 100 if   you don't do this and that,   how they'll try to entrap you? They may send the sheriff out to your door and say, hey, the judge   just wants you to do this and that. And if you do, then everything will be good and we'll just leave you alone and, you know, all kinds of trickery.  

They talk about all of this stuff in there and   it's worth a read, you know, whether it's gonna work for us or not. Until we really try it and do it correctly according   to dotting the I and crossing the t like they're talking about,   it's gonna be hard to say.  

[04:18:55] Unknown:

I have a question   for the fellow   if he's   can answer a couple of questions. Is he planning on going to the arraignment?  

[04:19:05] Unknown:

I am. I the paperwork, they changed it when I told him I'm not clean. I'm challenging jurisdiction, then they changed it. So that's this is strictly to determine jurisdiction,   apparently.   So and then   so so, I mean and even if somehow they they fraudulently   suck me in,   I'm still pretty confident that,   you know, I mean, I know the codes and statutes of of this so well. And it's in California. It's pretty clear.   Go ahead. Okay.  

[04:19:37] Unknown:

I don't know if you're aware of Mark Stevens' process, but,   it's a pretty interesting process that you might be able to incorporate with yours. Now what he does is he goes in with a signed affidavit   of guilty   so they cannot   enter a plea.   Okay?   That's just a protection for you to get more information from the judge.   Okay? Then you ask the judge.   There's a script for for Mark Stevens. You can go on YouTube and get it. But   then he asked after he says, judge, I have a signed guilty   plea. I'd like to ask you a few questions.   And   basically when he go he goes through his script and he goes,   do I have a right to a fair and meaningful hearing   today?  

And the judge will usually say, yes. Do I   have,   to know about the nature and cause of these charges today? And the judge usually says yes.   And then he says,   well,   judge,   there are   12 elements of a crime.   And,   is jurisdiction one of the elements   of a crime? Oh, no. He first, he says, am I considered innocent of all these charges today? And the judge will say yes.   And then he says, well,   is jurisdiction   one of the elements   of a crime? And he'll say yes.   And then the the pop question is,   has the prosecutor   passed to you any   physical   information,   any facts   any facts to you about jurisdiction.  

And this is where they have to say yes or no.   And usually, the the prosecutor has not   asked any factual information to the judge,   then you can object, and you're gonna have to appeal.   That's all I can give you, and good luck. You can look up Mark Stevens,   m a r c   s   t e v e n s, and they have role playing   videos for you to listen to. It might help. I tried my best. I yield.  

[04:22:06] Unknown:

Thank you. That was that was great information. Is it, you know, is it markstevens.com?   Or  

[04:22:12] Unknown:

it's on YouTube. He does I think his website is down. It was markstevens.net.   He wrote a couple books.  

[04:22:23] Unknown:

Ventures in legal land.  

[04:22:25] Unknown:

Yeah. Ventures in legal land and,   another one. I forget the title, but go to go to Mark Stevens,   on YouTube, and you can listen to some of his role play.  

[04:22:38] Unknown:

Okay. So I Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. So one one of the things I did too on the forms that they had me sign, because I wasn't gonna sign anything, but on this form that   said I was just challenging jurisdiction basically,   I I put,   attached to it and I even said see attached and I put notice of rebuttal of presumption and claims of rights. And then I just listed   all these   basically rebutted. It's it's basically like the 12 presumptions of court.   And so it's it's pretty powerful.   And,   I don't know. I just mean it's gonna be meaningless or not.  

[04:23:15] Unknown:

Yeah. Well, I just wanted to say that, you know, you shouldn't even be in court if the prosecutor has not given any factual evidence to the judge   because he's the neutral party. Right? He's the one who's   trying facts? Has the prosecutor   given you any factual information about jurisdiction over me?   And,   I yield.  

[04:23:39] Unknown:

Well, the other thank you. No. That's great. And that goes along with the affidavit. I gave him I challenged his jurisdiction with my affidavits, and I gave him 20 days to respond, and he never responded. And so I got him in tacit agreement, and I have those notarized   proof of all that. I have proof of all that. So that's gonna and I've sent that into the court already.   So, again, not that it we'll see you how much it how much it matters.   But thanks. No. It's great great info.  

[04:24:13] Unknown:

Yeah. I think attacking the name is your jurisdiction because that's what that's how they're getting you in there. They're not   getting the Christian flesh and blood man in there   because they're not using a Christian name. But you can object   to the name because they consider that jurisdiction because you're responding to it. So you have to do something that's a little bit more convoluted,   like,   ask it for the record, you should always say, because you want this recorded.   And when the judge does you ask him just to acknowledge for the record, and if he acknowledges that,   or if he doesn't then say is this not on the record? I require that. Okay?  

That could be the end of it right there. However,   for the record,   your honor,   I'm a Christian   and I see no Christian name on the docket.  

[04:25:08] Unknown:

So so that's I've got a court script going and it's and it's like that's one of the first things. It's like a couple down. I mean, the first thing I'm saying, I'm good morning. I'm here. I'm not waving to my inalienable rights given to me my creator as stated in the declaration of independence and   basically, I I go on about challenging their jurisdiction,   no contract with any other marine maritime or commercial   and no commercial contracts and then   ask if it's a court of record,   and then I'll   just say, okay. Let the record show that no American Maritime Commercial Agreement has been brought forward.   And then I I wanna I'm gonna mention that I'm not any type of juristic statutory   or legal entity person or legal entity or or a subject of the corporate government.  

And I'm not a court US citizen, but rather a California state citizen,   you know, a national of the United States of America. I'm not any type of federal citizen see attachment to and that's where I have my full docs from my  

[04:26:09] Unknown:

when I did my passport about 5 years ago, which clearly shows that I'm not a fortunate man here. A lot of this might drag you into jurisdiction. You know what you what I would suggest that you do respectfully, I would get Randy Randy Lee's discourse with them. Because he he pretty much says for the record and the court says yes, and he says my Christian name is Randy Lee and my family name is   whatever it is. Right?  

[04:26:34] Unknown:

Well, let's And then he and then he pointed out  

[04:26:37] Unknown:

The next thing I was gonna this is on my list was my name is written in the citation   as an entity in all capital letters. This is a picture that that ended in is not my name. And then So all that all that wording is dubious to me. I would stick to what how Randy Lee went at this,  

[04:26:57] Unknown:

you know, he he points out this colorful persona that it is,   and it's an it's an artifice.   He uses specific terms for specific reasons. And what's more important about reading what he did is his explanation. There's a page there's one page of what he did and there's one page of explanation   of why he did it. That's very important.   You know, and he he Is that Randy Lee or Terry Lee?   Randy Lee.   He said for the record, Randy Lee and Jesus   the Christ,   advocate and wonderful counselor,   are using the right of visitation   to exercise ministerial   powers   to be heard on this matter.  

These are important things to say if you're a Christian   because you are challenging jurisdiction without saying it, and the judge knows damn well whose jurisdiction you're claiming.   Within a few sentences,   this this is, I guess, a federal court.   This was IRS prosecutor.   They had to call it a day.   But if you attack that name directly, that's also considered   jurisdiction. So you've got to be very careful about how you approach it.   Very careful about the words that you use,   the way it looks to me. I mean   I'm just talking here. Talk is cheap. Right?   You gotta put yourself in front of them under all this angst and stuff and, I know how that is and   it's tough   and they make it tough for a reason.  

They're not there to help you.   Hey, Samuel.   We we have to point we have to point out that,   Randy Lee was in a federal court. I don't think he's in a federal court.   So Yeah. The judge is gonna be able to   walk all over him if he does that possibly.   I don't know.   But,   I just wanted to point out that there's 2 different courts we're talking about, federal and what he's dealing with. So I yield.   Yeah. You you noticed just this one thing, you know, there's our baptismal name and then the the the name that the court uses. When Randy Lee starts out, he says my Christian name is Randy Lee and my family name is whatever that was.   He's making a distinction right there and that Christian name that they have on the docket is the all uppercase name. And when you do research on the the uppercase, you won't find anything until you really start to get into the nam de guerre, and the nom de guerre is the war name.  

And the war name   is   basically,   this   we've been made enemies of the state. And by not being nationals,   we are in conflict with our with our countries, our states.   So you're you're truly that enemy, and you can't in international   law, you cannot   be represented by your true name   in war.   And   this is the crux of that name is that it is   if you really start to research, you really wanna find out the truth, you have to enter the war name or the nom de guerre   and do your research because then you're really gonna start to see how this all comes about.   So another thing that you might wanna do is tell the judge that you're coming in peace   as a national. You're not a citizen.  

You know?   Of course. At that at that level,   Persis, they don't know crap.   You're probably gonna have to appeal and get to a district court before you get anybody to even understand what you're talking about. So there's that.   That's why I'm That's why I'm hoping that with my notices to, like, the AG and the prosecutor, etcetera. And I wanna give them the information on what a national is because   I don't believe that most of them really understand that. That has to be clear to them. You have to make it clear to them. You have to tell them who you are, where you are, and what you are,   and that this is the only way that you're going to respond to them is if they honor   the facts that you're in my case a Christian and that's all I'm going to accept is a Christian   name,   in correspondence or anything else.  

Otherwise, I'll have refusal for cause.   So, yeah, that if you get that Randy Li Singh   and you read the explanation,   that is so important.   It explains what he did and why he did it.  

[04:33:40] Unknown:

Is,   sheriff still up?   I just wanted to revisit   George Idaho.   Less service   work continuance on on that matter.   I did pick up the form, and it's interesting. It says a agreement. It's got postal service forms.   And for for Sherry, you know, you can always choose not to be part of the contract or whatever.   So,   if I can indulge you for a second, it just says   says, in consideration of delivery of my mail   or our firm's mail, the agent named on page 1, so that'd be, like,   the, UPS or whatever.   The applicant and agent agree.   The applicant or the agent must not file a change of address,   blah, blah, blah. It just talks about the mail.  

If you have a privacy act statement,   your information will be used to administer the commercial mail receiving agency,   CMRA,   application   enrollment   and fulfillment processes   to verify your identity when applying for service   to impure to ensure a proper and secure delivery of mail to the correct recipient   and submit to permit delivery of your mail to your authorized agent.   Collection is authorized nearly at 39   USC 401. So I have to read that, I guess,   what 39 USC 401, 403, and 404 state.   So,  

[04:35:17] Unknown:

anyway,   there's no,  

[04:35:22] Unknown:

there's nothing in here that says, like, states in the United States or anything like that, but I'm sure in the, when you do call up the agent, there's a commercial mail receiving agency,   and then they do cite,   the authorization of the 39 US code. So,   anyway, I just wanted   to just finish up on that.   It is, they do say, although the driver's non non driver's ID is listed as an option   for both the authorized individual's photo ID and address ID, it may be used for only one of the IDs.   And that oh, by signing this form, applicant certifies   all information furnished, accurate, truthful, complete,   blah blah blah.  

Anyway, that was, that was finishing off that little document. I don't know if anybody else is using a a postal mailbox at all. What the what the book of the 100  

[04:36:19] Unknown:

wants you to do is have, I guess it's called general delivery where it's not sent to an address.   You go pick it up,   but that is more and more difficult to get.   But this basically makes you a sojourner,   right? You have no physical   res or address and the government does not like that because it screws up   their rule book   and their jurisdiction.   So you might try to get general delivery, see if they'll allow it.  

[04:36:51] Unknown:

Yeah. I see. That's interesting. I didn't think about asking for general delivery at the at the actual UPS store   because,  

[04:36:59] Unknown:

they do have it out there. UPS store can I don't think the UPS store can do it? Only the I think only the, postal department can.  

[04:37:08] Unknown:

Okay.  

[04:37:10] Unknown:

Yeah. I've got a UPS store too. You know, but one thing I wanna   you know, both the book of the 100   and Stamper,  

[04:37:20] Unknown:

none of these even though they talk   the the talk  

[04:37:24] Unknown:

and state the state,   they don't know the national status, and they don't claim it.   So I'm thinking that we probably have a whole lot more power   by invoking that   along with our Christianity,   etcetera,   than these guys ever did. So some of the details of whether we need general delivery or not might be overcome   by the fact that we know we're nationals,   and that we're just careful. Like, I would never take mail   on   the the property that I was trying to put in the load in. That I would not do.   I would wanna get that at my UPS store, etcetera. Right?   And I do have a   small,   you know, in care of non domestic and things like that on my address,   which   they may or may not recognize.  



[04:38:24] Unknown:

Oh, for your UPS address?  

[04:38:27] Unknown:

Yeah.   In fact, I'm gonna have those guys. They're printers too. I'm gonna have them print me up some labels like that and talk to the owner. I've I got a very grumpy guy. He's a nice guy, but he's very grumpy.  

[04:38:41] Unknown:

So I avoid him.   Overcoming   national grumpiness.  

[04:38:48] Unknown:

He hates the system though. There's there we get along fine, but he he he sort of hates everything.  

[04:38:56] Unknown:

Right?  

[04:39:05] Unknown:

Yeah. That that that thing on Randy Lee, I couldn't I couldn't recommend   higher. There's,   there's 3 pages to that thing and a cover letter   or a cover page.   I think that's on the matrix docs. You could download it and take a look at it because,   these people are truly coming from that Christian standpoint   of how you deal with this   thing we call Babylon.   Right?  

[04:39:34] Unknown:

I wonder whatever happened to Randy, Lee.  

[04:39:38] Unknown:

Yeah. I I do too. You know?  

[04:40:29] Unknown:

There's an anonymous that's rustling around.  

[04:40:40] Unknown:

This is for Randy Lee's document that I'm going to get.   Mistaken identity   not only   takes in the name,   but more importantly   it takes in the force   and power   of the law of one's form.   The questions   in the mind of the judge would be:   What law do you identify   with?   Where do you reside?   Who is your master? Etcetera.   These   questions   all concern your identity.   In short,   the name really wasn't the main article concerning   the mistaken   identity.   It appears to be, but Mr. Roth, the prosecutor   ended by referring to the spelling of the name.   I don't know if that was   ignorance   on his part or roost.  

The spelling of the name concerns   misnomer   which is only a small part of identity.   So   it's just part of his explanation on   the second page which   would I think is helpful.   And the words he uses are,   I've done enough of reading the book of the 100 to realize   that what the words you choose   make all the difference in the world as to   whether that judge is going to be   bringing you into jurisdiction or seeing that you are outside of it?   And of course   what they did not have again was the national status and I think that needs to be on the record too.  

[04:42:40] Unknown:

That yield.  

[04:42:54] Unknown:

Yes. That ancient system of pledging. And all that they're   they're using is what been discussed   in this one.   Pledging   a liege.