In this episode, hosts Roger Sayles and Brent Winters delve into a wide array of topics, from the intricacies of the common law to the historical context of the Erie Railroad case. The discussion begins with a light-hearted reflection on the hosts' past experiences in radio broadcasting, highlighting the power of words and the influence of media. The conversation then transitions into a detailed analysis of the Erie Railroad case, exploring its implications on federal and state law, and the role of the common law in the American legal system.
The hosts also engage in a spirited debate about the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment on legal interpretations and the perceived erosion of common law principles. Throughout the episode, they emphasize the importance of understanding historical legal contexts and the ongoing battle between federal and state jurisdictions. The episode concludes with a reflection on the resilience of the common law tradition and its foundational role in American governance, encouraging listeners to appreciate the complexities and nuances of legal history.
[00:00:23]
Unknown:
This mirror stream is brought to you in part by mymytobust.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by PhatPhix, p h a t p h I x, dot com, and also iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com. Thank you, and welcome to the program. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:50] Unknown:
Yes, sir.
[00:01:52] Unknown:
Us too. Gonna take another stab at it here at the Radio Ranch on the Friday edition with Roger Sales and cohost Brent Winters here on the April 18, Friday edition. So, here we go. We're assisted by a number of other platforms that help extend our reach and touch others all over the world. And, the keeper of said platforms, one Paul Biner. And, he gets to come out and identify them and give them proper, a, recognition and, b, credit. Don't you, Paul?
[00:02:25] Unknown:
Yes. I do. I actually get to come out from under the stairs periodically.
[00:02:30] Unknown:
It's Yeah. Fun.
[00:02:32] Unknown:
Yeah. You gotta get a if everyone's life a little sunshine must shine, and this, I guess, is my opportunity, so I might as well make the best of it. Will. So we are on one zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago. We are on homenetwork.tv, freedom nation Tv, go live tv, and streamlife.tube. Those are brought to us by the Net family of broadcast services, spearheaded and driven by WDRN production support, Collins, Colorado, and Stream Life Networks. We're also on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul across the drink, and we're on our flagship station. That would be thanks to pastor Eli James, and that is eurofolkradio.com.
We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. That link is radio.globalvoiceradio.net, and, we're on a free conference call. That is how everybody joins the show. FCC, those links are on the matrixdocs.com, our website. You can dial up by landline, cell phone, tablet, computer, or if you have one of those weird providers that charges you out of networks, fees for conference calls, just text call me to the dial up number, (609) 663-1976, and the system will call you back. I love it. Pretty slick. Warner Robs. Pretty slick.
[00:04:14] Unknown:
There's always a way around it, isn't there? Yes. There is. Paul, did you happen to invite our other Paul over and join us today? Should we have the opportunity? And I'm sure you did. And he's always welcome, and maybe he'll stop by. I see Brent and Francine are with us. So good morning to you too.
[00:04:34] Unknown:
And, There's a standing invitation. You know? Invitation. There is a standing invitation.
[00:04:41] Unknown:
Okay. Good enough. Well, so, good morning, kids. Ranch hands, cowboys, cowgirls. Hey, Brent.
[00:04:51] Unknown:
Hi, Roger. Yep.
[00:04:52] Unknown:
How you doing? Morning, Francine. Good to see Francine always. Morning, Roger. Yep. We might even ask you to play a song sometime. Who knows?
[00:05:02] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:05:03] Unknown:
So, Brent, are you doing good? You had a good week, all that. Boy, there's a lot of stuff happening. Some really interesting things are popping up, actually.
[00:05:11] Unknown:
Well, you had you had mentioned, area railroad, but on we can talk about that. But if you want to talk about things that are happening now that people are conscious of because it's in the news, I'm willing to do that too. Well, there's there is one thing that's quite provocative to me, that's happened is this
[00:05:33] Unknown:
Garcia, El Salvadorian guy that they popped out of the country about a week ago. Uh-huh. I know I know you don't watch the news, but I don't know if you've heard about this or not. Have you heard any inklings of all that? Oh, yes. I'm familiar. I can't help but hear about it. Okay. Well, good. Then there's some things that are new developments that are quite interesting. Yeah. The background, I'm pretty sure everybody here would know about it, but there may be some folks that don't. So this guy, Garcia, has been in the country for quite a number of years.
And, he's El Salvadorian, and he was living with a gal, and they had some children. And, he, he evidently had a, what do you what do you call it? Keep cease and desist, stay away from me order, because he beat her up back in 2021, I think. I'm not sure how they got their hands on him this time. Uh-huh. But the Trump administration stuck him on a flight down there. And you remember a judge tried to stop it, and they said, well, you didn't get the order in. The plane was in international airspace space and out of our air space, we can't stop it. So that was a good, a good little, do si do.
And, so the guy gets stuck back down there in the big prison where all the gang members are. And so he he's got a pretty interesting history. He's been, ruled by two judges to be MS 13. They've had a, a a standing deportation order on him since 2019. He's not a US citizen. I'll, stress that again. Let's see if I can make sure I don't forget anything. And so, he gets sent down to the big jail in El Salvador where he's from. One of the arguments that the lawyer made when he didn't get deported the first time was that he was in danger of being killed by the ri by the a rival gang down there. Well, that rival gang's gone now. So, anyway, the Democrats are making a heck of a fuss.
Even sent and I say sent. The senator from Maryland flew all the way to El Salvador with a couple of other people, a lawyer hired for, obviously, the the female. Here he's saying, he's a wonderful father. He's a you know, and the the press calls him a Maryland dad when he's an MS thirteen illegal alien. You know, all the usual, head fakes, bobs, bobbing and weaving. So it comes out yesterday that in 2021
[00:08:21] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:08:22] Unknown:
In Tennessee, he and seven other people pulled over in a car for having no driver's license. Uh-huh. It was evidently one other male and six children. They pulled them over, no driver's license. Within two hours, the FBI was calling them and telling them to release them within two hours.
[00:08:52] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:08:53] Unknown:
They said take pictures of everybody and send it to us and this, that, and the other. But, evidently, there's some strong connection to the Democratic party of, of this child trafficking stuff, and he's the connection. And they're about to go apoplectic to try and get to him. And he's in a jail down in El Salvador. And this past Monday, Bucelli, the president of El Salvador that's turned the country around, who happened to be in The US with Trump. And the the reporters were asking about him, and Trump says, well, here's the president of El Salvador right here. Why don't you ask him? And he goes, yeah. I'd have to release him and send him back and this, that, and the other and all this other stuff. And and The US could send a plane down there to pick him up. And if he if Bucelli did all that, and then when he got back, the first thing they do is put him into ICE detention and send him back. So Uh-huh. Beaucelli and them, I think everybody's smelling a rat at this point, and they're not letting the senator and the lawyer in to see him.
And, so it seems to me and it appears that the that the Democratic Party, this is some kind of a point man in this whole child trafficking thing, and they're about apoplectic to try and get to him to shut him up before he gets interrogated is the. Oh. So, anyway, we'll see as it develops. But I have to tip my hat to Owen Shroyer who, day before yesterday as this case was really starting to build and break a little bit. And he came out and says, why why do the Democrats have this unusual interest in this guy where they'll go all the way to to to send, like, a US Senator down there to try and meet with him when he's clearly else El Salvadorian. He has no connection to The US outside of the other stuff. Now the other thing was the other night, the press conference, the White House, and they were talking about there's two females that have been murdered in Maryland. And, the press secretary gal, I don't know her name yet, can't remember, had one of the mothers up there.
Did did anybody in the audience see that? I think Lynn lady Linda did. We talked about it a little bit yesterday. Brent is one of the most horrific stories I've ever heard on what this this gang member did to this 37 year old mother of five. Uh-huh. And it was horrendous. Okay? And they wouldn't tell the mother and the family all the details until the trial. And they're sitting there in the trial and all these I mean, I don't I don't know of a horrendous, heinous, an adjective to describe what I heard. Okay? But, man, it's sickening. And this senator's office either had very little concern for this family of the murdered or none at all. And she didn't really specify. If there was any kind of contact and concern, it was really, really minimal.
And, just all this stuff revolving around all this and these Democrats' scheme that they've been putting us under for four years is starting to unravel. So, anyway, I thought that's very interesting. We're gonna find out more, hopefully, about the Tennessee traffic stop and some of the things that were involved with that. But it's pretty you don't get the FBI calling some state within two hours of some guy getting pulled over and saying let them go. That that is not usual. K? So, anyway, very interesting. We'll see how that goes. It's kinda on my mind. So A lot of authority does the FBI have to commandeer
[00:12:30] Unknown:
a sheriff's department or a police department in a state Well tell us what to do. I say very little, but they hold a lot of sway. Yeah. None according to according to US Supreme Court. Well reach
[00:12:44] Unknown:
yeah. Go ahead. Hopefully, we got, Cash Patel up there in Bongino. Maybe they'll start looking into some of those records, but this story is not going away. Okay? And there's some real big connection with the Dems, with this guy, and this child trafficking scheme that is, again, heinous and horrendous. Okay? Well So, otherwise, that's on my mind, so I'm I'm glad you gave me a chance to get it out. Thanks. Oh, no. I'm I'm glad to hear it. Glad to hear it. No. I'm have I'm,
[00:13:14] Unknown:
satisfied you told me. I had just listened to Tucker Carlson this week a little bit, Roger. I heard him say, somebody was interviewing him. He said they said, well, where do you get what news sources do you read and watch? He said, I haven't read and watched any news sources in decades. Right. He said, I don't do that. Well, they said, well, where do you get your information? He said, I interview people. And I said, the light went on. I said, well, that's what I do. I don't go waste my time reading all this trash. I just talk to Roger. He tells me. Yeah.
[00:13:47] Unknown:
And I find out what's going on. Couple of things I thought or so if I may make a comment, were you gonna say something else? I was. I I I really wanna give credit because I get most of my information from InfoWars. That's what I pretty much watch. They're they got they're a huge platform, very successful, obviously. They've got a large, large audience. Anybody that's got something that's breaking and important, either they wanna get it on or he want whoever it is wants to get that on there. So, not only do I enjoy them, for the most part, I get a little PO'd at Alex occasionally, maybe regularly.
But the other guys in the source and what they built and did did you know by the way, Brent, did you know that Alex Jones rebuilt Waco, the branch of Vidian Compound?
[00:14:30] Unknown:
No. No. I knew he was involved in doing it when it happened. Yeah. That was a long time ago. Oh, no. Volunteers
[00:14:37] Unknown:
out there doing carpenter work. And it was it's not a compound. It was a church camp. Correct. All these words that the government uses to make it look ugly. It was a church camp for Seventh day Adventist. It's all it was. Yeah. And it wasn't a compound. It wasn't armored. None of those things. But go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say, Alex, back in his those were his really formative years. He hadn't been going on very long. I was listening to him and found him already because I'm a radio hound, you know, and I was in this Patriot stuff. And all of a sudden, we're starting to get this over the Internet where we can access it. And, he would go on the air all week and call out for donations at the Lowe's.
People could send their donations to the Lowe's store there in Waco, and they would take that money and get materials. And people would show up from, all around Texas or further maybe on the weekends, and they rebuilt the Branch Davidian, place. And I nobody listen. I get mad at Alex just like everybody else, you know, and some of the things that's just his personality on the air. But, man, you can't help but give this guy credit for what he's done. Okay? I mean, really. So, I had credit where credit is due. They deserve a lot. The reason I can tell you the news is because I'll listen to them, quite frankly. Yeah. I get what you're saying. People don't realize, and I didn't realize.
[00:15:58] Unknown:
I I don't know why my life has been this way. I'm older now, but I've spent my life diving into things that people wondered about. And I wanted to find out what was going on because I couldn't understand either why is he send a state legislator to the state capital, and he's a nice guy, and he comes back six months later, and he's a he's a wacko. He's doing crazy things. And I said, why? And nobody ever said, why is this happen? Or you send somebody to Congress. We had fellows we sent to Congress, and I'd watch them. And they were nice guys, and I talked to them. And they were sensible, and they go to Congress and start doing the most unusual things or damaging.
And I said, what's going on? Well, I for whatever reason, I said, I'm just gonna dive in and find out myself. And I ran for Congress to try to determine. One thing I learned about it, it's been a million dollars, did all the things that I could possibly have done. I stayed at it for more than one election cycle because I knew that I was an unknown. My family wasn't involved in politics, didn't know anything about politics, didn't even know what a precinct committeeman was. But I dove in, and I gave it my all and devoted my whole life to for about five years. Almost well, just over five years. One and I made numerous trips to Washington DC. And one thing I discovered is that people that are in the press are just as lazy and stupid as you and probably well, I say as stupid as you. Lazy and misinformed. That's a better word. And the ballad is stupid too for the level of education that that journalists have, I had lawyers the same way. For the level of education they have, they're some of the most misguided and ignorant people in the country.
I don't say that lightly. It's not that they couldn't know. They don't because their culture discourages them from knowing really and understanding really what's going on. And, they're also lazy. A journalist are lazy, just like everybody else. I mean, most of everybody will just do whatever they gotta do to get by or get what they want. They won't do anymore. And that's for sure. And journalist, the press at that time, that's been many years ago, the press has changed because of the Internet. Back then, people thirty five, forty years ago, people read newspapers. Yes. They did. And if you could get your name in the newspaper, that was political plus.
That's not true anymore. Nobody cares about paper. But at that time, we went to Washington, DC, and they had what the Democrats called the contract on America. I signed it. I signed it in front of the national news media, and I had never been on national news media. People were calling me that I had known through the years all over the country said, I saw you on television. Right. And Fox news had just started back then, and they were kind of new, but I found out there are about 300, just 300 news outlets that control everything coming out of Washington, DC, just like in your state, in your state, wherever you are, there are a certain limited number of new south news outlets that control everything that comes out of your state Capitol. Yep. And the rest of the newspapers and the radio stations depend upon that and the spin that they put on it. And that's how it's controlled. The devil himself, no man could have orchestrated something like this. The devil himself controls what's being said. And to give you an extreme case of this, I've used this illustration before when I was on the radio, Roger, in Terre Haute, Indiana or not in Terre Haute. The the station was outside Terre Haute on the West Side Of The Wabash River out in the country.
Two FM and two AM stations simultaneous broadcast. And, I knew the fellow that owned the station and he had grown up in Bend's oh, no. He grew up, no. Not Bend Sands. He grew up just South of Terre Haute on the Illinois side, place called Flat Rock on the Flat Rock. It was named a little place on the Wabash River. And, of course, people say, why'd they call it Flat Rock? Well, the state saying around that part of the world was that a twin fluted cow peeing on a flat rock makes quite a mess. Yeah. And, the Flat Rock was an important part of life. Just it conjured up pictures in people's head about the twin fluted cow. Now if you don't know what a twin fluted cow is, you can go try to look it up on the Internet. They got all sorts of explanations, but that's the way folk used to say it at home. Well, this, particular, fellow that owned this station, he was up in his eighties at that time. He was an old World War two veteran. He'd started in radio in Vincennes, Indiana when he was 16 years old as an announcer.
Now those of you that don't know where Vincennes, Indiana is, that's the home of that's where Red Skelton grew up, Vincennes, Indiana. It's right on the Wabash River between Evansville and Terre Haute. It's the the one big town. There are a lot of little towns along there, but right on the Wabash has been Sims. And, he'd been in radio all his life, and he ended up going to Rose Coleman Technical Institute there at a feeder school for West Point that is engineering school there in Terre Haute. And, he told me stories about radio. He knew a lot about Radio Roger, as you can imagine, what he would know about radio and know about how it works. He himself wanted to be a radio announcer, but I never felt like he was that popular. He get on when he got older, he did what he wanted. You know? He had those radio stations.
I never felt like he was that popular. What he would do is, get young people or other younger than him, like me, to come in and for a year or two and stay on. And then when they they would, as a personality, would gather a certain audience, every personality would gather a different audience, then he would throw them out and get somebody else and keep building his audience that way. And he he understood radio is what I'm saying. Well, I learned a lot from him even though he ended up getting rid of me for the same reason after a year or two. But I thought I was a friend of his, found out it wasn't.
But he because he knew a lot, he told me about this fellow when he first got into broadcasting, got out of rows, and television was brand new. And the first television station, WTHI, went into Terre Haute, Indiana. And that was the only television station we had in that part of the world. You remember those days? You had an antenna on your house, and you hoped you could pick up a rough signal. And he said the the guy that did the weather everybody watched the weather because it was an agricultural world back there. And every morning, we wanna know what the weather was, and that's all people talked about is the weather. The crops and the weather, that was a constant discussion.
And, he a young fellow working at the station there, and they were he said they were jury rigging all sorts of stuff all the time trying to make it work. And and one time, they got ready for the weather to come on, and they couldn't get it to work. And some guy grabbed it. He said, I don't know what it was. Some guy grabbed a long wire and strung it out and ran it upstairs where the studio was. And just before, like, ten seconds before the weather was gonna come on, he spliced these two wires together and bang, they got on the air. Well, the guy that did the weather, he said every time he did the weather, he'd come blowing in at the last second, sliding sideways into the gravel parking lot there on Wabash Avenue, run inside real quick, run upstairs and fix his time, catch his breath and bang. He was on and he did the weather.
And, Paul said, he asked him one time, said, how do you know what to say? The guy wasn't even, he didn't know anything about weather. He was just a guy that wanted a job, you know? And he said, well, I got it down to a science. I scarf something down my neck at home to eat, and then I jump in the car. I know exactly how long it'll take to get here. And while I'm driving here, I turn on the radio and I listen to the weather. That's how I know what to say. And don't think, friends, for a minute. Don't think for a minute that that has changed. It has not. I can tell you that I came sliding in today when the intro was on, so I have to chuckle about that. Go ahead, Brent. Oh, yeah. Well, that's the way it is. And all broadcasting, they got those kind of personalities running things, doing things, and all they know is what somebody else told them. Like Will Rogers says or Will Rogers said, he he was a popular commentator in the newspapers, wrote an article.
Every day, it was syndicated across the nation, and the name of the article was Will Rogers Says. I think it was s e z. Yeah. Will Rogers says. Well, hey, his byline was, I only know what to read in the papers. What did popular commentator, Paul Harvey? Yeah. What did he do? He did nothing. He'd go in. He'd run-in the morning. He'd get into the studio there in Chicago where he broadcast out of. He'd get in there about four in the morning or daylight for anybody else, and he'd pull the what was on the AP wire or whatever it was, he'd print out in a a long printed thing that he could rip off. And he would sit with a a pen, a colored marker, and he'd read the news. And then he'd mark the things he wanted to talk about, and then he'd comment on them. But the question is, who controls what's said and who controls what's spin is put on what's said? And there are always very, a very few people that do that. And that's the danger Comment. Of the.
And we have been slaved enslaved to that for many decades. Paul, did you say something?
[00:25:39] Unknown:
Yes, please. That is exactly what has been happening since the inception of broadcasting, not just TV. Radio, TV, broadcast weather. The National Weather Service disseminates what, the powers that be want all the weathermen and women to talk about and the AP NewsWire and the tear sheets. It's what they're called. You hit the teletype room on your way to the microphone. You just tear it off, and Yeah. That's exactly what you do. You sit down with your marker, and you put a check next to the things you wanna talk about, and you highlight the important points of each story, and you lead with those. That that way, everybody in the country is talking about the same stuff using the same words, the same phrases.
Yeah. And it's very, very easy to control the entire country.
[00:26:35] Unknown:
Yep. And hence hence the saying rip and read.
[00:26:39] Unknown:
Rip and read. Absolutely. You know, when Rip and read. Dispel that all these these stations in Terre Haute. When I was in high school, the rules of the FCC changed. I forget what the name of the policy was. But instead of having these massive stations in Saint Louis, we listened to KXOK. We listened to Nashville, sixty five AM. It was clear channel AM stations back then. Cincinnati, Kansas City, Paducah, Kentucky. They all had massive 50,000 wall stations, and stations were not allowed by the FCC in the little towns. Well, they changed the policy in the early sixties. And the one of the the fellow that, followed, his name was Moore and he had a famous television show called, What's My Line or something like that. Right. Right. Yeah. Was that it? Okay. Yeah. What was his first name? I'm trying to think of it while you Gary. Gary Moore. Gary Moore. Thank you. Thank you. Gary Moore, he either died of lung cancer, he was a chain smoker, he retired or something. There was a fellow that followed him. And this fellow that followed him, I forget what his name was. He never got as famous, but he was from Tell City, Indiana down on the Ohio River.
Well, he teamed up with, this fellow that I knew, that had these radio station Terre Haute back in the early sixties, and they opened up a station in this little tiny town where I went to high school. And he started playing popular, songs, and I'd be on the school bus riding the school, and he'd play, I remember, at the same place. We were always at the same place. He'd play the same songs, and he'd play the green tambourine. You remember that song? Oh, sure do. Yep. I know who sang it. Some famous old rock and roll group in the early sixties. Well, he had a guy working there, like a lot of radio guys, and that Roger and I aren't that way, and far as I know. But, all these guys are overweight. You know? I don't know why radio announcers are often that way, but they had a big guy there, and I liked him. And he was the announcer on the stage.
And somebody called and requested, some, Patsy Cline or something song. And he or whoever it was, he played it. And, boy, the call started flooding in to the radio station. It was 800 AM clear channel. And, boy, it went clear down to into Kentucky and, over in in Indianapolis and St. Louis. They had a a clear signal. Mhmm. And, then that he saw all that country music was a big deal, and then he switched over to country music only. And he went down to Nashville, went to all the record con conventions, got all the free records, and he made a fortune in that little tiny station with country music.
And, but I remember I had a No, man. Go ahead, Roger. No. It wasn't me. Oh, guy went to high school.
[00:29:29] Unknown:
Oh, Bob? That would be Bob. That would be the lemon that would be the Lemon Pipers. My sisters had that 45, and they played the dickens out of it. Oh, wow. Great. The Lemon Pipers.
[00:29:40] Unknown:
And I never had another hit record. They were one hit wonders. I don't Oh, boy. Yep. That was a lot of those one hit wonders. Yeah.
[00:29:49] Unknown:
Another group called, the ones that sang one took over the line. I forget those fellows. I had one. Ship. I Brewer. Brewer. Well, you know your stuff. Brewer. I'll tell you what. Yeah. Yeah. That one and then there was also another one, I think, was, Brandy.
[00:30:10] Unknown:
I think that Brandy, you're a fine girl. I was played Looking Glass. I was in radio. Looking Glass. Right? I'll tell you. Bob, I've I've gotten a whole new,
[00:30:20] Unknown:
perspective on you here in the last couple of minutes. Yeah. Do I do I get a prize if I get three more right?
[00:30:26] Unknown:
You might. Yeah. I don't know what it would be, but we can give it to you.
[00:30:31] Unknown:
I'll just mix a point. I'll mix a point by his life. Even out in the middle of nowhere, where if you stand on the roof of your house on a clear day, you can see the edge of the world. That's where Bob grew up, and he knew all these things. That's it. That's because the media and the evil empire has a way of infiltrating to the little tiny nooks and crannies of our country. Where was it? Was it Kansas or Nebraska? I'm sorry. I forget. Where you grew up Northwest Kansas. Northwest which is near Nebraska. Right? Near Nebraska.
[00:31:05] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. A little bit closer to Nebraska than we were to Colorado.
[00:31:10] Unknown:
Well, I had, my mother-in-law grew up in the Nebraska Panhandle, and I visited there to see the at the pioneer graveyard where her father is buried and stuff, and it's shocking, how how far away from everything, those places are. Well, getting back to the point.
[00:31:30] Unknown:
Oh, so then I had a you talked Brent, you talked about stopping through Atwood sometime back a couple months ago, and at some point in your life, you'd stop by through Atwood to visit an old friend of yours. You're just an acquaintance. Yeah. And that was near and dear to my heart. They were they were a neighboring town. And, Yeah. Just to paint a little bit fuller picture of that, you know, fourth of July, we were cutting wheat. And we would be we would always try to make the, wheat harvest and such that we would be up on one of the high, plains, not down in the river, you know, in the creek. Yeah. So Yeah. When fourth of July night was going, we could set up on top of the wheat in the bed of the truck as they were finishing up the combining for the night. Uh-huh. And we could watch about six or eight different fireworks displays from small towns, you know, anywhere from 10 to 30 miles away because it's just flat.
Yeah. It's not flat, but it appears flat to those that don't know it. You know? But you could see grain elevators for five or six different neighboring towns, and that was yep. That was my childhood.
[00:32:40] Unknown:
To put it simply, you didn't learn to ski out there when you're growing
[00:32:44] Unknown:
up. Yeah. I did it. Behind behind the tractor.
[00:32:48] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I yeah. We did that. Well, yeah, we even had a horse that pulled it off. Behind the tractor. Yeah. But no. I relate to that. We used my brother and I climbed up on top of grain bins so we could watch the fireworks. Yep. We were getting high enough. Like you said, you get up so high. Well but getting back to the the radio station Yeah. I'll let you I'll let you get back to where you were headed. Thanks. Well, no. I I appreciate the frolics. I like to take the We need any other artists who will call on you, Bob. Go ahead, Brent. Yeah. That's right. Hidden talent. You don't have a you can't imagine what people know. Well, anyway, getting back to the had a buddy. I was in high school in this little town. This radio station wasn't far from my high school building. Of course, there wasn't anything in town far from my high school building.
And, he got a job. And when he was in high school, his father was the postmaster in this little town, and he got a job as the announcer. His name would and this guy's name was Tom Jones. Not related, as far as I know, to that famous Tom Jones singer, but at old Tom. And, I'd go with Tom over at the radio station when I was in high school, and he would read. He had a a ticker tape, Roger. A tape that would come out with the news and he would read that on the air. Of course, at that time he was a, a disc jockey. He had two wheels on both sides and he could cue them up. You just take your fingers and turn them till you hear the noise, you know? Yep. Yep. Then you know it's there'll be no dead time when you start the records. He was very good at it. But, yeah, news is controlled by just a few people, and they're the ones that, control America by political speech. And it's, I've told the story about Billy Graham. The only reason Billy Graham became famous was because the most influential newspaper man in America that owned 200 major news paper outlets. His name was William Randolph Hearst.
He sent a telegraph after Graham, held his in a tent in Los Angeles in 1949, I believe it was. He held a revival meeting in a big tent, of course, but somehow it got in the local papers and, William Randolph Hearst sent a telegram to all of his news outlets throughout the country. And it had two words that said pump Graham. And every newspaper of any influence in the country pumped Billy Graham. And, of course, the smaller newspapers get all their news from the larger newspapers. Yep. Well, you know, we had a little weekly in our a weekly newspaper. We didn't have a daily. We had a weekly. Well, a weekly newspaper has time to read what's going on and then put it in the paper. See?
That's the way it works. Now a interesting story to me is, the newspaper, editor Virginia City, Nevada. Him and another fellow was working for the newspaper. The the newspaper editor was a well known fellow, became a well known fellow. His name was Mark Twain. Right. And they got they got they found out that the newspapers in London, the London Times, were reading their papers. But they were reading them weeks after they published them because the only way to get them there safely was to buy steamship, and they have to go around the horn of South America and come up.
And so they cock concocted this crazy idea for fun that they thought they could sell more newspapers. And what they did was they would tell stories that were not true, that were so outlandishly incredible that that people would believe them because they were from a place so far away. You know, back then, if you were in Nevada or California, you weren't near The United States and they talked about way back in The States. Well, they would write these articles of these stories. They'd make them up and see how outlandish and how crazy they can make the stories and get the people in London, England to believe them. And they knew people in London would believe them if the newspapers would print them there, and the London Times would often print their crazy stories. And so they these two fellows, Mark Twain and this other writer, he was from my way.
They got, competing about how outlandish they could tell their stories and still get people to believe them. Of course, you had to tell them in a certain way. And Twain wrote this story or Sam Clemens about this fella that had invented an air conditioned suit. This is way back in the late eighteen sixties or the yeah. The eighteen sixties. And I don't know what the theory was chemically, but somehow people believed it. And he had this suit, and it was made of oiled leather. And he had this big mask thing he'd put on his head and it was completely enclosed and had this had this, some kind of chemical in it. And he, said that he would walk across Death Valley, which wasn't that far away by the, as a crow flies.
It meant Death Valleys in California, just crossed the state line in South, you know, quite a ways, I suppose, in those days. But so he invented this suit and, he went by himself and he started to walk across Death Valley and nobody ever heard from him. And Finally, this Indian come running into Nevada City, which is up toward Reno, come running into town, screaming, screaming, screaming about he found this man and they finally got him to tell the story. He was sitting on a rock, in Death Valley and, in a funny looking suit, like a space suit or something. And he had an icicle a foot long hanging from his face mask, and he was froze stiff as a board.
And so they printed that story as though it were true and sent it to London. And, or there in the paper, the paper went to London. Of course, then London printed it as though it was truth. They believed it. And then the New York Times printed it. That was August. And then all the papers printed it. Of course, that everybody in Virginia City and Nevada were laughing so hard that they they had belly gut, pain because they knew it was a lie. And, that's the way they sold newspapers. But the other fellow then wrote an article about these, this wagon train coming across, to Virginia City, and they had to after they leave Salt Lake City, they had to cross a hundred miles, but you still have to cross a hundred miles on the interstates. You have to cross a hundred miles of, of salt flats after you live after you leave, Salt Lake City, and then you come to the Nevada State Line at Windover.
And that's where the Bonneville Salt Flats are, and then the salt flats end. But they he told the story, making it up, of course, just making it up as ago about this, they ran out of water coming across that hundred miles, and the the oxen were about to die. And one of the fellows in the wagon train, this older guy had the pleurisy real bad, and he was retaining water. So they put him up on a high rock and poked a hole in the side of his abdomen and drained the water out of his body and watered the oxen and the mule. Oh my god.
Well, that that was just a story. You know? But, the London Times printed that one too. And, of course, when this then a few a month or two later when the London Times and the New York Times would come back to Nevada City and everybody was just dying to, read the Nevada paper because they would re reprint the response, you know, and, they would always print it while I thought it was true. But that Mark Twain and this other fellow understood how the press works. The, the, the, the world is just a group of people all following each other in a circle. That's what the world is.
It's just people following each other in a circle. I'm following you and you're following me, but people don't figure that out. And as Jesus Christ said, the blind are leading the blind and they both fall into the ditch because they're both blind and they're following each other and they'll lead us into hell. That's what the press is in America. So when I read things in the press, but let's listen to what Tucker Carlson said the other day. I was telling you, he never, he didn't read the papers at all and never did. And even when he was making all those millions as a, as a commentator of the news. Oh, he's doing much better now.
But even better now, but he's a good point, Roger. But he said, somebody asked him, the interviewer asked him, do you, where do you get your news? He said, well, not, I don't read any news. And then he said, why should I? I know it's all BS. I know it's all a lie. I know it's all skewed. I know it's all not the truth. Where are you going to find the truth in the news? I tell people that, and it's hard to get conservative people to believe that, but it's true. There is no truth in the news. None. None. You want to know the truth?
Just set back. Don't read it because it will, and don't listen to it. It will affect your mind. It will get to you. But if you just hear it a little bit here and there, your mind will stay free enough to analyze it and say, no baloney, there's more to the story. So you're telling us Roger, of course, now the politics controls the news politics and the speech is what we call the Bible has a word for this called political speech. You go to Genesis chapter 11, there were the Tower Of Babel is built. And it said that, they nothing would be withheld from them because they they had unity. You know, the Bible, God tells us in the Bible that if people are unified on a particular goal, they will accomplish it even if it's evil.
And that's why God case that we must come down. If we don't come down, there's nothing that will be withheld from what they're doing there. And what were they doing? The words that are used there describe political speech, politically correct speech. People say, well, they all spoke one language in Babylon. Well, maybe they did, but that's not the point of the story. And you can go to the prophets and find the same Hebrew phrase where the prophets are describing the mantra, the brainless mantra of political speech. Well, that's what was going on in Babylon.
Babylon is the beginning of the evil empire in sophisticated form. Everything was there. Babylon was the first true empire and Nimrod was the first true emperor of the world, the law of the city and contrast to our law of the land and gained it religion, law and government. And so at Babylon, they weren't just, they were speaking, everybody was saying the same thing. They were all speaking politically correct. And that's what brought the power to the evil empire. And so I say to people, do not get caught up in the Bohemian, the Jewish, the Yiddish, the hippie, the beatnik culture, because it's all a matter of words.
And once you begin to chime in and talk that beat talk, that beatnik talk, that hippie talk, that that, what would we call it? Trendy talk that everybody else is talking, using their phrases. You become a Dodo. I go to church, the evil empire, the useful idiots thereof. The devil himself is not stupid. He controls things by controlling powerful institutions. He doesn't invent or start or keep institutions going. He steals them. I went to a Nazarene church not long ago. Every Nazarene church and that denomination, the main denomination has the same liturgy.
And I that's a fancy old word. All it means is, we're all gonna do it the same way. It's just politically correct speech. And we're all gonna pray the same prayer. We're all gonna have the same creed, and we're all gonna say the same thing, and we're gonna keep repeating it. And the evil empire looks at people like that and goes, this is gonna be easy. All we gotta do is control their music, for example. And we'll all have In the name of the bread. And we'll sing the same stupid songs, The seven eleven songs, this this have the same verse you sing us. It says the same verse you sing at seven eleven times with the same seven words and that's brainless stupidity.
It has no biblical content. It doesn't teach you anything. It just lulls you into feeling and being with the crowd. And I watched this happen at this Nazarene church, otherwise Christian folk there. And I know some of them personally, and I know they're sincere, but they, this church, the there was a group of people, most of them are a little older, that had Sunday school class. I went to the Sunday school class when I went because when I was back home, I knew people there, and I went to the Sunday school class. Then when Sunday school was over, the church started and they would just go home. In other words, they had their church and Sunday school class. They would not go into the church service because they didn't wanna be subjected to the listening to the mantra of the silly songs they were singing and had the worship group up there, and they're all showbiz. And they're all, they're good.
That's not Christianity friends. That's the evil empire. God wants us to worship him with all of our mind. Now he also wants us to worship him with all of our feelings and emotion and all of our body and all of our soul and all of our spirit, but don't leave the mind out of it. That's all I'm saying. All of it's important. You are an integration of all of those facets, and God will use all of them. Comment.
[00:46:18] Unknown:
But but Paul has to make another comment. Go ahead, Paul. I gotta make another comment. You are just absolutely so right on. Even if you watch the the mainstream news, the network news at night, if you've got an HDTV, you see that inch inch and a half border around the screen. It's usually black with, like, a blue wavy lines that are just so gently moving back and forth, and that lulls you into a receptive hypnotic state. So if you have a TV like that, go to the Zoom function and just zoom in that screen so you don't be watching that, or just don't watch and listen or get your news from the radio.
And if you go to a church and the choir is up front and while they're singing their hands are up in the air waving back and forth, run. I mean, run. I mean, run because that is their intent is to lull you into a hypnotic receptive state. And from that point on, it's over for you, man. It's just over.
[00:47:27] Unknown:
Yeah. Let me bring Paul, you just you just dissed about every black charismatic church in the country.
[00:47:35] Unknown:
Yep. Sorry. Paul Paul, let me let me take that to an extreme. I get your point, Paul. And, I would focus more from my perspective on words than I would upon the movements. Although I see your point and it's true, that can lull you too. I mean, why do you go into casino and you hear this ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, and 40 acres of it all the time? That that that lulls ringing bells. Yeah. Yeah. But but getting, to another point, I went to a Lutheran church not long ago, and I'm continually shocked at the Lutherans. And I've I had some Lutherans on these programs tell me, well, I grew up in the Lutheran church and that wasn't the case. Well, maybe it wasn't, but it certainly is now into the conserved, what so called conservative Bible believing Lutheran churches I go into. Well, I went into this church and the guy told me, well, we're having before I went, he said, we're having, St John the Lutheran's day.
I said, St John the Lutheran. Are you sure you're not talking about John the Baptist? Oh, yeah. John the Baptist, but they call him St John the Lutheran shucks. The nobody knew what a Lutheran was when John Baptist was, he wasn't Yeah. No kidding. Right. Well, let's get back to it. So I went to church, though, and I said, I'm interested in church history. I'm interested in liturgy. I'm interested in how American Christianity has developed. I've always been interested in that. We just taught through large parts of that in our course on Christian nationalism at the law school. And just going into why do we do the things we do and why religion in America or Christianity is the way it is.
And I would, recommend that to you. It's on the website commonlawyer.comfifteen. We just finished 15 presentations. You can access them. They're all in the can, visual audio. But in most of that course, I tried to trace the history of of Christianity in America, the good and the bad, and why it is the way it is. But coming back to the Lutheran church, you know, Lutherans got to America, and they really didn't wanna have anything to do with America. They wanted to go west like the Mormons and and practice their Germanic religion, their, I should say, Germanic Scandinavian. And many of them, of course, migrated to places like, Ioway and then all up much in Minnesota into the Dakotas, the the Nordic tribes, the Swedes, the Norwegian, then the Germans came in, and they they covered Nebraska.
They were farmers, and they the railroads advertised all over Saxon and Germany to persuade them to immigrate to America. Lots of farmland. Well, they came. And those cultures now control those parts of America. Lutheranism is very big in those areas. I wasn't big where I was, but I'd heard about them. I knew we didn't know have much to do with them. But what this guy showed me was he's sat down, and he said, they went through the Gregorian chants, the Gregorian chants, which Rome uses as well. Mhmm. Yep. And the Gregorian chants are chants. In other words, you don't you don't show any emotion when you do the Gregorian chants, not in this. And this was a conservative Lutheran church. It's just monotone.
Sounds like the groan of a machine. And I asked the guy, I said, I understand what the Gregorian chants are. And I know who, Pope Gregory was. And he was the savior of Rome in the fifth century from the, from the, the Nordic hordes, the Goths and the Visigoths and all that baloney. But he did these chants. And this guy told me, he said, well, the object here is to keep our emotions out of it and it to be purely, purely focused on God and nothing about ourselves. And I said, that's stupid. Not only are you to worship the Lord, your God, with all your mind, you are to worship him with all your soul and your feelings and your spirit and everything that was, is within you. As it says in the Psalms, make a joyful noise unto the Lord.
What God wants us to do is relax and be human. He doesn't want us to chant. That's like I've been to Islamic countries and you hear this constantly five times a day over loud speakers all over whatever city you're in. Oh, that's paganism friends. I don't care how you cut it to deny any facet of your personality to deny any facet of your personality to your maker is a pagan idea. Don't do that. He owns all of you and he, he is entitled to all of you. Oh, I know you don't want to go overboard, but just recognize, make a joyful noise and to the Lord. We used to sing when we were children.
I got that joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart, down in my heart. I remember all the words and thinking back on it, it was a child's song, but how true that is. Joy is the Christian life. I write these things unto you that you're better translated. Thrill, thrill, t h r I l l the thrill of the Lord, the excitement of it all to be, to be freed from the shackles of stupidity, of slavery, of denying what God wants you to have. Some groups deny themselves from sex. They don't last long, of course, like the shakers in Upper State New York. I think there are 200 shakers left in the world, they say. Of course, they denied themselves the joy of a sexual relationship with their own wives.
Celibacy. The Roman priesthood denies that too. People say that the Puritans were boring. They denied themselves emotion and fun. That is not true. That is not true. That's a lie of evil empire painting these pictures of Puritans with black and white clothes. That is not the way they dressed. They dressed in colorful colors. That's why the judges in the Puritan party started this idea in England. The judges in England wear colorful robes. We don't in America for a a weird reason, but I guess you could take it positively. But, it is rather rather somber that we wear black robes that came from mourning the death of, William and Mary.
And in England, they wore black robes for a period of mourning in America. We did the same thing. But then in America, we never stopped. I don't know why, but we're still wearing black robes still mourning the death of William and Mary. Well, look up William and Mary, and there's a good reason for that. That's, that they were the they were the champions of Protestantism. Protestantism in the English speaking world, and Tom Jefferson is a graduate of William and Mary College, and and the orange William of Orange, they called him, and the Orange Order of, of Northern Ireland among the Scots Irish and the Orange Order in in, in America.
Very powerful influence, and orange became an important color in America because it's the color of Protestantism. I grew up on the edge of a township called Orange Township. All of these things are part of our history, but to understand how God has worked out his truth in our English speaking culture to me and in my mind is more fascinating than any facet of Christianity ever in the world. And never has there been a nation more Christian, de facto, not by law, not de jure, just de facto. But there's never been a more Christian nation in the world, de facto or de jure than America. And we stand, of course, constantly on the verge of losing what has given us all this wealth and prosperity. It's not us.
It's not us. It's God's providence that we even know the gospel, contrary to our sin. Go ahead, Roger. No. I'm just agreeing with you, Brent. Yeah. Mhmm. Absolute
[00:55:25] Unknown:
and so am I. And, we're coming up to the top of the hour. You gotta talk about commonlawyer.com, Brent.
[00:55:31] Unknown:
Gotta work that in. Thank you, Paul. Yeah. I wanna get the word out. I don't wanna be bashful about it either. I think I got some right ideas. I'm sure I got some wrong ones. But, fundamentally, I'm fully convinced that I'm right headed. And what I'm what I'm saying is, the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God, our common law tradition unwritten, but observe. And our the laws of nature's God as Blackstone tells us. That's their phrase in those days for the Bible. The laws of nature and the laws of nature is God. These two volumes are constitute, comprise our common law tradition.
Our common law tradition, in one sense, the second greatest blessing we have as Americans, The first greatest blessing is the Bible, the laws of nature's God. But the laws of nature, the way things are in creation are our second greatest blessing that will lead us by the way to the first. Go to commonlawyer.com, the website, and you'll find there many resources. The website's for fun. Take it that way. We're on the public platforms, on the radio, all over the country. Actually, I should say now, all over the world. We get communications from all over the world, but that listen because it's on Internet.
But we we try to establish using Winters Inn, the law school, law courses. We've taught probably a dozen courses there in the can. You can access those there, audio and visual on simple common law subjects. Simple. Well, yeah. Simple, the law of promises, of course, on contracts, the law of trust, which is part of the law of promises, but it's it's not a a banal contract. We have a course on that. How to draft, common law trust. We have have a course on that. Those are about twelve weeks long. We have a clause by clause and blow by blow course over 50 presentations on Magna Carta.
I really enjoyed that. I had a hard time stopping. We just finished the course on Christian nationalism. That was fifteen fifteen weeks. And then we also have a course on the common law of evidence, evidence at common law, how it works. All of our litigation in America, we should do nothing. We should do nothing as individual Christians that we don't do it on sufficient evidence. And I'm in good company when I say that. Many people smarter than me have said that. And our common law is all about evidence. That's all it's about, really, at its foundation. Do we have sufficient evidence to believe this?
And, then we can start our reasoning. But if we don't have sufficient evidence, we'd be foolish to to make something up and start our reasoning in that way and come to the wrong conclusion. But our the book, Excellence of the Common Law, 957 pages comparing and contrasting the law of the land with the law of the city, our common law, with the canon civil laws of Rome, which govern every country in the world except the few common law countries. And then also the winterized translation of the Bible, a common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, the Hebrew and Aramaic of the older testament and the Koine Greek of the newer testament, 35, about 35,000 footnotes explaining why I translate this way or translate that way. And then over 200 appendices tracing the major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context of the Bible.
That's comes in five volumes in hard copy now because of all the comments trying to explain and swallow too. And the target audience know why I translated the way I did. The target audience of that Bible is me. And the reason that I have translated it because the Bible tells men to do what they can to understand number two, I don't wanna cook the book. I want to deliver up a raw translation. Raw. And that's the the it's not the spell of the Bible. It's the for me to teach from. You can get all those books and other books, a dozen other books, by your superior at common layer dot com. Thank you, Roger, and thank you, Paul.
[00:59:42] Unknown:
Thank you. Thank you, Brent. By all means, follow us into the second hour. Radio soapbox dot com and one zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago and any other platforms on the NET family of broadcast services. If you drop out, go to the matrixdocs.com eurofolk radio Com link or the globalvoiceradio, .net link. We've within the last fifteen minutes, we talked about the about chanting, how probably a popular chant in India on really hot days is why I die dry. Why I die dry. And other the importance of the color orange, the historic value of the color orange. And the liberal left probably chanting orange man bad.
Orange man bad. By all means, hit us up in the second hour because it only gets better from here.
[01:00:42] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. A good well, you make a good point, Paul. Chanting is politically correct speech. But more than that, don't tell me that most people know what they're what they're saying when they're doing those chants. It becomes a ritual. It's like saying hail Mary a 65 times of driving across New Mexico one time. When I drive across New Mexico, so I like that in Arizona. I'd like to tune in to the Hopi and the Navajo stations, the the the tribal stations out there. I cause they they speak Navajo and Hopi, and I listen. And sometimes I can pick up words and I can even, if you listen enough, begin to figure out what they're saying. Of course, the Romanists are out there trying to get them under the yoke of Romanism. You know, the Navajo and the Apache, Geronimo himself, only one thing he hated worse, than Americans, and that was Mexicans and pre the priesthood.
And the priesthood had enslaved his people, the agricultural system of the Roman the canon civil laws of Rome is a slavery. The Latfundia of the Roman Empire, the plantation of the American South, the Hacienda of the American Southwest are all agricultural systems of slavery, and they came out there and enslaved the tribal people. And Geronimo Geronimo somebody gonna say something? Somebody? I thought I heard somebody.
[01:02:03] Unknown:
Geronimo watched the Mexicans crucify his parents. That's the reason he needed them cement.
[01:02:13] Unknown:
Can you blame me? I know that was the Roman priesthood that did that.
[01:02:16] Unknown:
They're behind the I didn't know that.
[01:02:19] Unknown:
Every year, the Roman church in a lot of places has the feast of Jerome in the in in the American Southwest, the Roman the Spanish Romanist, the priest had the Feast of Jerome. The word Geronimo is the Spanish way to say Jerome. Jerome. And his name wasn't Apache. He took it on because what happened to the Feast of Jerome, Geronimo knew it was happening. He planned it all out. And at a certain point in the feast of Jerome, Jerome was to walk onto the grounds where the feast was in a big costume and a mask, and he was supposed to be Jerome. Well, Geronimo got all the getup to look like Jerome and had the mask and everything. And he somehow kidnapped the guy that was supposed to do it and he did it and he walked out. And at a certain point, everybody was fawning before him, you know, how they worship the saints, Saint Jerome. Jerome wasn't such a bad guy, by the way. I just drop a footnote about Jerome. Jerome is the man that translated the Bible into Latin called the Latin Vulgate at the behest of the Pope of Rome who wanted, there were many Latin versions out there, and he wanted an official Latin version. And so Jerome is the one that went to Bethlehem and sat in a little crypt for a few years with a rabbi to learn Hebrew.
Now that's dangerous in and of itself to learn Hebrew from a rabbi, but he did. He, nobody else knew his squad about it from straight up. And then he knew something and he translated the Bible from the original tongues into Latin. And now instead of the original tongues being the official Bible of Roman church, which should be, the Latin is final, but the Latin has mistakes in it as all translations do. Big mistakes, by the way, in some places. But Jerome Jerome or or Geronimo, his name wasn't Geronimo, but he got to be called Geronimo because at a certain point, there was a signal and all his his, henchmen came out. They just murdered everybody. All the Roman priesthood that is murdered them. I didn't murder them. No. They they deserved it. I it wasn't murder. I don't know. The case was never tried, but from then on out, he was a wanted man, as you know.
And by the way, at the end of Jeronimo's life, he was in prison finally in Oklahoma and California or, Florida. He was imprisoned. Quite the entrepreneur. He would he had pictures of himself, photographs. He had a lot of them made, and when the train would stop anywhere, he'd come out and people crowd around. And the white folk would wanna see the the wild Apache. And he had all these pictures, and he sold them for a quarter a piece with his signature on them or his mark. I don't know if he knew how to write. But he sold them for a quarter a piece, which was a chunk of change in those days, and he made quite a bit of money. And then, though, he became very much an entrepreneur of gardening and raised pumpkins. He got real good at cross breeding pumpkins and squash and he became a Christian man, specifically of the Presbyterian ilk. He became a Presbyterian of all things, Calvinist, a Calvinist.
He was a very much, a man of words. He was very much an orator. He knew how to communicate and he was very much a leader and he was very much loyal to his own people. Can you blame him for doing what he did? Of course, people hated him and they patched. He did some nasty things, but I don't know. And I've read a lot about Jeronimo. I don't know that he ever was one to do nasty things. If people, need to kill him, he killed him, But he didn't I don't think he was wanting to go out and kill discriminately is what I'm saying. And there were Apaches, by the way, that did. There's always the renegades.
But, that's the story of Jerome, and now I forgot what I was talking about before Jerome. What was I talking about,
[01:05:59] Unknown:
Paul? Do you remember? I don't know, Brent, but I've got a question for you, and it came up. You've talked about it before, and we haven't. And it started popping up in The US about a month ago. I've been meaning to ask you about it. So is this a good time to inject that? Let's not forget Erie Railroad too. Oh. But, you told us about the ends of court in England is how people were taught lawyering. Right? Yeah. Right. Did you hear about the ends America, the ends of court that broke about three or four weeks ago? I haven't heard much follow-up on it. That's why I kinda wanted to ask you about it. Did you happen to hear about the incident where that would expose that? What happened? No. No. I it just got exposed. They've got this organization called America Ends of Court.
And what brought it forth was all this bickering in the judiciary, particularly over one supreme court justice named, mister Roberts, the chief justice, and his involvement in that and other real kind of nefarious questionable circumstances. And have you picked up any of that?
[01:07:11] Unknown:
Well, no. But I I do know about the ends of court, the American end of court, and it was started by a bunch of elites. And it doesn't resemble at all the ends of court of old England. That's a different matter. But I can tell you about the ends of court and what they're supposed to be. That's not what that is. That was the elites they wanna control. But k. What happened in England, back after the Norman invasion? A French became the only language, the law of French, the Norman French. Remember the Normans were the Norwegians that conquered the coast of France and then conquered at least a third of France, and that was called Normandy. That's why it's called Normandy because they were from Norway. Well, while they were there, about a hundred and sixty five years before they invaded England, the Norwegians picked up the bass the French tongue, but it was a bastardized form because they were they weren't French. So and so, they ended up I don't know. William, the Rufus, they called him. Rufus the red. He was a red headed fella in Norwegian, and he conquered, he invaded England on the 10/14/1066, the Battle of Hastings, coming over from France. And he claimed that he was entitled to the throne because of family ties in Norway and the the and Denmark and all those places where well, Norway and Denmark especially were deeply involved in the conquering and the settling of England over the years, and they're all mixed up there now. Of course, the people that sit on the throne now, the family are descended from this Rufus, this, William the conqueror, they called him, that invaded on the Fourteenth Block. William The Bastard.
William they called him William the bastard, which wasn't wise to do in those days. Some fellows called him William the bastard when he was trying to take a castle in France. Of course, he thought he was entitled to it, and, they were hollering down at him. Yeah. Oh, you're William the Bastard. Well, was he a bastard? Yes. He was. He didn't have nobody knew who his father was. Just one of those woods colts, as they say in the Wabash Valley. Just a colt that appears in the woods. You don't know who sired the cult. We used to call them woods cults. Well, that's the way it was there. And so, when they finally took the castle, he found out who was saying that, and he, didn't kill him. He had both their hands cut off and turned them loose. That's a rough way to live life.
He didn't want people calling him William the bastard. That that bothered him. He's pretty sensitive about it is what I'm trying to say. Great umbrage. Yeah. Yeah. Well, he was a nasty man. Well, so they, they got to England and when they got to England, they spoke this bastardized French that no Frenchman would ever speak by the way. A Frenchman would likely barf if he heard somebody talking like that. Well, this was about six. There was about 6,000 of these Normans that came to England, conquered England. There were about a, oh, maybe a million Anglo Saxons in England. They conquered them, and they had a policy of extermination. They tried to kill all of the Anglo Saxons, but they didn't get it done. That's just too hard to do.
Of course, they had took evasive action. Well, finally, he just took over. And the first thing that William said is the common law is enforced in England. Nothing's changed, just a change of management. So the common law remained enforced. All the courts remained in place. Everything remained in place. The wit and gamut, the wit and gamut of the Anglo Saxons, the meeting of the gray bearded men stayed in place. But in all of that common law stayed in place, they gave new names to everything and they were French words. The Witt and Gamat became the parliament, the place to parlay the parliament and all of the language of the courts was in this bastardized law French.
And these bastardized law French words still riddle our courts today. The, simple words like petition, that's a French word, didn't exist in in the course, well, everything was controlled by these six, six thousand, six thousand, Normans, all of the courts in England, all of the, all of the management of all of the agricultural lands, the manners, the manor courts, of course, they would like the township courts. They had really small courts then and went right down to do every cottage, as they used to say. That was the great strength of our common law. But, after doing all that, there were a lot of people that couldn't get in court, about a million, about a million Anglo Saxons. If they had a problem, they could not get into court because they didn't know law French.
And if there was anybody who could speak both tongues, Anglo Saxon, which is English and law French, they could make your case to the French speaking court. Some poor widow woman who's an Anglo Saxon and needs help or whatever the case or a contract problem or land problem or theft. The men that knew both languages became in high value and they, the Normans knew they had to give justice to everybody. They wouldn't be able to maintain their government. And so they let these men come in and speak that knew both tongues and speak for these Anglo Saxons.
And there were eventually enough of these men. They got together and they said, look, William, the conqueror had promised the Pope of Rome that if he would back me back him in his invasion of England, he would turn the country over to him. Well, he's reneged on that. And he said, instead, I'll just pay you money. He would send money to the Pope. But one thing he did do, he replaced all the Anglo Saxon judges in the courts with Roman priests, Roman priests, Roman priests are Canon civil law lawyers even yet today. That's all they know. They're not taught the Bible. They may know something about the Bible. Some of them might take an interest in the Bible, but that's not what they're taught. They're taught to be lawyers of the, what they call the Canon laws. Well, the Canon laws or the code of Justinian of the Roman empire put to an ecclesiastic purpose.
So they're lawyers of the Canon law and they saw these judges in the common law courts of England, the old common law courts. And they said, if we don't do something to have influence in the courts, we're gonna lose our common law. And they understood the dip I mean, their common law and the what's on the continent, which is the canon civil laws of Rome that govern. And there will be no freedom in England anymore if we don't do something. So what these men did is they got together and they said the, the university at Oxford is not going to produce lawyers. They produce lawyers, canon civil law lawyers, and all the universities are the product of Rome. And at the center of all the universities starting in Bologna, I call it Bologna, Italy, where the first university with the Pope commissioned the first university was to teach the Canon civil laws of Rome and everything at the university, every school, the school of astronomy, the school of medicine, the school of, of law was the center and everything had to conform, had to revolve around and conform to what was in the center, which was the code of Justinian, the Canon civil laws of Rome. And that's why they're called uni versities.
That's what Rome called them because Latin, you see, they always spoke Latin. Uni unity, there's unity around the central point where everything else around that, all the schools of whatever architecture, as I've said, medicine, astronomy, natural science, all of the schools at the university and universities are still set up this way. You got this school and that school, but if you're going to have a university versus means around, uni means central. You've got a central point of unity, which is the law, the canon civil laws of Rome and the Pope of Rome at that time is when he established that first university at Italy, he said expressly, he said, we're going to supplant the Bible as ultimate court of last resort.
The Canon civil laws are the ultimate court of the Supreme logos, the great logic of man. The mind of man is Supreme. That's the definition of humanism. Scholasticism. Logic is supreme. That's all. This is pagan hogwash. It's not true. Scientifically, it doesn't work, but that's what the whole world operates under and all the universities of the world, including Oxford, were that way. They said, we can't teach the common law in Oxford. What are we going to do? So they formed these ends of court over the next few centuries. These ends of court, are still there in England and it's a private, it's privately funded, privately operated, and they produce common lawyers. And that's how common law education happened. You see the common law was not allowed to be mentioned or taught at Oxford. And then later at Cambridge, those are products of Rome. The Canon civil laws are taught, but not our common law. The common law is taught at the ends of court and they're private institution. They're free institutions.
When our country started about 100 graduates of the ends of court of England were in America and their influence in guiding the process along to a common, through a common law tradition was indispensable. We're going to talk about Harry. We don't want to forget to do that. Maybe we can do that if we get this done, but I want about just a story and the importance of the common law and what happened in Erie Railroad and Swift versus Tyson of ninety six years before Erie Railroad case of 1938. But back then, the ends of court were how they began then to produce a licensed lawyers. And they just like the organization to the say today, they say we're going to be the organization that certifies whatever they want to certify.
And they, that's what they did. They said, well, certify and license these men that they've been through a rigorous process. They understand the common law. Obviously these Roman priests know, don't know deadly squat from straight up, sick them from come here about the common law. And they're setting on the benches. And what they're doing is they they don't know what else to do. They're applying the law of the city principles to the cases that will destroy us as a people and destroy our freedom. Yep. So that's how the ends of court and that's how the private practice of law developed, in more modern times. And we brought that tradition to America.
And people complain about lawyers and rightly so. They're just as dangerous as anybody else. But understand, lawyers are independent of the government in a way that they aren't in the rest of the world. We have an adversarial system in our common law. We fight in the rest of the world and the Canon Canon civil laws of Rome. When you and the, what they, a tribunal, I don't call it a court. There is no fight. There's just a judge. Who's a civil servant and he's not even a lawyer. He's trained to be a judge, which is a different thing. And the only object they have is to make sure everybody conforms to the code, the provisions of the code, nothing else matters.
Not, not truth, not justice, not the omnipresence of the law that is everywhere. As justice story said, the omnipresence of the law is the omnipresence of God. That's what it is. Well, area railroad rejected that idea in the federal courts, but it wasn't all bad. And we, we talk about that at the time, but that's how the common law was rescued
[01:18:25] Unknown:
from obliteration in England by the ends of court and the men that were bilingual, French and English. Well, I just wanted to bring up this story that came out because it hadn't been followed up on much. I'm kind of surprised, but Roberts is one of the key operators here and all of these rebel judges. Bromberg that's doing all this like with Garcia. He's the one that's over that case and a couple of other ones up there, and they're all the ones that are going to the ends of court where you can, oh, go off in a corner with, other people to get an interesting insight into special cases, you know, that kind of stuff. It it's just all corruption where they can pay each other off and and and do all that shenanigan or whatever it is. And I'm just shocked it hadn't gotten any more, any more, press on it. Now there was another aspect of this with Roberts.
I wish I could remember the Jewish guy's name. He at the time, he was the, ambassador to Czech Republic, and he had a 50 room old mansion over there, was with, I guess, the embassy or where he lived or whatever. And Roberts went over there for a week at a time, and this guy came out in the podcast. Boy, I wish I could remember his name. When he's really arrogant, big Jew guys. And he said, yes. Well, we were discussing something about European and American law. The foundations are are something. So Roberts has bought and paid for, and, I'd like to see some of this stuff come up more. We'll see as we go forward. I don't wanna miss out on Erie Railroad. So, you know, you can sense the time.
But, but I did wanna ask that question. Been meaning to ask you for a couple of weeks and just keep we get off in these conversations, and you miss the opportunity to mention it. You know?
[01:20:17] Unknown:
Well, no. I I see what you're saying. Roger, can you still hear me?
[01:20:20] Unknown:
Barely. You sound a little faint.
[01:20:23] Unknown:
Well, I'm gonna I had to stand up for a second, but I will sit down now. I'm sorry. I had to stand up because I had somebody request something from me, but I'm back down here. No. No problem. What goes on behind the scenes will be hidden, and the only answer to that is you and I doing right. For example, you talked about the American end of court. The the name sounds right, but it isn't. Then you've got the judicial council at the University of Nevada in Reno, the University of Nevada and the judicial council. Look it up. Who funds the Judicial Council at the university? You'd be surprised. Find out. And what they do is they invite all the judges in America, state and federal, when they become a judge. They don't know what they're doing. I mean, these are the people I went to law school with. I know what they're like. Yep.
They, they don't, they're wrong headed to start with many of them as many people are, but then they take them to the, to the judicial council and the judicial council does the same thing that AI PAC did to me when I ran for Congress. They came to me and they said, listen, if you win the election and we're going to believe you will, you're going to need a lot of help. You're going to need a lot of information and we want you to know we'll provide anything you need. Now when a guy's in Congress, say, he's all of a sudden shoved into a position where he has a lot of power and people want his influence to work for them.
Very, very dangerous as you can imagine for everybody concerned. But they, these organizations come to you and say, Hey, you come to us for your information. You come to us, we'll help you. We'll provide staff members for you. We've got the whole thing sewed up. Well, that's what the judicial council does for judges. And then they end up of course, controlling them. Again, find out who's running the judicial council. But I know that judges in small, obscure places in America, it's all free. You say you don't even pay for it. You just go out there and they have all sorts of courses you can take. Some of them are very good, but some of them are things like this. How do you handle, an unruly person in court who claims he's a sovereign citizen? You're right.
And, well, I'm not for the sovereign citizen movement. As a matter of fact, I'm dead against it. And I have biblical reasons for that. And they're very good. A matter of fact, they're overwhelmingly persuasive. But what they teach them to do is to squelch, squelch any objections to the evil empire. That's what they teach them to do, but they put a face on it. Like we're just here to help. We want to help you. And they offer it for free. And now there are some institutions on the conservative side that do the same thing. And I had tended some of those. One of them was the Morton Blackwell ran it. It was in Washington DC and he had a lot of money behind him. A lot of famous people supported what Morton was doing. He was the Republican state chairman of Virginia at that time. I don't even know if Morton's around anymore. He was in the Reagan administration in the Department of Education.
But what he offered to people running for office, and I took advantage of it is all sorts of teachers would come in. There were experts on subjects about how to do things. They had guys come in there and teach us how to, how to dress for the camera. So So you won't look stupid, the right colors of clothes, how to walk and be polite when you're walking up the stairs with a female or walking down the stairs, where do you, where do you walk in relation to her? And they also had courses on just plain politics and how to handle criticism, how to handle false criticism, how to handle true criticism.
All of us that was free, all the food you could eat, and it was well funded. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but the judicial council is doing what's evil as far as I can tell. Right. As also some of these packs in DC that take people that are scared, don't know what they're doing. They're in Washington DC. They've, they've never had this kind of power before. What do you do? Well, that's, that's what is out there. All, all the organizations, the evil empire controlling it comes down again, the simplicity, let's make this simple. Don't worry about all the things I'm telling you. I just worry about, don't get caught up in politically correct speech. That's ultimately what controls.
And the story of Genesis chapter 11 is about that. When it says that they were all of one lip, all of one speech. That's the phrase that the prophet Jeremiah, I believe it was Jeremiah, uses to speak a politically correct speech. And that's what was going on in Babylon. It all stands to reason. Don't get caught up in that. Because if you can, you know, we, as, as, members of Adam's race, we learned thousands of years ago that if you could get men to move at the same time together, you could get them to think together and to talk together.
That's why marching, I used to wonder why is marching such a, an important thing in bootcamp? I mean, it doesn't really teach you anything. Woah. It teaches you a lot. It teaches you that you're part of a unit without saying a word. And if you can teach men to move together and you gotta get good at marching in bootcamp. And by the time you leave, you will be good at it. It'll be as natural as breathing, marching, and you're not even allowed to walk if there's two or more of you not allowed to walk anywhere except you're in step. Well, if you can teach men or get them or train them is the better word to move together, they will be together.
And if you can train men to speak together and say the same things, they will think together, and they will act together, and they will be enslaved. I'm telling you friends. That's why the first amendment, as part of our common law tradition, it put in our constitution. That's why it's so important. That's why we're here today. Roger and I are on here and Roger's on five days a week. We're exercising the freedom of speech. What we think is important. And if we ever lose that, everything is lost. It comes down to words. My friend, do you think that it's any accident? Yeah. God governs with words. That's why he gave us a book called spoke the world into existence. What more proof do you need?
And as that one prime minister in England said, if God governs with words, is that any mystery that the creature he created out of his imagination, he commissioned him to govern with words too. That's us. Somebody piped
[01:26:49] Unknown:
Larry Larry was trying to chime in there. He's always got good questions, but I wanna make sure we get this this, Erie Railroad thing covered because we talked about it earlier this week, and that's why I shot you that message. So Larry is I know Brent gets off on your questions and goes twenty, thirty minutes. So what's your question, if you could?
[01:27:14] Unknown:
So is he finished discussing the Erie Railroad?
[01:27:17] Unknown:
Well, we hadn't even started it.
[01:27:20] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Well, a little while ago, he brought up the the words du jour and de facto. And in the patriot community, Brent might already know this, lot a lot of patriots don't like to use the word de facto because they they align that with legal and something that's artificial while the du jour is natural and organic. And is it really a bad thing to to use de facto to describe, like, you know, laws and states and things like that? And maybe he could go over those terms.
[01:28:02] Unknown:
I'll respond to alright. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll respond to it quickly, and then I'll get on with theory. But, what you just described, the way patriots take that is hogwash. That's not what those words mean at all. And like most patriots stuff, not most, I'm overwhelmed with the the mythology. No. I have no kid. Thank thank you. And that just never never stops. And those are distractions of the evil empire to get people off on those things and away from the main question, what is controlling and what we can do to be effective. De jure means de jure means by law. De facto means in fact. Illustration.
America is a de facto Christian nation. There's no law we have that says we gotta be Christian. England is a de jure Christian nation. They got law that says they are officially positive law. They're officially Christian. Are they de facto too? Doesn't look like much anymore, but America is. That's what de jure and de facto means. De facto means, in fact, we are. I don't care what the law says. Dejure means we're Christian because the law says we are. That's the difference between the two. It's a con those are common terms, nothing fancy about them. They mean just what they say, and we should understand them for the simplicity simplicity of what they mean. Again, thank you for bringing that up because it gives me an opportunity to start with the etymology of the word. Don't start with what other people say it means. Don't start with what blacks says it means. Now the blacks dictionary, which is it, the sixth or the seventh, Roger, it was, edited by a a linguist.
And so every word he gives in there, he'll give you the etymology of the word too. That's important.
[01:29:41] Unknown:
I would think it's the sixth because I believe that's a more solid addition than the seventh. It's when they started monkeying around with some of the definitions.
[01:29:50] Unknown:
Well, I'll tell you because I got it right here. I mean, Arlene, oh, the state's the seventh, Roger. Okay. It's the seventh. Okay. Yeah. And, the fellow that edited that was not a lawyer. He was a linguist, and he was a close associate and a friend with justice Scalia. And justice Scalia and him later teamed up and wrote a book on the principles of hermeneutics, interpretation of writings of legal significance. It's a good book too. I like linguists because, again, it comes back to words. And if you're not a word man, you've missed the boat. Let's understand just what words mean. And the history of words carries more as Trent put it, biblical linguist. He said the history of a word has more fascination than history often of a military campaign.
Well, let me get to to, Erie, Roger, because I did, think about it a lot. I like Rush's comment. Words mean things. Go ahead. Yeah. Words mean things. Yeah. No kidding. Well, anyway, and the devil wants to, just make mush out of them and does. Well, Erie Railroad or Tompkins versus Erie Railroad. First, the facts of the case. Tompkins lived in a little town. I think it was Houghton or Houghton, H O U G H T O N or something, Pennsylvania. Little tiny town up in Northeast East Pennsylvania. And there's a railroad run through town, like, railroad used to run through every town in America. And, he was over playing cards with his his buddies one night. He was out of work. He was, he was, either tool and die or a machine operator, small little production outfit around there, and he was out of work. It was during the depression, nineteen thirty four, long in there.
So he's over at his buddy's house, and they were playing cards and imbibing adult beverages. In other words, getting drunk. Didn't have anything else to do, I guess. He ended up coming home midnight or past, and, his friend said, well, get in the car, and I'll drive you back to your house. Little tiny town with just a few streets and a railroad. And he was outside of town, apparently a little ways. They drove him back and he got him up to the railroad track midnight or after. And, Tompkins said, Oh, just let me out here and I'll walk home. I then short, don't drive all up and down for whatever reason. I don't know what it was. Maybe he didn't want anybody to see him coming home late. He wasn't that old, the fella. He got out of the car and he started walking down the railroad track. And like a lot of railroad tracks used to have, there were paths by the railroad track where people had beaten the path where they walk.
And he was walking and heard a train coming behind him and didn't think anything of it because the train's gonna be on the track. It's not gonna run him over. And, the jury told what the facts of the case are, but we don't really know what happened. All we know is he wound up somehow under his arm, under, under the train car and a wheel ran over his arm and, mashed it flatter and a flitter as my mother would say. And so they took him to the hospital and they amputated his arm. They cut it off because it wasn't worth saving. So here he is, one armed man, young man, and, he didn't know what to do, and he looking for somebody to take his case. And in Pennsylvania, like most of the states, they said, look. If you're walking across the court said, if you're walking along the railroad track, you're trespassing.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
I was gonna say, isn't there a right of way, a problem right off?
[01:33:19] Unknown:
Yeah. You're trespassing. And and the railroad hasn't stopped you, but the railroad isn't supposed to try to hurt you. They do have a duty of ordinary care to make sure, well, something's sticking out here gonna hit this guy. Let's try to get all the stuff in, and so we don't. But but they didn't have a high duty of care because they're trespassing. And so that's kinda where the law was in Pennsylvania according to the courts. Sounds sensible. But but he he knew he couldn't win in state court, but he wanted some money for what happened to him. What happened to him is he said, and the jury came up with these facts. Something hit him and knocked him down and his body flopped and his arm went under the under the railroad car as it was rolling along. And he said it was something sticking out from railroad car, a swinging door. You know, they went to sliding doors in my day, sliding doors. But they say that in the old days, the car, some of them had swinging doors. And the door wasn't fastened. It was swinging and it smacked him and knocked him down. Well, maybe.
Somehow, it could have been. And here's the more likely the more likely story. He just drunk. It reminds me of, remember that guy in Louisiana? We talked about him,
[01:34:29] Unknown:
Justin, what's the Justin Wilson. Justin Wilson.
[01:34:32] Unknown:
That w we used to listen to him about a WWL, New Orleans. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Trucker station. And, he got telling about the Cajun that got drunk, and he was out on the railroad track crawling. He couldn't stand up. So he was crawling and one of his buddies came along and said, what are you doing? And he said, well, I'm going home. And he said, well, it's kinda dangerous being where you are. He said, I know. That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is this long handrail on the stairway. He was pulling himself along with the on the rails. Well, probably, although I don't know. I know what the jury said, but likely he laid down on the railroad track and passed out and he's lucky he didn't get his head or his body crushed.
But I don't know that. I know what the jury said. The jury said, no. It just, there's something hit him and knocked him down. Well so he went looking for a lawyer in Pennsylvania, and, of course, the lawyers told him, look. We can't win anything for you here because you contributed your negligence. Just walk trespassing and walking along. It's called contributory negligence. The railroad wasn't negligent. You are. They're they have a duty of ordinary care, but they don't have a high duty of care to watch out for everybody that walks along the railroad track. You you do that at your risk. Oh, I said, now what am I gonna do? Well, somebody said to him, well, if you go into federal court, they will apply a federal court standard, and the federal courts are more sensitive to, they're they're again the railroads.
They're again the railroads. Well, no court has ever been against the railroads and no and no court has ever been against banks. Banks and railroads and insurance companies, they have a a leg up and always have had. Who are we kidding? But, anyway, this one he he went looking for a lawyer. The only lawyer he could find was a one armed lawyer in Downtown New York. And this true story, apparently from what I understand, the lawyer just got out, just got his law license. He was a Jewish fellow, a Jewish fellow, just got his law license. He teamed up with another Jewish fellow. They had just started their little law firm. Firm. They had never tried a case. They didn't know squat about the law, but this guy had sympathy on him apparently. And he said, I'll take your case, and we'll take it in the federal court because the Erie Railroad is incorporated, not in Pennsylvania, but in New York.
So, the Erie Railroad is a domiciliary. That means their home is in New York. But the railroad was in Pennsylvania. Well, there's two ways you can get into federal court. You can get into federal court. He wanted to get into federal court because he could have won in federal court. He couldn't win in state court, see, because of the standard. But in federal court, he stood a better chance. He didn't know that he could win, but he stood a better chance. So this fellow said, look, you're from Pennsylvania. The railroads from New York.
You're both from different states. Therefore, you can get into the federal court without a constitutional question. See, the constitution of The United States provides two ways to get into federal court. The jurisdiction of the federal federal court is very limited. It's just limited to whatever arises under the constitution of The United States. That's it. And there's nothing in the constitution about of The United States about tort law, contract law, trust law, family law, adoptions. That's not what our constitution is about. Our constitution is about due process, about how things are done, not what is to be the result.
So it's a very limited document that gives a very limited jurisdiction to the federal courts. Well, but this lawyer and his buddy said, we'll we'll try it. Because they wanna make money, and they didn't have any clients. This was their first client. So they took the guy and the court in federal court under what we call diversity jurisdiction. Again, the this is important that Americans understand this. They should. There's two ways to get into federal court. Either you have a constitutional question. That's the bottom line. It has to be a constitutional question. Lawyers call it a federal question. That's misleading. No. It has to be something that arises out of the constitution of The United States. He didn't have that. It was a tort case, a wrong, he said another party did to him.
Well, then the other way to get into federal court is what's called diversity jurisdiction, and the constitution of The United States gives that as another way. If one party's from one state and another party's from another state, They can get into federal court. And the reason for that is if I drag you into court in my state, the court in my state is gonna be more sympathetic to me and more biased toward me than they are toward you. Yep. And that's why we have federal court to give a a neutral forum to people from different states. Okay. So he goes into federal court, and the federal court applies what they call federal law under Swift versus Tyson. Swift versus Tyson happened back in 1842.
And, justice Joseph Story wrote the opinion in Swift versus Tyson. It was a case about negotiable paper. Checks, bonds, things like that, notes. They're negotiable. They're like money. They're substitutes for money. You can pass them around, sign them, like you sign a check, give somebody else you can take to the bank. Of course, that's not practiced today after 09:11, but it is something that's part of our law, has always been, negotiable paper. Well, that case, just a story, not to talk about the issue, the negotiable paper problem that has nothing to do with. I want you to see this.
Justice Joseph Story said in that case that there's federal court jurisdiction here because the federal courts are to apply even in diversity cases. And that was a diversity case too. The federal courts are to apply two different parties from two different states in federal court. And when that happens, justice story said the federal court is to apply principles from the federal court, precedent from the federal courts. Well, that's normal. I mean, you can't blame him for saying that. Remember, our courts are a separate and co equal branch of government. Our courts follow their own points of view. They don't follow the presidents unless they want to, and they don't follow the Congress' unless they want to. And by the way, Congress and the president is not bound to follow the Supreme Court or any other court, by the way. All this fuss about DJ Trump and and, courts ruling against him.
It really doesn't make any difference. This is, boob bait for the Bubba's that Russ used to say people wanna fight about something doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean anything. DJ Trump has the power to do anything he wants. That's where our constitution is designed. However, it's also designed so that if it's politically sensitive and he doesn't think he can get away with it politically, he will obey the Supreme court or the, another federal court. It all depends on a lot of things, but the courts are a separate branch and they follow their own precedent. When lawyers go to law school, they don't learn what legislation is and what what's a president do. No, does no. They learn the cases because that's what they have to argue in the courts. Because in our common law tradition, the courts are a separate and coequal branch of government, and they follow their own precedent.
Well, that's good. That's not bad. I know it's abused. I know it causes people problem, but friends, listen to me. Stare decisis is the pole star of our common law tradition. The independence of the courts is fundamental just as is the independence of the other two branches of government from each of them from the other two. We don't have a monolith of government in our common law country.
[01:42:07] Unknown:
We have Could you define stare decisis for some in the audience that might not know what that is?
[01:42:13] Unknown:
Well, stare decisis is where a court and not my hierarchy of courts, whether state or federal, so the Supreme Court of my state or the Supreme Court of the United States in the federal court system makes a decision. All the courts below that court in the hierarchy of courts that binds them to rule the same way on similar facts, for instance, Heller decision, second amendment, Supreme court of the United States said yes, 02/2008. Yes. They said the second amendment protects a personal right to personally carry a weapon, a firearm, every federal appellate court and every federal trial court in America is now bound by that point of view. That's called stare decisis.
Sometimes it works bad. Sometimes it works good. But the main thing about stare decisis that is so important is that the courts are not beholden to follow orders from the president or the Congress, not in the final analysis, but neither are the pres is the president bound to follow the orders of the Congress or the courts, and and the Congress is not bound to follow the president or the courts. Well, then who's in charge? People ask. And the popular answer in the law schools is the Supreme Court of the United States. That's just blatantly wrong. And I have to attribute knowledge to these lawyers. That's a damnable lie. Our common law tradition would not exist if any of those three branches of government had to obey any of the others. No. That's the beauty of our common law tradition. That is, as Madison said, as in common law tradition, as long as the three branches of government are in a Mexican standoff fighting with each other, they leave us alone. That's really what it boils down to. Yep. And when you see them fighting like they are now, be happy that they're fighting.
[01:44:05] Unknown:
And you can take care of yourself. Go ahead, Roger. I was just gonna say when I was in paralegal school, they taught us stare decisis means the matter's already been decided. And there's your precedent.
[01:44:15] Unknown:
It means that in result lit by the letters, a Latin phrase, it means let the decision stand besides sorry. But it but what you said is true as well. And in other words, it's been decided. We don't have to revisit that. And here's the beauty of our common law tradition. Justice is only found in the courts. It's not found in the executive branch. It is not found in the legislative branch. They paint those two branches paint with a broad brush. They don't try anything. In our courts, we try things individually in individual instances, and we look back and say, what happened?
And the rest of this world, they don't do that. Their their tradition doesn't even allow it. We asked the jury, what happened? We look back what happened and the rest of the world. They just say, what does the code say judicial decisions have nothing to do with it. We're going back to the code and we're going to see what it says again, again, again. We're not even allowed. They're not even allowed to consult past opinions by an unwritten tradition that is as strong as anything in the canon civil law tradition. And in our tradition of common law, we are bound to look back. It's not written down anywhere, friends, that we have to do that. But we know if we don't, we've destroyed we've destroyed our common law, and that will destroy our freedoms. Our common law is not a list of laws. It's a way we go about doing things. By the way, the same thing is true in England, but to a lesser degree, we are more English as comparative lawyers have said. We are more English than the English because we're more common law. And that's what dictates our culture from bottom up is our our law, our standard of living.
And it's our standard of living for us does not stress. Do not the outcome, the do nots and do's and the that stresses how. My jurisdiction as a member of Adam's race is to ensure that all things are done properly. God's jurisdiction is to declare the outcome. And he says, you do things properly, follow my procedure, my due process, and
[01:46:17] Unknown:
the outcome will be reliable. That's up to me. Yep. So you get back to Erie. I don't want the time to run out. I know there's some other stuff. So this
[01:46:26] Unknown:
thing happened to him. They go into court and they went into federal court and he wins a judgment of $30,000 30 thousand dollars is more over half a million today. That was a a respectable judgment for a man that lost an arm regardless of whose fault it was. And the federal court, the federal court, had agreed with him. They gave the standard of law to the jury, and the jury made their decision, and that would have been the end of it. But then the railroad appealed, and the railroad lost at the federal sec second federal circuit, which is back east there in the Northeast. And then the federal court appealed to the Supreme Court to the or the federal court, the Erie Railroad. I said the federal court appeal. No. Erie Railroad appealed.
And, they they said this ain't right. And they said they should have applied the law of Pennsylvania. The federal court should have applied. No. No. They didn't say that. Let me think. How about, no, no. They just said, this is not right. That's all they said. The federal, the courts, the federal courts have set up a law that is a bad standard. So it gets to the Supreme court to The United States, Justice Brandeis. Uh-oh. Justice Brandeis. Let me follow this through by saying this as well. The Jewish influence in this case from start to finish was massive. The trial lawyer that tried this case was a Jewish immigrant who had been a state judge in New York. And he told Eleanor Roosevelt at their, what they called a Turkey sandwich meeting or something, Eleanor could never cook, but all the big political operative from New York City, which was the base of governor Roosevelt. He became president later, governor Roosevelt's political base. And that became the power base, the Jewish community on the Lower East Side Of New York, which formerly had been an Irish community of immigrants.
All the streets had Irish names like Delaney and O'Neil, but the, then the, but the Irishman still controlled the precincts, but it was all Jewish. And there was one fellow there that came from, up around Russia or Lithuania or somewhere, young fella, and the Irish boss in that precinct saw him and groomed him to become powerful. He couldn't even speak English very well. Like the one fella said, he don't even speak English. And somebody said, he doesn't speak English. You know, well, he didn't, he wasn't American. He was an immigrant and nothing wrong with that. Of course, that's all of us. Our people were from someplace else, but he became because he got involved in politics. He was part of that, that machine of Roosevelt. And every week Roosevelt had a meeting in his estate up the Hudson River and Eleanor would make Turkey sandwiches because she couldn't cook and they call it the Turkey sandwich club or something. I forget what it was. And that's the way Roosevelt kept in touch with all the people reporting to him what was going on politically.
And this fellow then said, I want to be a judge. Well, the guy didn't know squat from straight up, as I say, and he appointed him a state judge and maybe he had passed a bar. Maybe I don't remember. But then when Roosevelt was getting ready to run for president, he went to Eleanor and he said, I want to be a judge. I'm tired of being a state judge. I want to be a federal judge and Roosevelt procured for him an appointment as a federal trial judge. And the Erie case was the first case he ever sat on. He didn't have a clue what to do. He had another guy there that knew procedure that told him at every point what to do. He didn't know what to do, and he didn't make I think he somebody said he only made one ruling during that trial. And that was when the guy that was standing beside him or sitting beside him told him what to do. This is the madness of what goes on. Well, anyway, but he won the case, The railroad appeal that got to the Supreme Court to The United States, and judge Brandeis
[01:50:25] Unknown:
was there, and he was deeply involved on the individual level. He even met with the attorneys in his mansion in New York. K. Can I stop you just a second? Brandeis is the drove the beachhead in that all of this stuff came from. Wilson was coerced into putting him on the court. He's a ad early ad advocate of Zionism, and he used to have those meetings in his office in the Supreme Court Building, which is strictly forbidden. They're the ones that took over the agriculture department, drove all the communists in through ag. So just a little background on this Brandeis guy.
[01:51:03] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. That's good, Roger. You mentioned these things. He was a from a Sarphotic Jewish family.
[01:51:12] Unknown:
Sephardic. Sephardic. Sephardic. Okay.
[01:51:14] Unknown:
Very what they call Talmudic Orthodox. But he also introduced into the Supreme court in the year 1908 or 1909 as a lawyer, a young lawyer, what the legal lawyers in America today call the Brandeis brief. And the Brandeis brief was a brief about child labor, and he submitted it to the Supreme court. I don't remember all the details, but here's the important point. It was a very short brief. It didn't have hardly any law in at all, but it had a stack. You could measure in pounds of cycle studies from psychologists and other psychobabble shrink heads.
And ever since then, increasingly the psychobabble world has taken control of our courts. Yep. I won't go into it more than that, but I've experienced it. It's ugly. And they make a lot of money and they contribute nothing but more trouble or litigation.
[01:52:12] Unknown:
He I think it was on this child labor thing. He was a young lawyer in Boston that got they gave him pumped him up, pump pump whatever, pump Brandeis. They pumped him up, and and they, twisted Wilson's arm and got him on the Supreme Court. That's the beachhead, the Zionism organization that runs the world through our country today. That's where it came from. This guy right here.
[01:52:34] Unknown:
And now, Roger, and I for my part, and I would if I'm speaking for you or not speaking for you, say so, I try to be careful to approach this problem as a Christian man and say, of course, I'm not not being against other people. But I certainly am against anything that's not Christian and is not Christlike, that does not worship Jesus Christ. And I'm given these facts about the Jewish involvement of religion in this case, because it does affect what happens regardless of what they say. And they will tell you it doesn't. No, no, no. We can put all that aside and rule. That's not possible.
A psychobabble man. Oh, that's possible. No, it's not possible. Religion is the spring of all human affections. And the Bible calls me not to see the defeat of all false religions. It calls me to speak the truth. And I'm just speaking the facts here. And you can do with them what you think's best. And that's your job. I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but the facts of the case are fascinating. By the way, well, let me just get on. We're running out of time. Yeah. We got about five minutes left. Judge Brandeis was in influential in the decision, but judge judge Brandeis died at age 55 or 56 of a stroke before the the decision was made. So he didn't enter into the right end of the briefs and the final opinions, but here's what happened.
Ultimately, Erie railroad overturned swift versus Tyson of 1942. And what Erie railroad said is this, and this is where the Patriots again, get off. Oh, there's no more common law. That's the scream of the Patriots. Erie did away with the common. No, it didn't. You can't do away with the common law. Just a story said in swift versus Tyson. And he rightly said that our common law is the brooding omnipresence of the law, which is the brooding omnipresence of God himself. It's everywhere. And he used that phrase brooding. Interestingly, that's the phrase in the Hebrew tongue that's used of the spirit of God in the first two verses. Well, the second verse of Genesis, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became, not was, that's past tense, became action, formless and void, and darkness was upon the deep. And then it says in, by the letters in the Hebrew and, and the spirit of God brooded, brooded on the face of the waters.
That's a word from chickens, Hawks, eagles. They brood over their young. It's a nurturing word. It has life in it. It has the incipient signs of the effervescent reality of life. And when justice story said that our common law is the brooding omnipresence, he was right. And so what he said though, was this story said, it's the brooding omnipresence. It's always the elephant in the courtroom and the federal courts find the law in our common law tradition. We find the law because the law is eternal. It's the mind of God himself. God is eternal. Everything that is done, God knows everything that can be known. There's nothing can be taught to him. There never was a time he didn't know all that could be known. He's omniscient.
He's omnipresent. And that's where he gets that idea. And there's no accident. Of course, again, that justice story is from a Puritan world and a Puritan culture. Well, Justice Story said that. And he said, therefore, the federal courts, when a case like this comes up where state law could apply, the federal courts have their own law and their own sovereign courts of what ought to be done in these cases. Well, Erie overturned that. And here's what Erie said. The Erie said, no, no. The constitution of The United States does not give authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to come up with their own ideas about what the standards of law are. No, everything that the federal government has, the general government in Washington, DC, the states give to it.
Therefore, there is no, there's nothing the federal government has that they do not derive from the state courts. And so they said in this kind of a case, under the diversity jurisdiction, where there are two parties from two different states, the federal courts have to apply the standard of the state of Pennsylvania, not whatever they think is right. That's what Erie says. Now there may have been. And I think there was nefarious ideas behind that of the Roosevelt administration. But of great note, the justices on the Supreme Court that hated Roosevelt, that were his constant pain in the side, thorn in the side, who would not go along with his New Deal like Butler, they went along with Erie because they said, we want to curtail the power of the federal government.
And the federal courts do not have the authority under our constitution to say, we've got our own law here that we can follow in our stare decisis in our federal courts that that is outside of what state courts have said. So Erie threw the power back to the law of the states. That's what it did. But that this phrase in Erie is what throws people, and the patriot community lasses onto it. And they, it's a distraction to reality. It's unfortunate that the court said this, but they say there is no more common law in the federal courts. Well, that's ludicrous too. There is common law in the federal courts. I've practiced in the federal courts. If there's a jury in the federal courts, there's common law in the federal courts. There's a right right to remain silent. If there's freedom, the freedom of religion clauses are upheld, those are all common law. The second amendment, the the other three militia clauses, those are all the the whole constitution.
And that's the only jurisdiction that federal courts have is the constitutional questions. And the whole constitution is a brief of common law of government. So there to say there is no common law what they meant by this and this became a popular phrase and it still is ask a lawyer or law professor what the common law is and what he will say what Roger says he was taught in paralegal school. The common law is, court decisions, and that's not true. It may be, it may not be. Our common law is bigger than that, friends. Our common law governs everything. Our common law is the way things are, and they ain't gonna change the relationships and how the how things are God wants done. He wants things done fairly. He wants things done at the local level. And Erie threw the power of law back to the states and the local level. That's what Erie did.
And by the way, that they reversed that case and that man lost that $600,000.
[01:59:33] Unknown:
That's $30, Yeah. It goes back to what we've said so many times. You're, the battle we fight today is a battle that's been fight fought since the beginning of time. Lex Rex, the law of the king versus the common law. Erie is just another example of it.
[01:59:51] Unknown:
Yes. It's a distraction. Don't get caught up in it. The thing about common law. Well, Roger, we made it to the end, and we got to do Yeah, man. You got just about that buttoned up. That's good, Brent. Always a pleasure to do
[02:00:04] Unknown:
do a show with you, and we get so much information and feel feel so fulfilled at the end. At least I do. I'm speaking for the audience too, I think, but we really appreciate you and Francine dropping by with us. And, gosh, these, shows are so productive and have been for so many years. So I look forward to them. The audience looks forward to them, and, and we, certainly appreciate you, my friend.
[02:00:31] Unknown:
I know. I feel the same way about you, Roger. It's kind of you say those things, and it leaves me speechless. I say, well, what do I say to that? Just a minute. It's a tickle rating.
[02:00:40] Unknown:
Thank you. Well, we'll see you next week. We'll look forward to it. Lord willing. Hope you have a good week, and we'll see you Sunday maybe over there on Patriot Soapbox. I would urge you again if you don't have a church home, you may wanna check out commonlawyer.com and get the button and the switch over to, Patriot Soapbox on, Sunday morning when you get to hear two more hours of Brent and some of, Francine's musical choices to boot. So, we'll be back tomorrow. Brent will be back next Friday, and we will see you then. We appreciate you mucho. Ciao.
K. And Paul will pop us off of there, and Brent and I both having these, radio experiences when we were younger. Unbelievable. Here we are all these years later, mister Brent. I've Yeah. Radio is by far the most fun I've ever had. No. It's just it's the most powerful medium. It it because this is the theater of the mind right here. You know? Everybody hears the same words, but a lot of people interpret them different. So, I I'd rather not have video, and, here we are with this wonderful audio. Yeah. Hi, Larry. What you got, bud?
[02:02:01] Unknown:
I have a question when when you're off the air.
[02:02:05] Unknown:
Oh, we're off now. Okay. If you're off the Except we're on Paul's. Paul continues to record, but with the with the Eurofolk, we're off.
[02:02:17] Unknown:
Right. So this is a question for Brent. So it's my understanding, and I've been listening to Brent and and you, Roger, for a couple of years now. And so, Brent, you believe that the con the common law is in is being practiced in the state and federal courts. Is that correct?
[02:02:38] Unknown:
No. I don't believe it. I know it. I know it. It is.
[02:02:43] Unknown:
Because there's a lot of students that say and I've heard statements like this, that we don't have common law courts. We have they they some believe that the courts at the state level, especially, are tax courts because, you know, the traffic stops and and all these different, you know, things that, take place like civil lawsuits, they're just a form of taxing us, like especially if you have a property issue and the county is trying to take your property and then some students say, oh, these are courts, these are courts of equity while other students say, oh, these are contract courts and so it from listening to you over the years, I get the impression that there's four main characteristics of a common law court and that these four characteristics can be seen in both the state and federal courts in our country.
The first of which is due process. The second is cross examination. You mentioned cross examination is a very important aspect of the common law a couple of weeks ago because not hardly any courts in the world have cross examination. Another one is trial by jury and then the fourth seems to be precedent. Is that correct?
[02:04:02] Unknown:
That's pretty good. All of those are important, but there are more important there are even more important controlling features than that. If I said that'd be I number one, if these peep these people are saying this, it'd be a rude thing to do. I'm not saying do it. But if you ask them, tell me what the common law is, they wouldn't have a clue. So why are they even saying anything? And that's been my experience with most all of them. Maybe there's an exception out there. I don't know. But to know what the common law is, and that's where you gotta start if you're gonna talk about this, it takes years.
I to give you my personal testimony, it came takes years to come to complete grips with what our common law is. It's not something it's something we are. It's not something we we learn. It's not something we read. It's something we are. And our common law is our culture. It governs everything about us as Americans. It's not something that just happens in the courts or doesn't happen. Are the courts in America equity courts? Every court in America, almost every court is an equity court. That means when an equity case comes up following law, common law, and then the common law doesn't give you a remedy, then you go to equity. And at most every court in the country, state and federal has that jurisdiction.
Are the Admiralty courts? The state courts are never Admiralty courts. Our constitution of The United States forbids it. All Admiralty jurisdiction is given to the federal courts. The federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction. That's why the admiralty flag is in the courts. And when a case comes up about shipping or ships or sailors or freight or whatever about admiralty, then the court will take up that Admiralty jurisdiction and decide the case. But when another case comes up and trial by jury, trial by jury is is, needed because it's a common law case, like contract or the Erie case, a tort case, then the jury will be impaneled. There are there are so many features of our common law tradition, and I've been cataloging them for years. Yes. Whoever said they can comment can when I get done. But there are so many features, you couldn't count them all. It'd be like me saying to you, well, you got a wife. Yep. Did you? You married her because you liked her. Yeah. I liked her. You probably thought she was sexy and pretty and and just nice to be around. Whatever. And okay. Tell me why you're in love with her. Oh, you could say two or three things, but if you took away any of the things you didn't mention, you haven't noticed yet, she wouldn't be who she is. Everything would fall apart. That's where our common law tradition is. It is a seamless cloth of a warp and a a woof of a weave that is inextricably bound together. Every part dovetails together, and it's our job to find it. As justice story said, that's why we call what our courts say in our common law country. We don't say this is the decision of the court. Always. We used to say it more often. This is the court's findings. This is what the jury found. Mhmm. Why? Because the law is not something you manufacture.
It's out there. It's the mind of God. You find it. Justice Story made that point. So, again, I like it when you bring these things up because it gives me an opportunity to maybe try to clarify something. Our common law, it takes a long time of soaking. That's why lawyers say, well, they read the law. They read it, and that's how they learn it. And they read it over a period of years, just a story. Arguably, the greatest common law advocate on the Supreme Court of the United States. When he started reading laws as a young man, he tells the story. He read and he read and he read and he read. He was from Massachusetts. He finally broke down and sobbed like a baby. He couldn't get it. He said it was just confusion. It was all these individual inst in individable instances of court cases.
He couldn't get it. But he just kept doing it, kept trying, and finally, there came that point where bing and the light came on a little bit. Oh oh, I think I'm beginning to see what's going on here. Is it complicated? No. It isn't complicated. I'll tell you what it is. It's like trying to read the Bible. Who understands the Bible? You can't understand the Bible without the illumination of the spirit of God. Period. People can understand it and say, well, I write a commentary on it. I got all these facts ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Our common law tradition is from God. It's not from the Bible. It's from God. It's that other revelation from God. It is the way things are in creation, the relationships between men and men, men and things, men and people, animals and men, animals and animals, the laws of physics, the laws of nature, the laws of weather that govern every piece of material matter in God's created order seen and unseen as Blackstone says.
Those are laws and everything in the creation operates according to unbending rules of law. And that's what our common law is. We go to the courts serve it. It's not something that the courts say in every case, the courts are sometimes wrong, for instance, and then I'll quit. And then you can for a minute and you can comment, Roe v Wade court was wrong. Why was it wrong? Because Roe v Wade at the fundamental level mitigates against the trust settlement of God that God announces in the third chapter of Genesis and plays out in the rest of the Bible or the the second chapter.
Be fruitful, be fruitful, and multiply. You murder babies? You're medicating against the controlling arrangement agreement between God and his people. You're murdering people. You're hindering the trust settlement, the covenant as our forebears call it, of God. Everything in our common law tradition comes back to that simple that simple decree of God to be fruitful and multiply second, fill the land. Every detail of our common law. I give you my testimony. I don't know everything about the common law, but I've been at it for many decades. And everything I see in it mitigate, if there's a problem or law, for example, we have what we call false imprisonment. Why do we have false imprisonment in our common law tradition? It's actionable if somebody confines you to a space and doesn't let you go, whether it be the government, a hospital, or a neighbor. That's false imprisonment. Well, what is it? Why is that, against the law? Because the covenant of God says scatter across the faces of the land.
A man that's imprisoned falsely can't do that. That mitigates against the fundamental trust settlement of God to conquer land. And that's what multiplication of the madam's race is to conquer land that plays out throughout the whole Bible. God said to Israel, I won't let you own the land. I won't let you have the land until you're strong enough and you multiply it enough to keep it and protect it. I will give it to you. He says the English, King James phrase, little by little, and God gave this land to us little by little. Very true. Read American history. Watch the the series, from back in the sixties, how the West was won.
It's kinda brief in some ways, although several hours long. But the whole point is this happened little by little. And we have so many stories in our American history of my family, your family, all the families that came here of the hardships they suffered, the murder they suffered from the tribal people that were here and the killing of the tribal people. It was warfare. It was vicious. A lot of the wrong things happened. But little by little, we multiplied and we covered the land, and now we control it. You say, was that right? Well, a lot of wrong things were done, but in God's sovereignty, he's the elodial landlord. I'm not gonna second guess. He gets what he wants in every case. But coming back to our common law tradition, your point, I know patriots say that. No. If you have a jury, you've got that's the common law. I was tried in front of a jury. You've heard me say this. I've I've represented people in front of other juries.
And I can say for sure that a lot of juries are stacked. The government and the government's involved, they'll do everything they can to stack the jury, to misinform the jury. But did you know that our common law tradition is so resilient that even if a jury is stacked, it only takes one man out of 12 to say no and disagree with the others, and the whole case is over. It's thrown. That's the genius of what God has established. The 12 man jury as one example, if you get the book, I recommend it to you. If you're really interested, it's an investment, but we got to charge money for it or we can't keep providing the book. Excellence of the common law. 957 pages comparing and contrast. And the only way you can understand our common law tradition, and the common lawyers have said this for centuries, it's got to be compared and contrasted to the law of the city. Then it comes alive and you begin to see the difference at the fundamental level, at the fundamental level. That's where the comparison, the contrast Roger mentioned this while ago at common law, the will of the Prince is law. That's the fundamental John Calvin even made this point. He's a common, he was a civil lawyer, a civilian, as they say on the continent of Europe. He was the most, the most well known and famous civil law lawyer in Europe in his day. And he said, well, it's axiomatic that the will of the Prince is law.
Is that in the Bible? Well, if you're Jesus Christ, yeah, the will of the prince is law. He's the lawgiver. But down here among us mortals, no. No. No. No. No. No. God did not ordain that. The president of The United States has his will. He does what he thinks constitution. Constitution. That's called Machiavellian. Yeah. That that's tyranny, friends. And the whole world is under tyranny except the common law countries. We've got a shot. We've got a shot at justice. They don't even have a shot at it in France and South America. Yep. True. It it would sicken American to sit through a tribunal in France or South America.
It would it should sicken you if you have American sensibilities. And when I say American, I mean our common law tradition. So, thanks again for bringing it up just to make that point. No. Our common law is everywhere. You can't get rid of it. Of course, our courts are under never ending attack from the law of the city. But here's the point about our common law. It's resilient. And the only thing that makes us stronger and the only thing that allows us to see it is adversity. It's an adversarial tradition. The law of the city isn't that way. The law of the city is inquisitorial, inquisitorial, All powerful.
Law of the land. We go into court and we have a battle according to the rules, the rules of the fight. But that's the grand difference. And I know there are things that are done wrong. I understand that. That's what law is all about. That's why we go into court and fight because one person is right and one person is wrong, or maybe they're both wrong. But somebody ain't right. That's the point of our common law tradition. And we're gonna find out who it is by following our common law. Our common law is what? It's how we go about determining what is right and wrong. How? Due process. Brent, can we get to Joe before he forgets what he wanted to say? Yeah. Yeah. Get to Joe. He actually left.
[02:14:42] Unknown:
But I have a question. Along the lines of, what Larry was saying. What I what I believe Larry was saying is he mentioned four elements of a common law court. And, you shared that there are many additional elements. But if a court does not have those elements, if you don't have a jury trial, if you don't have a trial by jury, if you don't have the ability to cross examine, if you don't have, a magistrate that is recognizing a sworn affidavit as testimony and just throws it out, you know, I'm not gonna pay any attention to that. Do you have a common law court, or do you have an administrative tribunal?
And how difficult is it?
[02:15:38] Unknown:
Well, you make a point. And justice Galea said we're where justice Galea made the comment once, we're increasingly becoming bureaucratic, and that means administrative bureaucrats. Right. Now that's what we're talking about. Administrative law. Exactly. That's the the onslaught that is coming against us. It's up to us to say no. As I've said, any lawyer that's worth his salt will continue to say the same thing in court. It continue, and that's all I've ever said. In many different ways, that ain't fair, judge. No. We need an opportunity to respond to that. No. We're demanding jury trial. We know all the the jury. The jury, smuggled some, submit information into the jury room that was not presented as evidence in court. I had that happen one time. That's violation of so many things can come up that we don't have written down anywhere that are violations of fairness of a fair fight. That's our common law tradition and administrative bureaucratic law is one of those things that is seeping has seeped in, but it has not destroyed our common law. Our common law is not destroyable, period.
Why? You know, we used to say in America, there is no law West Of Saint Louis. Well, they said the same thing in Ireland. In Northern Ireland, they had the pale. And they said anything outside the pale, you may not live. There is no law outside the pale. There is no God outside the pale. Those crazy Irishmen will kill you. There are Protestants and Catholics, and that's the way they looked at it. But that was true. That was dangerous, but don't say don't say there is no god and there is no law everywhere at every point. God is completely holy at every point in his creation. That's the Yep. Doctrine of the Bible, omnipresence. Yep.
To say that is to fall said. To this To say that is to fall into the despair into the despair the evil empire wants you to fall into. It's all a matter of words, friends.
[02:17:34] Unknown:
Don't say it. Yeah. And words create reality.
[02:17:38] Unknown:
Right. Up here, it's been said that there is no law north of Remsen. It's Remsen, New York. It's a bus 14 miles south of me. So I guess I'm screwed. Not only am I Better get to Georgia. Mild, constitution free zone near the border of Canada. I'm north of Remsen, so I'm so You better get to Georgia quick, boy.
[02:18:02] Unknown:
Larry, what you got something else?
[02:18:06] Unknown:
Well, yeah. I think what causes a lot of the confusion among students is with the they're they're under the impression that in a common law court, you have to have a damaged party or someone has to be harmed. You have to have a victim of a crime. And so you go into court, you know, over a, say, a traffic infraction because you failed to stop at a stop sign and a police officer I'm just throwing this example out there. A police officer witnesses that you didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. So he puts the lights on, stops you, and issues you a hundred dollar ticket and says you got to appear in court now and, you know, declare whether you're guilty, not guilty, or no contest.
And and so a lot of students think, well, how can that be a common law court? Because, you know, in in on the docket, it'll say the state against so and so, whoever was driving the car. And so the state would be like an artificial person, a fictitious entity. And how could a fictitious entity be harmed?
[02:19:14] Unknown:
How could a crime be brought against, you know Where where is state are crazy. Where yeah. Where is this again, thank you for bringing it up. I asked rhetorically, where does this crazy idea come up? And I've heard it all my life too, that you gotta be so there has to be a a a bloody plaintiff, a harm plaintiff in order for the law to be broken. Where does that come from? Does it come from the Bible? Does it come from nature? Where does it come from? I've never met anybody that can tell me where it's come from, those courses, except everybody's confused about it. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. It's a political mantra that all the patriots say, and they never say where it came from. Where do they get this? It's not in the common law. Tooth for a tooth.
I don't see amendments. That's there. That's the little next. But but but if there is harm if there is harm, this is what that means. If there is harm to another person, then they the other per the person that commit made the harm is guilty and will suffer the same thing. That's easy. But that doesn't mean, and it doesn't say that you gotta have harm to somebody to have, unlawfulness. It does quite a problem. And truly, in our because you have a problem. Tradition, In our common law in our common law tradition for centuries, it's been a harm. It's been I mean, it's been a crime to, to do a lot of things. For example, I could drive a 75 mile an hour down The US Highway and not harm anybody and get off. Have I broken the law? Have I done something wrong? Should I be punished for doing that?
What would the what would the patriot say? Oh, no. No. You can drive as fast as you want. It doesn't make any difference. Well, the The States Of The United States have jurisdiction over traffic laws. That means they have the police power under the constitution, the division of powers, the police power to control the future behaviors of men and things that they believe are dangerous, like owning a mountain lion without having it in a cage. That's unlawful. Even if nobody nobody gets hurt. No. That burglary can be committed without stealing anything or harming anybody, and you're still guilty. Just the trespass itself makes you guilty of a crime. Conspiracy agreeing with another person to commit a crime is a crime. That's called conspiracy. That's an old, old crime.
Speaking out in blasphemy against God himself has been a crime in America, in past years and a lot of places. And no harm was done really if you speak blasphemy. It was a crime though. Listen, all crime, all crime, no matter if it's pagan or Christian, whatever the theory of crime is, there's one thing that all crimes have in common. They are a personal offense against the sovereign. And the canon civil laws of Rome, for instance, if you commit a, an, a crime under those laws, it is or any unlawfulness, It is a personal offense, they say against the Pope of Rome. Personal.
Personal. Yeah. Well, there's that right? Well, if it was applied to Jesus Christ, it'd be right. Your your wrongdoings of thought don't harm anybody. But Jesus Christ says in the sermon on the mountain that you've committed these crimes already in your mind and you are guilty because it's a personal offense against your maker to let your mind think those kinds of things. Those are the kinds of things that a lot, there's a lot of examples of, hole and dynamite hole and nitroglycerin without a license is a crime. Far as I know, in every state. Why? Because it's too blasted dangerous. That blasted Potentially dangerous. Yep. Yeah. Potential. And the states, the the states have police power within the boundaries of the state to control the future behaviors of men by their laws. That's called the police powers.
Health, education, welfare. The general government in Washington DC has no police powers at all, except on land and property that belongs to the, the government of the United States, military bases, federal courthouses, District Of Columbia, of course, that 10 mile square, hundred square miles there. They have jurisdiction there. That that that's there's no authority for saying that there has to be a harm done. That's just one example. One example, but this again is patriot mythology and it will distract you from the main point and it will make you not you, but anybody who follows that, it will make you castrated of any influence or power because devil's got you distracted with It's almost impossible to get that stuff out of their minds too. I think one of the things Larry here
[02:23:46] Unknown:
I think with the students, one of the things is that people don't realize there's several different jurisdictions within a courtroom. And a lot of times, it depends on what the action is. Okay? That's right. What is your Yeah. In England, you used to have a court of admiralty. You had to have the king's bench, and you you had the court of equity, and you had all those. And they had separate buildings, and they had separate people to run it, and they had names different for them. They had names different for the actions that were brought. They had different remedies available depending on which body of law it was. In The US, we didn't have that kind of money, and they kind of lumped all those jurisdictions into one courtroom.
[02:24:29] Unknown:
Well, when when I started practicing law, chancery, which is equity in most state courts and law, which is common law, were in two different courts. Oh, wow. But in most every state and yeah, most every state in the country now, they've said, no, each judge has chancery and common law jurisdiction. Right. There's nothing wrong with it. What they got tired of was okay. The plaintiff would come in and it'd be a law, a law case, a common law, like contracts or torch. And the other guy come around, come in and say, but now wait a minute. No. No. No. This is more equity. The but we've tried that. Or or you try law, and there is no remedy at law. This is the way equity works. There's no remedy at law, so you go to equity. Instead of having to refile, go back to another court, they just said, we'll just give every judge this jurisdiction, and then he can use it when the case arises. Then I don't see anything wrong with that. Matter of fact, I see everything right. Yeah. Yeah. Because here's what happened in England. The reason the chancery equity was separated from law. Here's what happened.
They said the chancery equity is the King's conscience. So the King would appoint priests to be an even, I think, an equity today, you've gotta be a a priest of the, the church of England. And the church of England still follows the canon civil laws of Rome. Weird. They have a war grade. The 39 articles of the Anglican church are war grade Calvinism, but yet they follow Rome's law. It's it's schizophrenic. Yeah. But any rate, the priests were in chancery and the common law courts. It was not efficient and it did not provide justice because you're going back and forth. And then you're getting the Roman, the Roman, the Romans judges over in equity. Well, now we have common law judges that handle equity and they apply common law principles.
Equity doesn't recognize the jury, but there's a time when that's not necessary. I've tried cases in both jurisdictions and not necessary. It's not even a good idea. In equity, for example, equity has to do with matters of trust, like a common law trust, wills and propate, family law, adoptions, marriage, and divorce. That's those are matters of trust. And so those are inequity to start with. But if you go into a common law jurisdiction, the judge takes up jurisdiction, and he can't find a remedy for your problem because your facts are different than anything he's ever seen before or anybody's ever seen. They'll turn it over to equity And all of the writs in our common law courts were fashioned in the equity courts of England, the fundamental writs. So if there isn't the remedy at at common law, equity traditionally was the one that fashioned the remedy and then would send it back to the common law courts. All of these things. If here's what I say to Patriots, look, if you want to understand law, quit messing around, listen to all these Patriot common law gurus, and there's a thousand of them out there and they're making a lot of money, a lot of money, and they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Isn't that the truth?
Now a guy like me, I'm starving I'm starving half to death. Nobody asked me what the common law is. I've written a book on the subject that is a comprehensive, pertinent. And so are do you have a monetary interest? Well, if I do, all these things I've been saying today, I've been saying for decades, and nobody's listening. That's okay. I'll keep saying them. We are. Of it, and I'll just tell you. We are.
[02:27:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I'm I've been listening I've been listening real close, and I'm hearing my stomach growl. And Yeah. Hard to hear anything else over that. But, somebody said something right there at the end. I'm listening. I'm listening to all of it.
[02:28:11] Unknown:
Okay. Who are you? Listening to all of it.
[02:28:16] Unknown:
Over here in California, I'm listening to a call. Oh, go. Oh, Chris. Okay, buddy.
[02:28:20] Unknown:
Yeah. I can imagine you are. Brent, I gotta go. You may have to. You've been with us for two and a half hours. People don't understand what a drain total concentration is, which is what you do when you're hosting something like this. So let me just say, buddy, as always, appreciate it, and, we'll look forward to next week.
[02:28:41] Unknown:
Thank you, Roger. Yeah. I'm
[02:28:43] Unknown:
I'll I'll keep up on the new on what's going on in the news for you, Brent. I appreciate you, Roger.
[02:28:51] Unknown:
And especially especially thanks to all those that make comments and ask questions. That's what keeps it going. Right. Dan, glad to hear you're back with me today.
[02:29:02] Unknown:
Okay. Well, go ahead. I unless Brent's gotta go.
[02:29:05] Unknown:
Go ahead. Yeah. I just wanted to ask Brent Brent Samuel. You talk about precedent. Well, Swift versus Tyson was precedent for ninety years, yet you're okay with it getting overturned.
[02:29:20] Unknown:
No. I didn't say I was okay with it. I said it had a good a good, it had good ideas. One of the things that did away with doctrine. No. No. No. Justin's here's the thing about Justin. Joseph's story is the one that said all those important things in Swift versus Tyson ninety six years before. But Justice Story was enamored with trying to bring the country together under the common law tradition. And I think he went too far in some cases. But he was, the greatest proponent of our common law tradition, that's ever been on the Supreme Court. Justice Holmes was a a man that was against our common law tradition while saying he was for it. He was truly for it, but he was concerned about the unity of our
[02:30:05] Unknown:
go ahead. Go ahead. I think Story was concerned about what he saw as socialism and communism, and he was worried about commerce and having men get stuck in in in the commerce that was he saw coming. And that's why he put in Swift versus Tyson. And what happened if you don't read Erie Railroad with the idea of what had changed at the time, and that was we had now the whole country is almost all fourteenth amendment citizens. So that changes diversity in the arguments in the court. These are not now states sitting there on their own. And by the way, commerce was was put on everybody after there.
You you ended up with the states used to be a problem for corporations because they all had their different laws, so a corporation had a a obey the rules as it crossed into every different state. But after I didn't see you know, go ahead. Erie Railroad, it was it was homogenized and made federal, and it's all because of the fourteenth amendment and the diversity and him being a fourteenth amendment citizen, Tompkins studies.
[02:31:21] Unknown:
You're you're you're reading too much into this. The fourteenth amendment didn't come up far as I know. And they and they don't understand. If you have theories about fourteenth amendment, I guarantee you the justices on the Supreme Court would know what you're talking about. So that didn't come up in the case. What I'm saying is this, there were things about the Erie Erie Railroad that were not all bad. The reasons behind Erie Railroad were probably bad and some of the people that put it forward, but it did not here's the point I wanna make. It did not do away with the common law tradition as is pop popular patriot mythology. That's the that's the fact of the matter. Erie said that Swift versus Tyson was unconstitutional.
That's true. And as I said before too, all of those justices that were against even the dissent Butler's dissent. He said in the dissent, I wouldn't dismiss the Erie case, coming out of the chute. So really all of them, even the dissent, agreed that swift versus Tyson went too far. And here's what I'm saying. Since you're interested and you like to read about it, I've talked this to you. But, just a story in his he wasn't God either, but in his enthusiasm for our common law tradition and trying to bring in the whole country under our common law and make sure the law of the city didn't prevail. He wanted a unified law throughout the country, and that's what he did is Swift versus Tyson. He made the federal courts independent of the law of the states.
Whereas swift versus Tyson made the federal courts and diversity cases dependent upon the law of the states. That's not all bad. Remember, the constitution of The United States says nothing again. Gives no jurisdiction to the, the federal courts over the common law subjects, torts, contracts, trusts, all of those things. Our constitution of The United States has nothing to do with that. Doesn't mention any of those things. Most of the bread and butter of law occurs at the state court level. They know everything. Diversity jurisdiction though, is the one place where a swift versus Tyson said, we can just do our own thing as federal courts. We don't have to consult the state courts and what their law is. That was the one place. Everything else was jurisdiction under the constitution. And the federal court said, we don't have any jurisdiction except questions about our constitution of The United States, which is very limited. Diversity jurisdiction could be anything because that's two parties from two different States.
Is it wrong? Whether they did it for the right reason, the wrong reason, is it wrong that the federal courts draw back and say, wait a minute, we have no jurisdiction to make up law ourselves. We have to depend upon the state courts. And that's what, that's what Erie said. Do you find something wrong with that?
[02:34:14] Unknown:
Well, why do you think that they said there is no general federal common law? It's because
[02:34:19] Unknown:
this is the fourteenth amendment citizen, and they were all federal citizens. That's why. You're you're you're thinking too much. Clear to me. You're thinking too much. No. Well, wait a minute. You're you're think you're you're outthinking yourself on this. They no. They just said when they use the words common law, they use it as law professors and lawyers do today, which means court opinions. And that's not fundamentally what our common law is. It it's part of it. When, when they say our common law is court opinions, what they're referring to and how this got started was our common law is, fundamental to it is the independence of the judiciary, independent from the governor or the president and the legislature or the Congress.
That is fundamental. And also the other two branches too.
[02:35:05] Unknown:
Right. If if we were to read the case, I think, and take in mind that this Fourteenth Amendment citizen is the thing that changed in the past ninety years. So so in other words, it's now presumed that everyone is a Fourteenth Amendment person as implied by law. And if you're silent, then there's no remedy.
[02:35:30] Unknown:
But that's another question. What happened there? That's another question. That's another question. And what I'm just listen to the one narrow thing I'm saying. Area Railroad said that the federal courts are limited in their jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction to make any proclamations about the common law subjects. That's the jurisdiction of the states. Our constitution does not mention torts. That's what Erie was about, torts. Doesn't mention it. It has no jurisdiction over tort cases, but they have diversity jurisdiction, but they must apply the law of the state. They don't make it up as they go. Is there something wrong with that? We're not allowing our federal force to make it up.
[02:36:11] Unknown:
It was it was really about a guy's arm at being missing and who was liable. And he was a fourteenth amendment citizen coming in there thinking that he's gonna get protection. Number one. And he's no he's gonna get it. No. Oh, he wasn't a fourteenth amendment citizen,
[02:36:30] Unknown:
and neither are you. He was. You and and you never have been. Why are we saying if you're silent, you are. If you're silent No. You aren't. No. You aren't. The law Okay. Well, you've never believed in so. I think it's clear. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. It's like somebody saying that's like listen. What is unlawful?
[02:36:53] Unknown:
What is unlawful? When you stop beating your wife. It's unlawful.
[02:36:56] Unknown:
Unlawful does not define who you are. An unlawful statement does not define who you are. That's silly. Don't do that. Don't say he's a fourth amendment. Silence. I'm not saying it's unlawful statement. I'm saying in silence,
[02:37:10] Unknown:
if you're not saying that you're a state citizen, you are a fourteenth amendment citizen.
[02:37:16] Unknown:
No. You aren't. When you're asked, the court here No. No. No. A thousand times ago. No. You you may other people may say you are, but you aren't. And all you're doing when you say otherwise is correcting the record as you say, but you're not don't say I was this and I'm that. And that's the problem with political speech. See, the devil's got you saying a lie. And once he gets you there, that becomes political speech that empowers the evil empire.
[02:37:45] Unknown:
That's the problem. For this Tyson wasn't just considered law. It was considered doctrine. It had been there for ninety years and they overturned it. So what had changed in the law where that could that doctrine could be overturned?
[02:37:59] Unknown:
What changed? I'm not saying I'm not saying it was or it wasn't. I'm just saying this. Is there I'll ask you the question. Is there something wrong with the federal court saying we're not taking jurisdiction and taken, taken up the task of making up laws we go with as federal judges? We're gonna let the the state courts tell us what the law is. Is there something wrong with that? That's the that's foundational.
[02:38:25] Unknown:
That whether they did it for the right reason or one foundation. Substantively, what changed was we had we got interstate commerce. And now, a guy puts gas in his tank and a judge says he's got jurisdiction.
[02:38:42] Unknown:
Listen. Justice Story was so into this thing about interstate commerce. And the Admiralty clause is part of that, by the way, to keep interstate commerce moving. People got so frustrated with him. Lawyers did. They said this because in his day, if it wasn't admiralty, it probably never got to the federal court anyway because the federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over these kinds of things. The only court cases that were in federal courts until Roosevelt, until the I mean, a little before Roosevelt were admiralty cases. But just a story, lawyers get upset at him because they said, if you threw a corn cob in a corn bucket or in a, if you threw a corn cob in a bucket with water in it, he'd take Admiralty jurisdiction over it. He wanted to expand.
He wanted to expand the commerce clause and the admiralty clause to control the country. I like just a story, and you've heard me say a lot of the things nice things about him, but he went too far. And the reason was it was his zeal. And you read the story of his life. You see where his zeal was. His zeal was to make sure that the law of the city didn't get anywhere in The United States and The United States was moving West rapidly. He used to tell his students at Harvard when he's a professor there, go West and establish law schools because in the Northwest Territories, the French have had a lot of influence and they did. And some of his students went into, into the Ohio Valley and established law schools that are still there, like case Western reserve in Cincinnati, Ohio, but that was his zeal. And I say, yes, at some points he went too far swift versus Tyson, maybe went too far.
[02:40:24] Unknown:
But I just know this. You know what I think really happened here is
[02:40:28] Unknown:
I can't you've not answered my question. You've not answered my question. So I think probably, you know, you have to agree. Is there something wrong? A set up case just like Plessy or something different. They had an outcome they wanted to get, and that's what they wanted to get. I asked you again. I asked you I asked you again. Is there and you have an answer to this question. Is there something wrong with the federal cover the federal courts drawing back and saying, we have no jurisdiction here. We're leaving it up to the states. And that's what Erie does. Is there something wrong with that?
[02:41:01] Unknown:
That's not what happened.
[02:41:04] Unknown:
That is what happened. That's what they did in that case. And ever since then ever since then, the federal courts have done that. And the federal courts, although they make a lot of mistakes and do crazy things, the one thing the federal courts have consistently done through the years, they've done everything they could to get rid of cases, sometimes too much. Their jurisdiction is exceedingly limited, and the state courts have unlimited jurisdiction to hear anything.
[02:41:29] Unknown:
Is your state commerce a federal thing, or is it a state
[02:41:34] Unknown:
thing, Brent? It's, constitution makes it the constitution makes it a constitutional issue. Done it? It's federal then. And the question is, how much do you exchange? Protect me from commerce? Well, the we're listening. Yeah. The states do a lot of things, but the constitution of The United States gives jurisdiction over interstate commerce to the general government in DC. Doesn't it?
[02:42:07] Unknown:
Or does it? Well, that's certainly what that's certainly what Tompkins did in my opinion. Yeah. It does. What about the states? And you're saying it's the opposite yet to do what the result was.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Tompkins had nothing to do with interstate commerce. They're talking about another subject. It was a tort case about a man that fell down and lost his arm because a railroad car ran over.
[02:42:29] Unknown:
That's all it was. Happened to be a fourteenth amendment citizen.
[02:42:33] Unknown:
No. You don't have to be a fourteenth amendment citizen. If you're domiciled in one state and somebody else is domiciled in the other state, what does that mean? That means I call it home when I intend to come back. That's it. That's the only analysis that's put the courts put. You're dragging this effect. On the term diversity though, Brett. What's that?
[02:42:52] Unknown:
What's that? The diversity that they're talking about in this case is not the diversity that had existed under the old law, which was Swift versus Tyson.
[02:43:05] Unknown:
It's a different diversity. Oh, no. That's not true. That's not true. If you sue somebody from your state and they're in another state, the only question the court is gonna ask is where do you live? Period.
[02:43:16] Unknown:
Period. Well, if you're a fourteenth amendment citizen, you live in Washington DC.
[02:43:22] Unknown:
Well, you're, you're dragging too much into it and you've got, I'd realize now you've, you're enamored with a lot of Patriot mythology. I'll tell you gladly. I would encourage you. That's me. I get accused of it a lot. Not drag all, not drag all those distractions in there that will make you ineffective. That's my message to you for what it's worth,
[02:43:40] Unknown:
Larry. Hey, Brandon. Here's what I would suggest. That's well, enough said then. I, you know, I'm just pointing out a different opinion.
[02:43:47] Unknown:
That's all. I think all I'm saying is wrong.
[02:43:51] Unknown:
Hang on. Paul, go ahead. I have a I have a comment. I've got I've been trying to get in here. There are a whole lot of missing pieces in the Erie Railroad case. Yes. There were significant changes in the geopolitical landscape and the status of citizens in general and their political status. There was significant changes. Maybe it's possible that the case, the earlier case, was no longer needed. It was no longer necessary because through the fourteenth amendment and the presumption of federal citizenship, they had declared every citizen an enemy of the state and a resident of Washington, DC, which gave the states carte blanche and all of the authority that they would ever need to try somebody under the rules of interstate commerce.
Now if interstate commerce doesn't matter, why when Joe stood in front of a magistrate in New Jersey that asked him if he bought gas and then claimed to have jurisdiction? Because he claimed to be that buying that gas presumably came from a different state. It did not come from the point of origin when where Joe bought it, so he was engaged in interstate commerce as the end consumer. Maybe that was the ruling. Maybe that was the twisted legal, the twisted legal reasoning that the judge used. The point was it was an administrative tribunal. There was absolutely no law. There was nothing, nothing pursuant to the constitution, and there was absolutely no fairness. And that happens in every single state in the union.
[02:45:44] Unknown:
What caused
[02:45:46] Unknown:
that to happen?
[02:45:48] Unknown:
I still say, Paul, that, that, the fourteenth amendment wasn't mentioned. Nobody argued it, and nobody cared.
[02:45:57] Unknown:
All they wanted to say was presumed.
[02:46:00] Unknown:
The federal it may have been, but you can't show that and you can't prove it. There's no evidence of it. We do know this for sure. The court said that we, as federal judges, are refraining from taking jurisdiction, and we're gonna use state law of Pennsylvania and not federal law that we make up. Again, they met federal law up to them, and those kind of diversity cases, they just made it up as they went. And they were creating their own body of law, and they said, we're not gonna do that anymore. They're good. That's all it was. Well, I thank you all for your comments. Yeah. And it seems this is an adversarial tradition. And if there is an adversity, the the truth will never bob forth from the flux of what happens, and that's what we're doing here. So I appreciate all the comments and the discussion. Maybe we'll hit it up next time. Roger, I didn't know this would open up such a can of worms. Boy boy. I well, I it
[02:46:48] Unknown:
I'm glad we had enough time to cover it.
[02:46:51] Unknown:
Anyway,
[02:46:52] Unknown:
I'm I'm skadoodling. Brent, we'll see you next Friday, and you guys, the regulars will see you tomorrow. We if you wanna carry on with this, we can, but whatever. Without It's a diversity of opinion is what it is. Without Brent, but I I won't be here. But No. Of course not. No. You'll be opposite us tomorrow, teaching something good. Let's keep seeing Brent. Going.
[02:47:18] Unknown:
No. There are so many nuances of this. There there are so many moving parts, and it's gonna take a while to get a grasp of all of them. That's just the way it is. Nature of the beast. Alright. Ciao, amigos. Thank you, guys.
[02:47:37] Unknown:
Alright. I wanted to answer Brent's quest Brent winners question about Erie saying it was there something wrong with Erie saying that the states have the say? And, Brent, are you there?
[02:47:55] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:47:58] Unknown:
I just wanted to say that the, what about the supremacy clause article six paragraph two, that says the federal laws have, authority and jurisdiction over state law.
[02:48:20] Unknown:
Well, if, if a law that is from the general government in Washington, DC is within the limited jurisdiction that the constitution allows, if it really is a lawful law, in other words, and there's some state law that is contrary to it, the state law must give way. That's what that means.
[02:48:46] Unknown:
That's what the supremacy clause means.
[02:48:49] Unknown:
Yeah. That's what the supremacy clause means, and it has to do, to be more precise, the word law law law of the land means due process. That phrase was lifted out of Magna Carta chapter 39, and it means due process. That they didn't have the word due process back then. They just said law of the land. The way we do things, the course of process we follow. That's our common law, and that's what that phrase means. It's not obviously, but if any of the ratifiers agreed to sign on to this, the militia of the several states, the people of The United States, would any of them agree to sign on to the constitution that they believed that that meant that it would supplant the Bible? I've had I've argued with people, argued. I had a debate with a fellow who wrote a book that said that. And it comes down to this as always.
What do words mean? What does that phrase mean? And he just, he ignored its historic meaning and words, freight history, and to know what phrases mean a little bit helps a lot. It makes actually things come alive in in a way that they wouldn't otherwise.
[02:50:02] Unknown:
It's a it's a common law. A new process phrase. Go ahead. Go ahead. Brent, I I would have felt a whole lot better if there was as many ministers at, signing of the constitution as there were lawyers.
[02:50:15] Unknown:
Well, having having pastored a few churches and been around people like that, I would have said, no. I wouldn't want that at all. Most people that claim to be, men of the cloth are dangerous. That's been my experience because they don't know much. And as long as they, not all of them, not all of them. Oh, I know. But they're like lawyers. A lot of them don't know anything given their level of education, but there are those that do And you run into them once in a while, but it's the same thing is true. Thought, and I don't wanna I wanna I don't wanna seem adversarial, Brent, but I I wanna leave you with a thought, okay,
[02:50:51] Unknown:
to just mull over. And I don't necessarily need a an answer, you know, right away. Because I think you should think about this. But here's a statement. Okay? While Tompkins being a fourteenth amendment citizen is not a focal point of the Erie Railroad Company versus Tompkins case, the principles of equal protection and state sovereignty enshrined in the fourteenth amendment support the court's decision to require federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases. This ensures that all citizens are treated equally under the law regardless of the forum in which their case is heard.
[02:51:44] Unknown:
That's not true at all. That is that is not true at all. Every state's gonna be different. Why would they say everybody would be treated equally? If the federal courts were in charge of the substantive law Yeah. What? Go ahead.
[02:51:59] Unknown:
Well Go ahead. They're they're bringing it it's the statements in the fourteenth amendment that they're getting at there that are are are moving that new court, that new thinking, away from thought like Swift versus Tyson into this new federalized
[02:52:19] Unknown:
system, you know, that really started with Lincoln. Federalized. And How can you say it's federalized when they're giving way to the state law and the state, pronouncements of law and the legislation? Why? What? What's where does it who said that, by the way? Where does that come from?
[02:52:35] Unknown:
Well, let's look at the results of it, Brent. It everything has been hundred and nine between the states. No. No. No. No. No. You were reading a quote. Who said that? What you just read. I don't know. This is not a quote. This is a statement. But,
[02:52:52] Unknown:
It's a statement from somebody. It's not yours, is it?
[02:52:56] Unknown:
No. It the closest person I could give credit to it is Lee Prost.
[02:53:02] Unknown:
Well, the bottom line is, again, you there is we're talking to evidence. We talked a while ago about evidence, how important it is, and I believe things without evidence. There is not a sliver of evidence that any of that is true. The fourteenth amendment is not part of that case. It's not in the record anywhere. Nobody mentioned it. This is a tort case, a common law subject case. And what the federal court says is we don't have authority in diversity. We have authority in, other areas of, other jurisdictions of the federal courts, like constitutional question, which is even bigger, we got authority there to pronounce what the law is as respect to the constitution, how it applies.
But when it comes to state issues, we don't have the authority to assert ourselves and control the state courts. That's pretty easy. I I kinda like that idea. One of the things that's bad about Erie, is that when they did away with Erie, they did away with whatever Erie said, and and that is that the law has a brooding omnipresence that is not paid attention to anymore.
[02:54:06] Unknown:
They did away with Tyson, not Erie. Oh, right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Tyson,
[02:54:10] Unknown:
just a story, made the point of the brooding omnipresence of the law and the idea that in our common law tradition, we don't manufacture law. We look for it till we find it. That's important to have that in the back of your mind. It's not written down anywhere, but that's fundamental to our common law tradition. The law is eternal. It's true. And they all the applications of it are that are possible out there, god already knows them. They're eternal. And we're to find the truth. We're not to manufacture the truth. That was Justice Story's point of view, and that's fundamental to our common law, and he understood that. But, no, this does not do the fourteenth amendment. It's just given power back to the states. You know, the state legislatures now have power more than they had to say, no. We're gonna decide what the law is. And the state courts have power to say, no. We're gonna find the law, and the federal courts have to follow the law the way we find it in our state.
I don't see anything wrong with that. I see everything right. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, but that's what's happened. You know, God used a lot of evil people who intend a lot of evil things to bring good out of it and make the straight lick with the crooked stick. That's my point about here it were there evil men involved? All men are evil. Why would you ask if they're evil and you're not asking rhetorically? All men are evil hearted. All men are subject to the taint of sin and the potential of evil of it at every level. So that argument doesn't fit. Oh, they were bad guys. They were this that. No, God will do what he wants. Again, the brooding omnipresence of the law. God always gets what he wants and he does it for his glory. He uses evil for what he wants. The devil may be God, maybe, maybe a devil, but he's still God's devil. And you may be doing evil things or you're that person may be an evil person of the evil empire. God will get what he wants out of them in every case.
That's the beauty of Christianity. That's the beauty of understanding how God works. In this case, I say, okay, here's what God did. This is the way I look at it. Big picture. Here's what God did. Is there something good about it? Is there something bad about it? I think I can see both, but I'm trying to stress the good right now to show that to say that it did away with the common law is just hooey. That's not true at all. It's never been true. It can't be true. And in practice, it isn't even true. I've been in federal courts. All the the common law arguments are there. The judges don't know, Jack about the fourteenth amendment, don't care to. They're making a living. They want their retirement. If they don't have to know about the fourteenth amendment, they don't ask. That's the way it works in our legal tradition.
And all of these things mixed together now Paul made the point of there's more to it than that. It is true that at that time, of course, I mentioned one of the Supreme Court justices, and there were four of them on the bench at that time. They were against Roosevelt. That's when he wanted to pack the court. But even those justices in this particular instance saw the conservative value of saying no. No. We want the states to have the power here, not the government.
[02:57:06] Unknown:
Berndt, I can't think all you were saying is there was no general federal common law for guys like Tompkins,
[02:57:13] Unknown:
which were Well, why should why should there be? He's got state law, and that's all our governments are is common law. The common law subjects and the common law principles. That's what he had in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a common law government. Pennsylvania was organized according to the common law. It was the state that had all of the hundred courts. Every county, William Penn established it in the hundred courts. They had that mentality. Justice was at every man's cottage just like in the old country. Why would why would we say what you just, said? There was no justice for Tompkins. Why why would you say that?
[02:57:53] Unknown:
There was no federal common law for him because he was
[02:57:58] Unknown:
a citizen of the state. Federal common law federal common law is state common law. That's what Erie said. And the federal courts are to apply the law of the state in those cases of diversity jurisdiction.
[02:58:11] Unknown:
I don't know. They said there is no general federal common law.
[02:58:16] Unknown:
No, no, no, no. There is, they said there is the federal courts are not to apply it or not to make it up as they go. They are to apply the state law as it stands. That's what Uri said. Again, if you're in federal courts, I yield in the federal courts. Yeah. You're not, you're not saying anything. If if the federal courts are are, giving way to the state law, that puts the power back at the local level, and justice is done. Is it trespassing? Was it trespassing for him to be on the right of way? Yes. But even in that, the state law of Pennsylvania said that the railroad, even though it's trespassing, the railroad still owes a duty of ordinary care to try not to make sure people don't get hurt, and they did that.
That's the that was the law in every state, probably still does. See? You you could say Plessy was trespassing. Well, you're dragging in things that aren't relevant. That's a whole another case. It has a lot of unlawful things that happened. And but, we know this. What? You know, every case that common law must stand on its own merits. It's individual. We look at it individually. The cases were he was drunk. We know that. He was on the right of way and he lost his arm. And the law, the law of Pennsylvania, said that he was trespassing. He was.
And, he had contributory negligent negligence, that he he con contributed substantially to what happened to him. And therefore the railroad is not liable. That's what the law of Pennsylvania is. But even if you don't agree with that law, I'm not for saying, okay, the state is doing wrong. I want the federal government to come in and, tell the state what's right and commandeer them. I don't I don't want that. I don't care what the result is. It ain't gonna work. And our Supreme Court has says has said that was justice Scalia. No. That was the Heller or that was the Prince decision, about commandeering the states. And that's what, that's what, Swift versus Tyson established.
The federal courts were commandeering state law and the constitution does not give them that jurisdiction to do. I see I think that's easy. Brent? But for some reason, others don't. What?
[03:00:41] Unknown:
The the constitution says the federal law is superior to state law. That's in the constitution.
[03:00:48] Unknown:
Well, you you mentioned the the supremacy clause. It is it is if the general government is acting within its limited scope of authority. That's true. That's what the constitution says. But it has to be lawful law. They have to act in their limited scope of authority, and the constitution of The United States gives them. For example, abortion. Did the Supreme Court of the United States have any authority to take the case Roe v Wade? And the answer is clearly, unambiguously, no. The Supreme Court of the United States, the constitution doesn't give the federal courts any jurisdiction over criminal matters such as abortion, which is murder.
And so the supreme court and the federal courts are not allowed to even take those cases. That's what our constitution teaches. There are only four areas of law that our general government in Washington DC has all four, jurisdiction over. That only mentions four areas of law. We've, counterfeiting the current coin and securities of The United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Sea as part of admiral to jurisdiction, and then violations of international law. There's another one. And then also treason.
That's it. Treason, not against the states. They all have laws against that. They're sovereigns too. But treason against the general government in Washington DC. That's it. Very limited. They bring And that's what here he did. Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:02:33] Unknown:
Yeah. So, are you saying that when you have diversity jurisdiction between citizens of different states, that the federal courts are using state law to the to to arrive at an outcome, an equitable outcome?
[03:02:51] Unknown:
Yes. That's it. The then the case of the Pompkins versus, Erie Railroad, they, they remand the Supreme Court remanded it back. It went down and they used the lower court and they used the law of Pennsylvania to decide that case. And a lot of people didn't like the outcome. I'm sure he didn't. But in, in the overall scheme of things, the Supreme Court of the United States followed the constitution at that point. And the more I talk, the more I see it. It's just clear. Constitution is limited. The jurisdiction of the government. And let me give you another example. This famous story about Davy Crockett when he was in Congress, Colonel Crockett, and somebody came in and said, there's a fire. There's a fire. We can see it in the sky across the Potomac River. And all the congressmen ran out and they jumped in their hacks and they buggies and they rode over across the Potomac and they helped put out the fire of all the people, the houses that burn. They came back and somebody made an immediate motion that they allocate $20,000 to help those poor people that were in the wintertime, probably. I don't remember all the story, but they were homeless and destitute.
And it passed without objection. $20,000 a lot of money in those days. Well, Crockett was home in East Tennessee campaigning. He came to down the road and there was a fellow making a round with a plow and he came in the field and he said, I'm Colonel Crockett. I'm in Congress. I'm running for Congress. And he did like he was wanting to do and gave him a twist of tobacco to chew. And, the fellow's name was Bunch, I believe. And he said, well, Congressman Crockett, he said, thanks for stopping by. But he said, I'll never vote for you again. He said, why not?
He said, well, I read in the newspaper that you voted, give $20,000 to the people that they lost their homes on the other side of the Potomac River. They said, that's unconstitutional. Yeah. And he said, I'm, I was sent to follow the Congress. I want him to follow the law and our constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal government. I explained it to him And Crockett said, well, he said, I get your point. He said, I'll tell you what I'll do. He said, I don't wanna lose your vote. I'm gonna put on a barbecue, and I'm gonna invite you to be the speaker, and you can get up on the stump, and you can tell people what you just told me.
And he did. And of course Crockett admitted his error and everybody loved that and he got a lot of votes. Well, not in the constitution that says that the Congress has authority to allocate money for the general or for the specific welfare of anybody. It has to be the general welfare. If they do anything, it has to apply to everybody equally. That's the general government in Washington DC general welfare. Well to say, well, they didn't give justice. They should have, flattened the rules, ignored the constitution and given Tomkin what we want him to get. He should get some money for his arm getting cut off.
Well, maybe you believe that. I would too, but I know this. There's more the the law, the law is important in America. We are national laws. And as I said a while ago, it was clear under Pennsylvania law, he was a trespass and he contributed to what happened to him according to what the jury found. Therefore, the law of Pennsylvania said he was exonerated or, that railroad wasn't liable. But there was a a movement afoot, a movement afoot, a lot of madness. Isn't it funny? The movement afoot was we're going to help all poor people. And the way we're going to do it is we're going to do away with state law. We're not going to pay attention to the states, to local law. We're going to do away with the Supreme Court. We're going to pack the court and we're going to make Roosevelt King and the Congress is a rubber stamp for him right now. He controls the Democrats, control Congress. Let's just make all the trains run on time. We'll all be happy. My friends, we've never gotten over what Roosevelt did to our country.
We're suffering awful right now. What you see now was the beginnings of that was with the Roosevelt administration in a very intense way. And what they wanted to do was do away with anything that he said was unjust and they thought was undressed and the just, and they wanted to use other people's money and use the courts to help the little guy. It doesn't work friends, period. As compassionate as you may be, you wanna help a little guy, help him. That's our job as Americans to help the little guy, but it's not our job to get the government to help the little guy. It's our job in America that the government follows the law. And if we want to give charity to the little guy, that's our job.
And, that particular point of view will be hated by those who think something else ought to be done. But the Bible itself and all experience of all the history of mankind shows that charity is an individual matter. And if God moves people to do it, there's great reward for a country and for the individuals that are willing to share with others and help others where they can. But it's our job to make sure we don't use government money and the government machinery to give more power to government to help people. And that's what Erie said they weren't gonna do. Fascinating. I don't know that they intended that, frankly. There were justices on the Supreme Court that were Roosevelt supporters, Brandeis being one of them. But, what happened in the case was the states gained power and the federal government lost power.
Thank you very much. Paul, are you there?
[03:08:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm here. Okay. Well, I'm gonna go. I'm yeah. I was appreciate it. Pressure cooker the third hour of the show, wouldn't it?
[03:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I guess so. But, I'm glad because it it's incited me to think a lot more about Erie. And Roger mentioned it to me yesterday, and I thought, well, this will be easy. I'll just go over it, and I wanted to get out the facts and what happened. And I found out people, I believe it's patriot mythology, what's going around about area. There is no more common law. That's absolute hooey. The word common law is used there to talk about, court decisions. That's not our common law. You know, to show you how crazy people are, I'm talking about legislators and people like that. Utah, not too many years ago, passed a piece of legislation says the common law has no more authority in this state. That's the law on the books in Utah. Now the common law has no more authority in this state.
That's just a bunch of silly legislators that don't even know what simple words mean in their own tradition saying things that are insane. Do you still have jury trial in, in your courts in Utah? Yeah. Well, the common law tradition's alive then. Do you have stare decisis? Yeah. Well, the common law tradition is alive. Are you bound? Does every state official in Utah state and, state, state officials in the courts and in the three branches of government, are they bound by an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States? A brief of common law government? Yeah. Well, then you're still a common law state. What did you mean when you say the common law no longer applies? But what they, I think they meant was they thought they meant was we're not looking to, any common law passed, passed a certain point to, to guide us in our court decisions. I don't know what they were thinking, but it didn't work.
It didn't work. Now the opposite of that point of view is the fact where I'm from, in those states around there, they've got legislation that passed years ago that says if anything comes before our court, our courts of our state, but a state, case of first impression and we have nothing on the books, in the court cases or in our statutes that govern the situation that comes before the court, then the courts are to revert, to hark back to the fourth year of James, the first and apply the common law as it stood in that year. The fourth year of James, the first was the year 1607, the year that the English settlers established the first permanent settlement in America.
And it was in the state of what is now Virginia, but Virginia covered everything west from the Northern boundary of West Virginia to the, what is now used to be a part of Virginia, to the Southern boundary of Virginia, as far as land extended. And that took in most of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, parts of Tennessee, probably a little bit, and Missouri. And so those States have legislation that say that. This is the fourth year of James the first. Because in the fourth year of James the first, when that first permanent settlement was there, the common law came to Virginia and was a part of all Virginia.
And so those states that have that still claim the common law has applied here since that settlement, and that is our law. That's the opposite of what Utah did. Why do Utah do that? I'd read more about it. It's rather fascinating. I haven't studied it a lot. I'd like to. Okay. All of you are there. Appreciate your comments again. I will go. Didn't intend to stay this long. Thank you, ma'am. We'll talk to you. Steve Larry, Paul, all of you.
[03:12:12] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Maybe next time, we can talk a little bit about, how, some courts refuse to acknowledge or recognize precedent, prior to 1934. It's almost like it's like in the well, in okay. Well, then in the course of the bankruptcy and whatever happened with the country between 1933 and 1934, it caused a pivotal change in the courts. And then maybe it was one of those pivotal changes that is affecting, all these other decisions.
[03:12:49] Unknown:
They're just not so. So Well, that was Erie. Erie said everything every bit of that general common law, the federal court says they were making it up as they go and not looking to state law. All of that is not law. It never was. That's what they said. And the, the, the idea and the courts have said this, anything that's declared unconstitutional is unconstitutional from its beginning. And so all of that case law that the federal courts, all of that case law that the federal courts made it up as they went along, before Erie and case law that applied only to that narrow area of diversity jurisdiction, which is a small area of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
All of that is no longer precedent. That's true. But anything after Erie where they use state law to make the decisions instead of federal law, that's all precedent. That's the simple answer to what you're mentioning. And the Patriot community will tell you, no, no, they did away with the common law and there is no precedent anymore. No, absolutely not. That didn't happen. And you go into federal court today, people argue cases, go and clear back to the beginning of the country, blame there. They still argue Marbury versus Madison. Why? Well, that wasn't a diversity case, but in diversity cases, yeah. The reason was the federal courts were just making it up as they went along.
And all that they said is unconstitutional. I get it for what what the right reason, the wrong reason. Maybe that would answer the question, but I'll look into it a little more. Maybe I'm missing something here.
[03:14:29] Unknown:
Alright. Thank you, Brent. Okay. Great show. We'll be talking. Loads of fun. Alright. Take care. And I think it's about time to take to take this stream down. I'm sure Pat Holman's AI is gonna have difficulty figuring out a description for this show. We covered so much stuff. Thank you for joining us, for the Radio Ranch, Friday edition with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters. For more information on what Brent does, go to commonlawyer.com. It's commonlawyer.com. You can catch him on Patriot Soapbox, Saturdays and Sundays. PSB News, I believe, is the, is the channel on Rumble where you can see that.
Catch us here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. And, for more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixdocs.com, where you can find the links to join the livestream. You can join us live on the show using free conference call. You can download a bunch of things. You can read a bunch of things. You can watch a bunch of interviews. You can, peruse tons of exhibits. There's all kinds of stuff there. Just pack a lunch, stay the day. You won't regret it. Thanks for joining us. I'm out of here. Have a great day. Bye now.
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:16:01] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle. Now you're waking
[03:16:03] Unknown:
the
This mirror stream is brought to you in part by mymytobust.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by PhatPhix, p h a t p h I x, dot com, and also iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com. Thank you, and welcome to the program. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:50] Unknown:
Yes, sir.
[00:01:52] Unknown:
Us too. Gonna take another stab at it here at the Radio Ranch on the Friday edition with Roger Sales and cohost Brent Winters here on the April 18, Friday edition. So, here we go. We're assisted by a number of other platforms that help extend our reach and touch others all over the world. And, the keeper of said platforms, one Paul Biner. And, he gets to come out and identify them and give them proper, a, recognition and, b, credit. Don't you, Paul?
[00:02:25] Unknown:
Yes. I do. I actually get to come out from under the stairs periodically.
[00:02:30] Unknown:
It's Yeah. Fun.
[00:02:32] Unknown:
Yeah. You gotta get a if everyone's life a little sunshine must shine, and this, I guess, is my opportunity, so I might as well make the best of it. Will. So we are on one zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago. We are on homenetwork.tv, freedom nation Tv, go live tv, and streamlife.tube. Those are brought to us by the Net family of broadcast services, spearheaded and driven by WDRN production support, Collins, Colorado, and Stream Life Networks. We're also on radiosoapbox.com. Thanks to our buddy, Paul across the drink, and we're on our flagship station. That would be thanks to pastor Eli James, and that is eurofolkradio.com.
We're also on Global Voice Radio Network. That link is radio.globalvoiceradio.net, and, we're on a free conference call. That is how everybody joins the show. FCC, those links are on the matrixdocs.com, our website. You can dial up by landline, cell phone, tablet, computer, or if you have one of those weird providers that charges you out of networks, fees for conference calls, just text call me to the dial up number, (609) 663-1976, and the system will call you back. I love it. Pretty slick. Warner Robs. Pretty slick.
[00:04:14] Unknown:
There's always a way around it, isn't there? Yes. There is. Paul, did you happen to invite our other Paul over and join us today? Should we have the opportunity? And I'm sure you did. And he's always welcome, and maybe he'll stop by. I see Brent and Francine are with us. So good morning to you too.
[00:04:34] Unknown:
And, There's a standing invitation. You know? Invitation. There is a standing invitation.
[00:04:41] Unknown:
Okay. Good enough. Well, so, good morning, kids. Ranch hands, cowboys, cowgirls. Hey, Brent.
[00:04:51] Unknown:
Hi, Roger. Yep.
[00:04:52] Unknown:
How you doing? Morning, Francine. Good to see Francine always. Morning, Roger. Yep. We might even ask you to play a song sometime. Who knows?
[00:05:02] Unknown:
Yeah.
[00:05:03] Unknown:
So, Brent, are you doing good? You had a good week, all that. Boy, there's a lot of stuff happening. Some really interesting things are popping up, actually.
[00:05:11] Unknown:
Well, you had you had mentioned, area railroad, but on we can talk about that. But if you want to talk about things that are happening now that people are conscious of because it's in the news, I'm willing to do that too. Well, there's there is one thing that's quite provocative to me, that's happened is this
[00:05:33] Unknown:
Garcia, El Salvadorian guy that they popped out of the country about a week ago. Uh-huh. I know I know you don't watch the news, but I don't know if you've heard about this or not. Have you heard any inklings of all that? Oh, yes. I'm familiar. I can't help but hear about it. Okay. Well, good. Then there's some things that are new developments that are quite interesting. Yeah. The background, I'm pretty sure everybody here would know about it, but there may be some folks that don't. So this guy, Garcia, has been in the country for quite a number of years.
And, he's El Salvadorian, and he was living with a gal, and they had some children. And, he, he evidently had a, what do you what do you call it? Keep cease and desist, stay away from me order, because he beat her up back in 2021, I think. I'm not sure how they got their hands on him this time. Uh-huh. But the Trump administration stuck him on a flight down there. And you remember a judge tried to stop it, and they said, well, you didn't get the order in. The plane was in international airspace space and out of our air space, we can't stop it. So that was a good, a good little, do si do.
And, so the guy gets stuck back down there in the big prison where all the gang members are. And so he he's got a pretty interesting history. He's been, ruled by two judges to be MS 13. They've had a, a a standing deportation order on him since 2019. He's not a US citizen. I'll, stress that again. Let's see if I can make sure I don't forget anything. And so, he gets sent down to the big jail in El Salvador where he's from. One of the arguments that the lawyer made when he didn't get deported the first time was that he was in danger of being killed by the ri by the a rival gang down there. Well, that rival gang's gone now. So, anyway, the Democrats are making a heck of a fuss.
Even sent and I say sent. The senator from Maryland flew all the way to El Salvador with a couple of other people, a lawyer hired for, obviously, the the female. Here he's saying, he's a wonderful father. He's a you know, and the the press calls him a Maryland dad when he's an MS thirteen illegal alien. You know, all the usual, head fakes, bobs, bobbing and weaving. So it comes out yesterday that in 2021
[00:08:21] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:08:22] Unknown:
In Tennessee, he and seven other people pulled over in a car for having no driver's license. Uh-huh. It was evidently one other male and six children. They pulled them over, no driver's license. Within two hours, the FBI was calling them and telling them to release them within two hours.
[00:08:52] Unknown:
Uh-huh.
[00:08:53] Unknown:
They said take pictures of everybody and send it to us and this, that, and the other. But, evidently, there's some strong connection to the Democratic party of, of this child trafficking stuff, and he's the connection. And they're about to go apoplectic to try and get to him. And he's in a jail down in El Salvador. And this past Monday, Bucelli, the president of El Salvador that's turned the country around, who happened to be in The US with Trump. And the the reporters were asking about him, and Trump says, well, here's the president of El Salvador right here. Why don't you ask him? And he goes, yeah. I'd have to release him and send him back and this, that, and the other and all this other stuff. And and The US could send a plane down there to pick him up. And if he if Bucelli did all that, and then when he got back, the first thing they do is put him into ICE detention and send him back. So Uh-huh. Beaucelli and them, I think everybody's smelling a rat at this point, and they're not letting the senator and the lawyer in to see him.
And, so it seems to me and it appears that the that the Democratic Party, this is some kind of a point man in this whole child trafficking thing, and they're about apoplectic to try and get to him to shut him up before he gets interrogated is the. Oh. So, anyway, we'll see as it develops. But I have to tip my hat to Owen Shroyer who, day before yesterday as this case was really starting to build and break a little bit. And he came out and says, why why do the Democrats have this unusual interest in this guy where they'll go all the way to to to send, like, a US Senator down there to try and meet with him when he's clearly else El Salvadorian. He has no connection to The US outside of the other stuff. Now the other thing was the other night, the press conference, the White House, and they were talking about there's two females that have been murdered in Maryland. And, the press secretary gal, I don't know her name yet, can't remember, had one of the mothers up there.
Did did anybody in the audience see that? I think Lynn lady Linda did. We talked about it a little bit yesterday. Brent is one of the most horrific stories I've ever heard on what this this gang member did to this 37 year old mother of five. Uh-huh. And it was horrendous. Okay? And they wouldn't tell the mother and the family all the details until the trial. And they're sitting there in the trial and all these I mean, I don't I don't know of a horrendous, heinous, an adjective to describe what I heard. Okay? But, man, it's sickening. And this senator's office either had very little concern for this family of the murdered or none at all. And she didn't really specify. If there was any kind of contact and concern, it was really, really minimal.
And, just all this stuff revolving around all this and these Democrats' scheme that they've been putting us under for four years is starting to unravel. So, anyway, I thought that's very interesting. We're gonna find out more, hopefully, about the Tennessee traffic stop and some of the things that were involved with that. But it's pretty you don't get the FBI calling some state within two hours of some guy getting pulled over and saying let them go. That that is not usual. K? So, anyway, very interesting. We'll see how that goes. It's kinda on my mind. So A lot of authority does the FBI have to commandeer
[00:12:30] Unknown:
a sheriff's department or a police department in a state Well tell us what to do. I say very little, but they hold a lot of sway. Yeah. None according to according to US Supreme Court. Well reach
[00:12:44] Unknown:
yeah. Go ahead. Hopefully, we got, Cash Patel up there in Bongino. Maybe they'll start looking into some of those records, but this story is not going away. Okay? And there's some real big connection with the Dems, with this guy, and this child trafficking scheme that is, again, heinous and horrendous. Okay? Well So, otherwise, that's on my mind, so I'm I'm glad you gave me a chance to get it out. Thanks. Oh, no. I'm I'm glad to hear it. Glad to hear it. No. I'm have I'm,
[00:13:14] Unknown:
satisfied you told me. I had just listened to Tucker Carlson this week a little bit, Roger. I heard him say, somebody was interviewing him. He said they said, well, where do you get what news sources do you read and watch? He said, I haven't read and watched any news sources in decades. Right. He said, I don't do that. Well, they said, well, where do you get your information? He said, I interview people. And I said, the light went on. I said, well, that's what I do. I don't go waste my time reading all this trash. I just talk to Roger. He tells me. Yeah.
[00:13:47] Unknown:
And I find out what's going on. Couple of things I thought or so if I may make a comment, were you gonna say something else? I was. I I I really wanna give credit because I get most of my information from InfoWars. That's what I pretty much watch. They're they got they're a huge platform, very successful, obviously. They've got a large, large audience. Anybody that's got something that's breaking and important, either they wanna get it on or he want whoever it is wants to get that on there. So, not only do I enjoy them, for the most part, I get a little PO'd at Alex occasionally, maybe regularly.
But the other guys in the source and what they built and did did you know by the way, Brent, did you know that Alex Jones rebuilt Waco, the branch of Vidian Compound?
[00:14:30] Unknown:
No. No. I knew he was involved in doing it when it happened. Yeah. That was a long time ago. Oh, no. Volunteers
[00:14:37] Unknown:
out there doing carpenter work. And it was it's not a compound. It was a church camp. Correct. All these words that the government uses to make it look ugly. It was a church camp for Seventh day Adventist. It's all it was. Yeah. And it wasn't a compound. It wasn't armored. None of those things. But go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say, Alex, back in his those were his really formative years. He hadn't been going on very long. I was listening to him and found him already because I'm a radio hound, you know, and I was in this Patriot stuff. And all of a sudden, we're starting to get this over the Internet where we can access it. And, he would go on the air all week and call out for donations at the Lowe's.
People could send their donations to the Lowe's store there in Waco, and they would take that money and get materials. And people would show up from, all around Texas or further maybe on the weekends, and they rebuilt the Branch Davidian, place. And I nobody listen. I get mad at Alex just like everybody else, you know, and some of the things that's just his personality on the air. But, man, you can't help but give this guy credit for what he's done. Okay? I mean, really. So, I had credit where credit is due. They deserve a lot. The reason I can tell you the news is because I'll listen to them, quite frankly. Yeah. I get what you're saying. People don't realize, and I didn't realize.
[00:15:58] Unknown:
I I don't know why my life has been this way. I'm older now, but I've spent my life diving into things that people wondered about. And I wanted to find out what was going on because I couldn't understand either why is he send a state legislator to the state capital, and he's a nice guy, and he comes back six months later, and he's a he's a wacko. He's doing crazy things. And I said, why? And nobody ever said, why is this happen? Or you send somebody to Congress. We had fellows we sent to Congress, and I'd watch them. And they were nice guys, and I talked to them. And they were sensible, and they go to Congress and start doing the most unusual things or damaging.
And I said, what's going on? Well, I for whatever reason, I said, I'm just gonna dive in and find out myself. And I ran for Congress to try to determine. One thing I learned about it, it's been a million dollars, did all the things that I could possibly have done. I stayed at it for more than one election cycle because I knew that I was an unknown. My family wasn't involved in politics, didn't know anything about politics, didn't even know what a precinct committeeman was. But I dove in, and I gave it my all and devoted my whole life to for about five years. Almost well, just over five years. One and I made numerous trips to Washington DC. And one thing I discovered is that people that are in the press are just as lazy and stupid as you and probably well, I say as stupid as you. Lazy and misinformed. That's a better word. And the ballad is stupid too for the level of education that that journalists have, I had lawyers the same way. For the level of education they have, they're some of the most misguided and ignorant people in the country.
I don't say that lightly. It's not that they couldn't know. They don't because their culture discourages them from knowing really and understanding really what's going on. And, they're also lazy. A journalist are lazy, just like everybody else. I mean, most of everybody will just do whatever they gotta do to get by or get what they want. They won't do anymore. And that's for sure. And journalist, the press at that time, that's been many years ago, the press has changed because of the Internet. Back then, people thirty five, forty years ago, people read newspapers. Yes. They did. And if you could get your name in the newspaper, that was political plus.
That's not true anymore. Nobody cares about paper. But at that time, we went to Washington, DC, and they had what the Democrats called the contract on America. I signed it. I signed it in front of the national news media, and I had never been on national news media. People were calling me that I had known through the years all over the country said, I saw you on television. Right. And Fox news had just started back then, and they were kind of new, but I found out there are about 300, just 300 news outlets that control everything coming out of Washington, DC, just like in your state, in your state, wherever you are, there are a certain limited number of new south news outlets that control everything that comes out of your state Capitol. Yep. And the rest of the newspapers and the radio stations depend upon that and the spin that they put on it. And that's how it's controlled. The devil himself, no man could have orchestrated something like this. The devil himself controls what's being said. And to give you an extreme case of this, I've used this illustration before when I was on the radio, Roger, in Terre Haute, Indiana or not in Terre Haute. The the station was outside Terre Haute on the West Side Of The Wabash River out in the country.
Two FM and two AM stations simultaneous broadcast. And, I knew the fellow that owned the station and he had grown up in Bend's oh, no. He grew up, no. Not Bend Sands. He grew up just South of Terre Haute on the Illinois side, place called Flat Rock on the Flat Rock. It was named a little place on the Wabash River. And, of course, people say, why'd they call it Flat Rock? Well, the state saying around that part of the world was that a twin fluted cow peeing on a flat rock makes quite a mess. Yeah. And, the Flat Rock was an important part of life. Just it conjured up pictures in people's head about the twin fluted cow. Now if you don't know what a twin fluted cow is, you can go try to look it up on the Internet. They got all sorts of explanations, but that's the way folk used to say it at home. Well, this, particular, fellow that owned this station, he was up in his eighties at that time. He was an old World War two veteran. He'd started in radio in Vincennes, Indiana when he was 16 years old as an announcer.
Now those of you that don't know where Vincennes, Indiana is, that's the home of that's where Red Skelton grew up, Vincennes, Indiana. It's right on the Wabash River between Evansville and Terre Haute. It's the the one big town. There are a lot of little towns along there, but right on the Wabash has been Sims. And, he'd been in radio all his life, and he ended up going to Rose Coleman Technical Institute there at a feeder school for West Point that is engineering school there in Terre Haute. And, he told me stories about radio. He knew a lot about Radio Roger, as you can imagine, what he would know about radio and know about how it works. He himself wanted to be a radio announcer, but I never felt like he was that popular. He get on when he got older, he did what he wanted. You know? He had those radio stations.
I never felt like he was that popular. What he would do is, get young people or other younger than him, like me, to come in and for a year or two and stay on. And then when they they would, as a personality, would gather a certain audience, every personality would gather a different audience, then he would throw them out and get somebody else and keep building his audience that way. And he he understood radio is what I'm saying. Well, I learned a lot from him even though he ended up getting rid of me for the same reason after a year or two. But I thought I was a friend of his, found out it wasn't.
But he because he knew a lot, he told me about this fellow when he first got into broadcasting, got out of rows, and television was brand new. And the first television station, WTHI, went into Terre Haute, Indiana. And that was the only television station we had in that part of the world. You remember those days? You had an antenna on your house, and you hoped you could pick up a rough signal. And he said the the guy that did the weather everybody watched the weather because it was an agricultural world back there. And every morning, we wanna know what the weather was, and that's all people talked about is the weather. The crops and the weather, that was a constant discussion.
And, he a young fellow working at the station there, and they were he said they were jury rigging all sorts of stuff all the time trying to make it work. And and one time, they got ready for the weather to come on, and they couldn't get it to work. And some guy grabbed it. He said, I don't know what it was. Some guy grabbed a long wire and strung it out and ran it upstairs where the studio was. And just before, like, ten seconds before the weather was gonna come on, he spliced these two wires together and bang, they got on the air. Well, the guy that did the weather, he said every time he did the weather, he'd come blowing in at the last second, sliding sideways into the gravel parking lot there on Wabash Avenue, run inside real quick, run upstairs and fix his time, catch his breath and bang. He was on and he did the weather.
And, Paul said, he asked him one time, said, how do you know what to say? The guy wasn't even, he didn't know anything about weather. He was just a guy that wanted a job, you know? And he said, well, I got it down to a science. I scarf something down my neck at home to eat, and then I jump in the car. I know exactly how long it'll take to get here. And while I'm driving here, I turn on the radio and I listen to the weather. That's how I know what to say. And don't think, friends, for a minute. Don't think for a minute that that has changed. It has not. I can tell you that I came sliding in today when the intro was on, so I have to chuckle about that. Go ahead, Brent. Oh, yeah. Well, that's the way it is. And all broadcasting, they got those kind of personalities running things, doing things, and all they know is what somebody else told them. Like Will Rogers says or Will Rogers said, he he was a popular commentator in the newspapers, wrote an article.
Every day, it was syndicated across the nation, and the name of the article was Will Rogers Says. I think it was s e z. Yeah. Will Rogers says. Well, hey, his byline was, I only know what to read in the papers. What did popular commentator, Paul Harvey? Yeah. What did he do? He did nothing. He'd go in. He'd run-in the morning. He'd get into the studio there in Chicago where he broadcast out of. He'd get in there about four in the morning or daylight for anybody else, and he'd pull the what was on the AP wire or whatever it was, he'd print out in a a long printed thing that he could rip off. And he would sit with a a pen, a colored marker, and he'd read the news. And then he'd mark the things he wanted to talk about, and then he'd comment on them. But the question is, who controls what's said and who controls what's spin is put on what's said? And there are always very, a very few people that do that. And that's the danger Comment. Of the.
And we have been slaved enslaved to that for many decades. Paul, did you say something?
[00:25:39] Unknown:
Yes, please. That is exactly what has been happening since the inception of broadcasting, not just TV. Radio, TV, broadcast weather. The National Weather Service disseminates what, the powers that be want all the weathermen and women to talk about and the AP NewsWire and the tear sheets. It's what they're called. You hit the teletype room on your way to the microphone. You just tear it off, and Yeah. That's exactly what you do. You sit down with your marker, and you put a check next to the things you wanna talk about, and you highlight the important points of each story, and you lead with those. That that way, everybody in the country is talking about the same stuff using the same words, the same phrases.
Yeah. And it's very, very easy to control the entire country.
[00:26:35] Unknown:
Yep. And hence hence the saying rip and read.
[00:26:39] Unknown:
Rip and read. Absolutely. You know, when Rip and read. Dispel that all these these stations in Terre Haute. When I was in high school, the rules of the FCC changed. I forget what the name of the policy was. But instead of having these massive stations in Saint Louis, we listened to KXOK. We listened to Nashville, sixty five AM. It was clear channel AM stations back then. Cincinnati, Kansas City, Paducah, Kentucky. They all had massive 50,000 wall stations, and stations were not allowed by the FCC in the little towns. Well, they changed the policy in the early sixties. And the one of the the fellow that, followed, his name was Moore and he had a famous television show called, What's My Line or something like that. Right. Right. Yeah. Was that it? Okay. Yeah. What was his first name? I'm trying to think of it while you Gary. Gary Moore. Gary Moore. Thank you. Thank you. Gary Moore, he either died of lung cancer, he was a chain smoker, he retired or something. There was a fellow that followed him. And this fellow that followed him, I forget what his name was. He never got as famous, but he was from Tell City, Indiana down on the Ohio River.
Well, he teamed up with, this fellow that I knew, that had these radio station Terre Haute back in the early sixties, and they opened up a station in this little tiny town where I went to high school. And he started playing popular, songs, and I'd be on the school bus riding the school, and he'd play, I remember, at the same place. We were always at the same place. He'd play the same songs, and he'd play the green tambourine. You remember that song? Oh, sure do. Yep. I know who sang it. Some famous old rock and roll group in the early sixties. Well, he had a guy working there, like a lot of radio guys, and that Roger and I aren't that way, and far as I know. But, all these guys are overweight. You know? I don't know why radio announcers are often that way, but they had a big guy there, and I liked him. And he was the announcer on the stage.
And somebody called and requested, some, Patsy Cline or something song. And he or whoever it was, he played it. And, boy, the call started flooding in to the radio station. It was 800 AM clear channel. And, boy, it went clear down to into Kentucky and, over in in Indianapolis and St. Louis. They had a a clear signal. Mhmm. And, then that he saw all that country music was a big deal, and then he switched over to country music only. And he went down to Nashville, went to all the record con conventions, got all the free records, and he made a fortune in that little tiny station with country music.
And, but I remember I had a No, man. Go ahead, Roger. No. It wasn't me. Oh, guy went to high school.
[00:29:29] Unknown:
Oh, Bob? That would be Bob. That would be the lemon that would be the Lemon Pipers. My sisters had that 45, and they played the dickens out of it. Oh, wow. Great. The Lemon Pipers.
[00:29:40] Unknown:
And I never had another hit record. They were one hit wonders. I don't Oh, boy. Yep. That was a lot of those one hit wonders. Yeah.
[00:29:49] Unknown:
Another group called, the ones that sang one took over the line. I forget those fellows. I had one. Ship. I Brewer. Brewer. Well, you know your stuff. Brewer. I'll tell you what. Yeah. Yeah. That one and then there was also another one, I think, was, Brandy.
[00:30:10] Unknown:
I think that Brandy, you're a fine girl. I was played Looking Glass. I was in radio. Looking Glass. Right? I'll tell you. Bob, I've I've gotten a whole new,
[00:30:20] Unknown:
perspective on you here in the last couple of minutes. Yeah. Do I do I get a prize if I get three more right?
[00:30:26] Unknown:
You might. Yeah. I don't know what it would be, but we can give it to you.
[00:30:31] Unknown:
I'll just mix a point. I'll mix a point by his life. Even out in the middle of nowhere, where if you stand on the roof of your house on a clear day, you can see the edge of the world. That's where Bob grew up, and he knew all these things. That's it. That's because the media and the evil empire has a way of infiltrating to the little tiny nooks and crannies of our country. Where was it? Was it Kansas or Nebraska? I'm sorry. I forget. Where you grew up Northwest Kansas. Northwest which is near Nebraska. Right? Near Nebraska.
[00:31:05] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. A little bit closer to Nebraska than we were to Colorado.
[00:31:10] Unknown:
Well, I had, my mother-in-law grew up in the Nebraska Panhandle, and I visited there to see the at the pioneer graveyard where her father is buried and stuff, and it's shocking, how how far away from everything, those places are. Well, getting back to the point.
[00:31:30] Unknown:
Oh, so then I had a you talked Brent, you talked about stopping through Atwood sometime back a couple months ago, and at some point in your life, you'd stop by through Atwood to visit an old friend of yours. You're just an acquaintance. Yeah. And that was near and dear to my heart. They were they were a neighboring town. And, Yeah. Just to paint a little bit fuller picture of that, you know, fourth of July, we were cutting wheat. And we would be we would always try to make the, wheat harvest and such that we would be up on one of the high, plains, not down in the river, you know, in the creek. Yeah. So Yeah. When fourth of July night was going, we could set up on top of the wheat in the bed of the truck as they were finishing up the combining for the night. Uh-huh. And we could watch about six or eight different fireworks displays from small towns, you know, anywhere from 10 to 30 miles away because it's just flat.
Yeah. It's not flat, but it appears flat to those that don't know it. You know? But you could see grain elevators for five or six different neighboring towns, and that was yep. That was my childhood.
[00:32:40] Unknown:
To put it simply, you didn't learn to ski out there when you're growing
[00:32:44] Unknown:
up. Yeah. I did it. Behind behind the tractor.
[00:32:48] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I yeah. We did that. Well, yeah, we even had a horse that pulled it off. Behind the tractor. Yeah. But no. I relate to that. We used my brother and I climbed up on top of grain bins so we could watch the fireworks. Yep. We were getting high enough. Like you said, you get up so high. Well but getting back to the the radio station Yeah. I'll let you I'll let you get back to where you were headed. Thanks. Well, no. I I appreciate the frolics. I like to take the We need any other artists who will call on you, Bob. Go ahead, Brent. Yeah. That's right. Hidden talent. You don't have a you can't imagine what people know. Well, anyway, getting back to the had a buddy. I was in high school in this little town. This radio station wasn't far from my high school building. Of course, there wasn't anything in town far from my high school building.
And, he got a job. And when he was in high school, his father was the postmaster in this little town, and he got a job as the announcer. His name would and this guy's name was Tom Jones. Not related, as far as I know, to that famous Tom Jones singer, but at old Tom. And, I'd go with Tom over at the radio station when I was in high school, and he would read. He had a a ticker tape, Roger. A tape that would come out with the news and he would read that on the air. Of course, at that time he was a, a disc jockey. He had two wheels on both sides and he could cue them up. You just take your fingers and turn them till you hear the noise, you know? Yep. Yep. Then you know it's there'll be no dead time when you start the records. He was very good at it. But, yeah, news is controlled by just a few people, and they're the ones that, control America by political speech. And it's, I've told the story about Billy Graham. The only reason Billy Graham became famous was because the most influential newspaper man in America that owned 200 major news paper outlets. His name was William Randolph Hearst.
He sent a telegraph after Graham, held his in a tent in Los Angeles in 1949, I believe it was. He held a revival meeting in a big tent, of course, but somehow it got in the local papers and, William Randolph Hearst sent a telegram to all of his news outlets throughout the country. And it had two words that said pump Graham. And every newspaper of any influence in the country pumped Billy Graham. And, of course, the smaller newspapers get all their news from the larger newspapers. Yep. Well, you know, we had a little weekly in our a weekly newspaper. We didn't have a daily. We had a weekly. Well, a weekly newspaper has time to read what's going on and then put it in the paper. See?
That's the way it works. Now a interesting story to me is, the newspaper, editor Virginia City, Nevada. Him and another fellow was working for the newspaper. The the newspaper editor was a well known fellow, became a well known fellow. His name was Mark Twain. Right. And they got they got they found out that the newspapers in London, the London Times, were reading their papers. But they were reading them weeks after they published them because the only way to get them there safely was to buy steamship, and they have to go around the horn of South America and come up.
And so they cock concocted this crazy idea for fun that they thought they could sell more newspapers. And what they did was they would tell stories that were not true, that were so outlandishly incredible that that people would believe them because they were from a place so far away. You know, back then, if you were in Nevada or California, you weren't near The United States and they talked about way back in The States. Well, they would write these articles of these stories. They'd make them up and see how outlandish and how crazy they can make the stories and get the people in London, England to believe them. And they knew people in London would believe them if the newspapers would print them there, and the London Times would often print their crazy stories. And so they these two fellows, Mark Twain and this other writer, he was from my way.
They got, competing about how outlandish they could tell their stories and still get people to believe them. Of course, you had to tell them in a certain way. And Twain wrote this story or Sam Clemens about this fella that had invented an air conditioned suit. This is way back in the late eighteen sixties or the yeah. The eighteen sixties. And I don't know what the theory was chemically, but somehow people believed it. And he had this suit, and it was made of oiled leather. And he had this big mask thing he'd put on his head and it was completely enclosed and had this had this, some kind of chemical in it. And he, said that he would walk across Death Valley, which wasn't that far away by the, as a crow flies.
It meant Death Valleys in California, just crossed the state line in South, you know, quite a ways, I suppose, in those days. But so he invented this suit and, he went by himself and he started to walk across Death Valley and nobody ever heard from him. And Finally, this Indian come running into Nevada City, which is up toward Reno, come running into town, screaming, screaming, screaming about he found this man and they finally got him to tell the story. He was sitting on a rock, in Death Valley and, in a funny looking suit, like a space suit or something. And he had an icicle a foot long hanging from his face mask, and he was froze stiff as a board.
And so they printed that story as though it were true and sent it to London. And, or there in the paper, the paper went to London. Of course, then London printed it as though it was truth. They believed it. And then the New York Times printed it. That was August. And then all the papers printed it. Of course, that everybody in Virginia City and Nevada were laughing so hard that they they had belly gut, pain because they knew it was a lie. And, that's the way they sold newspapers. But the other fellow then wrote an article about these, this wagon train coming across, to Virginia City, and they had to after they leave Salt Lake City, they had to cross a hundred miles, but you still have to cross a hundred miles on the interstates. You have to cross a hundred miles of, of salt flats after you live after you leave, Salt Lake City, and then you come to the Nevada State Line at Windover.
And that's where the Bonneville Salt Flats are, and then the salt flats end. But they he told the story, making it up, of course, just making it up as ago about this, they ran out of water coming across that hundred miles, and the the oxen were about to die. And one of the fellows in the wagon train, this older guy had the pleurisy real bad, and he was retaining water. So they put him up on a high rock and poked a hole in the side of his abdomen and drained the water out of his body and watered the oxen and the mule. Oh my god.
Well, that that was just a story. You know? But, the London Times printed that one too. And, of course, when this then a few a month or two later when the London Times and the New York Times would come back to Nevada City and everybody was just dying to, read the Nevada paper because they would re reprint the response, you know, and, they would always print it while I thought it was true. But that Mark Twain and this other fellow understood how the press works. The, the, the, the world is just a group of people all following each other in a circle. That's what the world is.
It's just people following each other in a circle. I'm following you and you're following me, but people don't figure that out. And as Jesus Christ said, the blind are leading the blind and they both fall into the ditch because they're both blind and they're following each other and they'll lead us into hell. That's what the press is in America. So when I read things in the press, but let's listen to what Tucker Carlson said the other day. I was telling you, he never, he didn't read the papers at all and never did. And even when he was making all those millions as a, as a commentator of the news. Oh, he's doing much better now.
But even better now, but he's a good point, Roger. But he said, somebody asked him, the interviewer asked him, do you, where do you get your news? He said, well, not, I don't read any news. And then he said, why should I? I know it's all BS. I know it's all a lie. I know it's all skewed. I know it's all not the truth. Where are you going to find the truth in the news? I tell people that, and it's hard to get conservative people to believe that, but it's true. There is no truth in the news. None. None. You want to know the truth?
Just set back. Don't read it because it will, and don't listen to it. It will affect your mind. It will get to you. But if you just hear it a little bit here and there, your mind will stay free enough to analyze it and say, no baloney, there's more to the story. So you're telling us Roger, of course, now the politics controls the news politics and the speech is what we call the Bible has a word for this called political speech. You go to Genesis chapter 11, there were the Tower Of Babel is built. And it said that, they nothing would be withheld from them because they they had unity. You know, the Bible, God tells us in the Bible that if people are unified on a particular goal, they will accomplish it even if it's evil.
And that's why God case that we must come down. If we don't come down, there's nothing that will be withheld from what they're doing there. And what were they doing? The words that are used there describe political speech, politically correct speech. People say, well, they all spoke one language in Babylon. Well, maybe they did, but that's not the point of the story. And you can go to the prophets and find the same Hebrew phrase where the prophets are describing the mantra, the brainless mantra of political speech. Well, that's what was going on in Babylon.
Babylon is the beginning of the evil empire in sophisticated form. Everything was there. Babylon was the first true empire and Nimrod was the first true emperor of the world, the law of the city and contrast to our law of the land and gained it religion, law and government. And so at Babylon, they weren't just, they were speaking, everybody was saying the same thing. They were all speaking politically correct. And that's what brought the power to the evil empire. And so I say to people, do not get caught up in the Bohemian, the Jewish, the Yiddish, the hippie, the beatnik culture, because it's all a matter of words.
And once you begin to chime in and talk that beat talk, that beatnik talk, that hippie talk, that that, what would we call it? Trendy talk that everybody else is talking, using their phrases. You become a Dodo. I go to church, the evil empire, the useful idiots thereof. The devil himself is not stupid. He controls things by controlling powerful institutions. He doesn't invent or start or keep institutions going. He steals them. I went to a Nazarene church not long ago. Every Nazarene church and that denomination, the main denomination has the same liturgy.
And I that's a fancy old word. All it means is, we're all gonna do it the same way. It's just politically correct speech. And we're all gonna pray the same prayer. We're all gonna have the same creed, and we're all gonna say the same thing, and we're gonna keep repeating it. And the evil empire looks at people like that and goes, this is gonna be easy. All we gotta do is control their music, for example. And we'll all have In the name of the bread. And we'll sing the same stupid songs, The seven eleven songs, this this have the same verse you sing us. It says the same verse you sing at seven eleven times with the same seven words and that's brainless stupidity.
It has no biblical content. It doesn't teach you anything. It just lulls you into feeling and being with the crowd. And I watched this happen at this Nazarene church, otherwise Christian folk there. And I know some of them personally, and I know they're sincere, but they, this church, the there was a group of people, most of them are a little older, that had Sunday school class. I went to the Sunday school class when I went because when I was back home, I knew people there, and I went to the Sunday school class. Then when Sunday school was over, the church started and they would just go home. In other words, they had their church and Sunday school class. They would not go into the church service because they didn't wanna be subjected to the listening to the mantra of the silly songs they were singing and had the worship group up there, and they're all showbiz. And they're all, they're good.
That's not Christianity friends. That's the evil empire. God wants us to worship him with all of our mind. Now he also wants us to worship him with all of our feelings and emotion and all of our body and all of our soul and all of our spirit, but don't leave the mind out of it. That's all I'm saying. All of it's important. You are an integration of all of those facets, and God will use all of them. Comment.
[00:46:18] Unknown:
But but Paul has to make another comment. Go ahead, Paul. I gotta make another comment. You are just absolutely so right on. Even if you watch the the mainstream news, the network news at night, if you've got an HDTV, you see that inch inch and a half border around the screen. It's usually black with, like, a blue wavy lines that are just so gently moving back and forth, and that lulls you into a receptive hypnotic state. So if you have a TV like that, go to the Zoom function and just zoom in that screen so you don't be watching that, or just don't watch and listen or get your news from the radio.
And if you go to a church and the choir is up front and while they're singing their hands are up in the air waving back and forth, run. I mean, run. I mean, run because that is their intent is to lull you into a hypnotic receptive state. And from that point on, it's over for you, man. It's just over.
[00:47:27] Unknown:
Yeah. Let me bring Paul, you just you just dissed about every black charismatic church in the country.
[00:47:35] Unknown:
Yep. Sorry. Paul Paul, let me let me take that to an extreme. I get your point, Paul. And, I would focus more from my perspective on words than I would upon the movements. Although I see your point and it's true, that can lull you too. I mean, why do you go into casino and you hear this ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, and 40 acres of it all the time? That that that lulls ringing bells. Yeah. Yeah. But but getting, to another point, I went to a Lutheran church not long ago, and I'm continually shocked at the Lutherans. And I've I had some Lutherans on these programs tell me, well, I grew up in the Lutheran church and that wasn't the case. Well, maybe it wasn't, but it certainly is now into the conserved, what so called conservative Bible believing Lutheran churches I go into. Well, I went into this church and the guy told me, well, we're having before I went, he said, we're having, St John the Lutheran's day.
I said, St John the Lutheran. Are you sure you're not talking about John the Baptist? Oh, yeah. John the Baptist, but they call him St John the Lutheran shucks. The nobody knew what a Lutheran was when John Baptist was, he wasn't Yeah. No kidding. Right. Well, let's get back to it. So I went to church, though, and I said, I'm interested in church history. I'm interested in liturgy. I'm interested in how American Christianity has developed. I've always been interested in that. We just taught through large parts of that in our course on Christian nationalism at the law school. And just going into why do we do the things we do and why religion in America or Christianity is the way it is.
And I would, recommend that to you. It's on the website commonlawyer.comfifteen. We just finished 15 presentations. You can access them. They're all in the can, visual audio. But in most of that course, I tried to trace the history of of Christianity in America, the good and the bad, and why it is the way it is. But coming back to the Lutheran church, you know, Lutherans got to America, and they really didn't wanna have anything to do with America. They wanted to go west like the Mormons and and practice their Germanic religion, their, I should say, Germanic Scandinavian. And many of them, of course, migrated to places like, Ioway and then all up much in Minnesota into the Dakotas, the the Nordic tribes, the Swedes, the Norwegian, then the Germans came in, and they they covered Nebraska.
They were farmers, and they the railroads advertised all over Saxon and Germany to persuade them to immigrate to America. Lots of farmland. Well, they came. And those cultures now control those parts of America. Lutheranism is very big in those areas. I wasn't big where I was, but I'd heard about them. I knew we didn't know have much to do with them. But what this guy showed me was he's sat down, and he said, they went through the Gregorian chants, the Gregorian chants, which Rome uses as well. Mhmm. Yep. And the Gregorian chants are chants. In other words, you don't you don't show any emotion when you do the Gregorian chants, not in this. And this was a conservative Lutheran church. It's just monotone.
Sounds like the groan of a machine. And I asked the guy, I said, I understand what the Gregorian chants are. And I know who, Pope Gregory was. And he was the savior of Rome in the fifth century from the, from the, the Nordic hordes, the Goths and the Visigoths and all that baloney. But he did these chants. And this guy told me, he said, well, the object here is to keep our emotions out of it and it to be purely, purely focused on God and nothing about ourselves. And I said, that's stupid. Not only are you to worship the Lord, your God, with all your mind, you are to worship him with all your soul and your feelings and your spirit and everything that was, is within you. As it says in the Psalms, make a joyful noise unto the Lord.
What God wants us to do is relax and be human. He doesn't want us to chant. That's like I've been to Islamic countries and you hear this constantly five times a day over loud speakers all over whatever city you're in. Oh, that's paganism friends. I don't care how you cut it to deny any facet of your personality to deny any facet of your personality to your maker is a pagan idea. Don't do that. He owns all of you and he, he is entitled to all of you. Oh, I know you don't want to go overboard, but just recognize, make a joyful noise and to the Lord. We used to sing when we were children.
I got that joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart, down in my heart. I remember all the words and thinking back on it, it was a child's song, but how true that is. Joy is the Christian life. I write these things unto you that you're better translated. Thrill, thrill, t h r I l l the thrill of the Lord, the excitement of it all to be, to be freed from the shackles of stupidity, of slavery, of denying what God wants you to have. Some groups deny themselves from sex. They don't last long, of course, like the shakers in Upper State New York. I think there are 200 shakers left in the world, they say. Of course, they denied themselves the joy of a sexual relationship with their own wives.
Celibacy. The Roman priesthood denies that too. People say that the Puritans were boring. They denied themselves emotion and fun. That is not true. That is not true. That's a lie of evil empire painting these pictures of Puritans with black and white clothes. That is not the way they dressed. They dressed in colorful colors. That's why the judges in the Puritan party started this idea in England. The judges in England wear colorful robes. We don't in America for a a weird reason, but I guess you could take it positively. But, it is rather rather somber that we wear black robes that came from mourning the death of, William and Mary.
And in England, they wore black robes for a period of mourning in America. We did the same thing. But then in America, we never stopped. I don't know why, but we're still wearing black robes still mourning the death of William and Mary. Well, look up William and Mary, and there's a good reason for that. That's, that they were the they were the champions of Protestantism. Protestantism in the English speaking world, and Tom Jefferson is a graduate of William and Mary College, and and the orange William of Orange, they called him, and the Orange Order of, of Northern Ireland among the Scots Irish and the Orange Order in in, in America.
Very powerful influence, and orange became an important color in America because it's the color of Protestantism. I grew up on the edge of a township called Orange Township. All of these things are part of our history, but to understand how God has worked out his truth in our English speaking culture to me and in my mind is more fascinating than any facet of Christianity ever in the world. And never has there been a nation more Christian, de facto, not by law, not de jure, just de facto. But there's never been a more Christian nation in the world, de facto or de jure than America. And we stand, of course, constantly on the verge of losing what has given us all this wealth and prosperity. It's not us.
It's not us. It's God's providence that we even know the gospel, contrary to our sin. Go ahead, Roger. No. I'm just agreeing with you, Brent. Yeah. Mhmm. Absolute
[00:55:25] Unknown:
and so am I. And, we're coming up to the top of the hour. You gotta talk about commonlawyer.com, Brent.
[00:55:31] Unknown:
Gotta work that in. Thank you, Paul. Yeah. I wanna get the word out. I don't wanna be bashful about it either. I think I got some right ideas. I'm sure I got some wrong ones. But, fundamentally, I'm fully convinced that I'm right headed. And what I'm what I'm saying is, the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God, our common law tradition unwritten, but observe. And our the laws of nature's God as Blackstone tells us. That's their phrase in those days for the Bible. The laws of nature and the laws of nature is God. These two volumes are constitute, comprise our common law tradition.
Our common law tradition, in one sense, the second greatest blessing we have as Americans, The first greatest blessing is the Bible, the laws of nature's God. But the laws of nature, the way things are in creation are our second greatest blessing that will lead us by the way to the first. Go to commonlawyer.com, the website, and you'll find there many resources. The website's for fun. Take it that way. We're on the public platforms, on the radio, all over the country. Actually, I should say now, all over the world. We get communications from all over the world, but that listen because it's on Internet.
But we we try to establish using Winters Inn, the law school, law courses. We've taught probably a dozen courses there in the can. You can access those there, audio and visual on simple common law subjects. Simple. Well, yeah. Simple, the law of promises, of course, on contracts, the law of trust, which is part of the law of promises, but it's it's not a a banal contract. We have a course on that. How to draft, common law trust. We have have a course on that. Those are about twelve weeks long. We have a clause by clause and blow by blow course over 50 presentations on Magna Carta.
I really enjoyed that. I had a hard time stopping. We just finished the course on Christian nationalism. That was fifteen fifteen weeks. And then we also have a course on the common law of evidence, evidence at common law, how it works. All of our litigation in America, we should do nothing. We should do nothing as individual Christians that we don't do it on sufficient evidence. And I'm in good company when I say that. Many people smarter than me have said that. And our common law is all about evidence. That's all it's about, really, at its foundation. Do we have sufficient evidence to believe this?
And, then we can start our reasoning. But if we don't have sufficient evidence, we'd be foolish to to make something up and start our reasoning in that way and come to the wrong conclusion. But our the book, Excellence of the Common Law, 957 pages comparing and contrasting the law of the land with the law of the city, our common law, with the canon civil laws of Rome, which govern every country in the world except the few common law countries. And then also the winterized translation of the Bible, a common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, the Hebrew and Aramaic of the older testament and the Koine Greek of the newer testament, 35, about 35,000 footnotes explaining why I translate this way or translate that way. And then over 200 appendices tracing the major themes through the warp and the wolf of the text of the context of the Bible.
That's comes in five volumes in hard copy now because of all the comments trying to explain and swallow too. And the target audience know why I translated the way I did. The target audience of that Bible is me. And the reason that I have translated it because the Bible tells men to do what they can to understand number two, I don't wanna cook the book. I want to deliver up a raw translation. Raw. And that's the the it's not the spell of the Bible. It's the for me to teach from. You can get all those books and other books, a dozen other books, by your superior at common layer dot com. Thank you, Roger, and thank you, Paul.
[00:59:42] Unknown:
Thank you. Thank you, Brent. By all means, follow us into the second hour. Radio soapbox dot com and one zero six point nine WBOU FM Chicago and any other platforms on the NET family of broadcast services. If you drop out, go to the matrixdocs.com eurofolk radio Com link or the globalvoiceradio, .net link. We've within the last fifteen minutes, we talked about the about chanting, how probably a popular chant in India on really hot days is why I die dry. Why I die dry. And other the importance of the color orange, the historic value of the color orange. And the liberal left probably chanting orange man bad.
Orange man bad. By all means, hit us up in the second hour because it only gets better from here.
[01:00:42] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. A good well, you make a good point, Paul. Chanting is politically correct speech. But more than that, don't tell me that most people know what they're what they're saying when they're doing those chants. It becomes a ritual. It's like saying hail Mary a 65 times of driving across New Mexico one time. When I drive across New Mexico, so I like that in Arizona. I'd like to tune in to the Hopi and the Navajo stations, the the the tribal stations out there. I cause they they speak Navajo and Hopi, and I listen. And sometimes I can pick up words and I can even, if you listen enough, begin to figure out what they're saying. Of course, the Romanists are out there trying to get them under the yoke of Romanism. You know, the Navajo and the Apache, Geronimo himself, only one thing he hated worse, than Americans, and that was Mexicans and pre the priesthood.
And the priesthood had enslaved his people, the agricultural system of the Roman the canon civil laws of Rome is a slavery. The Latfundia of the Roman Empire, the plantation of the American South, the Hacienda of the American Southwest are all agricultural systems of slavery, and they came out there and enslaved the tribal people. And Geronimo Geronimo somebody gonna say something? Somebody? I thought I heard somebody.
[01:02:03] Unknown:
Geronimo watched the Mexicans crucify his parents. That's the reason he needed them cement.
[01:02:13] Unknown:
Can you blame me? I know that was the Roman priesthood that did that.
[01:02:16] Unknown:
They're behind the I didn't know that.
[01:02:19] Unknown:
Every year, the Roman church in a lot of places has the feast of Jerome in the in in the American Southwest, the Roman the Spanish Romanist, the priest had the Feast of Jerome. The word Geronimo is the Spanish way to say Jerome. Jerome. And his name wasn't Apache. He took it on because what happened to the Feast of Jerome, Geronimo knew it was happening. He planned it all out. And at a certain point in the feast of Jerome, Jerome was to walk onto the grounds where the feast was in a big costume and a mask, and he was supposed to be Jerome. Well, Geronimo got all the getup to look like Jerome and had the mask and everything. And he somehow kidnapped the guy that was supposed to do it and he did it and he walked out. And at a certain point, everybody was fawning before him, you know, how they worship the saints, Saint Jerome. Jerome wasn't such a bad guy, by the way. I just drop a footnote about Jerome. Jerome is the man that translated the Bible into Latin called the Latin Vulgate at the behest of the Pope of Rome who wanted, there were many Latin versions out there, and he wanted an official Latin version. And so Jerome is the one that went to Bethlehem and sat in a little crypt for a few years with a rabbi to learn Hebrew.
Now that's dangerous in and of itself to learn Hebrew from a rabbi, but he did. He, nobody else knew his squad about it from straight up. And then he knew something and he translated the Bible from the original tongues into Latin. And now instead of the original tongues being the official Bible of Roman church, which should be, the Latin is final, but the Latin has mistakes in it as all translations do. Big mistakes, by the way, in some places. But Jerome Jerome or or Geronimo, his name wasn't Geronimo, but he got to be called Geronimo because at a certain point, there was a signal and all his his, henchmen came out. They just murdered everybody. All the Roman priesthood that is murdered them. I didn't murder them. No. They they deserved it. I it wasn't murder. I don't know. The case was never tried, but from then on out, he was a wanted man, as you know.
And by the way, at the end of Jeronimo's life, he was in prison finally in Oklahoma and California or, Florida. He was imprisoned. Quite the entrepreneur. He would he had pictures of himself, photographs. He had a lot of them made, and when the train would stop anywhere, he'd come out and people crowd around. And the white folk would wanna see the the wild Apache. And he had all these pictures, and he sold them for a quarter a piece with his signature on them or his mark. I don't know if he knew how to write. But he sold them for a quarter a piece, which was a chunk of change in those days, and he made quite a bit of money. And then, though, he became very much an entrepreneur of gardening and raised pumpkins. He got real good at cross breeding pumpkins and squash and he became a Christian man, specifically of the Presbyterian ilk. He became a Presbyterian of all things, Calvinist, a Calvinist.
He was a very much, a man of words. He was very much an orator. He knew how to communicate and he was very much a leader and he was very much loyal to his own people. Can you blame him for doing what he did? Of course, people hated him and they patched. He did some nasty things, but I don't know. And I've read a lot about Jeronimo. I don't know that he ever was one to do nasty things. If people, need to kill him, he killed him, But he didn't I don't think he was wanting to go out and kill discriminately is what I'm saying. And there were Apaches, by the way, that did. There's always the renegades.
But, that's the story of Jerome, and now I forgot what I was talking about before Jerome. What was I talking about,
[01:05:59] Unknown:
Paul? Do you remember? I don't know, Brent, but I've got a question for you, and it came up. You've talked about it before, and we haven't. And it started popping up in The US about a month ago. I've been meaning to ask you about it. So is this a good time to inject that? Let's not forget Erie Railroad too. Oh. But, you told us about the ends of court in England is how people were taught lawyering. Right? Yeah. Right. Did you hear about the ends America, the ends of court that broke about three or four weeks ago? I haven't heard much follow-up on it. That's why I kinda wanted to ask you about it. Did you happen to hear about the incident where that would expose that? What happened? No. No. I it just got exposed. They've got this organization called America Ends of Court.
And what brought it forth was all this bickering in the judiciary, particularly over one supreme court justice named, mister Roberts, the chief justice, and his involvement in that and other real kind of nefarious questionable circumstances. And have you picked up any of that?
[01:07:11] Unknown:
Well, no. But I I do know about the ends of court, the American end of court, and it was started by a bunch of elites. And it doesn't resemble at all the ends of court of old England. That's a different matter. But I can tell you about the ends of court and what they're supposed to be. That's not what that is. That was the elites they wanna control. But k. What happened in England, back after the Norman invasion? A French became the only language, the law of French, the Norman French. Remember the Normans were the Norwegians that conquered the coast of France and then conquered at least a third of France, and that was called Normandy. That's why it's called Normandy because they were from Norway. Well, while they were there, about a hundred and sixty five years before they invaded England, the Norwegians picked up the bass the French tongue, but it was a bastardized form because they were they weren't French. So and so, they ended up I don't know. William, the Rufus, they called him. Rufus the red. He was a red headed fella in Norwegian, and he conquered, he invaded England on the 10/14/1066, the Battle of Hastings, coming over from France. And he claimed that he was entitled to the throne because of family ties in Norway and the the and Denmark and all those places where well, Norway and Denmark especially were deeply involved in the conquering and the settling of England over the years, and they're all mixed up there now. Of course, the people that sit on the throne now, the family are descended from this Rufus, this, William the conqueror, they called him, that invaded on the Fourteenth Block. William The Bastard.
William they called him William the bastard, which wasn't wise to do in those days. Some fellows called him William the bastard when he was trying to take a castle in France. Of course, he thought he was entitled to it, and, they were hollering down at him. Yeah. Oh, you're William the Bastard. Well, was he a bastard? Yes. He was. He didn't have nobody knew who his father was. Just one of those woods colts, as they say in the Wabash Valley. Just a colt that appears in the woods. You don't know who sired the cult. We used to call them woods cults. Well, that's the way it was there. And so, when they finally took the castle, he found out who was saying that, and he, didn't kill him. He had both their hands cut off and turned them loose. That's a rough way to live life.
He didn't want people calling him William the bastard. That that bothered him. He's pretty sensitive about it is what I'm trying to say. Great umbrage. Yeah. Yeah. Well, he was a nasty man. Well, so they, they got to England and when they got to England, they spoke this bastardized French that no Frenchman would ever speak by the way. A Frenchman would likely barf if he heard somebody talking like that. Well, this was about six. There was about 6,000 of these Normans that came to England, conquered England. There were about a, oh, maybe a million Anglo Saxons in England. They conquered them, and they had a policy of extermination. They tried to kill all of the Anglo Saxons, but they didn't get it done. That's just too hard to do.
Of course, they had took evasive action. Well, finally, he just took over. And the first thing that William said is the common law is enforced in England. Nothing's changed, just a change of management. So the common law remained enforced. All the courts remained in place. Everything remained in place. The wit and gamut, the wit and gamut of the Anglo Saxons, the meeting of the gray bearded men stayed in place. But in all of that common law stayed in place, they gave new names to everything and they were French words. The Witt and Gamat became the parliament, the place to parlay the parliament and all of the language of the courts was in this bastardized law French.
And these bastardized law French words still riddle our courts today. The, simple words like petition, that's a French word, didn't exist in in the course, well, everything was controlled by these six, six thousand, six thousand, Normans, all of the courts in England, all of the, all of the management of all of the agricultural lands, the manners, the manor courts, of course, they would like the township courts. They had really small courts then and went right down to do every cottage, as they used to say. That was the great strength of our common law. But, after doing all that, there were a lot of people that couldn't get in court, about a million, about a million Anglo Saxons. If they had a problem, they could not get into court because they didn't know law French.
And if there was anybody who could speak both tongues, Anglo Saxon, which is English and law French, they could make your case to the French speaking court. Some poor widow woman who's an Anglo Saxon and needs help or whatever the case or a contract problem or land problem or theft. The men that knew both languages became in high value and they, the Normans knew they had to give justice to everybody. They wouldn't be able to maintain their government. And so they let these men come in and speak that knew both tongues and speak for these Anglo Saxons.
And there were eventually enough of these men. They got together and they said, look, William, the conqueror had promised the Pope of Rome that if he would back me back him in his invasion of England, he would turn the country over to him. Well, he's reneged on that. And he said, instead, I'll just pay you money. He would send money to the Pope. But one thing he did do, he replaced all the Anglo Saxon judges in the courts with Roman priests, Roman priests, Roman priests are Canon civil law lawyers even yet today. That's all they know. They're not taught the Bible. They may know something about the Bible. Some of them might take an interest in the Bible, but that's not what they're taught. They're taught to be lawyers of the, what they call the Canon laws. Well, the Canon laws or the code of Justinian of the Roman empire put to an ecclesiastic purpose.
So they're lawyers of the Canon law and they saw these judges in the common law courts of England, the old common law courts. And they said, if we don't do something to have influence in the courts, we're gonna lose our common law. And they understood the dip I mean, their common law and the what's on the continent, which is the canon civil laws of Rome that govern. And there will be no freedom in England anymore if we don't do something. So what these men did is they got together and they said the, the university at Oxford is not going to produce lawyers. They produce lawyers, canon civil law lawyers, and all the universities are the product of Rome. And at the center of all the universities starting in Bologna, I call it Bologna, Italy, where the first university with the Pope commissioned the first university was to teach the Canon civil laws of Rome and everything at the university, every school, the school of astronomy, the school of medicine, the school of, of law was the center and everything had to conform, had to revolve around and conform to what was in the center, which was the code of Justinian, the Canon civil laws of Rome. And that's why they're called uni versities.
That's what Rome called them because Latin, you see, they always spoke Latin. Uni unity, there's unity around the central point where everything else around that, all the schools of whatever architecture, as I've said, medicine, astronomy, natural science, all of the schools at the university and universities are still set up this way. You got this school and that school, but if you're going to have a university versus means around, uni means central. You've got a central point of unity, which is the law, the canon civil laws of Rome and the Pope of Rome at that time is when he established that first university at Italy, he said expressly, he said, we're going to supplant the Bible as ultimate court of last resort.
The Canon civil laws are the ultimate court of the Supreme logos, the great logic of man. The mind of man is Supreme. That's the definition of humanism. Scholasticism. Logic is supreme. That's all. This is pagan hogwash. It's not true. Scientifically, it doesn't work, but that's what the whole world operates under and all the universities of the world, including Oxford, were that way. They said, we can't teach the common law in Oxford. What are we going to do? So they formed these ends of court over the next few centuries. These ends of court, are still there in England and it's a private, it's privately funded, privately operated, and they produce common lawyers. And that's how common law education happened. You see the common law was not allowed to be mentioned or taught at Oxford. And then later at Cambridge, those are products of Rome. The Canon civil laws are taught, but not our common law. The common law is taught at the ends of court and they're private institution. They're free institutions.
When our country started about 100 graduates of the ends of court of England were in America and their influence in guiding the process along to a common, through a common law tradition was indispensable. We're going to talk about Harry. We don't want to forget to do that. Maybe we can do that if we get this done, but I want about just a story and the importance of the common law and what happened in Erie Railroad and Swift versus Tyson of ninety six years before Erie Railroad case of 1938. But back then, the ends of court were how they began then to produce a licensed lawyers. And they just like the organization to the say today, they say we're going to be the organization that certifies whatever they want to certify.
And they, that's what they did. They said, well, certify and license these men that they've been through a rigorous process. They understand the common law. Obviously these Roman priests know, don't know deadly squat from straight up, sick them from come here about the common law. And they're setting on the benches. And what they're doing is they they don't know what else to do. They're applying the law of the city principles to the cases that will destroy us as a people and destroy our freedom. Yep. So that's how the ends of court and that's how the private practice of law developed, in more modern times. And we brought that tradition to America.
And people complain about lawyers and rightly so. They're just as dangerous as anybody else. But understand, lawyers are independent of the government in a way that they aren't in the rest of the world. We have an adversarial system in our common law. We fight in the rest of the world and the Canon Canon civil laws of Rome. When you and the, what they, a tribunal, I don't call it a court. There is no fight. There's just a judge. Who's a civil servant and he's not even a lawyer. He's trained to be a judge, which is a different thing. And the only object they have is to make sure everybody conforms to the code, the provisions of the code, nothing else matters.
Not, not truth, not justice, not the omnipresence of the law that is everywhere. As justice story said, the omnipresence of the law is the omnipresence of God. That's what it is. Well, area railroad rejected that idea in the federal courts, but it wasn't all bad. And we, we talk about that at the time, but that's how the common law was rescued
[01:18:25] Unknown:
from obliteration in England by the ends of court and the men that were bilingual, French and English. Well, I just wanted to bring up this story that came out because it hadn't been followed up on much. I'm kind of surprised, but Roberts is one of the key operators here and all of these rebel judges. Bromberg that's doing all this like with Garcia. He's the one that's over that case and a couple of other ones up there, and they're all the ones that are going to the ends of court where you can, oh, go off in a corner with, other people to get an interesting insight into special cases, you know, that kind of stuff. It it's just all corruption where they can pay each other off and and and do all that shenanigan or whatever it is. And I'm just shocked it hadn't gotten any more, any more, press on it. Now there was another aspect of this with Roberts.
I wish I could remember the Jewish guy's name. He at the time, he was the, ambassador to Czech Republic, and he had a 50 room old mansion over there, was with, I guess, the embassy or where he lived or whatever. And Roberts went over there for a week at a time, and this guy came out in the podcast. Boy, I wish I could remember his name. When he's really arrogant, big Jew guys. And he said, yes. Well, we were discussing something about European and American law. The foundations are are something. So Roberts has bought and paid for, and, I'd like to see some of this stuff come up more. We'll see as we go forward. I don't wanna miss out on Erie Railroad. So, you know, you can sense the time.
But, but I did wanna ask that question. Been meaning to ask you for a couple of weeks and just keep we get off in these conversations, and you miss the opportunity to mention it. You know?
[01:20:17] Unknown:
Well, no. I I see what you're saying. Roger, can you still hear me?
[01:20:20] Unknown:
Barely. You sound a little faint.
[01:20:23] Unknown:
Well, I'm gonna I had to stand up for a second, but I will sit down now. I'm sorry. I had to stand up because I had somebody request something from me, but I'm back down here. No. No problem. What goes on behind the scenes will be hidden, and the only answer to that is you and I doing right. For example, you talked about the American end of court. The the name sounds right, but it isn't. Then you've got the judicial council at the University of Nevada in Reno, the University of Nevada and the judicial council. Look it up. Who funds the Judicial Council at the university? You'd be surprised. Find out. And what they do is they invite all the judges in America, state and federal, when they become a judge. They don't know what they're doing. I mean, these are the people I went to law school with. I know what they're like. Yep.
They, they don't, they're wrong headed to start with many of them as many people are, but then they take them to the, to the judicial council and the judicial council does the same thing that AI PAC did to me when I ran for Congress. They came to me and they said, listen, if you win the election and we're going to believe you will, you're going to need a lot of help. You're going to need a lot of information and we want you to know we'll provide anything you need. Now when a guy's in Congress, say, he's all of a sudden shoved into a position where he has a lot of power and people want his influence to work for them.
Very, very dangerous as you can imagine for everybody concerned. But they, these organizations come to you and say, Hey, you come to us for your information. You come to us, we'll help you. We'll provide staff members for you. We've got the whole thing sewed up. Well, that's what the judicial council does for judges. And then they end up of course, controlling them. Again, find out who's running the judicial council. But I know that judges in small, obscure places in America, it's all free. You say you don't even pay for it. You just go out there and they have all sorts of courses you can take. Some of them are very good, but some of them are things like this. How do you handle, an unruly person in court who claims he's a sovereign citizen? You're right.
And, well, I'm not for the sovereign citizen movement. As a matter of fact, I'm dead against it. And I have biblical reasons for that. And they're very good. A matter of fact, they're overwhelmingly persuasive. But what they teach them to do is to squelch, squelch any objections to the evil empire. That's what they teach them to do, but they put a face on it. Like we're just here to help. We want to help you. And they offer it for free. And now there are some institutions on the conservative side that do the same thing. And I had tended some of those. One of them was the Morton Blackwell ran it. It was in Washington DC and he had a lot of money behind him. A lot of famous people supported what Morton was doing. He was the Republican state chairman of Virginia at that time. I don't even know if Morton's around anymore. He was in the Reagan administration in the Department of Education.
But what he offered to people running for office, and I took advantage of it is all sorts of teachers would come in. There were experts on subjects about how to do things. They had guys come in there and teach us how to, how to dress for the camera. So So you won't look stupid, the right colors of clothes, how to walk and be polite when you're walking up the stairs with a female or walking down the stairs, where do you, where do you walk in relation to her? And they also had courses on just plain politics and how to handle criticism, how to handle false criticism, how to handle true criticism.
All of us that was free, all the food you could eat, and it was well funded. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but the judicial council is doing what's evil as far as I can tell. Right. As also some of these packs in DC that take people that are scared, don't know what they're doing. They're in Washington DC. They've, they've never had this kind of power before. What do you do? Well, that's, that's what is out there. All, all the organizations, the evil empire controlling it comes down again, the simplicity, let's make this simple. Don't worry about all the things I'm telling you. I just worry about, don't get caught up in politically correct speech. That's ultimately what controls.
And the story of Genesis chapter 11 is about that. When it says that they were all of one lip, all of one speech. That's the phrase that the prophet Jeremiah, I believe it was Jeremiah, uses to speak a politically correct speech. And that's what was going on in Babylon. It all stands to reason. Don't get caught up in that. Because if you can, you know, we, as, as, members of Adam's race, we learned thousands of years ago that if you could get men to move at the same time together, you could get them to think together and to talk together.
That's why marching, I used to wonder why is marching such a, an important thing in bootcamp? I mean, it doesn't really teach you anything. Woah. It teaches you a lot. It teaches you that you're part of a unit without saying a word. And if you can teach men to move together and you gotta get good at marching in bootcamp. And by the time you leave, you will be good at it. It'll be as natural as breathing, marching, and you're not even allowed to walk if there's two or more of you not allowed to walk anywhere except you're in step. Well, if you can teach men or get them or train them is the better word to move together, they will be together.
And if you can train men to speak together and say the same things, they will think together, and they will act together, and they will be enslaved. I'm telling you friends. That's why the first amendment, as part of our common law tradition, it put in our constitution. That's why it's so important. That's why we're here today. Roger and I are on here and Roger's on five days a week. We're exercising the freedom of speech. What we think is important. And if we ever lose that, everything is lost. It comes down to words. My friend, do you think that it's any accident? Yeah. God governs with words. That's why he gave us a book called spoke the world into existence. What more proof do you need?
And as that one prime minister in England said, if God governs with words, is that any mystery that the creature he created out of his imagination, he commissioned him to govern with words too. That's us. Somebody piped
[01:26:49] Unknown:
Larry Larry was trying to chime in there. He's always got good questions, but I wanna make sure we get this this, Erie Railroad thing covered because we talked about it earlier this week, and that's why I shot you that message. So Larry is I know Brent gets off on your questions and goes twenty, thirty minutes. So what's your question, if you could?
[01:27:14] Unknown:
So is he finished discussing the Erie Railroad?
[01:27:17] Unknown:
Well, we hadn't even started it.
[01:27:20] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Well, a little while ago, he brought up the the words du jour and de facto. And in the patriot community, Brent might already know this, lot a lot of patriots don't like to use the word de facto because they they align that with legal and something that's artificial while the du jour is natural and organic. And is it really a bad thing to to use de facto to describe, like, you know, laws and states and things like that? And maybe he could go over those terms.
[01:28:02] Unknown:
I'll respond to alright. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll respond to it quickly, and then I'll get on with theory. But, what you just described, the way patriots take that is hogwash. That's not what those words mean at all. And like most patriots stuff, not most, I'm overwhelmed with the the mythology. No. I have no kid. Thank thank you. And that just never never stops. And those are distractions of the evil empire to get people off on those things and away from the main question, what is controlling and what we can do to be effective. De jure means de jure means by law. De facto means in fact. Illustration.
America is a de facto Christian nation. There's no law we have that says we gotta be Christian. England is a de jure Christian nation. They got law that says they are officially positive law. They're officially Christian. Are they de facto too? Doesn't look like much anymore, but America is. That's what de jure and de facto means. De facto means, in fact, we are. I don't care what the law says. Dejure means we're Christian because the law says we are. That's the difference between the two. It's a con those are common terms, nothing fancy about them. They mean just what they say, and we should understand them for the simplicity simplicity of what they mean. Again, thank you for bringing that up because it gives me an opportunity to start with the etymology of the word. Don't start with what other people say it means. Don't start with what blacks says it means. Now the blacks dictionary, which is it, the sixth or the seventh, Roger, it was, edited by a a linguist.
And so every word he gives in there, he'll give you the etymology of the word too. That's important.
[01:29:41] Unknown:
I would think it's the sixth because I believe that's a more solid addition than the seventh. It's when they started monkeying around with some of the definitions.
[01:29:50] Unknown:
Well, I'll tell you because I got it right here. I mean, Arlene, oh, the state's the seventh, Roger. Okay. It's the seventh. Okay. Yeah. And, the fellow that edited that was not a lawyer. He was a linguist, and he was a close associate and a friend with justice Scalia. And justice Scalia and him later teamed up and wrote a book on the principles of hermeneutics, interpretation of writings of legal significance. It's a good book too. I like linguists because, again, it comes back to words. And if you're not a word man, you've missed the boat. Let's understand just what words mean. And the history of words carries more as Trent put it, biblical linguist. He said the history of a word has more fascination than history often of a military campaign.
Well, let me get to to, Erie, Roger, because I did, think about it a lot. I like Rush's comment. Words mean things. Go ahead. Yeah. Words mean things. Yeah. No kidding. Well, anyway, and the devil wants to, just make mush out of them and does. Well, Erie Railroad or Tompkins versus Erie Railroad. First, the facts of the case. Tompkins lived in a little town. I think it was Houghton or Houghton, H O U G H T O N or something, Pennsylvania. Little tiny town up in Northeast East Pennsylvania. And there's a railroad run through town, like, railroad used to run through every town in America. And, he was over playing cards with his his buddies one night. He was out of work. He was, he was, either tool and die or a machine operator, small little production outfit around there, and he was out of work. It was during the depression, nineteen thirty four, long in there.
So he's over at his buddy's house, and they were playing cards and imbibing adult beverages. In other words, getting drunk. Didn't have anything else to do, I guess. He ended up coming home midnight or past, and, his friend said, well, get in the car, and I'll drive you back to your house. Little tiny town with just a few streets and a railroad. And he was outside of town, apparently a little ways. They drove him back and he got him up to the railroad track midnight or after. And, Tompkins said, Oh, just let me out here and I'll walk home. I then short, don't drive all up and down for whatever reason. I don't know what it was. Maybe he didn't want anybody to see him coming home late. He wasn't that old, the fella. He got out of the car and he started walking down the railroad track. And like a lot of railroad tracks used to have, there were paths by the railroad track where people had beaten the path where they walk.
And he was walking and heard a train coming behind him and didn't think anything of it because the train's gonna be on the track. It's not gonna run him over. And, the jury told what the facts of the case are, but we don't really know what happened. All we know is he wound up somehow under his arm, under, under the train car and a wheel ran over his arm and, mashed it flatter and a flitter as my mother would say. And so they took him to the hospital and they amputated his arm. They cut it off because it wasn't worth saving. So here he is, one armed man, young man, and, he didn't know what to do, and he looking for somebody to take his case. And in Pennsylvania, like most of the states, they said, look. If you're walking across the court said, if you're walking along the railroad track, you're trespassing.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
I was gonna say, isn't there a right of way, a problem right off?
[01:33:19] Unknown:
Yeah. You're trespassing. And and the railroad hasn't stopped you, but the railroad isn't supposed to try to hurt you. They do have a duty of ordinary care to make sure, well, something's sticking out here gonna hit this guy. Let's try to get all the stuff in, and so we don't. But but they didn't have a high duty of care because they're trespassing. And so that's kinda where the law was in Pennsylvania according to the courts. Sounds sensible. But but he he knew he couldn't win in state court, but he wanted some money for what happened to him. What happened to him is he said, and the jury came up with these facts. Something hit him and knocked him down and his body flopped and his arm went under the under the railroad car as it was rolling along. And he said it was something sticking out from railroad car, a swinging door. You know, they went to sliding doors in my day, sliding doors. But they say that in the old days, the car, some of them had swinging doors. And the door wasn't fastened. It was swinging and it smacked him and knocked him down. Well, maybe.
Somehow, it could have been. And here's the more likely the more likely story. He just drunk. It reminds me of, remember that guy in Louisiana? We talked about him,
[01:34:29] Unknown:
Justin, what's the Justin Wilson. Justin Wilson.
[01:34:32] Unknown:
That w we used to listen to him about a WWL, New Orleans. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Trucker station. And, he got telling about the Cajun that got drunk, and he was out on the railroad track crawling. He couldn't stand up. So he was crawling and one of his buddies came along and said, what are you doing? And he said, well, I'm going home. And he said, well, it's kinda dangerous being where you are. He said, I know. That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is this long handrail on the stairway. He was pulling himself along with the on the rails. Well, probably, although I don't know. I know what the jury said, but likely he laid down on the railroad track and passed out and he's lucky he didn't get his head or his body crushed.
But I don't know that. I know what the jury said. The jury said, no. It just, there's something hit him and knocked him down. Well so he went looking for a lawyer in Pennsylvania, and, of course, the lawyers told him, look. We can't win anything for you here because you contributed your negligence. Just walk trespassing and walking along. It's called contributory negligence. The railroad wasn't negligent. You are. They're they have a duty of ordinary care, but they don't have a high duty of care to watch out for everybody that walks along the railroad track. You you do that at your risk. Oh, I said, now what am I gonna do? Well, somebody said to him, well, if you go into federal court, they will apply a federal court standard, and the federal courts are more sensitive to, they're they're again the railroads.
They're again the railroads. Well, no court has ever been against the railroads and no and no court has ever been against banks. Banks and railroads and insurance companies, they have a a leg up and always have had. Who are we kidding? But, anyway, this one he he went looking for a lawyer. The only lawyer he could find was a one armed lawyer in Downtown New York. And this true story, apparently from what I understand, the lawyer just got out, just got his law license. He was a Jewish fellow, a Jewish fellow, just got his law license. He teamed up with another Jewish fellow. They had just started their little law firm. Firm. They had never tried a case. They didn't know squat about the law, but this guy had sympathy on him apparently. And he said, I'll take your case, and we'll take it in the federal court because the Erie Railroad is incorporated, not in Pennsylvania, but in New York.
So, the Erie Railroad is a domiciliary. That means their home is in New York. But the railroad was in Pennsylvania. Well, there's two ways you can get into federal court. You can get into federal court. He wanted to get into federal court because he could have won in federal court. He couldn't win in state court, see, because of the standard. But in federal court, he stood a better chance. He didn't know that he could win, but he stood a better chance. So this fellow said, look, you're from Pennsylvania. The railroads from New York.
You're both from different states. Therefore, you can get into the federal court without a constitutional question. See, the constitution of The United States provides two ways to get into federal court. The jurisdiction of the federal federal court is very limited. It's just limited to whatever arises under the constitution of The United States. That's it. And there's nothing in the constitution about of The United States about tort law, contract law, trust law, family law, adoptions. That's not what our constitution is about. Our constitution is about due process, about how things are done, not what is to be the result.
So it's a very limited document that gives a very limited jurisdiction to the federal courts. Well, but this lawyer and his buddy said, we'll we'll try it. Because they wanna make money, and they didn't have any clients. This was their first client. So they took the guy and the court in federal court under what we call diversity jurisdiction. Again, the this is important that Americans understand this. They should. There's two ways to get into federal court. Either you have a constitutional question. That's the bottom line. It has to be a constitutional question. Lawyers call it a federal question. That's misleading. No. It has to be something that arises out of the constitution of The United States. He didn't have that. It was a tort case, a wrong, he said another party did to him.
Well, then the other way to get into federal court is what's called diversity jurisdiction, and the constitution of The United States gives that as another way. If one party's from one state and another party's from another state, They can get into federal court. And the reason for that is if I drag you into court in my state, the court in my state is gonna be more sympathetic to me and more biased toward me than they are toward you. Yep. And that's why we have federal court to give a a neutral forum to people from different states. Okay. So he goes into federal court, and the federal court applies what they call federal law under Swift versus Tyson. Swift versus Tyson happened back in 1842.
And, justice Joseph Story wrote the opinion in Swift versus Tyson. It was a case about negotiable paper. Checks, bonds, things like that, notes. They're negotiable. They're like money. They're substitutes for money. You can pass them around, sign them, like you sign a check, give somebody else you can take to the bank. Of course, that's not practiced today after 09:11, but it is something that's part of our law, has always been, negotiable paper. Well, that case, just a story, not to talk about the issue, the negotiable paper problem that has nothing to do with. I want you to see this.
Justice Joseph Story said in that case that there's federal court jurisdiction here because the federal courts are to apply even in diversity cases. And that was a diversity case too. The federal courts are to apply two different parties from two different states in federal court. And when that happens, justice story said the federal court is to apply principles from the federal court, precedent from the federal courts. Well, that's normal. I mean, you can't blame him for saying that. Remember, our courts are a separate and co equal branch of government. Our courts follow their own points of view. They don't follow the presidents unless they want to, and they don't follow the Congress' unless they want to. And by the way, Congress and the president is not bound to follow the Supreme Court or any other court, by the way. All this fuss about DJ Trump and and, courts ruling against him.
It really doesn't make any difference. This is, boob bait for the Bubba's that Russ used to say people wanna fight about something doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean anything. DJ Trump has the power to do anything he wants. That's where our constitution is designed. However, it's also designed so that if it's politically sensitive and he doesn't think he can get away with it politically, he will obey the Supreme court or the, another federal court. It all depends on a lot of things, but the courts are a separate branch and they follow their own precedent. When lawyers go to law school, they don't learn what legislation is and what what's a president do. No, does no. They learn the cases because that's what they have to argue in the courts. Because in our common law tradition, the courts are a separate and coequal branch of government, and they follow their own precedent.
Well, that's good. That's not bad. I know it's abused. I know it causes people problem, but friends, listen to me. Stare decisis is the pole star of our common law tradition. The independence of the courts is fundamental just as is the independence of the other two branches of government from each of them from the other two. We don't have a monolith of government in our common law country.
[01:42:07] Unknown:
We have Could you define stare decisis for some in the audience that might not know what that is?
[01:42:13] Unknown:
Well, stare decisis is where a court and not my hierarchy of courts, whether state or federal, so the Supreme Court of my state or the Supreme Court of the United States in the federal court system makes a decision. All the courts below that court in the hierarchy of courts that binds them to rule the same way on similar facts, for instance, Heller decision, second amendment, Supreme court of the United States said yes, 02/2008. Yes. They said the second amendment protects a personal right to personally carry a weapon, a firearm, every federal appellate court and every federal trial court in America is now bound by that point of view. That's called stare decisis.
Sometimes it works bad. Sometimes it works good. But the main thing about stare decisis that is so important is that the courts are not beholden to follow orders from the president or the Congress, not in the final analysis, but neither are the pres is the president bound to follow the orders of the Congress or the courts, and and the Congress is not bound to follow the president or the courts. Well, then who's in charge? People ask. And the popular answer in the law schools is the Supreme Court of the United States. That's just blatantly wrong. And I have to attribute knowledge to these lawyers. That's a damnable lie. Our common law tradition would not exist if any of those three branches of government had to obey any of the others. No. That's the beauty of our common law tradition. That is, as Madison said, as in common law tradition, as long as the three branches of government are in a Mexican standoff fighting with each other, they leave us alone. That's really what it boils down to. Yep. And when you see them fighting like they are now, be happy that they're fighting.
[01:44:05] Unknown:
And you can take care of yourself. Go ahead, Roger. I was just gonna say when I was in paralegal school, they taught us stare decisis means the matter's already been decided. And there's your precedent.
[01:44:15] Unknown:
It means that in result lit by the letters, a Latin phrase, it means let the decision stand besides sorry. But it but what you said is true as well. And in other words, it's been decided. We don't have to revisit that. And here's the beauty of our common law tradition. Justice is only found in the courts. It's not found in the executive branch. It is not found in the legislative branch. They paint those two branches paint with a broad brush. They don't try anything. In our courts, we try things individually in individual instances, and we look back and say, what happened?
And the rest of this world, they don't do that. Their their tradition doesn't even allow it. We asked the jury, what happened? We look back what happened and the rest of the world. They just say, what does the code say judicial decisions have nothing to do with it. We're going back to the code and we're going to see what it says again, again, again. We're not even allowed. They're not even allowed to consult past opinions by an unwritten tradition that is as strong as anything in the canon civil law tradition. And in our tradition of common law, we are bound to look back. It's not written down anywhere, friends, that we have to do that. But we know if we don't, we've destroyed we've destroyed our common law, and that will destroy our freedoms. Our common law is not a list of laws. It's a way we go about doing things. By the way, the same thing is true in England, but to a lesser degree, we are more English as comparative lawyers have said. We are more English than the English because we're more common law. And that's what dictates our culture from bottom up is our our law, our standard of living.
And it's our standard of living for us does not stress. Do not the outcome, the do nots and do's and the that stresses how. My jurisdiction as a member of Adam's race is to ensure that all things are done properly. God's jurisdiction is to declare the outcome. And he says, you do things properly, follow my procedure, my due process, and
[01:46:17] Unknown:
the outcome will be reliable. That's up to me. Yep. So you get back to Erie. I don't want the time to run out. I know there's some other stuff. So this
[01:46:26] Unknown:
thing happened to him. They go into court and they went into federal court and he wins a judgment of $30,000 30 thousand dollars is more over half a million today. That was a a respectable judgment for a man that lost an arm regardless of whose fault it was. And the federal court, the federal court, had agreed with him. They gave the standard of law to the jury, and the jury made their decision, and that would have been the end of it. But then the railroad appealed, and the railroad lost at the federal sec second federal circuit, which is back east there in the Northeast. And then the federal court appealed to the Supreme Court to the or the federal court, the Erie Railroad. I said the federal court appeal. No. Erie Railroad appealed.
And, they they said this ain't right. And they said they should have applied the law of Pennsylvania. The federal court should have applied. No. No. They didn't say that. Let me think. How about, no, no. They just said, this is not right. That's all they said. The federal, the courts, the federal courts have set up a law that is a bad standard. So it gets to the Supreme court to The United States, Justice Brandeis. Uh-oh. Justice Brandeis. Let me follow this through by saying this as well. The Jewish influence in this case from start to finish was massive. The trial lawyer that tried this case was a Jewish immigrant who had been a state judge in New York. And he told Eleanor Roosevelt at their, what they called a Turkey sandwich meeting or something, Eleanor could never cook, but all the big political operative from New York City, which was the base of governor Roosevelt. He became president later, governor Roosevelt's political base. And that became the power base, the Jewish community on the Lower East Side Of New York, which formerly had been an Irish community of immigrants.
All the streets had Irish names like Delaney and O'Neil, but the, then the, but the Irishman still controlled the precincts, but it was all Jewish. And there was one fellow there that came from, up around Russia or Lithuania or somewhere, young fella, and the Irish boss in that precinct saw him and groomed him to become powerful. He couldn't even speak English very well. Like the one fella said, he don't even speak English. And somebody said, he doesn't speak English. You know, well, he didn't, he wasn't American. He was an immigrant and nothing wrong with that. Of course, that's all of us. Our people were from someplace else, but he became because he got involved in politics. He was part of that, that machine of Roosevelt. And every week Roosevelt had a meeting in his estate up the Hudson River and Eleanor would make Turkey sandwiches because she couldn't cook and they call it the Turkey sandwich club or something. I forget what it was. And that's the way Roosevelt kept in touch with all the people reporting to him what was going on politically.
And this fellow then said, I want to be a judge. Well, the guy didn't know squat from straight up, as I say, and he appointed him a state judge and maybe he had passed a bar. Maybe I don't remember. But then when Roosevelt was getting ready to run for president, he went to Eleanor and he said, I want to be a judge. I'm tired of being a state judge. I want to be a federal judge and Roosevelt procured for him an appointment as a federal trial judge. And the Erie case was the first case he ever sat on. He didn't have a clue what to do. He had another guy there that knew procedure that told him at every point what to do. He didn't know what to do, and he didn't make I think he somebody said he only made one ruling during that trial. And that was when the guy that was standing beside him or sitting beside him told him what to do. This is the madness of what goes on. Well, anyway, but he won the case, The railroad appeal that got to the Supreme Court to The United States, and judge Brandeis
[01:50:25] Unknown:
was there, and he was deeply involved on the individual level. He even met with the attorneys in his mansion in New York. K. Can I stop you just a second? Brandeis is the drove the beachhead in that all of this stuff came from. Wilson was coerced into putting him on the court. He's a ad early ad advocate of Zionism, and he used to have those meetings in his office in the Supreme Court Building, which is strictly forbidden. They're the ones that took over the agriculture department, drove all the communists in through ag. So just a little background on this Brandeis guy.
[01:51:03] Unknown:
Oh, yeah. That's good, Roger. You mentioned these things. He was a from a Sarphotic Jewish family.
[01:51:12] Unknown:
Sephardic. Sephardic. Sephardic. Okay.
[01:51:14] Unknown:
Very what they call Talmudic Orthodox. But he also introduced into the Supreme court in the year 1908 or 1909 as a lawyer, a young lawyer, what the legal lawyers in America today call the Brandeis brief. And the Brandeis brief was a brief about child labor, and he submitted it to the Supreme court. I don't remember all the details, but here's the important point. It was a very short brief. It didn't have hardly any law in at all, but it had a stack. You could measure in pounds of cycle studies from psychologists and other psychobabble shrink heads.
And ever since then, increasingly the psychobabble world has taken control of our courts. Yep. I won't go into it more than that, but I've experienced it. It's ugly. And they make a lot of money and they contribute nothing but more trouble or litigation.
[01:52:12] Unknown:
He I think it was on this child labor thing. He was a young lawyer in Boston that got they gave him pumped him up, pump pump whatever, pump Brandeis. They pumped him up, and and they, twisted Wilson's arm and got him on the Supreme Court. That's the beachhead, the Zionism organization that runs the world through our country today. That's where it came from. This guy right here.
[01:52:34] Unknown:
And now, Roger, and I for my part, and I would if I'm speaking for you or not speaking for you, say so, I try to be careful to approach this problem as a Christian man and say, of course, I'm not not being against other people. But I certainly am against anything that's not Christian and is not Christlike, that does not worship Jesus Christ. And I'm given these facts about the Jewish involvement of religion in this case, because it does affect what happens regardless of what they say. And they will tell you it doesn't. No, no, no. We can put all that aside and rule. That's not possible.
A psychobabble man. Oh, that's possible. No, it's not possible. Religion is the spring of all human affections. And the Bible calls me not to see the defeat of all false religions. It calls me to speak the truth. And I'm just speaking the facts here. And you can do with them what you think's best. And that's your job. I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but the facts of the case are fascinating. By the way, well, let me just get on. We're running out of time. Yeah. We got about five minutes left. Judge Brandeis was in influential in the decision, but judge judge Brandeis died at age 55 or 56 of a stroke before the the decision was made. So he didn't enter into the right end of the briefs and the final opinions, but here's what happened.
Ultimately, Erie railroad overturned swift versus Tyson of 1942. And what Erie railroad said is this, and this is where the Patriots again, get off. Oh, there's no more common law. That's the scream of the Patriots. Erie did away with the common. No, it didn't. You can't do away with the common law. Just a story said in swift versus Tyson. And he rightly said that our common law is the brooding omnipresence of the law, which is the brooding omnipresence of God himself. It's everywhere. And he used that phrase brooding. Interestingly, that's the phrase in the Hebrew tongue that's used of the spirit of God in the first two verses. Well, the second verse of Genesis, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became, not was, that's past tense, became action, formless and void, and darkness was upon the deep. And then it says in, by the letters in the Hebrew and, and the spirit of God brooded, brooded on the face of the waters.
That's a word from chickens, Hawks, eagles. They brood over their young. It's a nurturing word. It has life in it. It has the incipient signs of the effervescent reality of life. And when justice story said that our common law is the brooding omnipresence, he was right. And so what he said though, was this story said, it's the brooding omnipresence. It's always the elephant in the courtroom and the federal courts find the law in our common law tradition. We find the law because the law is eternal. It's the mind of God himself. God is eternal. Everything that is done, God knows everything that can be known. There's nothing can be taught to him. There never was a time he didn't know all that could be known. He's omniscient.
He's omnipresent. And that's where he gets that idea. And there's no accident. Of course, again, that justice story is from a Puritan world and a Puritan culture. Well, Justice Story said that. And he said, therefore, the federal courts, when a case like this comes up where state law could apply, the federal courts have their own law and their own sovereign courts of what ought to be done in these cases. Well, Erie overturned that. And here's what Erie said. The Erie said, no, no. The constitution of The United States does not give authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to come up with their own ideas about what the standards of law are. No, everything that the federal government has, the general government in Washington, DC, the states give to it.
Therefore, there is no, there's nothing the federal government has that they do not derive from the state courts. And so they said in this kind of a case, under the diversity jurisdiction, where there are two parties from two different states, the federal courts have to apply the standard of the state of Pennsylvania, not whatever they think is right. That's what Erie says. Now there may have been. And I think there was nefarious ideas behind that of the Roosevelt administration. But of great note, the justices on the Supreme Court that hated Roosevelt, that were his constant pain in the side, thorn in the side, who would not go along with his New Deal like Butler, they went along with Erie because they said, we want to curtail the power of the federal government.
And the federal courts do not have the authority under our constitution to say, we've got our own law here that we can follow in our stare decisis in our federal courts that that is outside of what state courts have said. So Erie threw the power back to the law of the states. That's what it did. But that this phrase in Erie is what throws people, and the patriot community lasses onto it. And they, it's a distraction to reality. It's unfortunate that the court said this, but they say there is no more common law in the federal courts. Well, that's ludicrous too. There is common law in the federal courts. I've practiced in the federal courts. If there's a jury in the federal courts, there's common law in the federal courts. There's a right right to remain silent. If there's freedom, the freedom of religion clauses are upheld, those are all common law. The second amendment, the the other three militia clauses, those are all the the whole constitution.
And that's the only jurisdiction that federal courts have is the constitutional questions. And the whole constitution is a brief of common law of government. So there to say there is no common law what they meant by this and this became a popular phrase and it still is ask a lawyer or law professor what the common law is and what he will say what Roger says he was taught in paralegal school. The common law is, court decisions, and that's not true. It may be, it may not be. Our common law is bigger than that, friends. Our common law governs everything. Our common law is the way things are, and they ain't gonna change the relationships and how the how things are God wants done. He wants things done fairly. He wants things done at the local level. And Erie threw the power of law back to the states and the local level. That's what Erie did.
And by the way, that they reversed that case and that man lost that $600,000.
[01:59:33] Unknown:
That's $30, Yeah. It goes back to what we've said so many times. You're, the battle we fight today is a battle that's been fight fought since the beginning of time. Lex Rex, the law of the king versus the common law. Erie is just another example of it.
[01:59:51] Unknown:
Yes. It's a distraction. Don't get caught up in it. The thing about common law. Well, Roger, we made it to the end, and we got to do Yeah, man. You got just about that buttoned up. That's good, Brent. Always a pleasure to do
[02:00:04] Unknown:
do a show with you, and we get so much information and feel feel so fulfilled at the end. At least I do. I'm speaking for the audience too, I think, but we really appreciate you and Francine dropping by with us. And, gosh, these, shows are so productive and have been for so many years. So I look forward to them. The audience looks forward to them, and, and we, certainly appreciate you, my friend.
[02:00:31] Unknown:
I know. I feel the same way about you, Roger. It's kind of you say those things, and it leaves me speechless. I say, well, what do I say to that? Just a minute. It's a tickle rating.
[02:00:40] Unknown:
Thank you. Well, we'll see you next week. We'll look forward to it. Lord willing. Hope you have a good week, and we'll see you Sunday maybe over there on Patriot Soapbox. I would urge you again if you don't have a church home, you may wanna check out commonlawyer.com and get the button and the switch over to, Patriot Soapbox on, Sunday morning when you get to hear two more hours of Brent and some of, Francine's musical choices to boot. So, we'll be back tomorrow. Brent will be back next Friday, and we will see you then. We appreciate you mucho. Ciao.
K. And Paul will pop us off of there, and Brent and I both having these, radio experiences when we were younger. Unbelievable. Here we are all these years later, mister Brent. I've Yeah. Radio is by far the most fun I've ever had. No. It's just it's the most powerful medium. It it because this is the theater of the mind right here. You know? Everybody hears the same words, but a lot of people interpret them different. So, I I'd rather not have video, and, here we are with this wonderful audio. Yeah. Hi, Larry. What you got, bud?
[02:02:01] Unknown:
I have a question when when you're off the air.
[02:02:05] Unknown:
Oh, we're off now. Okay. If you're off the Except we're on Paul's. Paul continues to record, but with the with the Eurofolk, we're off.
[02:02:17] Unknown:
Right. So this is a question for Brent. So it's my understanding, and I've been listening to Brent and and you, Roger, for a couple of years now. And so, Brent, you believe that the con the common law is in is being practiced in the state and federal courts. Is that correct?
[02:02:38] Unknown:
No. I don't believe it. I know it. I know it. It is.
[02:02:43] Unknown:
Because there's a lot of students that say and I've heard statements like this, that we don't have common law courts. We have they they some believe that the courts at the state level, especially, are tax courts because, you know, the traffic stops and and all these different, you know, things that, take place like civil lawsuits, they're just a form of taxing us, like especially if you have a property issue and the county is trying to take your property and then some students say, oh, these are courts, these are courts of equity while other students say, oh, these are contract courts and so it from listening to you over the years, I get the impression that there's four main characteristics of a common law court and that these four characteristics can be seen in both the state and federal courts in our country.
The first of which is due process. The second is cross examination. You mentioned cross examination is a very important aspect of the common law a couple of weeks ago because not hardly any courts in the world have cross examination. Another one is trial by jury and then the fourth seems to be precedent. Is that correct?
[02:04:02] Unknown:
That's pretty good. All of those are important, but there are more important there are even more important controlling features than that. If I said that'd be I number one, if these peep these people are saying this, it'd be a rude thing to do. I'm not saying do it. But if you ask them, tell me what the common law is, they wouldn't have a clue. So why are they even saying anything? And that's been my experience with most all of them. Maybe there's an exception out there. I don't know. But to know what the common law is, and that's where you gotta start if you're gonna talk about this, it takes years.
I to give you my personal testimony, it came takes years to come to complete grips with what our common law is. It's not something it's something we are. It's not something we we learn. It's not something we read. It's something we are. And our common law is our culture. It governs everything about us as Americans. It's not something that just happens in the courts or doesn't happen. Are the courts in America equity courts? Every court in America, almost every court is an equity court. That means when an equity case comes up following law, common law, and then the common law doesn't give you a remedy, then you go to equity. And at most every court in the country, state and federal has that jurisdiction.
Are the Admiralty courts? The state courts are never Admiralty courts. Our constitution of The United States forbids it. All Admiralty jurisdiction is given to the federal courts. The federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction. That's why the admiralty flag is in the courts. And when a case comes up about shipping or ships or sailors or freight or whatever about admiralty, then the court will take up that Admiralty jurisdiction and decide the case. But when another case comes up and trial by jury, trial by jury is is, needed because it's a common law case, like contract or the Erie case, a tort case, then the jury will be impaneled. There are there are so many features of our common law tradition, and I've been cataloging them for years. Yes. Whoever said they can comment can when I get done. But there are so many features, you couldn't count them all. It'd be like me saying to you, well, you got a wife. Yep. Did you? You married her because you liked her. Yeah. I liked her. You probably thought she was sexy and pretty and and just nice to be around. Whatever. And okay. Tell me why you're in love with her. Oh, you could say two or three things, but if you took away any of the things you didn't mention, you haven't noticed yet, she wouldn't be who she is. Everything would fall apart. That's where our common law tradition is. It is a seamless cloth of a warp and a a woof of a weave that is inextricably bound together. Every part dovetails together, and it's our job to find it. As justice story said, that's why we call what our courts say in our common law country. We don't say this is the decision of the court. Always. We used to say it more often. This is the court's findings. This is what the jury found. Mhmm. Why? Because the law is not something you manufacture.
It's out there. It's the mind of God. You find it. Justice Story made that point. So, again, I like it when you bring these things up because it gives me an opportunity to maybe try to clarify something. Our common law, it takes a long time of soaking. That's why lawyers say, well, they read the law. They read it, and that's how they learn it. And they read it over a period of years, just a story. Arguably, the greatest common law advocate on the Supreme Court of the United States. When he started reading laws as a young man, he tells the story. He read and he read and he read and he read. He was from Massachusetts. He finally broke down and sobbed like a baby. He couldn't get it. He said it was just confusion. It was all these individual inst in individable instances of court cases.
He couldn't get it. But he just kept doing it, kept trying, and finally, there came that point where bing and the light came on a little bit. Oh oh, I think I'm beginning to see what's going on here. Is it complicated? No. It isn't complicated. I'll tell you what it is. It's like trying to read the Bible. Who understands the Bible? You can't understand the Bible without the illumination of the spirit of God. Period. People can understand it and say, well, I write a commentary on it. I got all these facts ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Our common law tradition is from God. It's not from the Bible. It's from God. It's that other revelation from God. It is the way things are in creation, the relationships between men and men, men and things, men and people, animals and men, animals and animals, the laws of physics, the laws of nature, the laws of weather that govern every piece of material matter in God's created order seen and unseen as Blackstone says.
Those are laws and everything in the creation operates according to unbending rules of law. And that's what our common law is. We go to the courts serve it. It's not something that the courts say in every case, the courts are sometimes wrong, for instance, and then I'll quit. And then you can for a minute and you can comment, Roe v Wade court was wrong. Why was it wrong? Because Roe v Wade at the fundamental level mitigates against the trust settlement of God that God announces in the third chapter of Genesis and plays out in the rest of the Bible or the the second chapter.
Be fruitful, be fruitful, and multiply. You murder babies? You're medicating against the controlling arrangement agreement between God and his people. You're murdering people. You're hindering the trust settlement, the covenant as our forebears call it, of God. Everything in our common law tradition comes back to that simple that simple decree of God to be fruitful and multiply second, fill the land. Every detail of our common law. I give you my testimony. I don't know everything about the common law, but I've been at it for many decades. And everything I see in it mitigate, if there's a problem or law, for example, we have what we call false imprisonment. Why do we have false imprisonment in our common law tradition? It's actionable if somebody confines you to a space and doesn't let you go, whether it be the government, a hospital, or a neighbor. That's false imprisonment. Well, what is it? Why is that, against the law? Because the covenant of God says scatter across the faces of the land.
A man that's imprisoned falsely can't do that. That mitigates against the fundamental trust settlement of God to conquer land. And that's what multiplication of the madam's race is to conquer land that plays out throughout the whole Bible. God said to Israel, I won't let you own the land. I won't let you have the land until you're strong enough and you multiply it enough to keep it and protect it. I will give it to you. He says the English, King James phrase, little by little, and God gave this land to us little by little. Very true. Read American history. Watch the the series, from back in the sixties, how the West was won.
It's kinda brief in some ways, although several hours long. But the whole point is this happened little by little. And we have so many stories in our American history of my family, your family, all the families that came here of the hardships they suffered, the murder they suffered from the tribal people that were here and the killing of the tribal people. It was warfare. It was vicious. A lot of the wrong things happened. But little by little, we multiplied and we covered the land, and now we control it. You say, was that right? Well, a lot of wrong things were done, but in God's sovereignty, he's the elodial landlord. I'm not gonna second guess. He gets what he wants in every case. But coming back to our common law tradition, your point, I know patriots say that. No. If you have a jury, you've got that's the common law. I was tried in front of a jury. You've heard me say this. I've I've represented people in front of other juries.
And I can say for sure that a lot of juries are stacked. The government and the government's involved, they'll do everything they can to stack the jury, to misinform the jury. But did you know that our common law tradition is so resilient that even if a jury is stacked, it only takes one man out of 12 to say no and disagree with the others, and the whole case is over. It's thrown. That's the genius of what God has established. The 12 man jury as one example, if you get the book, I recommend it to you. If you're really interested, it's an investment, but we got to charge money for it or we can't keep providing the book. Excellence of the common law. 957 pages comparing and contrast. And the only way you can understand our common law tradition, and the common lawyers have said this for centuries, it's got to be compared and contrasted to the law of the city. Then it comes alive and you begin to see the difference at the fundamental level, at the fundamental level. That's where the comparison, the contrast Roger mentioned this while ago at common law, the will of the Prince is law. That's the fundamental John Calvin even made this point. He's a common, he was a civil lawyer, a civilian, as they say on the continent of Europe. He was the most, the most well known and famous civil law lawyer in Europe in his day. And he said, well, it's axiomatic that the will of the Prince is law.
Is that in the Bible? Well, if you're Jesus Christ, yeah, the will of the prince is law. He's the lawgiver. But down here among us mortals, no. No. No. No. No. No. God did not ordain that. The president of The United States has his will. He does what he thinks constitution. Constitution. That's called Machiavellian. Yeah. That that's tyranny, friends. And the whole world is under tyranny except the common law countries. We've got a shot. We've got a shot at justice. They don't even have a shot at it in France and South America. Yep. True. It it would sicken American to sit through a tribunal in France or South America.
It would it should sicken you if you have American sensibilities. And when I say American, I mean our common law tradition. So, thanks again for bringing it up just to make that point. No. Our common law is everywhere. You can't get rid of it. Of course, our courts are under never ending attack from the law of the city. But here's the point about our common law. It's resilient. And the only thing that makes us stronger and the only thing that allows us to see it is adversity. It's an adversarial tradition. The law of the city isn't that way. The law of the city is inquisitorial, inquisitorial, All powerful.
Law of the land. We go into court and we have a battle according to the rules, the rules of the fight. But that's the grand difference. And I know there are things that are done wrong. I understand that. That's what law is all about. That's why we go into court and fight because one person is right and one person is wrong, or maybe they're both wrong. But somebody ain't right. That's the point of our common law tradition. And we're gonna find out who it is by following our common law. Our common law is what? It's how we go about determining what is right and wrong. How? Due process. Brent, can we get to Joe before he forgets what he wanted to say? Yeah. Yeah. Get to Joe. He actually left.
[02:14:42] Unknown:
But I have a question. Along the lines of, what Larry was saying. What I what I believe Larry was saying is he mentioned four elements of a common law court. And, you shared that there are many additional elements. But if a court does not have those elements, if you don't have a jury trial, if you don't have a trial by jury, if you don't have the ability to cross examine, if you don't have, a magistrate that is recognizing a sworn affidavit as testimony and just throws it out, you know, I'm not gonna pay any attention to that. Do you have a common law court, or do you have an administrative tribunal?
And how difficult is it?
[02:15:38] Unknown:
Well, you make a point. And justice Galea said we're where justice Galea made the comment once, we're increasingly becoming bureaucratic, and that means administrative bureaucrats. Right. Now that's what we're talking about. Administrative law. Exactly. That's the the onslaught that is coming against us. It's up to us to say no. As I've said, any lawyer that's worth his salt will continue to say the same thing in court. It continue, and that's all I've ever said. In many different ways, that ain't fair, judge. No. We need an opportunity to respond to that. No. We're demanding jury trial. We know all the the jury. The jury, smuggled some, submit information into the jury room that was not presented as evidence in court. I had that happen one time. That's violation of so many things can come up that we don't have written down anywhere that are violations of fairness of a fair fight. That's our common law tradition and administrative bureaucratic law is one of those things that is seeping has seeped in, but it has not destroyed our common law. Our common law is not destroyable, period.
Why? You know, we used to say in America, there is no law West Of Saint Louis. Well, they said the same thing in Ireland. In Northern Ireland, they had the pale. And they said anything outside the pale, you may not live. There is no law outside the pale. There is no God outside the pale. Those crazy Irishmen will kill you. There are Protestants and Catholics, and that's the way they looked at it. But that was true. That was dangerous, but don't say don't say there is no god and there is no law everywhere at every point. God is completely holy at every point in his creation. That's the Yep. Doctrine of the Bible, omnipresence. Yep.
To say that is to fall said. To this To say that is to fall into the despair into the despair the evil empire wants you to fall into. It's all a matter of words, friends.
[02:17:34] Unknown:
Don't say it. Yeah. And words create reality.
[02:17:38] Unknown:
Right. Up here, it's been said that there is no law north of Remsen. It's Remsen, New York. It's a bus 14 miles south of me. So I guess I'm screwed. Not only am I Better get to Georgia. Mild, constitution free zone near the border of Canada. I'm north of Remsen, so I'm so You better get to Georgia quick, boy.
[02:18:02] Unknown:
Larry, what you got something else?
[02:18:06] Unknown:
Well, yeah. I think what causes a lot of the confusion among students is with the they're they're under the impression that in a common law court, you have to have a damaged party or someone has to be harmed. You have to have a victim of a crime. And so you go into court, you know, over a, say, a traffic infraction because you failed to stop at a stop sign and a police officer I'm just throwing this example out there. A police officer witnesses that you didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. So he puts the lights on, stops you, and issues you a hundred dollar ticket and says you got to appear in court now and, you know, declare whether you're guilty, not guilty, or no contest.
And and so a lot of students think, well, how can that be a common law court? Because, you know, in in on the docket, it'll say the state against so and so, whoever was driving the car. And so the state would be like an artificial person, a fictitious entity. And how could a fictitious entity be harmed?
[02:19:14] Unknown:
How could a crime be brought against, you know Where where is state are crazy. Where yeah. Where is this again, thank you for bringing it up. I asked rhetorically, where does this crazy idea come up? And I've heard it all my life too, that you gotta be so there has to be a a a bloody plaintiff, a harm plaintiff in order for the law to be broken. Where does that come from? Does it come from the Bible? Does it come from nature? Where does it come from? I've never met anybody that can tell me where it's come from, those courses, except everybody's confused about it. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. It's a political mantra that all the patriots say, and they never say where it came from. Where do they get this? It's not in the common law. Tooth for a tooth.
I don't see amendments. That's there. That's the little next. But but but if there is harm if there is harm, this is what that means. If there is harm to another person, then they the other per the person that commit made the harm is guilty and will suffer the same thing. That's easy. But that doesn't mean, and it doesn't say that you gotta have harm to somebody to have, unlawfulness. It does quite a problem. And truly, in our because you have a problem. Tradition, In our common law in our common law tradition for centuries, it's been a harm. It's been I mean, it's been a crime to, to do a lot of things. For example, I could drive a 75 mile an hour down The US Highway and not harm anybody and get off. Have I broken the law? Have I done something wrong? Should I be punished for doing that?
What would the what would the patriot say? Oh, no. No. You can drive as fast as you want. It doesn't make any difference. Well, the The States Of The United States have jurisdiction over traffic laws. That means they have the police power under the constitution, the division of powers, the police power to control the future behaviors of men and things that they believe are dangerous, like owning a mountain lion without having it in a cage. That's unlawful. Even if nobody nobody gets hurt. No. That burglary can be committed without stealing anything or harming anybody, and you're still guilty. Just the trespass itself makes you guilty of a crime. Conspiracy agreeing with another person to commit a crime is a crime. That's called conspiracy. That's an old, old crime.
Speaking out in blasphemy against God himself has been a crime in America, in past years and a lot of places. And no harm was done really if you speak blasphemy. It was a crime though. Listen, all crime, all crime, no matter if it's pagan or Christian, whatever the theory of crime is, there's one thing that all crimes have in common. They are a personal offense against the sovereign. And the canon civil laws of Rome, for instance, if you commit a, an, a crime under those laws, it is or any unlawfulness, It is a personal offense, they say against the Pope of Rome. Personal.
Personal. Yeah. Well, there's that right? Well, if it was applied to Jesus Christ, it'd be right. Your your wrongdoings of thought don't harm anybody. But Jesus Christ says in the sermon on the mountain that you've committed these crimes already in your mind and you are guilty because it's a personal offense against your maker to let your mind think those kinds of things. Those are the kinds of things that a lot, there's a lot of examples of, hole and dynamite hole and nitroglycerin without a license is a crime. Far as I know, in every state. Why? Because it's too blasted dangerous. That blasted Potentially dangerous. Yep. Yeah. Potential. And the states, the the states have police power within the boundaries of the state to control the future behaviors of men by their laws. That's called the police powers.
Health, education, welfare. The general government in Washington DC has no police powers at all, except on land and property that belongs to the, the government of the United States, military bases, federal courthouses, District Of Columbia, of course, that 10 mile square, hundred square miles there. They have jurisdiction there. That that that's there's no authority for saying that there has to be a harm done. That's just one example. One example, but this again is patriot mythology and it will distract you from the main point and it will make you not you, but anybody who follows that, it will make you castrated of any influence or power because devil's got you distracted with It's almost impossible to get that stuff out of their minds too. I think one of the things Larry here
[02:23:46] Unknown:
I think with the students, one of the things is that people don't realize there's several different jurisdictions within a courtroom. And a lot of times, it depends on what the action is. Okay? That's right. What is your Yeah. In England, you used to have a court of admiralty. You had to have the king's bench, and you you had the court of equity, and you had all those. And they had separate buildings, and they had separate people to run it, and they had names different for them. They had names different for the actions that were brought. They had different remedies available depending on which body of law it was. In The US, we didn't have that kind of money, and they kind of lumped all those jurisdictions into one courtroom.
[02:24:29] Unknown:
Well, when when I started practicing law, chancery, which is equity in most state courts and law, which is common law, were in two different courts. Oh, wow. But in most every state and yeah, most every state in the country now, they've said, no, each judge has chancery and common law jurisdiction. Right. There's nothing wrong with it. What they got tired of was okay. The plaintiff would come in and it'd be a law, a law case, a common law, like contracts or torch. And the other guy come around, come in and say, but now wait a minute. No. No. No. This is more equity. The but we've tried that. Or or you try law, and there is no remedy at law. This is the way equity works. There's no remedy at law, so you go to equity. Instead of having to refile, go back to another court, they just said, we'll just give every judge this jurisdiction, and then he can use it when the case arises. Then I don't see anything wrong with that. Matter of fact, I see everything right. Yeah. Yeah. Because here's what happened in England. The reason the chancery equity was separated from law. Here's what happened.
They said the chancery equity is the King's conscience. So the King would appoint priests to be an even, I think, an equity today, you've gotta be a a priest of the, the church of England. And the church of England still follows the canon civil laws of Rome. Weird. They have a war grade. The 39 articles of the Anglican church are war grade Calvinism, but yet they follow Rome's law. It's it's schizophrenic. Yeah. But any rate, the priests were in chancery and the common law courts. It was not efficient and it did not provide justice because you're going back and forth. And then you're getting the Roman, the Roman, the Romans judges over in equity. Well, now we have common law judges that handle equity and they apply common law principles.
Equity doesn't recognize the jury, but there's a time when that's not necessary. I've tried cases in both jurisdictions and not necessary. It's not even a good idea. In equity, for example, equity has to do with matters of trust, like a common law trust, wills and propate, family law, adoptions, marriage, and divorce. That's those are matters of trust. And so those are inequity to start with. But if you go into a common law jurisdiction, the judge takes up jurisdiction, and he can't find a remedy for your problem because your facts are different than anything he's ever seen before or anybody's ever seen. They'll turn it over to equity And all of the writs in our common law courts were fashioned in the equity courts of England, the fundamental writs. So if there isn't the remedy at at common law, equity traditionally was the one that fashioned the remedy and then would send it back to the common law courts. All of these things. If here's what I say to Patriots, look, if you want to understand law, quit messing around, listen to all these Patriot common law gurus, and there's a thousand of them out there and they're making a lot of money, a lot of money, and they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Isn't that the truth?
Now a guy like me, I'm starving I'm starving half to death. Nobody asked me what the common law is. I've written a book on the subject that is a comprehensive, pertinent. And so are do you have a monetary interest? Well, if I do, all these things I've been saying today, I've been saying for decades, and nobody's listening. That's okay. I'll keep saying them. We are. Of it, and I'll just tell you. We are.
[02:27:55] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I'm I've been listening I've been listening real close, and I'm hearing my stomach growl. And Yeah. Hard to hear anything else over that. But, somebody said something right there at the end. I'm listening. I'm listening to all of it.
[02:28:11] Unknown:
Okay. Who are you? Listening to all of it.
[02:28:16] Unknown:
Over here in California, I'm listening to a call. Oh, go. Oh, Chris. Okay, buddy.
[02:28:20] Unknown:
Yeah. I can imagine you are. Brent, I gotta go. You may have to. You've been with us for two and a half hours. People don't understand what a drain total concentration is, which is what you do when you're hosting something like this. So let me just say, buddy, as always, appreciate it, and, we'll look forward to next week.
[02:28:41] Unknown:
Thank you, Roger. Yeah. I'm
[02:28:43] Unknown:
I'll I'll keep up on the new on what's going on in the news for you, Brent. I appreciate you, Roger.
[02:28:51] Unknown:
And especially especially thanks to all those that make comments and ask questions. That's what keeps it going. Right. Dan, glad to hear you're back with me today.
[02:29:02] Unknown:
Okay. Well, go ahead. I unless Brent's gotta go.
[02:29:05] Unknown:
Go ahead. Yeah. I just wanted to ask Brent Brent Samuel. You talk about precedent. Well, Swift versus Tyson was precedent for ninety years, yet you're okay with it getting overturned.
[02:29:20] Unknown:
No. I didn't say I was okay with it. I said it had a good a good, it had good ideas. One of the things that did away with doctrine. No. No. No. Justin's here's the thing about Justin. Joseph's story is the one that said all those important things in Swift versus Tyson ninety six years before. But Justice Story was enamored with trying to bring the country together under the common law tradition. And I think he went too far in some cases. But he was, the greatest proponent of our common law tradition, that's ever been on the Supreme Court. Justice Holmes was a a man that was against our common law tradition while saying he was for it. He was truly for it, but he was concerned about the unity of our
[02:30:05] Unknown:
go ahead. Go ahead. I think Story was concerned about what he saw as socialism and communism, and he was worried about commerce and having men get stuck in in in the commerce that was he saw coming. And that's why he put in Swift versus Tyson. And what happened if you don't read Erie Railroad with the idea of what had changed at the time, and that was we had now the whole country is almost all fourteenth amendment citizens. So that changes diversity in the arguments in the court. These are not now states sitting there on their own. And by the way, commerce was was put on everybody after there.
You you ended up with the states used to be a problem for corporations because they all had their different laws, so a corporation had a a obey the rules as it crossed into every different state. But after I didn't see you know, go ahead. Erie Railroad, it was it was homogenized and made federal, and it's all because of the fourteenth amendment and the diversity and him being a fourteenth amendment citizen, Tompkins studies.
[02:31:21] Unknown:
You're you're you're reading too much into this. The fourteenth amendment didn't come up far as I know. And they and they don't understand. If you have theories about fourteenth amendment, I guarantee you the justices on the Supreme Court would know what you're talking about. So that didn't come up in the case. What I'm saying is this, there were things about the Erie Erie Railroad that were not all bad. The reasons behind Erie Railroad were probably bad and some of the people that put it forward, but it did not here's the point I wanna make. It did not do away with the common law tradition as is pop popular patriot mythology. That's the that's the fact of the matter. Erie said that Swift versus Tyson was unconstitutional.
That's true. And as I said before too, all of those justices that were against even the dissent Butler's dissent. He said in the dissent, I wouldn't dismiss the Erie case, coming out of the chute. So really all of them, even the dissent, agreed that swift versus Tyson went too far. And here's what I'm saying. Since you're interested and you like to read about it, I've talked this to you. But, just a story in his he wasn't God either, but in his enthusiasm for our common law tradition and trying to bring in the whole country under our common law and make sure the law of the city didn't prevail. He wanted a unified law throughout the country, and that's what he did is Swift versus Tyson. He made the federal courts independent of the law of the states.
Whereas swift versus Tyson made the federal courts and diversity cases dependent upon the law of the states. That's not all bad. Remember, the constitution of The United States says nothing again. Gives no jurisdiction to the, the federal courts over the common law subjects, torts, contracts, trusts, all of those things. Our constitution of The United States has nothing to do with that. Doesn't mention any of those things. Most of the bread and butter of law occurs at the state court level. They know everything. Diversity jurisdiction though, is the one place where a swift versus Tyson said, we can just do our own thing as federal courts. We don't have to consult the state courts and what their law is. That was the one place. Everything else was jurisdiction under the constitution. And the federal court said, we don't have any jurisdiction except questions about our constitution of The United States, which is very limited. Diversity jurisdiction could be anything because that's two parties from two different States.
Is it wrong? Whether they did it for the right reason, the wrong reason, is it wrong that the federal courts draw back and say, wait a minute, we have no jurisdiction to make up law ourselves. We have to depend upon the state courts. And that's what, that's what Erie said. Do you find something wrong with that?
[02:34:14] Unknown:
Well, why do you think that they said there is no general federal common law? It's because
[02:34:19] Unknown:
this is the fourteenth amendment citizen, and they were all federal citizens. That's why. You're you're you're thinking too much. Clear to me. You're thinking too much. No. Well, wait a minute. You're you're think you're you're outthinking yourself on this. They no. They just said when they use the words common law, they use it as law professors and lawyers do today, which means court opinions. And that's not fundamentally what our common law is. It it's part of it. When, when they say our common law is court opinions, what they're referring to and how this got started was our common law is, fundamental to it is the independence of the judiciary, independent from the governor or the president and the legislature or the Congress.
That is fundamental. And also the other two branches too.
[02:35:05] Unknown:
Right. If if we were to read the case, I think, and take in mind that this Fourteenth Amendment citizen is the thing that changed in the past ninety years. So so in other words, it's now presumed that everyone is a Fourteenth Amendment person as implied by law. And if you're silent, then there's no remedy.
[02:35:30] Unknown:
But that's another question. What happened there? That's another question. That's another question. And what I'm just listen to the one narrow thing I'm saying. Area Railroad said that the federal courts are limited in their jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction to make any proclamations about the common law subjects. That's the jurisdiction of the states. Our constitution does not mention torts. That's what Erie was about, torts. Doesn't mention it. It has no jurisdiction over tort cases, but they have diversity jurisdiction, but they must apply the law of the state. They don't make it up as they go. Is there something wrong with that? We're not allowing our federal force to make it up.
[02:36:11] Unknown:
It was it was really about a guy's arm at being missing and who was liable. And he was a fourteenth amendment citizen coming in there thinking that he's gonna get protection. Number one. And he's no he's gonna get it. No. Oh, he wasn't a fourteenth amendment citizen,
[02:36:30] Unknown:
and neither are you. He was. You and and you never have been. Why are we saying if you're silent, you are. If you're silent No. You aren't. No. You aren't. The law Okay. Well, you've never believed in so. I think it's clear. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. It's like somebody saying that's like listen. What is unlawful?
[02:36:53] Unknown:
What is unlawful? When you stop beating your wife. It's unlawful.
[02:36:56] Unknown:
Unlawful does not define who you are. An unlawful statement does not define who you are. That's silly. Don't do that. Don't say he's a fourth amendment. Silence. I'm not saying it's unlawful statement. I'm saying in silence,
[02:37:10] Unknown:
if you're not saying that you're a state citizen, you are a fourteenth amendment citizen.
[02:37:16] Unknown:
No. You aren't. When you're asked, the court here No. No. No. A thousand times ago. No. You you may other people may say you are, but you aren't. And all you're doing when you say otherwise is correcting the record as you say, but you're not don't say I was this and I'm that. And that's the problem with political speech. See, the devil's got you saying a lie. And once he gets you there, that becomes political speech that empowers the evil empire.
[02:37:45] Unknown:
That's the problem. For this Tyson wasn't just considered law. It was considered doctrine. It had been there for ninety years and they overturned it. So what had changed in the law where that could that doctrine could be overturned?
[02:37:59] Unknown:
What changed? I'm not saying I'm not saying it was or it wasn't. I'm just saying this. Is there I'll ask you the question. Is there something wrong with the federal court saying we're not taking jurisdiction and taken, taken up the task of making up laws we go with as federal judges? We're gonna let the the state courts tell us what the law is. Is there something wrong with that? That's the that's foundational.
[02:38:25] Unknown:
That whether they did it for the right reason or one foundation. Substantively, what changed was we had we got interstate commerce. And now, a guy puts gas in his tank and a judge says he's got jurisdiction.
[02:38:42] Unknown:
Listen. Justice Story was so into this thing about interstate commerce. And the Admiralty clause is part of that, by the way, to keep interstate commerce moving. People got so frustrated with him. Lawyers did. They said this because in his day, if it wasn't admiralty, it probably never got to the federal court anyway because the federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over these kinds of things. The only court cases that were in federal courts until Roosevelt, until the I mean, a little before Roosevelt were admiralty cases. But just a story, lawyers get upset at him because they said, if you threw a corn cob in a corn bucket or in a, if you threw a corn cob in a bucket with water in it, he'd take Admiralty jurisdiction over it. He wanted to expand.
He wanted to expand the commerce clause and the admiralty clause to control the country. I like just a story, and you've heard me say a lot of the things nice things about him, but he went too far. And the reason was it was his zeal. And you read the story of his life. You see where his zeal was. His zeal was to make sure that the law of the city didn't get anywhere in The United States and The United States was moving West rapidly. He used to tell his students at Harvard when he's a professor there, go West and establish law schools because in the Northwest Territories, the French have had a lot of influence and they did. And some of his students went into, into the Ohio Valley and established law schools that are still there, like case Western reserve in Cincinnati, Ohio, but that was his zeal. And I say, yes, at some points he went too far swift versus Tyson, maybe went too far.
[02:40:24] Unknown:
But I just know this. You know what I think really happened here is
[02:40:28] Unknown:
I can't you've not answered my question. You've not answered my question. So I think probably, you know, you have to agree. Is there something wrong? A set up case just like Plessy or something different. They had an outcome they wanted to get, and that's what they wanted to get. I asked you again. I asked you I asked you again. Is there and you have an answer to this question. Is there something wrong with the federal cover the federal courts drawing back and saying, we have no jurisdiction here. We're leaving it up to the states. And that's what Erie does. Is there something wrong with that?
[02:41:01] Unknown:
That's not what happened.
[02:41:04] Unknown:
That is what happened. That's what they did in that case. And ever since then ever since then, the federal courts have done that. And the federal courts, although they make a lot of mistakes and do crazy things, the one thing the federal courts have consistently done through the years, they've done everything they could to get rid of cases, sometimes too much. Their jurisdiction is exceedingly limited, and the state courts have unlimited jurisdiction to hear anything.
[02:41:29] Unknown:
Is your state commerce a federal thing, or is it a state
[02:41:34] Unknown:
thing, Brent? It's, constitution makes it the constitution makes it a constitutional issue. Done it? It's federal then. And the question is, how much do you exchange? Protect me from commerce? Well, the we're listening. Yeah. The states do a lot of things, but the constitution of The United States gives jurisdiction over interstate commerce to the general government in DC. Doesn't it?
[02:42:07] Unknown:
Or does it? Well, that's certainly what that's certainly what Tompkins did in my opinion. Yeah. It does. What about the states? And you're saying it's the opposite yet to do what the result was.
[02:42:19] Unknown:
Tompkins had nothing to do with interstate commerce. They're talking about another subject. It was a tort case about a man that fell down and lost his arm because a railroad car ran over.
[02:42:29] Unknown:
That's all it was. Happened to be a fourteenth amendment citizen.
[02:42:33] Unknown:
No. You don't have to be a fourteenth amendment citizen. If you're domiciled in one state and somebody else is domiciled in the other state, what does that mean? That means I call it home when I intend to come back. That's it. That's the only analysis that's put the courts put. You're dragging this effect. On the term diversity though, Brett. What's that?
[02:42:52] Unknown:
What's that? The diversity that they're talking about in this case is not the diversity that had existed under the old law, which was Swift versus Tyson.
[02:43:05] Unknown:
It's a different diversity. Oh, no. That's not true. That's not true. If you sue somebody from your state and they're in another state, the only question the court is gonna ask is where do you live? Period.
[02:43:16] Unknown:
Period. Well, if you're a fourteenth amendment citizen, you live in Washington DC.
[02:43:22] Unknown:
Well, you're, you're dragging too much into it and you've got, I'd realize now you've, you're enamored with a lot of Patriot mythology. I'll tell you gladly. I would encourage you. That's me. I get accused of it a lot. Not drag all, not drag all those distractions in there that will make you ineffective. That's my message to you for what it's worth,
[02:43:40] Unknown:
Larry. Hey, Brandon. Here's what I would suggest. That's well, enough said then. I, you know, I'm just pointing out a different opinion.
[02:43:47] Unknown:
That's all. I think all I'm saying is wrong.
[02:43:51] Unknown:
Hang on. Paul, go ahead. I have a I have a comment. I've got I've been trying to get in here. There are a whole lot of missing pieces in the Erie Railroad case. Yes. There were significant changes in the geopolitical landscape and the status of citizens in general and their political status. There was significant changes. Maybe it's possible that the case, the earlier case, was no longer needed. It was no longer necessary because through the fourteenth amendment and the presumption of federal citizenship, they had declared every citizen an enemy of the state and a resident of Washington, DC, which gave the states carte blanche and all of the authority that they would ever need to try somebody under the rules of interstate commerce.
Now if interstate commerce doesn't matter, why when Joe stood in front of a magistrate in New Jersey that asked him if he bought gas and then claimed to have jurisdiction? Because he claimed to be that buying that gas presumably came from a different state. It did not come from the point of origin when where Joe bought it, so he was engaged in interstate commerce as the end consumer. Maybe that was the ruling. Maybe that was the twisted legal, the twisted legal reasoning that the judge used. The point was it was an administrative tribunal. There was absolutely no law. There was nothing, nothing pursuant to the constitution, and there was absolutely no fairness. And that happens in every single state in the union.
[02:45:44] Unknown:
What caused
[02:45:46] Unknown:
that to happen?
[02:45:48] Unknown:
I still say, Paul, that, that, the fourteenth amendment wasn't mentioned. Nobody argued it, and nobody cared.
[02:45:57] Unknown:
All they wanted to say was presumed.
[02:46:00] Unknown:
The federal it may have been, but you can't show that and you can't prove it. There's no evidence of it. We do know this for sure. The court said that we, as federal judges, are refraining from taking jurisdiction, and we're gonna use state law of Pennsylvania and not federal law that we make up. Again, they met federal law up to them, and those kind of diversity cases, they just made it up as they went. And they were creating their own body of law, and they said, we're not gonna do that anymore. They're good. That's all it was. Well, I thank you all for your comments. Yeah. And it seems this is an adversarial tradition. And if there is an adversity, the the truth will never bob forth from the flux of what happens, and that's what we're doing here. So I appreciate all the comments and the discussion. Maybe we'll hit it up next time. Roger, I didn't know this would open up such a can of worms. Boy boy. I well, I it
[02:46:48] Unknown:
I'm glad we had enough time to cover it.
[02:46:51] Unknown:
Anyway,
[02:46:52] Unknown:
I'm I'm skadoodling. Brent, we'll see you next Friday, and you guys, the regulars will see you tomorrow. We if you wanna carry on with this, we can, but whatever. Without It's a diversity of opinion is what it is. Without Brent, but I I won't be here. But No. Of course not. No. You'll be opposite us tomorrow, teaching something good. Let's keep seeing Brent. Going.
[02:47:18] Unknown:
No. There are so many nuances of this. There there are so many moving parts, and it's gonna take a while to get a grasp of all of them. That's just the way it is. Nature of the beast. Alright. Ciao, amigos. Thank you, guys.
[02:47:37] Unknown:
Alright. I wanted to answer Brent's quest Brent winners question about Erie saying it was there something wrong with Erie saying that the states have the say? And, Brent, are you there?
[02:47:55] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:47:58] Unknown:
I just wanted to say that the, what about the supremacy clause article six paragraph two, that says the federal laws have, authority and jurisdiction over state law.
[02:48:20] Unknown:
Well, if, if a law that is from the general government in Washington, DC is within the limited jurisdiction that the constitution allows, if it really is a lawful law, in other words, and there's some state law that is contrary to it, the state law must give way. That's what that means.
[02:48:46] Unknown:
That's what the supremacy clause means.
[02:48:49] Unknown:
Yeah. That's what the supremacy clause means, and it has to do, to be more precise, the word law law law of the land means due process. That phrase was lifted out of Magna Carta chapter 39, and it means due process. That they didn't have the word due process back then. They just said law of the land. The way we do things, the course of process we follow. That's our common law, and that's what that phrase means. It's not obviously, but if any of the ratifiers agreed to sign on to this, the militia of the several states, the people of The United States, would any of them agree to sign on to the constitution that they believed that that meant that it would supplant the Bible? I've had I've argued with people, argued. I had a debate with a fellow who wrote a book that said that. And it comes down to this as always.
What do words mean? What does that phrase mean? And he just, he ignored its historic meaning and words, freight history, and to know what phrases mean a little bit helps a lot. It makes actually things come alive in in a way that they wouldn't otherwise.
[02:50:02] Unknown:
It's a it's a common law. A new process phrase. Go ahead. Go ahead. Brent, I I would have felt a whole lot better if there was as many ministers at, signing of the constitution as there were lawyers.
[02:50:15] Unknown:
Well, having having pastored a few churches and been around people like that, I would have said, no. I wouldn't want that at all. Most people that claim to be, men of the cloth are dangerous. That's been my experience because they don't know much. And as long as they, not all of them, not all of them. Oh, I know. But they're like lawyers. A lot of them don't know anything given their level of education, but there are those that do And you run into them once in a while, but it's the same thing is true. Thought, and I don't wanna I wanna I don't wanna seem adversarial, Brent, but I I wanna leave you with a thought, okay,
[02:50:51] Unknown:
to just mull over. And I don't necessarily need a an answer, you know, right away. Because I think you should think about this. But here's a statement. Okay? While Tompkins being a fourteenth amendment citizen is not a focal point of the Erie Railroad Company versus Tompkins case, the principles of equal protection and state sovereignty enshrined in the fourteenth amendment support the court's decision to require federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases. This ensures that all citizens are treated equally under the law regardless of the forum in which their case is heard.
[02:51:44] Unknown:
That's not true at all. That is that is not true at all. Every state's gonna be different. Why would they say everybody would be treated equally? If the federal courts were in charge of the substantive law Yeah. What? Go ahead.
[02:51:59] Unknown:
Well Go ahead. They're they're bringing it it's the statements in the fourteenth amendment that they're getting at there that are are are moving that new court, that new thinking, away from thought like Swift versus Tyson into this new federalized
[02:52:19] Unknown:
system, you know, that really started with Lincoln. Federalized. And How can you say it's federalized when they're giving way to the state law and the state, pronouncements of law and the legislation? Why? What? What's where does it who said that, by the way? Where does that come from?
[02:52:35] Unknown:
Well, let's look at the results of it, Brent. It everything has been hundred and nine between the states. No. No. No. No. No. You were reading a quote. Who said that? What you just read. I don't know. This is not a quote. This is a statement. But,
[02:52:52] Unknown:
It's a statement from somebody. It's not yours, is it?
[02:52:56] Unknown:
No. It the closest person I could give credit to it is Lee Prost.
[02:53:02] Unknown:
Well, the bottom line is, again, you there is we're talking to evidence. We talked a while ago about evidence, how important it is, and I believe things without evidence. There is not a sliver of evidence that any of that is true. The fourteenth amendment is not part of that case. It's not in the record anywhere. Nobody mentioned it. This is a tort case, a common law subject case. And what the federal court says is we don't have authority in diversity. We have authority in, other areas of, other jurisdictions of the federal courts, like constitutional question, which is even bigger, we got authority there to pronounce what the law is as respect to the constitution, how it applies.
But when it comes to state issues, we don't have the authority to assert ourselves and control the state courts. That's pretty easy. I I kinda like that idea. One of the things that's bad about Erie, is that when they did away with Erie, they did away with whatever Erie said, and and that is that the law has a brooding omnipresence that is not paid attention to anymore.
[02:54:06] Unknown:
They did away with Tyson, not Erie. Oh, right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Tyson,
[02:54:10] Unknown:
just a story, made the point of the brooding omnipresence of the law and the idea that in our common law tradition, we don't manufacture law. We look for it till we find it. That's important to have that in the back of your mind. It's not written down anywhere, but that's fundamental to our common law tradition. The law is eternal. It's true. And they all the applications of it are that are possible out there, god already knows them. They're eternal. And we're to find the truth. We're not to manufacture the truth. That was Justice Story's point of view, and that's fundamental to our common law, and he understood that. But, no, this does not do the fourteenth amendment. It's just given power back to the states. You know, the state legislatures now have power more than they had to say, no. We're gonna decide what the law is. And the state courts have power to say, no. We're gonna find the law, and the federal courts have to follow the law the way we find it in our state.
I don't see anything wrong with that. I see everything right. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, but that's what's happened. You know, God used a lot of evil people who intend a lot of evil things to bring good out of it and make the straight lick with the crooked stick. That's my point about here it were there evil men involved? All men are evil. Why would you ask if they're evil and you're not asking rhetorically? All men are evil hearted. All men are subject to the taint of sin and the potential of evil of it at every level. So that argument doesn't fit. Oh, they were bad guys. They were this that. No, God will do what he wants. Again, the brooding omnipresence of the law. God always gets what he wants and he does it for his glory. He uses evil for what he wants. The devil may be God, maybe, maybe a devil, but he's still God's devil. And you may be doing evil things or you're that person may be an evil person of the evil empire. God will get what he wants out of them in every case.
That's the beauty of Christianity. That's the beauty of understanding how God works. In this case, I say, okay, here's what God did. This is the way I look at it. Big picture. Here's what God did. Is there something good about it? Is there something bad about it? I think I can see both, but I'm trying to stress the good right now to show that to say that it did away with the common law is just hooey. That's not true at all. It's never been true. It can't be true. And in practice, it isn't even true. I've been in federal courts. All the the common law arguments are there. The judges don't know, Jack about the fourteenth amendment, don't care to. They're making a living. They want their retirement. If they don't have to know about the fourteenth amendment, they don't ask. That's the way it works in our legal tradition.
And all of these things mixed together now Paul made the point of there's more to it than that. It is true that at that time, of course, I mentioned one of the Supreme Court justices, and there were four of them on the bench at that time. They were against Roosevelt. That's when he wanted to pack the court. But even those justices in this particular instance saw the conservative value of saying no. No. We want the states to have the power here, not the government.
[02:57:06] Unknown:
Berndt, I can't think all you were saying is there was no general federal common law for guys like Tompkins,
[02:57:13] Unknown:
which were Well, why should why should there be? He's got state law, and that's all our governments are is common law. The common law subjects and the common law principles. That's what he had in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a common law government. Pennsylvania was organized according to the common law. It was the state that had all of the hundred courts. Every county, William Penn established it in the hundred courts. They had that mentality. Justice was at every man's cottage just like in the old country. Why would why would we say what you just, said? There was no justice for Tompkins. Why why would you say that?
[02:57:53] Unknown:
There was no federal common law for him because he was
[02:57:58] Unknown:
a citizen of the state. Federal common law federal common law is state common law. That's what Erie said. And the federal courts are to apply the law of the state in those cases of diversity jurisdiction.
[02:58:11] Unknown:
I don't know. They said there is no general federal common law.
[02:58:16] Unknown:
No, no, no, no. There is, they said there is the federal courts are not to apply it or not to make it up as they go. They are to apply the state law as it stands. That's what Uri said. Again, if you're in federal courts, I yield in the federal courts. Yeah. You're not, you're not saying anything. If if the federal courts are are, giving way to the state law, that puts the power back at the local level, and justice is done. Is it trespassing? Was it trespassing for him to be on the right of way? Yes. But even in that, the state law of Pennsylvania said that the railroad, even though it's trespassing, the railroad still owes a duty of ordinary care to try not to make sure people don't get hurt, and they did that.
That's the that was the law in every state, probably still does. See? You you could say Plessy was trespassing. Well, you're dragging in things that aren't relevant. That's a whole another case. It has a lot of unlawful things that happened. And but, we know this. What? You know, every case that common law must stand on its own merits. It's individual. We look at it individually. The cases were he was drunk. We know that. He was on the right of way and he lost his arm. And the law, the law of Pennsylvania, said that he was trespassing. He was.
And, he had contributory negligent negligence, that he he con contributed substantially to what happened to him. And therefore the railroad is not liable. That's what the law of Pennsylvania is. But even if you don't agree with that law, I'm not for saying, okay, the state is doing wrong. I want the federal government to come in and, tell the state what's right and commandeer them. I don't I don't want that. I don't care what the result is. It ain't gonna work. And our Supreme Court has says has said that was justice Scalia. No. That was the Heller or that was the Prince decision, about commandeering the states. And that's what, that's what, Swift versus Tyson established.
The federal courts were commandeering state law and the constitution does not give them that jurisdiction to do. I see I think that's easy. Brent? But for some reason, others don't. What?
[03:00:41] Unknown:
The the constitution says the federal law is superior to state law. That's in the constitution.
[03:00:48] Unknown:
Well, you you mentioned the the supremacy clause. It is it is if the general government is acting within its limited scope of authority. That's true. That's what the constitution says. But it has to be lawful law. They have to act in their limited scope of authority, and the constitution of The United States gives them. For example, abortion. Did the Supreme Court of the United States have any authority to take the case Roe v Wade? And the answer is clearly, unambiguously, no. The Supreme Court of the United States, the constitution doesn't give the federal courts any jurisdiction over criminal matters such as abortion, which is murder.
And so the supreme court and the federal courts are not allowed to even take those cases. That's what our constitution teaches. There are only four areas of law that our general government in Washington DC has all four, jurisdiction over. That only mentions four areas of law. We've, counterfeiting the current coin and securities of The United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Sea as part of admiral to jurisdiction, and then violations of international law. There's another one. And then also treason.
That's it. Treason, not against the states. They all have laws against that. They're sovereigns too. But treason against the general government in Washington DC. That's it. Very limited. They bring And that's what here he did. Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:02:33] Unknown:
Yeah. So, are you saying that when you have diversity jurisdiction between citizens of different states, that the federal courts are using state law to the to to arrive at an outcome, an equitable outcome?
[03:02:51] Unknown:
Yes. That's it. The then the case of the Pompkins versus, Erie Railroad, they, they remand the Supreme Court remanded it back. It went down and they used the lower court and they used the law of Pennsylvania to decide that case. And a lot of people didn't like the outcome. I'm sure he didn't. But in, in the overall scheme of things, the Supreme Court of the United States followed the constitution at that point. And the more I talk, the more I see it. It's just clear. Constitution is limited. The jurisdiction of the government. And let me give you another example. This famous story about Davy Crockett when he was in Congress, Colonel Crockett, and somebody came in and said, there's a fire. There's a fire. We can see it in the sky across the Potomac River. And all the congressmen ran out and they jumped in their hacks and they buggies and they rode over across the Potomac and they helped put out the fire of all the people, the houses that burn. They came back and somebody made an immediate motion that they allocate $20,000 to help those poor people that were in the wintertime, probably. I don't remember all the story, but they were homeless and destitute.
And it passed without objection. $20,000 a lot of money in those days. Well, Crockett was home in East Tennessee campaigning. He came to down the road and there was a fellow making a round with a plow and he came in the field and he said, I'm Colonel Crockett. I'm in Congress. I'm running for Congress. And he did like he was wanting to do and gave him a twist of tobacco to chew. And, the fellow's name was Bunch, I believe. And he said, well, Congressman Crockett, he said, thanks for stopping by. But he said, I'll never vote for you again. He said, why not?
He said, well, I read in the newspaper that you voted, give $20,000 to the people that they lost their homes on the other side of the Potomac River. They said, that's unconstitutional. Yeah. And he said, I'm, I was sent to follow the Congress. I want him to follow the law and our constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal government. I explained it to him And Crockett said, well, he said, I get your point. He said, I'll tell you what I'll do. He said, I don't wanna lose your vote. I'm gonna put on a barbecue, and I'm gonna invite you to be the speaker, and you can get up on the stump, and you can tell people what you just told me.
And he did. And of course Crockett admitted his error and everybody loved that and he got a lot of votes. Well, not in the constitution that says that the Congress has authority to allocate money for the general or for the specific welfare of anybody. It has to be the general welfare. If they do anything, it has to apply to everybody equally. That's the general government in Washington DC general welfare. Well to say, well, they didn't give justice. They should have, flattened the rules, ignored the constitution and given Tomkin what we want him to get. He should get some money for his arm getting cut off.
Well, maybe you believe that. I would too, but I know this. There's more the the law, the law is important in America. We are national laws. And as I said a while ago, it was clear under Pennsylvania law, he was a trespass and he contributed to what happened to him according to what the jury found. Therefore, the law of Pennsylvania said he was exonerated or, that railroad wasn't liable. But there was a a movement afoot, a movement afoot, a lot of madness. Isn't it funny? The movement afoot was we're going to help all poor people. And the way we're going to do it is we're going to do away with state law. We're not going to pay attention to the states, to local law. We're going to do away with the Supreme Court. We're going to pack the court and we're going to make Roosevelt King and the Congress is a rubber stamp for him right now. He controls the Democrats, control Congress. Let's just make all the trains run on time. We'll all be happy. My friends, we've never gotten over what Roosevelt did to our country.
We're suffering awful right now. What you see now was the beginnings of that was with the Roosevelt administration in a very intense way. And what they wanted to do was do away with anything that he said was unjust and they thought was undressed and the just, and they wanted to use other people's money and use the courts to help the little guy. It doesn't work friends, period. As compassionate as you may be, you wanna help a little guy, help him. That's our job as Americans to help the little guy, but it's not our job to get the government to help the little guy. It's our job in America that the government follows the law. And if we want to give charity to the little guy, that's our job.
And, that particular point of view will be hated by those who think something else ought to be done. But the Bible itself and all experience of all the history of mankind shows that charity is an individual matter. And if God moves people to do it, there's great reward for a country and for the individuals that are willing to share with others and help others where they can. But it's our job to make sure we don't use government money and the government machinery to give more power to government to help people. And that's what Erie said they weren't gonna do. Fascinating. I don't know that they intended that, frankly. There were justices on the Supreme Court that were Roosevelt supporters, Brandeis being one of them. But, what happened in the case was the states gained power and the federal government lost power.
Thank you very much. Paul, are you there?
[03:08:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm here. Okay. Well, I'm gonna go. I'm yeah. I was appreciate it. Pressure cooker the third hour of the show, wouldn't it?
[03:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I guess so. But, I'm glad because it it's incited me to think a lot more about Erie. And Roger mentioned it to me yesterday, and I thought, well, this will be easy. I'll just go over it, and I wanted to get out the facts and what happened. And I found out people, I believe it's patriot mythology, what's going around about area. There is no more common law. That's absolute hooey. The word common law is used there to talk about, court decisions. That's not our common law. You know, to show you how crazy people are, I'm talking about legislators and people like that. Utah, not too many years ago, passed a piece of legislation says the common law has no more authority in this state. That's the law on the books in Utah. Now the common law has no more authority in this state.
That's just a bunch of silly legislators that don't even know what simple words mean in their own tradition saying things that are insane. Do you still have jury trial in, in your courts in Utah? Yeah. Well, the common law tradition's alive then. Do you have stare decisis? Yeah. Well, the common law tradition is alive. Are you bound? Does every state official in Utah state and, state, state officials in the courts and in the three branches of government, are they bound by an oath to support and defend the constitution of The United States? A brief of common law government? Yeah. Well, then you're still a common law state. What did you mean when you say the common law no longer applies? But what they, I think they meant was they thought they meant was we're not looking to, any common law passed, passed a certain point to, to guide us in our court decisions. I don't know what they were thinking, but it didn't work.
It didn't work. Now the opposite of that point of view is the fact where I'm from, in those states around there, they've got legislation that passed years ago that says if anything comes before our court, our courts of our state, but a state, case of first impression and we have nothing on the books, in the court cases or in our statutes that govern the situation that comes before the court, then the courts are to revert, to hark back to the fourth year of James, the first and apply the common law as it stood in that year. The fourth year of James, the first was the year 1607, the year that the English settlers established the first permanent settlement in America.
And it was in the state of what is now Virginia, but Virginia covered everything west from the Northern boundary of West Virginia to the, what is now used to be a part of Virginia, to the Southern boundary of Virginia, as far as land extended. And that took in most of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, parts of Tennessee, probably a little bit, and Missouri. And so those States have legislation that say that. This is the fourth year of James the first. Because in the fourth year of James the first, when that first permanent settlement was there, the common law came to Virginia and was a part of all Virginia.
And so those states that have that still claim the common law has applied here since that settlement, and that is our law. That's the opposite of what Utah did. Why do Utah do that? I'd read more about it. It's rather fascinating. I haven't studied it a lot. I'd like to. Okay. All of you are there. Appreciate your comments again. I will go. Didn't intend to stay this long. Thank you, ma'am. We'll talk to you. Steve Larry, Paul, all of you.
[03:12:12] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent. Maybe next time, we can talk a little bit about, how, some courts refuse to acknowledge or recognize precedent, prior to 1934. It's almost like it's like in the well, in okay. Well, then in the course of the bankruptcy and whatever happened with the country between 1933 and 1934, it caused a pivotal change in the courts. And then maybe it was one of those pivotal changes that is affecting, all these other decisions.
[03:12:49] Unknown:
They're just not so. So Well, that was Erie. Erie said everything every bit of that general common law, the federal court says they were making it up as they go and not looking to state law. All of that is not law. It never was. That's what they said. And the, the, the idea and the courts have said this, anything that's declared unconstitutional is unconstitutional from its beginning. And so all of that case law that the federal courts, all of that case law that the federal courts made it up as they went along, before Erie and case law that applied only to that narrow area of diversity jurisdiction, which is a small area of the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
All of that is no longer precedent. That's true. But anything after Erie where they use state law to make the decisions instead of federal law, that's all precedent. That's the simple answer to what you're mentioning. And the Patriot community will tell you, no, no, they did away with the common law and there is no precedent anymore. No, absolutely not. That didn't happen. And you go into federal court today, people argue cases, go and clear back to the beginning of the country, blame there. They still argue Marbury versus Madison. Why? Well, that wasn't a diversity case, but in diversity cases, yeah. The reason was the federal courts were just making it up as they went along.
And all that they said is unconstitutional. I get it for what what the right reason, the wrong reason. Maybe that would answer the question, but I'll look into it a little more. Maybe I'm missing something here.
[03:14:29] Unknown:
Alright. Thank you, Brent. Okay. Great show. We'll be talking. Loads of fun. Alright. Take care. And I think it's about time to take to take this stream down. I'm sure Pat Holman's AI is gonna have difficulty figuring out a description for this show. We covered so much stuff. Thank you for joining us, for the Radio Ranch, Friday edition with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters. For more information on what Brent does, go to commonlawyer.com. It's commonlawyer.com. You can catch him on Patriot Soapbox, Saturdays and Sundays. PSB News, I believe, is the, is the channel on Rumble where you can see that.
Catch us here Monday through Saturday, 11AM to 1PM eastern. And, for more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixdocs.com, where you can find the links to join the livestream. You can join us live on the show using free conference call. You can download a bunch of things. You can read a bunch of things. You can watch a bunch of interviews. You can, peruse tons of exhibits. There's all kinds of stuff there. Just pack a lunch, stay the day. You won't regret it. Thanks for joining us. I'm out of here. Have a great day. Bye now.
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:16:01] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle. Now you're waking
[03:16:03] Unknown:
the
Introduction and Welcome
Broadcast Platforms and Reach
Current Events Discussion
Child Trafficking and Political Connections
Media Influence and Control
Historical Anecdotes and Media Stories
Tucker Carlson and Media Skepticism
Religious Practices and Cultural Observations
Color Symbolism and Political Chanting
Erie Railroad Case Discussion
Common Law and Legal Principles
Listener Questions and Legal Clarifications
Closing Remarks and Future Topics
