In this episode of Radio Ranch, hosts Roger Sayles and Brent Allen Winters delve into a variety of topics, ranging from the intricacies of the U.S. legal system to current events and historical anecdotes. The discussion kicks off with a light-hearted exchange about technical difficulties and transitions into a deep dive into the complexities of federal jurisdiction, the role of the judiciary, and the historical context of landmark legal cases such as Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Brent provides insights into the common law tradition and its implications for modern legal practices, emphasizing the importance of understanding foundational legal principles.
The conversation also touches on contemporary issues, including the political landscape and its influence on legal proceedings, as well as societal challenges such as crime and public safety. The hosts share personal anecdotes and historical references to illustrate their points, offering listeners a blend of legal education and commentary on current affairs. The episode concludes with a preview of Brent's upcoming series on comparative law, promising to explore the differences between common law and civil law traditions.
[00:00:19]
Unknown:
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymyboost.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by 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.
[00:01:46] Unknown:
Yes. As would we, and we'll take just another little try at it. We'll swing the bat again here today on the twenty fifth. It's a Friday. And, of course, that means, cohost Brent Winters will if he hadn't shown up, he ought to be here directly. That's a good old southern turn directly. Roger Sales and Brent Winters, your cohost on the Radio Ranch on the April 25, Friday. And, Friday, we are let's see. You know, it changes every day, these folks that help and assist us. And so I don't can't keep up with it. So we turn it over to mister Beaner, and he comes out. Maybe the first words he's uttered this morning comes out and gives these folks proper credit and recognition for the assistance that they're giving us and you and our whole project here. Don't you, Paul?
[00:02:41] Unknown:
Yes. I do.
[00:02:43] Unknown:
Hey. I was looking for I was looking for the right button. Uh-huh. You know what? This morning, I was, this morning, I was, I was thinking about buttons, and, I have 15 of them to press and twenty seconds to press them during the intro. Yeah. And I just got, curious as to actually how many buttons I have. And just a one application to manage this show, there are 226 buttons and controls.
[00:03:13] Unknown:
Yeah. Let's see. You get through those in ten seconds.
[00:03:16] Unknown:
No. That ain't happening. Anyways, good morning. It is Friday, with the Radio Ranch with Roger Seals and Brent Winters Brent Allen Winters. We are on radiosoapbox.com this morning for the first hour, and we're also on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James. We're on Global Voice Radio Network, radio dot global voice radio dot net. One thing I didn't mention, we're on Radio Soapbox for the first hour. We're on Euro Folk Radio for the two hours from eleven to one eastern, and we're on Global Voice Network from eleven to whenever Roger leaves for lunch.
[00:04:05] Unknown:
Yes. Our our website hang around after that.
[00:04:08] Unknown:
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We do. Our website is thematrixstocks.com where you will find links to Eurofolk Radio, Global Voice Radio, and, free conference call so you can join us live on the show.
[00:04:23] Unknown:
Yes, thanks. Alright. You're welcome. Help. Thank you. Pod Home. Was giving me a hiccup yesterday.
[00:04:32] Unknown:
It was. We we weren't actually live on Pod Home. We were live on Pod Home, but it wasn't recording the stream. I had to upload an offline recording. So there was a little bit of a delay between the end of the show and the archive actually being live and AI processed and stuff. But, it appears that all things are working this morning.
[00:04:58] Unknown:
Okay. Well, we'll take the short answer on that. I think didn't I see mister Winters park his horse outside?
[00:05:05] Unknown:
Yes. He did.
[00:05:07] Unknown:
Alright. There he is. Morning, Brentster. How are you doing, buddy?
[00:05:11] Unknown:
Morning, Roger. I'm doing good. I've already been to the dentist already this morning. Oh my goodness gracious. What a way to start your day. Well, it was no big deal. It just, cap fell off my tooth. Uh-huh. It was made of gold, and I saved it. Yeah. Good. Yeah. I got talking to the dentist. I said, are these gold caps getting more expensive? He said, yeah. You know? Double the price. Yeah. Double. I'm glad I saved the one I had, didn't swallow it or something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that but, you know, we got talking about the advantages of having gold in your mouth, and there are a lot of advantages.
One of them is it kills harmful bacteria.
[00:05:55] Unknown:
No. I I don't think I knew that, but that's very interesting.
[00:05:59] Unknown:
Well, it's like copper. You know, that's why Yep. Right. Right. People talk about copper doorknobs. Well, copper doorknobs were for a reason for brass. Brass go on. Mhmm. And that was because it killed bacteria. Copper kettles, same thing. Copper piping with our used to have it with our hot water heaters.
[00:06:18] Unknown:
What was it? Restaurants, if a state if if a restaurant puts in a copper covering over the tables, they don't have to adhere to the state sanitation,
[00:06:27] Unknown:
regulations, I think. Yeah. That well, I know that was true in California. Uh-huh. In other words, you don't have to buy the expensive disinfectant that they make you buy to wash the tables with. You have a copper, covering on the top of the tables or the counters. Yeah. And that's something. That's how powerful it is. Yeah. Yeah. I know you know that because you used to sell it.
[00:06:49] Unknown:
You used to sell it. I sell silver. It wasn't silver silver. It was a derivative of a doctor, an orthopedic surgeon. It's still I I think I'm pretty sure Bart's still with us, doctor Bart Flick. And, he he was a his, medical advisor in high school, I believe was up in Vermont, was a guy named, oh, doctor, oh, the guy that wrote the Body Electric. I can't his name escapes me right now. He's still they've still got a cult following on that. Doctor Robert Becker is his name. And, he saw Becker do this experiment with a buddy of his who was all an inventor who had invented a little micro generator.
And and Becker had been messing with this silver plated cloth, 99% pure silver. And, they had a Vietnam Vet. And Flick was a student when he witnessed this, participated in it. And, the guy had stepped on a landmine in Vietnam, and I'd he had had, like, 11 or 12 or more previous operations. I saw a X-ray of his lower leg Uh-huh. And it just I feel it looks like Rosie the Riveter had been gone through there with with two rivet guns. You know? Oh. I mean, he had he had all kinds of metal all through his leg. Well, this was last ditch. And if they couldn't save that bottom leg, they're gonna amputate it. And so they had this micro generator Uh-huh. That the guy was trying to patent and invent, and they wrapped the wound, wherever they did with cloth. And then they attached this generator to it to drive the silver ions off of it. Well, Flick watching that, they saved the guy's leg, by the way.
Flick watching that said, you know, I'll bet that cloth will work without that micro generator. And so after he graduated, he set up a practice down in Opelousas, Louisiana. He's an orthopedic surgeon, and he worked for many, many years on getting FDA approval and and and, as a device. And he got all the patents that they got and didn't use a lawyer for any of it. And, yeah, that's the it's a miracle, man. It's just, the the reason we can do this to some extent is that experience with doctor Flick, and we it was right around y two k. And every we'd start doing expos, and we did four or five of them. Every expo we went to were the hottest booth at the expo.
And, it was just a phenomenon. It's it's a it's a wonderful product. Now the I could go into more detail on it, but I'll just tell you because I'm gonna tell you something else in a minute. I think there's some pretty interesting times are coming. You can, you can duplicate that to a large extent what that silver cloth will do with simple aluminum foil and put the shiny side against your skin. And if you had some, colloidal silver, you could even mimic more of it because what it does is it, first of all, releases you get it on as quick as possible after an injury. And it's, what it does first is it recompletes the circuit. Evidently, our body's a big electrical circuit. And, the, the the barometer on pain is the dermis and those outer layers of skin because when those are severed or injured, then the nerve endings set off the underneath, set off the pain response.
So first of all, when you get something that reestablishes that conductivity, it takes away the pain. It does it pretty quickly and and pretty effectively too, by the way. Secondly, it starts releasing ions into the wound if it's a wound, and it, starts accelerating its healing and sterilizing the area. And if it's some sort of an injury where there's potential scarring. If you get it on there quick, recompleting that circuit keeps down the swelling. And when you reduce swelling, you reduce scarring. So those are the three things it does. We found a site that sells the silver cloth.
I'm gonna say it's no no e e m f Com, and they've got a plated cloth over there. There's nobody else except the Silverlawn company that's now been stolen twice by the Jews, by the way, post doctor Flick. So there's nobody that can sell the cloth with medical, applications, but they sell plated cloth including copper over there. I believe no emf.com, I think. And, they've got a medical, grade cloth. You could probably purchase it from them. I advise everybody to try and get some of these things and store them up because it's something I heard this morning. Just this morning, Brent. There was three incidents yesterday around the country. Two of them, kinda could could be or couldn't be, but but the first one is couldn't be anything else. I don't believe it happened in Colorado.
The the story is that the, van was driving down one side of the highway, and they passed some state troopers and they didn't dim their lights. And so it was heavily laden down. And so the troopers turned around and pulled it over as two, Mexicans, not here on any kind of legal, footing of even the Biden administration. And in their van, they had a 80,000 rounds of three zero eight and seven six two, and they were going to Pueblo, Colorado, a known gang city. It's right next, I think, Fort Carson backs up to it or close to it. So that was one Fort Bragg down, in Columbus, outside of Columbus, Georgia.
There's a all anybody can get in gate, and they got a caught a Jordanian trying to slip an IED in. So, I'll I'll close the gate. That hadn't been reported. Somebody saw it and reported it, at the Infowars covered it this morning. And then there was another guy, Wacko Arab, who was in a gun store or some kind of one of those stores. And he they saw him just looking at expensive stuff and just picking it up. You know? And so they went over and started questioning him, and the guy bolted, and ran out with a bunch of the merchandise. They didn't catch him, and he jumped into a van without a plate, and they tried to leave the parking lot real fast, ran over a curb. They did get away, but somehow, the cops were able to trace it back to this guy. And it looked like from what he was doing in the house and what he had that he was, about to go into some sort of a shooting rampage in the twenty four forty eight hours. So there's three things that happened yesterday. The most alarming being a 80,000 rounds of ammo by two Mexicans.
They they they're gonna do it. They're gonna do the civil war summers, what it looks like to me, folks, and
[00:14:05] Unknown:
I would just all of you get prepared. K? But is there any law again, again, somebody having a 80,000 rounds ammo?
[00:14:15] Unknown:
I don't well, I I'm just not sure, Brent. You know, I'm Probably in Colorado. I don't know. Well, could be, but but two illegal aliens, they probably didn't have any driver's license or I don't know all the particulars. I just know what I saw this morning. Uh-huh. But it's a real red flag because there's there's several other incidents. We know all the people that Biden smuggled in. And and they were come right out telling you, well, we're a member of some force and we're just waiting to get called. I'm gonna go live in Nashville till then, you know? So, just be careful. We're we're there's there's a couple of incidents. You know about this Carmelo incident with this black kid stabbing the white kid?
[00:14:55] Unknown:
Oh, down in Texas? Yes. About two, three weeks ago. About that. Well, fill me out on that a little more. Well, don't know too much yet. They hadn't released any,
[00:15:05] Unknown:
any any video on it. They I believe they've got some. You can't think of anything today that doesn't have a camera covering it. But they had some sort of a track meet, and there were different tents. And this black kid, Carmelo, it appears was in the wrong tent, and they verbally tried to get him out at the tent and whatnot. It worked until there was a little shoving going on. There was two white twins, he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the twins in the heart and he bled out right there on the floor. His brother trying to keep his hands over his heart to stop the bleeding, which he wasn't gonna do that.
But the most horrendous thing subsequently, Brent, is the father immediately came out. Well, it's just that I don't want any kind of bad talk about this boy, and and he was covering up for the the killer. I mean, outwardly, overtly, in number of different ways. And so then a couple of days later, of course, they somebody, Soros, probably set up a go give, send, go, site for him, the black kid. And, they had over half a million dollars in in about two shakes of a lamb's tail. And so the family goes out and buys them a big fancy house and a car. Uh-huh. And so, then the attorney that's become attached, black attorney that's attached to this situation is up and they're gonna give a press conference talking about how evil and, you know, the whole rap.
And the father of the of the stabbed murdered boy tries to come to the press conference and they make him leave and kick him out. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And he say he's not saying hang him or anything. He's saying, oh, I forgive him. The you know, all the Yeah. I I can't imagine anybody doing that, but, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, that's, gonna continue to build, it appears. Uh-huh. So, there's some there's some pretty interesting news out there. I look forward to you coming by on Friday so I can fill you in, Brent.
[00:17:07] Unknown:
Well, yeah, things are getting pretty crazy. I I would say it'd be smart to not get within wingspan to most anybody these days. And they made, they may, reach out and touch you in a way you don't want them to. That's the way it sounds there. Alright. You just better be real careful and, you know, keep your your big eyes open and your big ears up. You know? Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, you know, it was all new to me when I left home. I'd never been around anybody but white folk my whole life. And, when I got away well, one time, I suppose we were in high school. We went to a track meet, and there was a town that had a had a boy there of color, and he could do the triple jump better than anybody in 14 states.
And we we watched that with amazement, I remember. And and, of course, we couldn't even come close to doing those kind of things. But other than that, didn't have a whole lot of contact. And then when I got away from home, I found out that what I'd heard about people that weren't white is, substantially true. They'll rob you or stab you or something. I found out that to be true. Then I had some fellows I was friends with, and one of them came back. We're in San Francisco Bay Area. He came in that next morning, and he had the most horrible wounds all over the backside of his forearm. I I like the fellow. I can't remember his name, but I said, what happened to you? He said, oh, some fella pulled out a razor over and started swinging it at me. And the only thing I could do is put up my arm and and block his blows. Oh my god. Well, it opened him up pretty deep. You know, a razor can Uh-huh.
Yeah. Well, he, well, he knew how to defend himself that way. But these fellows that grow up, I remember finding out. I won't tell you how I found out, but, you know, there are gangs in Chicago, Illinois, and there are gangs in St. Louis, Missouri. But the difference between those two places is the crime in Chicago, Illinois, and the gangs are highly organized. Matter of fact, they're politically organized. They control precinct, control voting, and they even put their own nail and have enough clout that they can get the governors to appoint, people from their gangs to be wardens of the prisons so they can take care of their homies while they're in prison.
That's how powerful the gangs are in Chicago. Now Saint Louis is just the opposite. There's a lot of crime there, but it's it's highly unorganized. And so the life expectancy of a of a man of color or a boy, I should say, is not more than about 25 years old. And I don't say that in exaggeration. You don't expect to live long in Saint Louis. There is no organization. If there's no organization, there's no powerful party, a part more powerful than others, and things are exceedingly dangerous. You know, when Al Capone was running Chicago, there was more order than when the government was running Chicago.
When the city government was running it yeah. Just it was chaos. When Al Capone got in charge, there was order and less killing. Well, same thing was true at Las Vegas, Nevada. When when the when the mob ran Las Vegas and Reno, there was a lot more order and a lot less killing. Bugsy
[00:20:27] Unknown:
Bugsy Siegel.
[00:20:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Bugsy. He was down there in Las Vegas, wasn't he? Yeah. Yeah. Well, all those fellows now that the IRS see, they busted the busted the Italian mob back in the eighties. And that what was the name of that Italian that, ran for president? Giuliani. Right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. He he was the one that did it. Well, one that was a final blow to the mob, and it took that one fella from, New York. He thought he was hot. Oh, he thought he was mister gangster. He wanted to be like Al Capone and play the high life. And and what was his name? They sent him to federal prison finally, and then the boys in prison What The The the the the wadey wadey bulger.
Yeah. But he was a Oh, no. Whitey was the killer, but, no, this is the fellow who's in charge Okay. Of the mob back in the eighties. But Whitey, yeah, he wasn't asking. Got it. Who was it? Got it. John. Yeah. Yeah. John. John. Yeah. He went Well, there's Brent.
[00:21:31] Unknown:
What happened? Brent Brent to Brent. Go ahead, Brent. Here.
[00:21:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, yeah, John Gotti, he went to federal prison at the Max Joint. Well, it was the Max Joint. It's not now. They moved the Max Joint from, Alcatraz to Marion, Illinois, which is in the Shawnee National Forest down there. And then they built that Supermax out in Florence, Colorado, and they moved it there. But Gotti went to Marion, and he thought he was gonna be in charge because he was so important. And, well, he found out real quick he wasn't running things. They ended up killing him there in, Marion.
The people of course, the the guards don't run the prison. The prisoners run the prisons. And that's an important thing to consider. And, of course, they were running the prison there, and the it was the white, call them what you want, Different you know, in prison, people congregate according to color. You got your white boys and Mexicans. They well, not all of them. The American Mexicans and the white boys congregate together. And then the black boys, they congregate together. And then, South American gangs, they congregate together. Uh-huh. I know somebody's saying I ain't no black boy. Yeah. I know what you're saying, but there's white boys too. You know? And they call them that in prison, but they they congregate together. They're like different nations. They're as different. Well, they are different nations, and they Yeah. Each have their own officers.
And, so if there's a problem between, two individuals, two different groups, like the white boys and the black boys, then they have the officers that the law talkers get together and and decide what the best way is to handle it. And that so there's some order there, see is what I'm saying. Mhmm. Yep. Yeah. And there's agreement on a common standard that is external to all parties. Oh, there's trouble, but, for the most part, you given given the situation, they keep pretty good order. But in Saint Louis, there is no order. It's ever ever swinging man for himself, and that means you'll be dead by the time you're 26 maximum.
[00:23:37] Unknown:
Now now Brent, are you talking about East Saint Louis or East Saint Louis?
[00:23:41] Unknown:
Oh, Saint Louis itself. Now East East Saint Louis is always worse. Yeah. I was gonna say probably worse. Right? Yeah. You know, that's on the Illinois side of the river. That was always worse, but it's kinda calmed down now because people have just simply left or, you know, abandoned the place, although it is bad there. And East Saint Louis is not distinguishable from St. Louis, Missouri. And they're all just kind of the same, gang, activity. Well, no. Not gang. No. No. As I said, it's every man for himself there. And, if you're on the street, well, if you're dumb enough to live on the street, like a lot of people do, they don't know anything else. They don't last long.
Unless the there is always, almost always, not always, but almost always, a powerful party will emerge, and then there'll be some government. Mhmm. And that's what we have in America right now. We have the powerful party that has emerged that's been the the Trumpites.
[00:24:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yes. Well well, the the powerful undercover, undercurrent party Yeah. Got a little bit more exposed yesterday. What happened? This is very interesting. Yeah. I would suggest, anybody that's interested in this, I'm gonna explain as best I can. Remember what's going on with Leticia James with the mortgage in Virginia, and she's AG in New York? Well, it's on a much bigger scale. Same thing, basically. K? So the guy was on for an hour in the third hour of Harris Smith yesterday. He's a a Jewish guy. I think Goodwin Goodman. And he's a really good guy. K?
And he's not a lawyer. He just got real interested in this. Uh-huh. And, and and he starts naming names, and he's caught them all with Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Andrew Weisman. You know who he is, that really, really piece of garbage Yeah. Guy, you know, who's the one that came in Ron and on and on and on. He he's involved, and probably some others. Those are the three I remember that he named. And what they're doing is, like, say, Adam Schiff, who was from California house representative. Now he's a senator. Right? Uh-huh. Well, he's got a house in Maryland that he claimed is his residency. Uh-huh. He can't do that.
And I don't know what deal is, but he specifically mentioned Raskin. It's something to do with this. But it's this whole network where they're going out and doing this for people and getting them houses and saving them a hundred and 50 or $200 a month on their mortgage, but they've gotta go in there and say they're residents. Now how how and why are they doing it? Are they doing this with people coming in so they got blackmail over them? We don't know yet, but it's just being exposed. And if you really wanna get almost an about forty five, fifty minutes of of details and explanation of this, it's the third hour in Harrison Smith yesterday.
And, well worth listen to. I think this another potentially real big thing with well, we'll cross our fingers, hopefully, and say ramifications.
[00:26:57] Unknown:
Well, black male, if it isn't achieved, is always the goal in politics. Yeah. That's what that's what runs politics, period. Period. That's all there is, blackmail. Yeah. And it has to do usually with sex and sometimes Yeah. But that's they they can't get you compromised and controllable through back blackmail, then they gotta get rid of you. They they can't have they, those guys, the evil empire, the useful idiots thereof in politics. That's what they got to have. And it come, by the way, at every level from US senator right down to your local school board. That's the way that works. But it gets more intense as you go up, up the ladder.
[00:27:34] Unknown:
I I I saw a couple of clips today. There's Julie. Yeah. I I saw a couple of clips on Harrison this morning out of Maine at school board meetings, and they're refusing to comply with title nine and keep men out of women's sports. And people are going to the school board meeting, even coming to the meeting in Augusta from all over the state. And then the chairman goes, well, if you're not from Augusta, you can't say anything. Another guy starts saying two words. You can't bring up somebody's name, and she just shut him down. Another guy talked twenty seconds longer than his three minutes, and she had the sheriff come in and arrest him. So, man, there's just a bunch of stuff going on. Julie, what do you got, sweetie? I think that was you. Uh-huh. Yeah. Hi. Hi. Good morning. Hi, everybody.
[00:28:20] Unknown:
Yeah. So you, you're talking about the, guy yesterday on the show. You, you're a good man.
[00:28:27] Unknown:
Did you watch him?
[00:28:29] Unknown:
Yep. But you're a good you like, Greg Hunter's USA Watchdog. He's got John Rubino on. And, he his the title of the the, podcast is US government is a big laundering operation, and he talks about more than just USAID. He talks about all the lobbyists and the super PAC.
[00:28:49] Unknown:
Oh, absolutely.
[00:28:51] Unknown:
Yep. And he talks about how how they, all all they do is money launder. The people will leave the FBI, FDA, and then go or the CDC and then go work for the Pfizer or for Moderna. Yep. And it's just one and they do nothing for I for you or me, except for just money launder money launder, money around, and and blackmail people. So interesting you should watch it. Yep. I don't know, Brent. You probably haven't seen it. Thank you, Julie, so much. Listen. Julie's got
[00:29:21] Unknown:
more degrees than a thermometer show in in finance and real estate. So when she talks about this, she knows what she's talking about. Okay? Now hey. Well, heck, man. Now I lost my place. Anyway, it's a really interesting time, and, boy, there's some big things breaking. I feel sorry. You know, a lot of people and Trump supporters are saying, we're we're the indictments. We're the indictments. Well, you know, we our side's gotta do everything right. They don't have to do it. We don't confront them when they don't do it, but we've got to do it or they confront us with the stuff. Trump's got there's a constitutional crisis coming with the judiciary. I can tell you that, Brent, for sure. And, it it's pretty unbelievable, as you see this develop. They're sandbagging everywhere they can. I hear it. I feel so I was the point I was trying to make is this.
A lot of people are really down on on Pam Bondi. Okay? And I understand all their reasons, but, man, that woman's gotta be just absolutely covered up every day. Something major gets dumped on her desk.
[00:30:27] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I'm glad you brought that up about, the judiciary. And we talked last time about, Tompkins versus Erie Railroad. Yes. I made the point that, what really happened in that case was, didn't do away with the common law. It just said that the source of the common law will be the state courts and the state court decisions, not the federal courts making it up as they go along. And that's a good thing. And I was surprised that people didn't agree with me about that, and that shows the problem. Clearly, having this power at the state level is preferable Yeah. Than having power at the federal level. But Absolutely.
Yeah. So that was, and the patriot mythology Mhmm. Takes that case and says things that are not true. And on and on, the madness goes and distracts people from effectiveness. But then we move on to what's going on right now. The federal courts have been little old district federal court judges have been putting out injunctions that are nationwide, and and that, is not possible. Let me give an example. In state courts, the same principle, within the boundaries of the state, and you take it to federal court, it'd be within the boundaries of The United States. I've been in front of judges before, one particular case, trying to get, folk to pay their rent.
Well, then they'd they'd just, fly the coupe. They'd leave town, and you couldn't get ahold of them. They'd owe money. And so I went into court, and I said to the judge, I'd I'd never heard of this before, but, the lady down I'd go to court, Roger, and I'd have a problem. I was getting ready to go to hearing. I wouldn't know what to do, and I'd stop by. There's a woman that I knew real well that had a a candy business right along right off of the square that where the courthouse was. She had business that her dad had had filling candy bar machines, you know, putting I have a good business, and she had candy bar machines all over three counties, her and her son. I'd stop by and I'd say, Arlene, how you doing? Alright. I'm walking up the courthouse, and I got a problem here. What do you think I ought to do?
And she threw out a couple ideas. That's how you learn law. And she'd been around a long time, done a lot of things. One time, she said, well, why don't you just get a body attachment on those guys? They won't pay their rent, and they flew the coupe. I said, a body attachment? What's that? Sound like something from a sci fi novel or something. You know? And, like the body snatchers and things like that. And I said, well, is that what she said? Well, that's where you you put out a Judd puts out a warrant for somebody's arrest, and it's not a criminal matter. It's just that the judge wants to talk to the guy, and the guy won't come and talk to him. I said, okay. I'll ask the judge. So I went in.
We couldn't find these fellows. They flew the coop, left town, and I said, Judd, will you give me a body attachment on this fella? He said, why? Sure, mister Winters. He said, I'll put out an order here that if he's found anywhere in the state, they'll drag his carcass back here, and we can talk to him. That's we just won't talk to him. So that's called a civil or a noncriminal body attachment. Well, now you can do that. A judge can do that. A a federal judge can do that. He could do a a noncriminal body attachment that's nationwide if he wanted.
But but he couldn't but he can't say, by the way, I wanna attach the bodies. I want other people drug in here that aren't part of this case or part of any case. Here's my point. Judges in courts, common law courts, that's what we have in America by and large, the federal courts, the state courts, have power over the parties before the court, and it's personal jurisdiction. You have personal jurisdiction, then you have property jurisdiction. Property, they call that in rim, and personal, they call in personum. But it's just in English. It's over the the body of the person or or over the the of the over the tangible property itself. You know, I used to read these cases, and this is the way some cases are today. So and so the state is so and so versus a 1967 Chevy Plymouth.
Yes. Well, Chevy no. Shim Chevy, Sedan. Yeah. Sedan. Plymouth would be a different company. That'd be the price of the corporation. So, of of sedan. Well, there's no personal jurisdiction there. There's just jurisdiction over property, and that's why it says that. Is that in rim that would that be considered in rim? Yeah. That's called in rim. Rim's a Latin word that means, the thing itself. Correct. So it'd be over a piece of real property, land, or chattels, a movable property or immovable property.
[00:35:21] Unknown:
Yeah. Not a person. No. And if You'll see them. You'll see ones like US versus a hundred thousand dollars and stuff like that.
[00:35:29] Unknown:
Yeah. And that's over the property itself, but it it's me versus so and so. We had a case one time where a lady wouldn't pay for having the carpet cleaned after mold was found in the apartment building. She was in Kentucky. She was a feisty gal. I really kinda liked her, but, boy, she wouldn't pay the carpet cleaner. You know, if you have mold in your house, just like in the Bible, a lot of the states have statutes that say, you know, you can't get ahold of the landlord. You call somebody in to clean it up because it's deadly. Some of that mold is dead. It will kill you. Yes. It will. Yeah. Just like it says in the bible, you burn the blasted house down. Don't mess with it anymore. Well, they called in the carpet cleaner after the pipes busted and cleaned things up because of the mold, and then she wouldn't pay the bill. And, of course, she was a frugal gal, and she said, I could have done that for less than half the price. I'm not paying it. So we had to drag her carcass into court. Well, we won the case, but that didn't give us personal jurisdiction over her. So then after you win the case, like we used to say, wow. You take me to court with, that, court judgment and a dime, you might be able to get a cup of coffee.
So that's all it's worth. Yes. You gotta enforce the court judgment. So then you gotta go back in and you gotta get personal jurisdiction over her or her property or both. Or once you got that, and then in rim or in persona, and then you can try to nail her. But there it's the part, but she's a party before the court. There's a judgment against her. Well, then the court has authority over her, not over anybody else to say, okay. We're gonna force you to do this. This is personal jurisdiction. Mhmm. You you threatened to shoot the guy that sued you, so we're also gonna get a purse personal jurisdiction over you with an restraining order to stop you from shooting this other fella or whatever we're saying. You know? But the personal jurisdiction, the court, a federal court, like a state court, has personal jurisdiction, can have it, over the parties before the court to put out an injunction. An injunction is against the person. Equity, if you're in equity jurisdiction, equity acts against the person.
Law acts against property. That's another grand distinction. That's good. Don't don't seem to grasp. But, yeah, if you're in equity and you move into equity and the judge takes off his law hat and puts on his equity hat and say, well, what's the problem here? We couldn't find a legal remedy. Maybe there's something in equity that will help you out here. Well, then the equity acts against the person. That's why injunctions are in equity. They force you to do family law is a matter of equity because you're taking jurisdiction over children, for example, to make sure they get put in the right place. That's all equity. But coming back to this thing about, federal courts, they're they're saying these federal courts are saying, oh, by the way, we're putting out an injunction that's nationwide, and nobody can do this, and nobody can do that. Now wait a minute, sister.
That's what ought to be said. You don't have an injury over anybody but the parties before the court. Right. This nationwide injunction baloney isn't even part of our legal tradition. The only time that ever occurred in America, nationwide injunction of a federal court, first time it occurred was in 1963. And you know what was going on back then. And that that was, back Civil civil rights stuff? Civil rights stuff. And there have been a few issued after that, but not until Trump got into his first term. I think there was something like 20 some nationwide injunctions issued. Unheard of. Never happened before.
And now we've got, what, 40 some? I don't know. They put three or four more on yesterday. Well, what yeah. What and what's wrong with that? Number one, there's no precedent for it in our common law tradition. We're a common law country. There's no precedent for it in any of the statutes of the, of the of the Congress. And why is that? Well, shucks. If a if one pissy any federal judge could put out an order that affects people all over The United States, well, then that's that's equivalent in tantamount to being a congressman. No. No. No. That's equivalent in tantamount to be in Congress. That's what that is. Passing a law that applies to everybody. Well, I know this is unheard of. It's blatantly, bluntly, unconstitutional.
No. Not unconstitutional. Let's get real. It's just unlawful in every sense of the word. Constitution doesn't give them any authority to do that. Common law tradition doesn't give them any authority to do that. Congress never gave them any authority to do that. It should never been used, but even starting back in 1963, hogwash. Yeah. No, no. That's the way it is. Yep. It's communist presumption. They
[00:40:17] Unknown:
same thing they've done with everything we talk about. Everything's based under presumption. Presumption. You got to stand up and you gotta confront it, and it's got to be put down or it's gonna continue.
[00:40:28] Unknown:
Right, Roger. So we we can just say here, and this is what's needed to be said everywhere. Not only no, but h double l, no. No. This is this is unlawful. It will destroy our common law tradition. It will destroy and our constitution is a brief of common law government. It will destroy our freedoms if one pissy any federal judge can put out an order that applies nationwide. That's wrong. Our that's not what our common law tradition says. Our common law tradition reduces raw power in the federal courts only to the parties be before the court in any given instance. Period.
Yeah. Well, a federal judge had, for example, in habeas corpus, a federal judge can take personal jurisdiction over a jailer and say a sheriff or whoever the jailer is, bring the body, the carcass of the person whose, whose, this petition of habeas corpus applies to and bring the body of that person before the court. Now that's raw power. Yep. And then if they don't do it, the federal court can send the US marsh marshals out to enforce by force spread of force. And hold them in contempt. Yes. But that's against the parties before the court, not against anybody else. That kind of raw force and power to a federal judge is very, very confined to the parties before the court, but that it's a final power too. It's final.
That's why we we confine it to the parties before the court. In our common law tradition, justice is only given to the parties before the court. Congress's legislation has nothing to do with justice. It paints with a broad brush, and it's very dangerous. Therefore, we have this fallback position in our common law tradition called the courts. And the courts are to listen individually to the to the individual merits of the individual case. They don't paint with a broad brush. Everything is fact driven right down to the facts of this case. And if personal jurisdiction and force and threat of force are to be applied, okay.
Yes. But only to the parties before the court. That this this thing about federal injunctions nationwide, I I'm shocked. And but then again, I'm not shocked. These these judges sitting on the bench are the, folks that I went to law school with that were drunk all the time and had sexual problems. You know, that's what that's what we got on the court saying people went to law school. They're just like you and me, friends, except they're they're wound up and bound up in their own whims and difficulties to even a further extent because somebody hand them a little bit of power and they can't handle. That's what it boils down to. I think there's 15 judges on the DC Circuit, and five of them are foreigners.
[00:43:20] Unknown:
Yeah. There's Larry. And one of them, get this, the female, her brother and her father on one of the islands, wherever she came from, I don't remember which one, Dominican Republic or some place. They were so radical that the communist party of Dominican Republic kicked them out. Yeah. Yeah. That that that is one of this Chikutna or whatever her name is. Larry, you got that woman's that witch's name?
[00:43:48] Unknown:
I'm sure you don't. No. No. I just had a question for Brent. Alright.
[00:43:54] Unknown:
Well, fire away. He lost your question.
[00:43:59] Unknown:
Yeah. So all all these things that you're talking about, the the it it appears the, federal courts are exceeding their jurisdiction. Why isn't anyone raising these objections like Bondi or the justice department? I mean, surely, you're not the only one that knows these things. Why why isn't anyone doing anything about it?
[00:44:20] Unknown:
You might be surprised how many people don't know these things. You'd be surprised how much it's not taught in the law schools. And if a a lawyer doesn't encounter these problems, Bondi never encountered these problems. How many how many lawyers have a clue what's going on in the federal courts? Federal jurisdiction is an exclusive jurisdiction, and most lawyers don't wanna get involved with it because it's dangerous, number one. It's just dangerous to be a lawyer in a federal court. The federal judges, as they say, the formidable power of the federal courts. And I I when I say it's dangerous, I could tell you from personal experience how dangerous it is. If you're a lawyer I mean, a licensed lawyer in a federal court, you do a little better if you don't have a law license, but it's a dangerous place to be because the formidable power of the jurisdiction is very small.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to a very, very narrow juris scope of jurisdiction. But within that scope of jurisdiction, the power is absolute. The closest thing there are two things in our in our, in our, tradition of law that, two jurisdictions that that where you can see somebody that's close to being God. And that's, the captain of a ship at sea that's under admiralty law. And he's he's the he's the law. Of course, it's written out in admiralty law. But then there's a a federal judge within his courtroom. Yeah. A dangerous creature to say the least. Uh-huh. And, one of the reasons why is because but as I said, within that narrow scope of jurisdiction, the the power is plenary.
It goes right out to the very edges. Mhmm. Yep. Plump clear out, and they know it. They're pretty good, federal courts are, to say something good about them, about trying to stay within their narrow jurisdiction and throwing out every case that does not meet all criteria of their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction has to be, number one, a case that arises under the constitution of The United States. That's language from the constitution. The case has to arise. So the to put it bluntly, if it's not a constitutional US constitutional question, then the gen the, federal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.
Mhmm. Number two, it has to be a real case in controversy. That means there have to be at least two parties that are each at each other's throats and are real serious about fighting because each of them stand to lose life, liberty, or property or combination thereof. But recognize also, Larry, and again, good question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain things that seem inexplicable. And you made a good point. You said, why isn't nobody saying these things? They don't number one, they don't know them. I don't care if they're lawyers. I don't care if they're in federal court. Most lawyers don't have a clue what our legal tradition is, and you can that the truth. Oh, they know they know what they gotta do to make money, and a lot of them make a lot of money. But if they don't have to know anything else, they don't. And comparative law is not a required course in our law schools anymore except in one state, and that's the non common law state of Louisiana. If you go to law school down there, you gotta take comparative law because they want you to know the difference between their tradition, the law of the city, the canon civil laws of Rome, and our common law tradition, the common law of the land. They want you to know that difference, and that's a good thing that they draw that distinction. But lawyers that go to school other places, they're never introduced to the idea. If you ask them what our common law is, they'll say court cases.
Just like in Tompkins versus area railroad, they said there is no more common law tradition in the federal courts. Well, what did they mean when they said that? Well, they had the wrong idea, the wrong terminology, and that meant, there's no more precedent of court cases from the federal courts. That's what that meant. Yeah. That goes common law to them as stare decisis. Roger, what
[00:48:23] Unknown:
No. I'm just agreeing with everything you're saying, Brent. I'm a I'm amening you here, man. Okay. So there's no stare decisis.
[00:48:31] Unknown:
No. The precedent The precedent is now we're gonna use the state court law, what the state courts have said. That's eerie. Well, who understands that? Students in law school are taught the same thing the Patriot Movement is taught, that there is no more common law. It's silliness on steroids. I say stupidity. Yeah. Stupidity. I mean, blindness. They don't care. Well, they don't why don't they care? They can make money without knowing these things. That's why. It was the way the court phrased
[00:49:00] Unknown:
turned the phrase that normal people don't understand the same way there's these two levels all through. Property is another example, etcetera, etcetera. Okay? There's this twin level. It's a colloquial level, and then there's a highly technical level. And when that court said there is no more common law, federal common law, he's just saying and, Brent, you finally, explained it where I understand it. You're just saying because all property law is state law. So any of the common law that arises is one of the states. Yeah. So there is They'll assign it to, like, who's the plaintiff. Right?
[00:49:35] Unknown:
Yeah. So the the the federal courts are using the precedents from the state state court decisions, court decisions, and they're not making it up as they go like they used to. I I can't think that's a pretty good idea. Yeah. But Yeah. But it's all and they and the reason they did that was because they said the constitution of The United States gives no authority to the federal courts to make it up as they go. They're to derive all their powers from the states. That means the state courts as well. So that that's a fascinating concept that the federal courts, again, limiting their jurisdiction. They've been pretty good about that and saying, no, we're going to capitulate to whatever the state courts say instead of what the federal court. We're gonna use precedent, but it's gonna be the precedent from the federal courts. But coming back to Pam Bondi. Well, who's Pam Bondi?
Is she a a woman that is looked at as an expert in her field? No. Does she have to be? No. She just has to have the gumption to do what needs to be done. That's what, that's the most important feature of a lawyer. Do you have the gumption, to do what ought to be done? I would ask the Patriots, the Patriots, you think you really know the law. Good way to phrase it. Yeah. Hey, listen, It what good is knowing a lot of things if you don't have the drive behind you to use them? Now if she has the drive behind her to do what's right, and that's part of what she's thinking, okay. But does she know what I'm saying? I don't know about if she knows what I'm saying about Nationwide and Johnson. I have no idea. Well, you know, she was the AG of Florida before she got anointed here.
[00:51:07] Unknown:
And, I have heard, of course, president Trump praises her, but also his his, alter ego, Roger Stone. And Roger Stone is very, very favorable on her also. I've heard him vocally, talk about what a great gal she is. You know, obviously, she's not hard to look at. And, and one of the criticisms is she's on Fox News every night, and she needs to stay out of the makeup room and Fox News and get over there and get some of these cases going. Yeah. But, because people are antsy, man. We the you know, the the the they're the let's see.
It's almost like, you know, well, I hate I hate to say that. Let's just say, that the natives are restless.
[00:51:56] Unknown:
Well, number one, attorney general of The United States doesn't have to be a lawyer. There's nothing in the constitution that says an attorney. I'm sure that's right. Yep. Or a supreme court justice or a federal judge has to be a lawyer. And there's some many well, we've had a number of them in over the years that haven't been. So does she have to know a lot about law? No. And as attorney general of the of the state or The United States, you know, you don't you don't spend your time doing cases. You just say, well, the governor would like this case prosecuted this way. You could you could run the whole office that way. That's probably right. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what the attorney general of The United States is. The attorney general of The United States, that's a political position. Yep. Oh, if you're on Fox News all the time trying to make your case, I just wish, of course, for somebody to say what I'm saying. I know some people do. It's a very simple matter. If you're you can't wander in off the street, you well, it's against the law to wander in off the street because and you because you read about a case in the paper, and you said, I wanna put my affidavit in this case. Well, if you did that, they were using their heads, they'd throw that affidavit out because you're not a party to the case. The court has no jurisdiction over those that are not parties to the case. And if it's, if it's a matter of an injunction, an injunction is a equitable remedy.
That's the court acting the equity. That means that in equity, equity acts against the person. It does not act against property, my friends. So once you're in equity, you know that the court has, force and threat of force at its disposal to make people do what it wants them to do. You see? That's what equity is. And when you say injunction, that's an equitable remedy. So if you say a nationwide injunction, that's a contradiction in terms. It does not exist in law. It is dangerous in the utter extreme to our common law tradition. That means to our freedoms, three separate and coequal branches of government.
[00:53:47] Unknown:
Yeah. But I'd like to see Trump just go ahead and bypass all of them. And just like Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln with habeas corpus, and even more important, their idle FDR all did.
[00:54:01] Unknown:
Well, of course, he has that, option. But then again, at common law, our common law limits him because he doesn't want to do something that's politically damaging. He wants to get along with the courts if he can, and he wants to act like he's following the courts in some things. And if it's high visibility like this, if he if he bolts too much, he may have to, but they're gonna attack him for not doing he's not following the law. Well, that's not true at all. One of the things that we, need to say more of too and you say, well, how is it they don't know this? I interviewed the Supreme Court justice on on the radio, interviewed the Supreme Court justice of the state of Alabama.
His name was Roy Moore. Right. And he also ran for then after they threw him off the Supreme Court Right. They ran for, US Senate, and he was annihilated. It was terrible what they did to him. But let me say this about him. So I had him on the radio, and it was during that time. I had met him on an airplane back in the nineties coming back from a council on national policy meeting in Charleston, South Carolina. He was one of the speakers. I got on the airplane. He said it right across from me, and that was when he was, he thought he was gonna take over the world, and he was really up. He was willing to tell me everything at that time. He was just a a state judge. Had a little thing of the 10 commandments sitting on his desk in his office, and people raising Cain about it. He made he made this little thing of the 10 commandments when he was in high school, as a matter of fact. Excuse me, Brent.
[00:55:34] Unknown:
Is somebody gonna say something? Yep. Paul. We got about three minutes to talk about,
[00:55:39] Unknown:
We can pay you to call you up on the other side, but he wants you to Okay. Yeah. That's you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Of course. This is Brent, Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com, w w w dot common lawyer dot com. Coming to you, coming at you from the remote hinterlands of the Wabash River Valley where the hogs, the frogs, and the dogs keep up and racket all night long. Now I say that on my other common lawyer comment presentations. I thought I'd throw it in here for fun just in case there's somebody from the Wabash Valley, which would take up three quarters of the state of Indiana and about a quarter or a third of the state of Illinois. So it's a it's a big area. And those of you that don't know where the Wabash Valley is, you can look it up on the map. You went to the public school system. You might not know geography at all. I understand that. I feel sorry for you. But that my name is Brent. Go to the website commonlawyer.com, and you can take law classes there.
You can see them. We have many of them in the can, audio and visual, and you can you can, access them. We just finished a course on Christian nationalism. What is it? Does it exist? Is it a good idea? We answered some of those questions. But now the next thing we want to do, Roger, I've been talking about this for years. I wrote a book almost a thousand pages long on the subject, then it finally dawned on me, why don't I teach it as a law course? I don't know why I didn't think of that before. I guess I've got my head buried in so many other things. But the next course we want to teach, lord willing, is comparative law, the law of the land versus the law of the city. Man, what a great time. Common law versus the civil law. You can't understand our common law tradition unless you it's compared and contrasted and seen in opposition and contrast to the law of the city.
And you will not you will not understand squat from straight up, sick them from come here about our constitution of The United States unless you know it's the common law that it freights into itself. It's nothing but a dry and dispirited skeleton of words or constitution. That's why it's boring. You know, somebody said a classic book. Oh, Mark Twain said a classic book is a book that everybody says you ought to read, but nobody's ever read. Well, the Bible's like that, and it's about as classic as you did. Absolutely. Constitution of The United States are like that. Well, why is it people don't read it? Because it's boring. That's why. Why is it boring? Because they have no sense no sense of what our common law tradition is as it's as it is applied to government.
And you can't have that sense unless you take some time to resupply your psyche about it. The folks that wrote the Constitution of The United States, more importantly, those that ratified it, were awash and swimming in a sea of our common law tradition. That's all they knew and understood. And then also that it made them different than the continent of Europe. What's that, Roger? No. So I'm a I'm amening you, man. Oh, so let's yeah. Take that course. You can also get the winterized translation of the Bible. A common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, 35 about 35,000 footnotes and, over 200 appendices, tracing major themes through the warp and the woof of the text of the context of the Bible. The 35 about 35,000 footnotes explain why I translated this away or that. I call it Twitter raw translation of the Bible because I don't wanna cook the book. I want to deliver it up just the way it was delivered to me in the original tongues, and I try to do that. And it's a raw book, friends. You talk about raw.
Of course, most translations don't reveal that. It would be offensive in some ways, I suppose, but it's it's for your, enjoyment. Join us on Sundays for church at In Church. That's connected to the law school Winter's Inn. You can join us there. Commonlawyer.com. Common lawyer Com.
[00:59:39] Unknown:
Brent. Treasure, Brent. Go ahead, Paul.
[00:59:41] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent, and thank you radiosoapbox.com for being with us for the first hour. If you wanna follow us into the second hour, go to eurofolkradio.com. That's eurofolkradio.com. If you wanna catch us after the second hour, go to globalvoiceradio.net Or just go to the matrixdogs.com, and you'll find the links right there. Ciao.
[01:00:05] Unknown:
Yep. See you next week.
[01:00:07] Unknown:
Back to Roy Moore. I'll pick up the thread for a sprint. Yeah. No. I like,
[01:00:14] Unknown:
Roy, was a graduate, still is graduate of West Point. Oh, I didn't know that. Yep. Graduate of West Point Military Academy, Vietnam vet, a ambitious fellow from no place in South Carolina. He supported the state of Israel, and they tried to destroy his life. He sued him. He sued the Jews that did it to him. Terrible things have happened to him. But here's here's the thing about judgment. I've never heard about that. Well, get on here. Well, what happened was he went to Israel because as a good Baptist, he supported Israel, and he was gonna make a donation of money or something. I don't know what it was.
And they they hated him, of course, because he's so conservative. So they, humiliated him in the interview and accused him. Oh, it was it was sad what happened. That he sued him and got sued him for the rhino and got judgment against him a few million dollars. Yeah. Fantastic. Yeah. Judge Moore is, he's a fascinating person. Well, here's what I was gonna say about him. So I had him on the radio and he was speaking at a local get together at a, a father's I called it a father's conference. I had a friend down here who was a farmer, and he put up a big tent every year. And he'd have a father's conference, and he'd invite speakers in. He invited judge Moore. And so I I was on, radio at that time, Terre Haute, Indiana.
And I said, well, I'll just have, judge Moore come on, interview him so people know he's gonna be down there because he was well known at that time, and they come hear him talk. And so I interviewed him. Well, he was having a hard time at that time, and, he wasn't the happy man he was when I first met him back at that c, Council for National Policy meeting down in South Carolina. And, man, they were they were coming after him, and they got him. And they got him thrown off the the Supreme Court. He was chief judge of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama, and they got him thrown off. Yeah. Sure did. It was terrible what they did to him. They didn't do it on the merits, by the way. It happened as a matter of a process and procedure, and, he and his team of Christian lawyers didn't catch it. He had every Christian lawyer that's famous on the team, you know, but didn't do any good. That's That's the way it often works in law. You know, all the big names and all that. Doesn't mean squat. Just get you a lawyer that's willing to fight, and you never tell you never can tell what'll happen.
But, he didn't have that, and, they threw him off. So that's why he ran for US senate. But I asked him. I got him in, an interview and on and on we went. And I said, I'm gonna ask this Supreme Court justice a simple question. I thought he'd have the right answer, but he didn't. And I I didn't quarrel with him. I had a policy then. I still, well, if if I'm interviewing somebody and there's a they're a guest, I try not to argue with them. I want them to get their point across if they're a guest that way. And and, and then I can skin them 17 ways from Sunday after they get off the air. You know? That's the way I can do that. So what I was so I I asked him this. I said, well, Judge Moore, one more question.
Yeah. So, if push comes to shove and the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling and, and the, the president of The United States says the opposite, who get who gets to have the final word? Who is final? Who is the court of last resort that can force can force their decision by force and threat of force? He said, well, you know what the answer to that is. I said, yeah. I know the answer. He got kinda testy with me. I said, Judge Moore, I know the answer, but people don't care what I say. I'm I brought you on here because people care what you say. And he didn't wanna answer it. And finally, he said, well, you know that it's the Supreme Court has the final word.
I said, well, thank you very much. And, then I went to hear him speak that night in that big tent out in the middle of nowhere, but he's wrong. And, no, no, the Supreme Court, there's nothing in our constitution of The United States that says the Supreme Court is the final court of last resort when it comes to decisions of the federal government. The Supreme Court has no more of the final word than Congress is and no more of the final word than the president and vice versa on both counts. And some of you that have listened have heard me say this forever, but we're a common law country. And that means that the three branches of government, I learned this in high school, never forgot it, are coequal.
What does that mean? That means none of them trumps the other one as a matter of law, unless the other one wants to go along with them. If they wanna go along with them, fine. But remember, none of us take an oath. None of us have taken an oath or none of us bear a duty of obedience and loyalty to the Supreme Court of the United States. Not in the final analysis. No. No. Our duty and loyalty at the oath we take is to what? The supreme law of the land, which is what? Due process, which is what? Our common law tradition, which is what? Our law of the land, which is what? Well, it's it's the government's constitution of The United States.
[01:05:40] Unknown:
Question. Where is is that coming from you, Brent, or is that somebody else good with somebody else? Yeah. I'm quite a bit question. Oh, it's Joe. Joe. Hey, Joe.
[01:05:51] Unknown:
Question. Joe. Go ahead, Joe. Does does the Supreme Court rule, or do they opine?
[01:06:02] Unknown:
They opine, and more than that, they fined.
[01:06:06] Unknown:
Yeah. Repine. With regard to that just a minute. With regard to that, I revert back to Andy Jackson.
[01:06:16] Unknown:
Yeah. And Andy Andy first came to shove, and he did that on more than one occasion. But he understood that the branches of government are coequal. Remember, our constitution of The United States is a brief of common law government. It does not apply to you and me. It applies to government, to limit government. That's that's the principle behind our constitution. And, that being true, when Andy Jackson, for example, or, DJ Trump, and Andy was his one of his heroes by the way, or still is, takes an oath. Yeah. As Andy Jackson said, I do not I did not take my oath to support and defend, the Supreme Court of the United States or the cons I didn't even take a note to to support and defend our constitution of The United States as another man understands it. As the Supreme court understands it. I took an oath to support and defend it as I understand it. And when you stop to consider, of course it would be the height of silliness for anybody to take an oath and say, I swear to support and defend the constitution of The United States as the Supreme court has interpreted it. Now we don't say that. Why? Because we know that, justices and judges are just as just as ignorant and wrong headed as any other man. That's why.
And that's why we go right back to the fountain, right back to the source, right back to our common law tradition, and say that's our loyalty. We're loyal to the law of the land. It all comes back to land. Our loyalty is to land, and the law that God sends to the land that springs from the land, the law of the land, our common law tradition. And now a lot of you are listening, you're and you still don't have it clear in your head what the common law tradition is because nobody ever told you, and I haven't made it clear yet today. But just keep in mind, that's the bottom line, my friends. That's the bottom line. Well, that's what Andy Jackson said, and, that's our duty as well.
We all are individually responsible, to do what the law of the land says, to follow the law of the land, to insist upon the law of the land, regardless of what anybody else says. If in our heart of hearts, we're, we feel we're informed and our conviction tells us, no, this is right. This is right. That's our common law tradition. That's a Christian tradition. That's a Christian point of view. Am I gonna force my point of view about the Bible on anybody that's listening to me? I seriously doubt it. And that's the strength of our great nation. We're the only country in the world that has really taken that seriously. It's every man must decide for himself. Why? Because in the Christian tradition, when you stand before Jesus Christ in the final day, and you will, he is not going to allow you to say, well, my my preacher told me this is the way to do that, or my preacher said this is the way to understand the Bible, Or the pope said, or the priest said, or the guru said, or the Maharaji said, or the or the the president of the Mormon church said, no. No. A thousand times no. Jesus Christ said every jot and every tittle of this book.
Therefore, what you read the book. You decide. You depend upon the illumination of the person of the spirit of God to tell you what it says. And God will say, but what why did you do what you did? And why did you believe? And when Jesus Christ, who is God in the human flesh, by the way, when he says that, he's not gonna let you stand behind some other mere created person or created things such an idol or an image or a saint or an archangel. None of that baloney. No. He's gonna say, but your relationship with me is without mediation. It's between me and you under the open vault of heaven.
Why did you believe the Bible that applied this way? And you know what? Even if you're wrong, but if you're sincere, then that's a good thing. You're better off to be wrong and sincere than you are to hide behind somebody else and let them tell you what it means by what it says. And Andy Jackson said, well, the constitution means, what I have come to conclude it means, not what somebody else has come to conclude it means in this particular application, in this particular case before the court, in this particular case before the court. Remember, the courts only have jurisdiction over the parties in this particular case before the court. They don't have jurisdiction over anybody else. Justice is only done one person at a time. Justice does not occur any other way. In our common law tradition, there is no justice except before the courts, one person at a time, one person at a time, in a specific case, one at a time. That's it. I don't care if it's family law case, a contract case, a tort case. Our common law tradition covers all of equity.
All of equity and all other case yeah. Joe, go ahead.
[01:11:15] Unknown:
Well, why is it that the people are the plaintiff many times before the SCOTUS.
[01:11:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Right. Repeat that, Roger. I didn't know. The people are the plaintiffs. Oh, the people are the plaintiffs. That's fiction. No. That's right. That's a fiction. But remember, the people are the militia. The people are the militia. But my point is, Brent.
[01:11:40] Unknown:
My point is they have completely overreached. This deal is a big fraud.
[01:11:48] Unknown:
No. The well, the it's a fiction. The the if somebody says so and so versus the people of the state of so and so, that's the kind of thing you're talking about. Right? Yes, sir. Right. Yeah. Well, that that is a fiction. Obviously the people of the state don't have a clue what's going on and don't know anything about the case. And the reason we use that fiction, and now this is me opining here. The reason we use that fiction, because in some states, it'll say the state of so and so versus so and so in a criminal case. In other states, the document will say the people of the state of so and so versus so and so in a criminal case and on and on, it goes like that. That's a fiction because who the question is in our common law tradition, who is the sovereign?
How do we denominate the sovereign? What words do we use to say, this is the sovereign? Now it's my personal, humble, studied conviction that the people is the proper thing to say. And the reason I say that, Joe, again, glad you brought it up. Give me a chance to say things I think are important because the people, the militia of our country state by state are the sovereigns, and they are the sovereigns in individual instances of individual cases of individual people, persons, parties before the court at that specific instance. And the the militiamen make up the jury, and they're the ones that deliver the verdict from whose decision there is no appeal, except if the course of the common law was not followed. Of course, as our constitution says article or amendment seven.
So the people, the militia are sovereign. That means that the jury, which is not an elected position, is a randomly chosen group of militiamen. Their decision is final and they have it's arbitrary. They don't have any requirement to give the reasons for their decision and they don't have to answer to anybody. They can say whatever they think is just. They can come back in the teeth of both the facts and the law, if they want. That's power friends. That's ultimate power down here on earth. There is no greater power than to have to have the power to deliver an unappealable decision, not an arbitrary decision from whose decision there is no appeal. And the only greater power, the only greater power is the sovereign creator of all things who has that arbitrary power in the sky, in heaven, and on land.
But for right now, God has delivered this jurisdiction responsibility to the militiamen of the several states of The United States. That's our common law tradition. Our common law tradition and the Bible backs that up, the jury. That's why I think it's better, Joe, that to say the people, because it is the jury that will have the final say in individual instances.
[01:14:53] Unknown:
Final say Somebody instance. Go ahead. There's a little echo there from maybe from from, connections. That get you, Joe? Connection. Did that get you? I got I barely hear if he's there. If he if it didn't, he'll come back in a minute when he gets signal. Anybody else got anything they'd like to bring up? Well, Brent, that's unusual. Well, yes, there's Larry. And then there and anybody else? And then there's Larry. Hey, man.
[01:15:28] Unknown:
Hey. So, Brent, there's this, there's this belief that's being taught, that it shouldn't be we the people. It shouldn't be we the lawyers because when that constitution was being put together, it was a bunch of lawyers that supposedly put it together, a bunch of elitists, and the people had nothing to do with it. What what are your thoughts on that? Have you ever heard of that type of teaching?
[01:15:56] Unknown:
Who is responsible in the cons for the constitution of The United States? Who is ultimately responsible from whose decision there is no appeal? And the and the answer is obvious, the ratifiers. Who are the ratifiers? The militiamen of the several states. That's why the preamble says we the people of The United States. Now that's just patriot mythology, more of it. Yep. And to say that lawyers are responsible, that's just plum silliness. Yeah. Was Jame Madison a lawyer? No. How about Tom Jefferson? Not to my knowledge. Did he ever practice law? Either people say he was a lawyer. Maybe he was, but he never had a law practice that I know about. I don't think James Madison, the chief framer of our constitution, did. But even if they were lawyers, I say, what's the problem with that? I had somebody to say to me, there are about a hundred in of court graduates in The United States at the time our country began in 1776.
And somebody said to me the other day, sent me a thing, said, we should get rid of we should make bar associations illegal. And, of course, my thought is, how are you gonna do that? That would be a destruction, total destruction, of the First Amendment's freedom of association. Yep. Yep. That that's a private a bar association is a private association in every state, and, it'd be impossible under the constitution to get rid of a private association. I mean, you you could say we don't we don't allow lawyers to have an organization or no camaraderie.
Well, that would be a very denial of our common law tradition because it is the ends of court privately established common law education that kept the common law going after the Norman invasion. The government went they were appointing Roman priests to to the judgeships. And the lawyers got their lawyers. Ben got together and said, look. This ain't gonna happen. We can't let Roman priests be judges. We've got to find a way to push them out. And they did it ever so slowly over the centuries, over the centuries. And now we're we have them again, the Jesuit the Jesuit graduate of Jesuit law schools dominate the federal bench pretty much, always have. And not to mention that the Supreme Court of the United States. The danger is the same as it has always been. So what do we do? Well, we start another private association and a private institution. That's why we have the the law school so that people can come and learn our common law. Go to commonlawyer.com.
Take the courses. Don't complain about it so much. But to get rid of lawyers would be to get rid of the common law tradition. That wouldn't work at all. Not even a little. That would be we'd be in a worse state when it was all over. You think I'd be willing to turn the country over to a a bunch of patriots? Not on your life. They're filled with mythology. I've been in this patriot movement for decades. I'm weary. Yep. I'm weary. It's built on mythology. Yeah. It's just mythology and people want to make how many common law gurus do we have out there that don't know beans from sour apple butter about what they're talking about? And the answer is lots. And they've never taken the time. Here's the problem. They've never taken the time to discipline themselves, to learn Mhmm.
About our common law. And it takes discipline. And and if you try and explain it to them, they don't wanna listen. They call you ugly names. It's not exciting enough for them. It's just like, again, preachers. How many preachers do you have that'd be worth listening to that know the Bible? Very few. The they've never gone through the process of discipline to really learn it. And so they have nothing to offer, but danger,
[01:19:28] Unknown:
back to somebody. I think Larry, I'm gonna hold you on that was you. Right? Yeah. It was Samuel. Oh, Samuel. Well, just let me get something in there I wanted to ask Brent. Brent, I don't know. You probably didn't see it. I don't know if any of the, folks in the audience saw it, but it was maybe three weeks ago as this judicial thing was really building. I forget what instance they were simmering over. But Newt Gingrich, your old buddy, Newt the toot Gingrich, came up and gave a wonderful historical background on the judiciary and how it's been dealt with with the presidency. You didn't happen to see that, did you? No. I'm I'm gonna go watch it. I'm glad you told me. Oh, it's it's really good. You know? I mean, he he he does some stuff good. Anyway, what I thought was interesting that I've thought about several times since, you know how Adams and Jefferson were the great rivals until they died on the same day on July.
Right? And so when Adams was going out, he stacked the bench with about 18 different judges against Jefferson. And and and gave us read out all their names. He said, on this day, yada yada yada, he goes through all the names, and that was something that Jefferson had to overcome even all the way back to the beginnings of the constitution in the country.
[01:20:54] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I know. And he also had a bunch of US marshal commissions laying on his desk when he came into the presidency. And then the question came before the Supreme Court once they're signed or on his desk. I forget what the process at what point can he not reverse them? You know? Uh-huh. All those things were happening and it was more heated and more hot and more ugly than it is today. If you can believe it, it was that hot and ugly against people that were against, the power of the federal government and those that were for or more federal power. And that's what was going on there. Yeah. Okay, Samuel. Sorry. I want I just was on my mind. I didn't wanna forget it again. Go ahead.
[01:21:32] Unknown:
Yeah. Most of the law universities in the country are are Jesuit run, and the first one that went to hell in a handbasket was Harvard.
[01:21:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Now you're saying the universities are what? What did you say they were?
[01:21:47] Unknown:
Jesuit run.
[01:21:49] Unknown:
Oh, well, the Harvard universities. Yeah. Harvard Harvard was taken over by the Unitarians in 1811, thereabouts. And it went it had been a Puritan school. See, John Harvard founded it as a Bible college, donated his library. John Harvard was a Puritan minister, and it was dedicated, says so right on its, the archway and sold entrance that dedicated to training men of God to teach the Bible, pretty much what it says, but it fell to the Unitarians. Yale, was, also a Puritan, and they had broken off from Harvard and went and formed Yale because they didn't think that, Harvard was doing it right. And they maintained their fundamentalism.
When I say fundamentalism, I mean, they were hardcore Bible believers. And, the last president of any fame was a man named Dwight. And he was an an inerrantist about the Bible. And that went up to about almost the year 1900 thereabouts. And then Princeton, it was the Presbyterian school, and it continued as a fundamentalist school until almost 1930. And, it matter of fact, the faculty at Princeton invented the word fundamentalism in the 1920s.
[01:23:04] Unknown:
And Wasn't that didn't Woody Wilson come out of Princeton?
[01:23:07] Unknown:
Yeah, he did. He was a Presbyterian and men like Jimmy Stewart, he went to Princeton back in the days when it wasn't over the hill yet. And but after the 1930, it it started going south and they were the inerrantist and the fundamentalist. As I said, they invented the word fundamentalism. And, Princeton had been around. Well, Princeton, the when our country started, the president of Princeton was, he went in right after Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards died. They volunteered to take smallpox and killed him. That ought to be instructional. And he was the second president. And then, the third one was from Scotland, and they talked him into coming. Benjamin Rush, by the way, one of the founders of the American Bible Society and signer of our declaration of '76 or, yeah. And his name he was a medical doctor doctor.
And he, he him and two or three other fellows prevailed upon, Witherspoon, John Witherspoon to come from Scotland. Witherspoon was the chief, the leader of the Scottish enlightenment unofficial leader. And he came here and he's called the educator of our of our founders the framers of our constitution because more of them the people that signed those founding documents went to school to him than any other educator And by the way, he himself signed the declaration of '76, John Witherspoon. But John Witherspoon's idea of reality was, as is in the Scottish enlightenment, the Scottish reformation had established the authority of the Bible above all things. And then the next move was to establish the authority of the laws of nature.
Secondarily, in other words, God revealed himself not only in writing through the Bible, he revealed himself also in his creation and the laws of the natural world and the Scottish enlightenment continued in force. One of the last vestiges of the Scottish enlightenment and all the things that came out of Scotland, This is phenomenal. What came out of Scotland, a poor country with no money, no institutions. They tried to form a few. See, the reason they formed educational institutions in Scotland was because the people in England hated them so much. They were racist, you know, to the hilt. They hated them. They wouldn't let them come to Oxford. So they said, okay, we'll start our own schools. And they did. And they also, they invented the idea of high school. Adult education came out of Scotland. No. Yeah. And I say in the last last, one of the last notable inventions of the Scottish enlightenment, in other words, seeing and giving close attention to the laws of nature is the invention of the television in 1920 in the nineteen twenties that came out of Scotland. And but a lot of things before that, a lot of discoveries. And again, law is meant to be discovered.
A while ago, Joe made the point about opining. Yeah. Does this court do the courts opine? Yes. In our common law tradition, they opine. That means they give their opinion of what they have found Mhmm. Found to be the law. Not what they don't make law. In our common law tradition, we believe the law is ever present as eternal as God himself, because the law is the will of our maker and every application of it. And there never was a time that our maker did not know all things that could be known. Therefore, anything we discover to be true in law, the way things are, we're trying to discover the mind of God. That's that's what the whole idea when the court says these are our findings. These are the findings of the jury.
That's our common law tradition. They don't say that in the rest of the world because they view the state as sovereign and you just do what he says and shut up. Islam's that way, the Jesuits are that way. What is the motto of the Jesuit order? It is this, the ends justifies the means.
[01:27:05] Unknown:
Machiavellian.
[01:27:06] Unknown:
Well, if the ends justify the means, then, it doesn't make any difference what you do to, to get to where you want to go, the outcome you want. You kill, steal, destroy, torture. And that's what the law of the city is. It's just stealing, killing, torture. They'll make the trains run on time, no matter no matter how many throats they have to slit. That's, El Duque. He got it done. Well, if the it justifies the means, there is no law. My friends accept men doing what they want. The junk it was the law of the jungle right there. Yeah. Well, a powerful party. Sure.
[01:27:43] Unknown:
Who was interacting? Is that Larry again? Brett. Brent, I I'm sorry. I I got to off point by mentioning Harvard. But if you even go back to Martin Luther, he was saying, hey. These guys are taking over our universities and our colleges and teaching things that we shouldn't be in in in league with. And the Jesuits run all the law schools in this country, almost all of them. Well, Martin Luther They don't want they don't run Brandeis.
[01:28:12] Unknown:
Martin Luther did not say that the Jesuits have taken over the law schools. The the Jesuits, Rome founded the the universities all over Europe. Didn't say Jesuit. The universities
[01:28:24] Unknown:
are putting a general warning out about bad teachings.
[01:28:28] Unknown:
Well, the but the the the Rome is the inventor and the founder of the university system in all the all the world. Yeah. And the university system was founded to put the code of to to put the code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, at the center of all learning and to supplant the Bible. That was the expressed expressed purpose for the university. So Martin Luther said, actually, he said, he encouraged the electors of Saxony to take on, receive the canon civil laws of the city so that they would have the militaristic power to fight Rome.
See, the common law tradition came from Saxony and the North Of Europe. And, it had prevailed there until the Reformation. And Martin Luther is the one that's responsible for it being done away with in the North Of Europe. And the so that they could fight this fight. You see, the law of the city is a martial kind of a law. At its very foundation, it started as a martial law. And so it's the, you have a commander, it's imperium. And so he encouraged the electors to have that kind of instantaneous obedience to fight Rome, because Rome has that. By the way, to bring up another subject, I was really put off yesterday. I noticed, and I've noticed this for months, every seems like every day, the American flag is flying at half staff, Roger.
[01:29:56] Unknown:
Yeah.
[01:29:57] Unknown:
I'm I'm weary of it. There there are special occasions, I suppose, where that's justified. Well, I went into a hotel, and I said, why in the Sam Hill have you got your flag out here flying at half mast? And the manager of the hotel said, well, that's because the pope died. Well, I said, well, since when do we fly half mast, over some religious leader dying? I mean, when the president of the Southern Baptist Convention dies, is the is the flag gonna go to half mast or the president of the Mormon church or the president of the church of Christ or the Presbyterian church, and the answer is no, then why are we doing it for the pope? Well, isn't that a violation of the first amendment? And the answer is clearly yes. But why is it done? Because the it's done for political reasons to satisfy people. Well, then why don't we do it for the Greek Orthodox church when, the head patriarch kicks the bucket?
Well, because it's not politically expedient. You see how, important politics is to all this, but it is an absolute horrendous hellish travesty that we make a law respecting an establishment of religion and fly the flag at half staff. That's false. Even what, three or four days after the event? Yeah. I can see it next day. Unconstitutional. And then ask the pope to come and speak as Boehner did when he was speaker of the house before the Congress of the United States. I mean, how blatantly, obviously, unconstitutional can you get? But they do it. This is the thing that we're not screaming about. We should be screaming to high heaven, and it's gonna continue if the people, the militia, don't have a different point of view. That's why I'm Same thing about when
[01:31:34] Unknown:
Netanyahu gets up there in front of the congress and gets, what, 57 standing ovations or something?
[01:31:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Now that's not as bad. Well, it's getting close, though. It's dangerous. It's dangerous to have other people come in like that because you begin to play favorites. But when it comes to religion, especially Yeah. How wrong can you get?
[01:31:57] Unknown:
Well, I mean, somebody's breathing. Somebody's breathing. How is it, Mike? How is it? Well, okay. Okay, Larry. Just hold on. Let Brett finish. Something. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Go ahead. Larry, who who's You want me to know the mic? You want Larry? I I don't know. Whoever was just breathing into the mic, chomping at the bit, say something. Some Larry, who is who is wanting to say something?
[01:32:28] Unknown:
Well, I'd I wanna say something. Okay. Go ahead. I don't know if you're referring to someone else.
[01:32:35] Unknown:
I don't know either. Yeah.
[01:32:38] Unknown:
I'm glad Samuel's, here because you had already gone off the show last week, and I'm not trying to rehash anything. But Samuel and and, Brent spent, like, thirty minutes going back and forth over the the the Erie Railroad versus Tompkins case, and there is a disagreement amongst them. And I was wondering if Samuel could in a very because I I'm I kinda got lost in in all the information. At the first of the show when we discussed this? Yeah. I listened to the whole show, but I was I wanted to hear this. Today.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
Today. Earlier in the first hour, we covered this already. Were you were you not did you not hear that? Yeah. Yeah.
[01:33:23] Unknown:
Yeah. But, I don't think you went over the disagreement with Samuel.
[01:33:27] Unknown:
Well, no. Well, you did too. But, anyway, alright. Hash it up. Bring it up again. I don't care.
[01:33:36] Unknown:
Yeah. So I was wondering if Samuel could, make make a concise statement of what his disagreement was with Brent.
[01:33:50] Unknown:
Okay. Well, like, main main issue I have with and and a lot of this is coming from Libros. And if if, to give, Brent a a proper opportunity to respond. He should really read that piece. Just not really that long because it'll give him a little better idea of where I'm coming from because it's relatively complex, but my whole point is the jurisdiction during that case had changed, and a lot of it had changed because of the fourteenth amendment and no gold and a few other things. But the commerce in this country and jurisdiction of this country, diversity in, What are you talking about here?
You're talking about a guy, Tompkins, who was a fourteenth amendment citizen. And if you don't take that into consideration, you really aren't getting the point of what Rose does. Unless he had not been overturned for over fifteen
[01:34:52] Unknown:
years ahead. So you don't know he was, and we don't know those circumstances. And
[01:35:01] Unknown:
I Number one, as I've said before, Tompkins wasn't a fourteenth amendment citizen. Nobody is a fourteenth amendment citizen. All the fourteenth amendment citizens are dead. They're gone. The freed slaves, they're gone. And to say that otherwise, just silliness. I don't care what the government says. I don't care what the courts say. I don't care what anybody said. That's silliness. And number two, Tompkin, never raised that issue. And, of course, wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you'd have raised it. And if you take the fourteenth Amendment out of the mix, you still get the same result. Because it wasn't about the fourteenth Amendment. It was about the, federal courts submitting, submitting to the court decisions of the states.
That's what it's about. And that's what it did. And again, I don't see how anybody could argue with that. Any patriot, returning power It was about the the state government. That's what
[01:35:54] Unknown:
Wasn't it about diversity, the different jurisdictions?
[01:35:59] Unknown:
How can you not put the fourteenth amendment in there? Change all the jurisdictions. Why why would you what on the basis of what would you even say such a thing? Listen, if I live in Pennsylvania and the railroads incorporated in New Jersey, you got diversity. That's it. You don't need all this citizenship baloney. Home is home.
[01:36:18] Unknown:
Home is domicile. And if you're, if you, if you, if you Larry,
[01:36:26] Unknown:
thanks for bring Larry, thanks for bringing this up. Okay? Everybody else stops. That's the rule here, and the same thing when Roger talks. But, that's the only way we can maintain order. But if I put my head on my pillar in Pennsylvania, oh, that's my home. And you can talk citizenship, now the cows come home and how to define it, and it won't make any difference because the courts aren't gonna pay any attention. And you go into federal court, they don't care about all that. They just wanna know where home is. And home is defined as domicile.
That gets kind of fancy, but what it comes down to, home is that place from which you have once departed. You are a stranger until you return. It's that place you always go back to. Yep. Home is home. And so that's what it was all about. He lived in Pennsylvania, and the other party lived in, had their or their court incorporation, their domicile in, New York. The fourteenth amendment didn't figure into it. Nobody mentioned citizenship except and as a fancy word to use in diversity jurisdiction. They don't think about that. The courts don't think about it. The lawyers don't think about it. They don't care. They just wanna know where you lay your head at night and where you intend to come back to. That's home. And that's what brings diversity jurisdiction. Back to you.
[01:37:42] Unknown:
Is anybody else, a question? Any questions or Brent, my, my my permanent address is my body.
[01:37:50] Unknown:
Well, whatever you want, and you tell the court that, and they're gonna make a decision on wherever home is and whatever they decide is your home. And there are different tests to tell you.
[01:37:59] Unknown:
Yeah. They're gonna do that according to the fourteenth amendment.
[01:38:03] Unknown:
No, they don't. No, they don't. I can just give you my personal testimony and you're calling me a liar. That's what you're doing. I go into court for years. I go into court for years. I listen to what the judges say. I know the standard they use. I make arguments on the basis of that. And then, and then I, then somebody comes along and said, no, no, the fourteenth amendment. No, it doesn't. That's fantasy. That's Patriot mythology. People don't understand what you're talking about, even if you mentioned it to us. That's for sure. It just comes down to where your home is. Law is not that complicated. Law is not written for lawyers, But it's amazing to me that the people that aren't lawyers wanna try to be lawyers and talk fancy and use all the fancy stuff and bring in all the complicated stuff. And lawyers usually, lawyers and judges say, I don't care. I'm tired. All that all that detail and all that minutia. If there are people that have practiced law very long, they pretty soon, I hope, get tired of the chicken manure. And that's what that is. Nobody cares. No. Because we're down to reality.
Reality. Not the fancy word citizenship, not even the fancy word domicile. We're just down to where's your home. You know? Through kingdoms and palaces, though we may roam, be it ever so humble, there's no place like home. That guy in Pennsylvania may go to New York City, but he wants to get out of there and go back home. That's the end of it. Domiciled in two different states. That's how you decide for diversity jurisdiction. And the other thing about Erie is it just a narrow, narrow, narrow set of cases that are diversity cases. And there aren't very many of those that come up, frankly. So whatever ruling applied in Erie
[01:39:46] Unknown:
just applied Both. A very few cases. Go ahead. And you could see why that would beat federal jurisdiction because you couldn't go to to either state in dispute.
[01:39:55] Unknown:
They'd have a court advantage over the other one. Yes. But you can do it if people submit to it, but most people don't want because, yeah, you're if you're from, Nevada and you're suing somebody in California and you go to court in Nevada, the guy in California is not on his home court, and the courts there aren't gonna care about him. Yeah. That's why we do that. Yeah. It's that simple.
[01:40:16] Unknown:
Paul, you were trying to get something in a second ago. Yeah. Question.
[01:40:21] Unknown:
So what, do what law do does the federal court use? Does it use the court or the law of the state of the plaintiff or the respondent?
[01:40:37] Unknown:
That's an important question, and that that's there's a whole body of law in America that deals with what's called, choice of law, conflict of law. A whole volume's written on it, but there's tests we use to say you use this law or that law in, in any given situation. So that's a whole body of law too. But in in either case, the important thing about area is, the federal courts will use the law of a state. One of the two. One of the two states or one of the three states, however many states are involved, and they have test, to determine what law will prevail.
Choice of law, it's called.
[01:41:18] Unknown:
So okay. So instead of bringing a case against somebody in New Jersey in a court in Pennsylvania, you bring the case against the person in New Jersey in a federal court, and the federal court decides which state's law to apply to the case.
[01:41:37] Unknown:
Yes. Now in the case of, Erie Tom Tomkin versus Erie Railroad, it was a matter of, in that case, he wanted it in New York. He was from Pennsylvania, but he wanted New York law to apply. He didn't want Pennsylvania law to apply because Pennsylvania law, he wouldn't have gotten anything. And as the case turned out, he didn't because Pennsylvania law said if you're on a railroad right of way, you're a trespasser, which stands to reason. It's not your property. But they but they say, you well, if you wanna walk along the right of way, you can do that. But just understand, if you get injured, we're not liable. The railroad's not liable. No liability. Yeah. And that that's good law. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
But there there are other cases in other states where it's a little bit different, and it changes. And so that's, see, well, here's what's going on, for example, with president Trump. And the same thing happens in diversity cases. It's called judge shopping or forum shopping where you say, well, where am I gonna do this? I wanna do it where I have the best chance, case in point, applied to, Congress. Newt Gingrich is not from Georgia. He he was congressman there for years. He didn't know anything about Georgia. He set up when he ran for Congress, he set up, a bunch of guys to study the states and find out where he could go to run, where he stood the best chance of getting elected.
And they came up with Georgia Cobb County area, and so that's what he did. Kennesaw State College. Yeah. Where do you stand the best chance? Yeah. I didn't know about that. Kennesaw, Georgia, where everybody's required to have a gun. Yeah. Question. Okay. Well and then Hillary Clinton, well, she wasn't from New York. Didn't know anything about New York. Why did she go to New York? She's from Chicago, I think. So she went to New York and ran for US Senate because they did a study and she had the money to do it. And they discovered that's where she stood the best chance to get elected. Will people go into, the people that hate Trump or they're going around the federal judges all over the country trying to find a case they can put with a certain judge they know will rule in their favor and issue one of those national injunctions? Yeah. Well, is that justice, friends? No. No. No. Lawfare.
Yeah. That's that's just playing the gaming the system as the courts say. Gaming the system. And it's not right to do that. And Paul wants to make a comment. He's dying. He's chomping. Go ahead. I wanna make another question.
[01:44:01] Unknown:
God gave man dominion over the earth. What law are they applying? My guess is that it's the law of the city, statutory law. It's not common law because under common law, a man has a right to be wherever he wants to be as long as he does no harm, as long as he's he he doesn't pose an injury or a threat.
[01:44:29] Unknown:
Well, that see, there's more there that's there's more patriot mythology. It that's not in our common law anywhere that, you aren't culpable if you cause no harm to another another person. In both cases, that's true, but not in every case. It depends upon the circumstances. There are a lot of wrongs you can commit without hurting anybody. And our common law passing?
[01:44:51] Unknown:
What? Is trespassing, a crime you can commit under common law? That that should be It
[01:44:58] Unknown:
is and always has been. A trespass is trespass. You stay out of my house and off of my property. I don't care whether you could did harm or not. I don't want you here. That's my property. That's our common law tradition. That's the foundation of our common law tradition. You come onto my property inadvertently, you're still a trespasser without even knowing it, and it's actionable. Or you come onto my property and I tell you to get off and you don't, that's criminal trespass. You could be saying, I'm not hurting anything. I don't care. Get off of my property. It's my property. You're not allowed to trespass. That's our common law tradition. Burglary is the same way. Burglary is not going into somebody's home and stealing something or doing harm of any kind. Burglary is define our common law has always defined it as breaking and entering. Period. Once you do that, you can leave and not commit any harm or hurt anybody or damage any property. You're guilty of crime, and you may go to prison.
[01:45:55] Unknown:
That's our common law. Causing damage?
[01:45:58] Unknown:
What?
[01:45:59] Unknown:
Breaking and entering is still causing damage. No. No. It isn't. No.
[01:46:04] Unknown:
No. No. It isn't. No. If I see a door, a jar, and all and I can't even see any light coming through the crack, and I just push it open and step inside, I'm guilty of burglary. If I had intent to steal something when I went in, I didn't you don't have to steal anything. You go in and then leave. And that's, that's, that's a criminal act. Always has been. Why? Because land and that's what real estate is, developed land. Land is synchrosynced, and everybody owns whatever land there is. Somebody somebody owns every piece of land in the in in our common law tradition. And I have the right to defend it against the whole world at common law. And that's what our common law says. And by the way, another piece of patriot mythology.
The statutes aren't common law. Well, every state legislature has a duty to pass statutes that are compliant, consonant, and consistent with our common law. And if they do, well, though, that's the common law too. Everything we say and everything we do. Nothing as William Blackstone says, nothing that is askew or contrary to the Bible is part of our common law tradition, and nothing in our common law tradition nothing in our common law tradition is contrary to the laws of nature. And if anything is said to be a part of our common law tradition that is contrary to the Bible or the laws of nature, Well, we've made a mistake, and we need to correct it. And we have provisions in our common law tradition to do that. But don't say friends, neighbors, and kin, you're gonna have a hard row to row, hard row to hoe, if you tell people, patriots, oh, well, if, you don't have to commit harm or damage to be, culpable at common law, they're not gonna believe you because they've heard it so often. It's hogwash.
And it's a distraction that people get off on and it makes them less effective and they scream and holler about that. And that's not the law. Now, of course, Paul, I'm not criticizing you or anybody else that says that because that's No. I have another question. And it's not true. What's that? Go ahead. No. I have another question.
[01:48:13] Unknown:
Well, actually, I had it a moment ago, and it just flew out. I'll get it back.
[01:48:18] Unknown:
While you're while you're getting it back, let me ask Brent one. Your book, comparing the two bodies of law, you say, is almost a thousand pages. How long do you anticipate how it's gonna take you to cover that on your, on the series?
[01:48:35] Unknown:
Six to twelve weeks.
[01:48:37] Unknown:
Yeah. About twelve to fifteen weeks. There are fundamentals, and I'm gonna go over the fundamentals. You know, with everything, there are just fundamentals. That's why the faculty at Princeton University said there are fundamentals of the Christian faith, and they invented that word. Why? Because the fundus, that's a Latin word that means foundation. All we need to look at is the foundation. Once you've got the foundation, then any structure you build on it, even if it's not exactly like mine, it's gonna be solid. You see? As a foundation is what's important. Yep. And you all know the parable of the man that built upon sand and the, and the man that built upon the solid rock. And Jesus Christ tells that parable about the two parable about the two men. One built his house upon a rock. Another built his house upon the sand, and everything was same so far except the house and the sand. And then this rains came, and the wind came, and the storm came, and the house that was built upon the sand got knocked flatter than the flitter. And the house that was built upon the rock did not fall down.
[01:49:37] Unknown:
And those
[01:49:39] Unknown:
Those two houses are analogous by the terms of that parable to a man's life. You build your life upon sand, it's gonna no matter how much you put into it, you're gonna get to the top of the structure, climbing the ladder of life as, we're talking about, Pistol Pete Maravich. Yes. Pistol Pete Maravich, he found out, and he got and he said this pretty much same way I'm gonna say it. He said, I climbed the ladder of life, and I got to the top of the ladder and found out it was leaning against the wrong building. Yeah. Well, that's what happens when people build their houses on sand. They build it all up, and it's it's a beautiful sand castle. It's beautiful. And then the inundating tides of reality just wash away the sea. That happens year after year, day after day. And Jesus Christ said, no. You don't have to do that. You whatever you build can last, but you gotta have the funness. So when we talk about the funness, the foundation, that's what we're gonna talk about in this course coming up.
And I'll we're gonna try to get it up on the website, and you can sign up for it. But once you have the foundation, then you got something to build on. You got something you can understand it with. Mhmm. If you approach our common law tradition with all the wrong premises, all the wrong foundation, all the wrong mythology, you're not gonna understand the common law tradition at all. You're not gonna be able to use it at all. It'll just be empty distraction of foolishness. And that's sheriff Darr will be a real big, help in that one. What's that? Sheriff Darr will be a real big assist. I'll always look forward to sheriff thing. Yeah. He teaches classes with me and sheriff Darr of Barry County, Michigan. And that puts the rubber to the road in a lot of ways. He's had over twenty years of experience as sheriff, and you just see a lot of things. And it's a very personal upfront job. It's a very it's a political job, but it's a it's a necessary job. It's a common law office.
He's got a lot to offer. Yeah. That's right. And he does. He he comes across everything, and most of what he does pertains to what we're talking about. So, again, all of you that have said these things, and I I say again, if it weren't for you saying these things that wouldn't come up, we wouldn't talk about them. And if I try to say, well, no. That's not it. This is it. This is Patriot Mythology. You're integral in this discussion because you're the one bringing them up, and that's important to all of us. I got my question. What
[01:52:05] Unknown:
it came back to me. I got I I got my question. It came back to me. The state legislatures, they swear an oath to defend and uphold the constitution of The United States and the constitution of the state of, let's say, Pennsylvania. Now was that pre incorporation doctrine or post incorporation? Because not all of the constitution was brought forward post incorporation. Yeah. Well, you're talking about incorporation through the fourteenth. Is that what you're talking about? Well, yeah. It it does seem to kind of I can see where Samuel's coming from. I don't exactly know how we can get there, but I can see a link between the law of the city, post incorporation, the fourteenth amendment, and the status of the citizen in general, and the authority of the state.
[01:53:04] Unknown:
Yes. And that that what you say about it, though, right now, Paul, re referenced to incorporation, Oh, that doesn't have anything to do with diversity jurisdiction. That only has to do with incorporating the the, the enjoyment of the bill of rights to the state government. Fully incorporate them. They didn't incorporate all of them. So the what it is, I'd come back to the simplicity of it. The fourteenth amendment is contrary to the fundamentals of our constitution of The United States. Therefore, it's created nothing but confusion, And there's no consistency to it. And if you think you're gonna try to understand it, you're not. Nobody does. People come up with insane doctrines. I'm talking about Supreme Court justices trying to hammer this stuff out, and they're all they're doing is confusing things worse. That's all they're doing. The fourteenth amendment doesn't fit.
And it it's like the amendment that says, there shall be no slavery or no slave trade in The United States. That's thirteenth. No. That's the thirteenth. Yes. Should there be slave trade in The United States? No. Should there be, slavery in The United States? No. But the constitution of The United States is not the place to well, they did it wrong. They could have put an amendment in that says we repealed all of the amendments that refer that, imply that we allow slavery in The United States. They could have done that. Each of the states were gonna do that anyway. Once you put things in the constitution that limit the private sector outside of government, that's contrary to the whole document.
And I realize there are a lot of injustices that go on, in in the world, but our constitution of The United States is not the place to address those injustices. That's like saying, there will be no abortion. People wanna pass an amendment saying there are no abortion in The United States. Well, the constitution of The United States is not the place to address that. No. And so the Supreme Court recently said, no. The states are to address that. Right. Reform this back to the states. Yep. Abortion is murder. Over abortion
[01:55:13] Unknown:
at the general government in Washington, DC. Well, it depend by what standard you look at it, Paul.
[01:55:19] Unknown:
But abortion abortion is murder. They just call it something different so it doesn't sound like murder. Like I said, a different standard. But the general government in Washington DC has no jurisdiction over murder. That's the whole point. That's a matter of state law. Says state law. Yeah. That's state law. And I know that congress has passed passed, statutes about murder. And
[01:55:42] Unknown:
and the whole our our v Wade thing was based on a lie because whatever her name was that brought the suit admitted she lied in the affidavit.
[01:55:52] Unknown:
Now we yes. That's true too. We have to be careful, though. Of course, if a murder occurs on a military installation or in a federal courthouse, congress or in Washington, DC, Congress have jurisdiction over that. They will. Yeah. Our constitution says that. Yeah. But they don't have jurisdiction, again, like a nationwide injunction, same idea. They don't have jurisdiction to say any anybody that shoots a US marshal anywhere in The United States, that's murder. No. No. The state the state governments can control that, and they can define what's murder in their state. And they've done that. And if you shoot a US marshal in the state of South Dakota, there there are statutes in South Dakota that cover that. Murder's against the law. It has always been been against the law. Is there any difference between shooting a US marshal and shooting my alcoholic cousin? If I had one, I may. I don't know. But is he any less is it his is his life any less value than a US marshal? Well, Congress says that US marshal life is more valuable.
[01:56:49] Unknown:
See, that's what Reminiscent of Gordon Call?
[01:56:53] Unknown:
Yeah. Gordon Call is another good example. Is his life that he lived in the US marshal? Yeah.
[01:56:59] Unknown:
I have I I have one other follow-up on on a portion. Basically, if, a baby is aborted, particularly one that has a heartbeat So at the point that it has a heartbeat, it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually surviving if it's born early. If that baby is aborted, that baby will not be born. That baby will not become a fourteenth amendment citizen and not become a person with the US government has a property right in. That injures the federal government. So in the federal government's instant interest, it should be able to outlaw countrywide murder in the form of abortion.
[01:57:48] Unknown:
No. Don't believe so, and I'll tell you why. Murder, again, it comes back to murder is, a subject of state law. Our constitution in The United States does not address torts, contracts, murder, burglary, all the common law crimes we have, grand theft auto. Our constitution is just there to limit those that work as as employees of the general government of Washington DC Mhmm. And as officeholders. It limits them. It doesn't limit me. And to put anything in the constitution that professed to limit me or you is puts the constitution on its head, creates confusion for the whole document that will not be remedied. It can't be. And then it will become useless. And then people will begin to forget about it. And that's what's happening because the general government has gone beyond this jurisdiction.
And, abortion, we haven't even decided in America what constitutes life. Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this instead? Why don't we just do what the Bible says? The Bible addresses all these things about what to do with a man who causes a premature birth. It's all in there. It's all in there. And it's not what the conservatives are saying, and it's not what the left wing lack wackos are saying. No. It's what the Bible says. It's what God says. It's all there. As as, Van Till said, the Bible speaks to all of life. There's nothing there it doesn't address in first principle.
Why don't we go look? Why do we argue over things when the Bible, as, Blackstone points out, the Bible has set the limits and the boundaries of all of it. But we're not doing that. This is Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com. I'm here with Roger Sales, of Radio Ranch. Common lawyer dot com. Roger
[01:59:43] Unknown:
At Radio Ranch fame and fortune, and we're glad to have Brent every Friday, I'm gonna tell you. I have said it a number of times. It's hard. It's difficult. It's virtually impossible to do a bad show with Brent alongside us. So, always a pleasure, Brent. We appreciate, all you bring us. And, I bet this new series is very interesting to me. So we'll be back. You'll be over on your Saturday perch, and I'll be back here tomorrow on our Saturday perch, and we'll cover that. And then, of course, as Brent alluded to earlier, if you don't have a church home on Sundays, his Sunday, Patriot Zobox appearance is, something you might wanna check-in on.
So, otherwise, in that, Brent, have a fabulous week. And, when are you gonna start this new series, by the way? I don't know yet. I've gotta ask those in charge. Okay. You're still looking for date. Alright. We know what's coming. Otherwise, in that, we're gonna see you shortly, and, hope all is well between now and then. We'll see what happens the rest of this Friday. So, sure hope you got something out of today's program. We appreciate you being there and taking your valuable time and spending it with us. So, maybe we'll see you again real soon.
[02:01:04] Unknown:
So that's about it, Paul. And thank you all. Did have a follow-up if if you guys have a minute now that we're off the air or kind of off half the air. Samuel, did you have a follow-up question? I
[02:01:17] Unknown:
yeah. I just had two points. Again, Roe versus Wade, it was totally dominated by the opposition, you know, by the fourteenth amendment. Had to be born. They have civil rights, not god given rights. Case of Erie Railroad, it just so happened, you know, that was a really a nothing case that the supreme courts wanted to take because it wanted to overturn ninety years of law, and it was spearheaded by Brandeis. That was his little baby.
[02:01:57] Unknown:
That's it. And I I remind you again that all of the conservative justices, even the dissent that hated Roosevelt and his New Deal, they voted to overturn Swift versus Tyson and throw the power back to the local states.
[02:02:18] Unknown:
There you go.
[02:02:20] Unknown:
Alright. Quick. Anybody? Hey, Roger. Roger?
[02:02:25] Unknown:
Waheed. Yes, sir.
[02:02:28] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:02:29] Unknown:
I don't mean to go off topic.
[02:02:32] Unknown:
No. No. You you do. You do mean to go off topic because you always do go off topic. Yes. You do.
[02:02:41] Unknown:
Sorry about this, but, do you think gold would be at 4,000 before before July, July?
[02:02:50] Unknown:
I don't know. Think he's got a crystal ball? Save certainly before the end of the year.
[02:02:58] Unknown:
What do you think he's got a crystal ball? This way, Waiheep. Even though the largest Brent, you may not know this. China has found the largest deposit of gold even over the South Africans, and the whole thing totally is valued at 85,000,000,000. We we we gave Ukraine Three Hundred And Eighty Something Billion. So that that's just came out this week, by the way. Outside of, you know, what the metallurgist dream was, why,
[02:03:31] Unknown:
you know, couple hundred years ago? You're talking you're talking about the alchemist?
[02:03:36] Unknown:
Yes. They turn they tried to turn lead into gold. Outside of them being successful, I don't I don't see the price of gold going down anytime soon.
[02:03:50] Unknown:
And and what what is your take what what is your take on silver? I own a lot of silver.
[02:03:54] Unknown:
Well, it depends on how old you are and what your goals are. But if you're really looking for upside, that's the bet the way to go. But, if you're like me, old, no children, no heirs, no nothing, I I'm not interested in upside. You know, it's like Will Rogers used to say, I'm not interested on the return, on my money. I'm interested in the return of my money.
[02:04:20] Unknown:
Yeah. There you go. Actually, it should be possible to turn lead into gold because it's only separated by one atomic number.
[02:04:31] Unknown:
One little silly number.
[02:04:33] Unknown:
One little silly electron Yep. Is the difference between lead and gold. It should be possible, and they probably know how to do it. They're just not sharing that information with us.
[02:04:46] Unknown:
I I wanna repeat again. I'd suggest some of you if you go back and check out that third hour with Harrison yesterday, and, this guy's got this is something big. It involves some of the real big players. They're so slimy. And this one little thing appears to have also, judge Bromberg was mentioned in that cadre of people he named. Worth listening to and understanding. I'm probably gonna go listen to it again. For sure, I'm gonna send it to Mark. So, anyway, that's one thing I wanted to add. Anybody got any questions or comments? This is kind of a quiet bunch today, Paul. What do you think?
[02:05:28] Unknown:
Hey, Roger. What's that Harrison who? What show? Harrison Smith
[02:05:33] Unknown:
over the morning man on Infowars.
[02:05:36] Unknown:
Oh, okay.
[02:05:38] Unknown:
And and, yes, worth listening to. It's very interesting. This guy is not even an attorney, and he states it a number of times. And he caught judge Bromberg. Here's we find let me see if I can restructure some of it. They're using NGOs as five zero one c threes and going after and sue in court stuff, and they can't do political activity. They've gotta be a five zero four c something or whatever. But he go he went and did a lot of research into these kind of details, and, man, they've got them. He even he even got judge Bromberg. He went in and tried to do an amicus curie brief, Brent, and on this, case.
And you have to ask permission if you're not part of the case, I guess. And so they they, they gave him permission, and then he submitted it, and they wouldn't enter it. And, ended up the judge made some kind of a reference on the record relating to the affidavit he was trying to do in him, which allowed him to bring it back into play. And and he just didn't realize there's a couple other things that happened and the some decisions were made before he realized the impact he coulda had if he'd gotten in there and forced them to listen, because they basically had to accept it. Anyway, it's there are a lot of detail there, but it's very interesting. And he somebody's on the, on the chase for another real powerful thread in this, makeup and underwoven New Year deep state stuff, how it interconnected, and how it might can all be brought down in the world's biggest Rico suit.
Anyway, that's about what I know. If you're interested, go watch it. And, otherwise, if nobody's got any questions or comments, I know Brent's traveling. So, I'll I got I wanna go eat some lunch today. Sun's come out. So, otherwise, if you got nothing, we're gonna go and bid you adieu and see you tomorrow.
[02:07:48] Unknown:
I, I, I got my lunch during the show, and I think my bacon was a little bit old. I was feeling weird. If that ever happens to anybody, I did an ounce of of 10 part per million colloidal silver, and my stomach has apparently settled down. So keep that in your quiver.
[02:08:07] Unknown:
Alright. So, anybody else? Brent, safe travels, buddy. And, we'll see you next week. Thank you, Roger. Look forward to it. Do you want me to do you want me to drop you this Harrison Smith thing I'm talking about? Please. If you got oh, okay. If you got time, I think you'll find it most interesting. Okay? Thank you, Roger. Alright, pal. I'll see you next week. Okay, you ultra folks. Tomorrow's the day. Ten o'clock. Central's the time. See you then. See you then. And for the Sabado edition this is the radio. Yeah. For the Sabado edition, we gotta get together and get my Skype thing straightened out here before we get dead lined up. Okay?
[02:08:52] Unknown:
Okay. Will do. If you would. Alright. Okay, man. Alright. Thank you. Thanks. See you soon. Yeah. Thank you, Josh. Thanks for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters, the Friday edition on eurofolkradio.com, radio soapbox Com, and radio.globalvoiceradio.net. For more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixstocks.com and where you will find the links to Eurofolks, links to Global Voice. You will also find the links for free conference calls so you can join us live on the show. There's a new student section with, lots of great interviews, headlined by Jean Schroeder's presentation on the War and Emergency Powers Act.
Everybody needs to watch that at least a few times. You'll also find links for excellence of the common law. The that that was a book that was headlined today, and the threat of discussions as it were. Catch us tomorrow for the Sabado edition. That will be 10AM to noon central, eleven AM to 1PM eastern. I'm Paul from Global Voice Network. Thanks so much for being here. Ciao.
[02:10:08] Unknown:
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[02:10:14] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymyboost.com for support of the mitochondria like never before. A body trying to function with sluggish mitochondria is kinda like running an engine that's low on oil. It's not gonna work very well. It's also brought to you by 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.
[00:01:46] Unknown:
Yes. As would we, and we'll take just another little try at it. We'll swing the bat again here today on the twenty fifth. It's a Friday. And, of course, that means, cohost Brent Winters will if he hadn't shown up, he ought to be here directly. That's a good old southern turn directly. Roger Sales and Brent Winters, your cohost on the Radio Ranch on the April 25, Friday. And, Friday, we are let's see. You know, it changes every day, these folks that help and assist us. And so I don't can't keep up with it. So we turn it over to mister Beaner, and he comes out. Maybe the first words he's uttered this morning comes out and gives these folks proper credit and recognition for the assistance that they're giving us and you and our whole project here. Don't you, Paul?
[00:02:41] Unknown:
Yes. I do.
[00:02:43] Unknown:
Hey. I was looking for I was looking for the right button. Uh-huh. You know what? This morning, I was, this morning, I was, I was thinking about buttons, and, I have 15 of them to press and twenty seconds to press them during the intro. Yeah. And I just got, curious as to actually how many buttons I have. And just a one application to manage this show, there are 226 buttons and controls.
[00:03:13] Unknown:
Yeah. Let's see. You get through those in ten seconds.
[00:03:16] Unknown:
No. That ain't happening. Anyways, good morning. It is Friday, with the Radio Ranch with Roger Seals and Brent Winters Brent Allen Winters. We are on radiosoapbox.com this morning for the first hour, and we're also on eurofolkradio.com. Thanks to pastor Eli James. We're on Global Voice Radio Network, radio dot global voice radio dot net. One thing I didn't mention, we're on Radio Soapbox for the first hour. We're on Euro Folk Radio for the two hours from eleven to one eastern, and we're on Global Voice Network from eleven to whenever Roger leaves for lunch.
[00:04:05] Unknown:
Yes. Our our website hang around after that.
[00:04:08] Unknown:
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We do. Our website is thematrixstocks.com where you will find links to Eurofolk Radio, Global Voice Radio, and, free conference call so you can join us live on the show.
[00:04:23] Unknown:
Yes, thanks. Alright. You're welcome. Help. Thank you. Pod Home. Was giving me a hiccup yesterday.
[00:04:32] Unknown:
It was. We we weren't actually live on Pod Home. We were live on Pod Home, but it wasn't recording the stream. I had to upload an offline recording. So there was a little bit of a delay between the end of the show and the archive actually being live and AI processed and stuff. But, it appears that all things are working this morning.
[00:04:58] Unknown:
Okay. Well, we'll take the short answer on that. I think didn't I see mister Winters park his horse outside?
[00:05:05] Unknown:
Yes. He did.
[00:05:07] Unknown:
Alright. There he is. Morning, Brentster. How are you doing, buddy?
[00:05:11] Unknown:
Morning, Roger. I'm doing good. I've already been to the dentist already this morning. Oh my goodness gracious. What a way to start your day. Well, it was no big deal. It just, cap fell off my tooth. Uh-huh. It was made of gold, and I saved it. Yeah. Good. Yeah. I got talking to the dentist. I said, are these gold caps getting more expensive? He said, yeah. You know? Double the price. Yeah. Double. I'm glad I saved the one I had, didn't swallow it or something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that but, you know, we got talking about the advantages of having gold in your mouth, and there are a lot of advantages.
One of them is it kills harmful bacteria.
[00:05:55] Unknown:
No. I I don't think I knew that, but that's very interesting.
[00:05:59] Unknown:
Well, it's like copper. You know, that's why Yep. Right. Right. People talk about copper doorknobs. Well, copper doorknobs were for a reason for brass. Brass go on. Mhmm. And that was because it killed bacteria. Copper kettles, same thing. Copper piping with our used to have it with our hot water heaters.
[00:06:18] Unknown:
What was it? Restaurants, if a state if if a restaurant puts in a copper covering over the tables, they don't have to adhere to the state sanitation,
[00:06:27] Unknown:
regulations, I think. Yeah. That well, I know that was true in California. Uh-huh. In other words, you don't have to buy the expensive disinfectant that they make you buy to wash the tables with. You have a copper, covering on the top of the tables or the counters. Yeah. And that's something. That's how powerful it is. Yeah. Yeah. I know you know that because you used to sell it.
[00:06:49] Unknown:
You used to sell it. I sell silver. It wasn't silver silver. It was a derivative of a doctor, an orthopedic surgeon. It's still I I think I'm pretty sure Bart's still with us, doctor Bart Flick. And, he he was a his, medical advisor in high school, I believe was up in Vermont, was a guy named, oh, doctor, oh, the guy that wrote the Body Electric. I can't his name escapes me right now. He's still they've still got a cult following on that. Doctor Robert Becker is his name. And, he saw Becker do this experiment with a buddy of his who was all an inventor who had invented a little micro generator.
And and Becker had been messing with this silver plated cloth, 99% pure silver. And, they had a Vietnam Vet. And Flick was a student when he witnessed this, participated in it. And, the guy had stepped on a landmine in Vietnam, and I'd he had had, like, 11 or 12 or more previous operations. I saw a X-ray of his lower leg Uh-huh. And it just I feel it looks like Rosie the Riveter had been gone through there with with two rivet guns. You know? Oh. I mean, he had he had all kinds of metal all through his leg. Well, this was last ditch. And if they couldn't save that bottom leg, they're gonna amputate it. And so they had this micro generator Uh-huh. That the guy was trying to patent and invent, and they wrapped the wound, wherever they did with cloth. And then they attached this generator to it to drive the silver ions off of it. Well, Flick watching that, they saved the guy's leg, by the way.
Flick watching that said, you know, I'll bet that cloth will work without that micro generator. And so after he graduated, he set up a practice down in Opelousas, Louisiana. He's an orthopedic surgeon, and he worked for many, many years on getting FDA approval and and and, as a device. And he got all the patents that they got and didn't use a lawyer for any of it. And, yeah, that's the it's a miracle, man. It's just, the the reason we can do this to some extent is that experience with doctor Flick, and we it was right around y two k. And every we'd start doing expos, and we did four or five of them. Every expo we went to were the hottest booth at the expo.
And, it was just a phenomenon. It's it's a it's a wonderful product. Now the I could go into more detail on it, but I'll just tell you because I'm gonna tell you something else in a minute. I think there's some pretty interesting times are coming. You can, you can duplicate that to a large extent what that silver cloth will do with simple aluminum foil and put the shiny side against your skin. And if you had some, colloidal silver, you could even mimic more of it because what it does is it, first of all, releases you get it on as quick as possible after an injury. And it's, what it does first is it recompletes the circuit. Evidently, our body's a big electrical circuit. And, the, the the barometer on pain is the dermis and those outer layers of skin because when those are severed or injured, then the nerve endings set off the underneath, set off the pain response.
So first of all, when you get something that reestablishes that conductivity, it takes away the pain. It does it pretty quickly and and pretty effectively too, by the way. Secondly, it starts releasing ions into the wound if it's a wound, and it, starts accelerating its healing and sterilizing the area. And if it's some sort of an injury where there's potential scarring. If you get it on there quick, recompleting that circuit keeps down the swelling. And when you reduce swelling, you reduce scarring. So those are the three things it does. We found a site that sells the silver cloth.
I'm gonna say it's no no e e m f Com, and they've got a plated cloth over there. There's nobody else except the Silverlawn company that's now been stolen twice by the Jews, by the way, post doctor Flick. So there's nobody that can sell the cloth with medical, applications, but they sell plated cloth including copper over there. I believe no emf.com, I think. And, they've got a medical, grade cloth. You could probably purchase it from them. I advise everybody to try and get some of these things and store them up because it's something I heard this morning. Just this morning, Brent. There was three incidents yesterday around the country. Two of them, kinda could could be or couldn't be, but but the first one is couldn't be anything else. I don't believe it happened in Colorado.
The the story is that the, van was driving down one side of the highway, and they passed some state troopers and they didn't dim their lights. And so it was heavily laden down. And so the troopers turned around and pulled it over as two, Mexicans, not here on any kind of legal, footing of even the Biden administration. And in their van, they had a 80,000 rounds of three zero eight and seven six two, and they were going to Pueblo, Colorado, a known gang city. It's right next, I think, Fort Carson backs up to it or close to it. So that was one Fort Bragg down, in Columbus, outside of Columbus, Georgia.
There's a all anybody can get in gate, and they got a caught a Jordanian trying to slip an IED in. So, I'll I'll close the gate. That hadn't been reported. Somebody saw it and reported it, at the Infowars covered it this morning. And then there was another guy, Wacko Arab, who was in a gun store or some kind of one of those stores. And he they saw him just looking at expensive stuff and just picking it up. You know? And so they went over and started questioning him, and the guy bolted, and ran out with a bunch of the merchandise. They didn't catch him, and he jumped into a van without a plate, and they tried to leave the parking lot real fast, ran over a curb. They did get away, but somehow, the cops were able to trace it back to this guy. And it looked like from what he was doing in the house and what he had that he was, about to go into some sort of a shooting rampage in the twenty four forty eight hours. So there's three things that happened yesterday. The most alarming being a 80,000 rounds of ammo by two Mexicans.
They they they're gonna do it. They're gonna do the civil war summers, what it looks like to me, folks, and
[00:14:05] Unknown:
I would just all of you get prepared. K? But is there any law again, again, somebody having a 80,000 rounds ammo?
[00:14:15] Unknown:
I don't well, I I'm just not sure, Brent. You know, I'm Probably in Colorado. I don't know. Well, could be, but but two illegal aliens, they probably didn't have any driver's license or I don't know all the particulars. I just know what I saw this morning. Uh-huh. But it's a real red flag because there's there's several other incidents. We know all the people that Biden smuggled in. And and they were come right out telling you, well, we're a member of some force and we're just waiting to get called. I'm gonna go live in Nashville till then, you know? So, just be careful. We're we're there's there's a couple of incidents. You know about this Carmelo incident with this black kid stabbing the white kid?
[00:14:55] Unknown:
Oh, down in Texas? Yes. About two, three weeks ago. About that. Well, fill me out on that a little more. Well, don't know too much yet. They hadn't released any,
[00:15:05] Unknown:
any any video on it. They I believe they've got some. You can't think of anything today that doesn't have a camera covering it. But they had some sort of a track meet, and there were different tents. And this black kid, Carmelo, it appears was in the wrong tent, and they verbally tried to get him out at the tent and whatnot. It worked until there was a little shoving going on. There was two white twins, he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the twins in the heart and he bled out right there on the floor. His brother trying to keep his hands over his heart to stop the bleeding, which he wasn't gonna do that.
But the most horrendous thing subsequently, Brent, is the father immediately came out. Well, it's just that I don't want any kind of bad talk about this boy, and and he was covering up for the the killer. I mean, outwardly, overtly, in number of different ways. And so then a couple of days later, of course, they somebody, Soros, probably set up a go give, send, go, site for him, the black kid. And, they had over half a million dollars in in about two shakes of a lamb's tail. And so the family goes out and buys them a big fancy house and a car. Uh-huh. And so, then the attorney that's become attached, black attorney that's attached to this situation is up and they're gonna give a press conference talking about how evil and, you know, the whole rap.
And the father of the of the stabbed murdered boy tries to come to the press conference and they make him leave and kick him out. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And he say he's not saying hang him or anything. He's saying, oh, I forgive him. The you know, all the Yeah. I I can't imagine anybody doing that, but, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, that's, gonna continue to build, it appears. Uh-huh. So, there's some there's some pretty interesting news out there. I look forward to you coming by on Friday so I can fill you in, Brent.
[00:17:07] Unknown:
Well, yeah, things are getting pretty crazy. I I would say it'd be smart to not get within wingspan to most anybody these days. And they made, they may, reach out and touch you in a way you don't want them to. That's the way it sounds there. Alright. You just better be real careful and, you know, keep your your big eyes open and your big ears up. You know? Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, you know, it was all new to me when I left home. I'd never been around anybody but white folk my whole life. And, when I got away well, one time, I suppose we were in high school. We went to a track meet, and there was a town that had a had a boy there of color, and he could do the triple jump better than anybody in 14 states.
And we we watched that with amazement, I remember. And and, of course, we couldn't even come close to doing those kind of things. But other than that, didn't have a whole lot of contact. And then when I got away from home, I found out that what I'd heard about people that weren't white is, substantially true. They'll rob you or stab you or something. I found out that to be true. Then I had some fellows I was friends with, and one of them came back. We're in San Francisco Bay Area. He came in that next morning, and he had the most horrible wounds all over the backside of his forearm. I I like the fellow. I can't remember his name, but I said, what happened to you? He said, oh, some fella pulled out a razor over and started swinging it at me. And the only thing I could do is put up my arm and and block his blows. Oh my god. Well, it opened him up pretty deep. You know, a razor can Uh-huh.
Yeah. Well, he, well, he knew how to defend himself that way. But these fellows that grow up, I remember finding out. I won't tell you how I found out, but, you know, there are gangs in Chicago, Illinois, and there are gangs in St. Louis, Missouri. But the difference between those two places is the crime in Chicago, Illinois, and the gangs are highly organized. Matter of fact, they're politically organized. They control precinct, control voting, and they even put their own nail and have enough clout that they can get the governors to appoint, people from their gangs to be wardens of the prisons so they can take care of their homies while they're in prison.
That's how powerful the gangs are in Chicago. Now Saint Louis is just the opposite. There's a lot of crime there, but it's it's highly unorganized. And so the life expectancy of a of a man of color or a boy, I should say, is not more than about 25 years old. And I don't say that in exaggeration. You don't expect to live long in Saint Louis. There is no organization. If there's no organization, there's no powerful party, a part more powerful than others, and things are exceedingly dangerous. You know, when Al Capone was running Chicago, there was more order than when the government was running Chicago.
When the city government was running it yeah. Just it was chaos. When Al Capone got in charge, there was order and less killing. Well, same thing was true at Las Vegas, Nevada. When when the when the mob ran Las Vegas and Reno, there was a lot more order and a lot less killing. Bugsy
[00:20:27] Unknown:
Bugsy Siegel.
[00:20:29] Unknown:
Yeah. Bugsy. He was down there in Las Vegas, wasn't he? Yeah. Yeah. Well, all those fellows now that the IRS see, they busted the busted the Italian mob back in the eighties. And that what was the name of that Italian that, ran for president? Giuliani. Right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. He he was the one that did it. Well, one that was a final blow to the mob, and it took that one fella from, New York. He thought he was hot. Oh, he thought he was mister gangster. He wanted to be like Al Capone and play the high life. And and what was his name? They sent him to federal prison finally, and then the boys in prison What The The the the the wadey wadey bulger.
Yeah. But he was a Oh, no. Whitey was the killer, but, no, this is the fellow who's in charge Okay. Of the mob back in the eighties. But Whitey, yeah, he wasn't asking. Got it. Who was it? Got it. John. Yeah. Yeah. John. John. Yeah. He went Well, there's Brent.
[00:21:31] Unknown:
What happened? Brent Brent to Brent. Go ahead, Brent. Here.
[00:21:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, yeah, John Gotti, he went to federal prison at the Max Joint. Well, it was the Max Joint. It's not now. They moved the Max Joint from, Alcatraz to Marion, Illinois, which is in the Shawnee National Forest down there. And then they built that Supermax out in Florence, Colorado, and they moved it there. But Gotti went to Marion, and he thought he was gonna be in charge because he was so important. And, well, he found out real quick he wasn't running things. They ended up killing him there in, Marion.
The people of course, the the guards don't run the prison. The prisoners run the prisons. And that's an important thing to consider. And, of course, they were running the prison there, and the it was the white, call them what you want, Different you know, in prison, people congregate according to color. You got your white boys and Mexicans. They well, not all of them. The American Mexicans and the white boys congregate together. And then the black boys, they congregate together. And then, South American gangs, they congregate together. Uh-huh. I know somebody's saying I ain't no black boy. Yeah. I know what you're saying, but there's white boys too. You know? And they call them that in prison, but they they congregate together. They're like different nations. They're as different. Well, they are different nations, and they Yeah. Each have their own officers.
And, so if there's a problem between, two individuals, two different groups, like the white boys and the black boys, then they have the officers that the law talkers get together and and decide what the best way is to handle it. And that so there's some order there, see is what I'm saying. Mhmm. Yep. Yeah. And there's agreement on a common standard that is external to all parties. Oh, there's trouble, but, for the most part, you given given the situation, they keep pretty good order. But in Saint Louis, there is no order. It's ever ever swinging man for himself, and that means you'll be dead by the time you're 26 maximum.
[00:23:37] Unknown:
Now now Brent, are you talking about East Saint Louis or East Saint Louis?
[00:23:41] Unknown:
Oh, Saint Louis itself. Now East East Saint Louis is always worse. Yeah. I was gonna say probably worse. Right? Yeah. You know, that's on the Illinois side of the river. That was always worse, but it's kinda calmed down now because people have just simply left or, you know, abandoned the place, although it is bad there. And East Saint Louis is not distinguishable from St. Louis, Missouri. And they're all just kind of the same, gang, activity. Well, no. Not gang. No. No. As I said, it's every man for himself there. And, if you're on the street, well, if you're dumb enough to live on the street, like a lot of people do, they don't know anything else. They don't last long.
Unless the there is always, almost always, not always, but almost always, a powerful party will emerge, and then there'll be some government. Mhmm. And that's what we have in America right now. We have the powerful party that has emerged that's been the the Trumpites.
[00:24:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yes. Well well, the the powerful undercover, undercurrent party Yeah. Got a little bit more exposed yesterday. What happened? This is very interesting. Yeah. I would suggest, anybody that's interested in this, I'm gonna explain as best I can. Remember what's going on with Leticia James with the mortgage in Virginia, and she's AG in New York? Well, it's on a much bigger scale. Same thing, basically. K? So the guy was on for an hour in the third hour of Harris Smith yesterday. He's a a Jewish guy. I think Goodwin Goodman. And he's a really good guy. K?
And he's not a lawyer. He just got real interested in this. Uh-huh. And, and and he starts naming names, and he's caught them all with Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Andrew Weisman. You know who he is, that really, really piece of garbage Yeah. Guy, you know, who's the one that came in Ron and on and on and on. He he's involved, and probably some others. Those are the three I remember that he named. And what they're doing is, like, say, Adam Schiff, who was from California house representative. Now he's a senator. Right? Uh-huh. Well, he's got a house in Maryland that he claimed is his residency. Uh-huh. He can't do that.
And I don't know what deal is, but he specifically mentioned Raskin. It's something to do with this. But it's this whole network where they're going out and doing this for people and getting them houses and saving them a hundred and 50 or $200 a month on their mortgage, but they've gotta go in there and say they're residents. Now how how and why are they doing it? Are they doing this with people coming in so they got blackmail over them? We don't know yet, but it's just being exposed. And if you really wanna get almost an about forty five, fifty minutes of of details and explanation of this, it's the third hour in Harrison Smith yesterday.
And, well worth listen to. I think this another potentially real big thing with well, we'll cross our fingers, hopefully, and say ramifications.
[00:26:57] Unknown:
Well, black male, if it isn't achieved, is always the goal in politics. Yeah. That's what that's what runs politics, period. Period. That's all there is, blackmail. Yeah. And it has to do usually with sex and sometimes Yeah. But that's they they can't get you compromised and controllable through back blackmail, then they gotta get rid of you. They they can't have they, those guys, the evil empire, the useful idiots thereof in politics. That's what they got to have. And it come, by the way, at every level from US senator right down to your local school board. That's the way that works. But it gets more intense as you go up, up the ladder.
[00:27:34] Unknown:
I I I saw a couple of clips today. There's Julie. Yeah. I I saw a couple of clips on Harrison this morning out of Maine at school board meetings, and they're refusing to comply with title nine and keep men out of women's sports. And people are going to the school board meeting, even coming to the meeting in Augusta from all over the state. And then the chairman goes, well, if you're not from Augusta, you can't say anything. Another guy starts saying two words. You can't bring up somebody's name, and she just shut him down. Another guy talked twenty seconds longer than his three minutes, and she had the sheriff come in and arrest him. So, man, there's just a bunch of stuff going on. Julie, what do you got, sweetie? I think that was you. Uh-huh. Yeah. Hi. Hi. Good morning. Hi, everybody.
[00:28:20] Unknown:
Yeah. So you, you're talking about the, guy yesterday on the show. You, you're a good man.
[00:28:27] Unknown:
Did you watch him?
[00:28:29] Unknown:
Yep. But you're a good you like, Greg Hunter's USA Watchdog. He's got John Rubino on. And, he his the title of the the, podcast is US government is a big laundering operation, and he talks about more than just USAID. He talks about all the lobbyists and the super PAC.
[00:28:49] Unknown:
Oh, absolutely.
[00:28:51] Unknown:
Yep. And he talks about how how they, all all they do is money launder. The people will leave the FBI, FDA, and then go or the CDC and then go work for the Pfizer or for Moderna. Yep. And it's just one and they do nothing for I for you or me, except for just money launder money launder, money around, and and blackmail people. So interesting you should watch it. Yep. I don't know, Brent. You probably haven't seen it. Thank you, Julie, so much. Listen. Julie's got
[00:29:21] Unknown:
more degrees than a thermometer show in in finance and real estate. So when she talks about this, she knows what she's talking about. Okay? Now hey. Well, heck, man. Now I lost my place. Anyway, it's a really interesting time, and, boy, there's some big things breaking. I feel sorry. You know, a lot of people and Trump supporters are saying, we're we're the indictments. We're the indictments. Well, you know, we our side's gotta do everything right. They don't have to do it. We don't confront them when they don't do it, but we've got to do it or they confront us with the stuff. Trump's got there's a constitutional crisis coming with the judiciary. I can tell you that, Brent, for sure. And, it it's pretty unbelievable, as you see this develop. They're sandbagging everywhere they can. I hear it. I feel so I was the point I was trying to make is this.
A lot of people are really down on on Pam Bondi. Okay? And I understand all their reasons, but, man, that woman's gotta be just absolutely covered up every day. Something major gets dumped on her desk.
[00:30:27] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I'm glad you brought that up about, the judiciary. And we talked last time about, Tompkins versus Erie Railroad. Yes. I made the point that, what really happened in that case was, didn't do away with the common law. It just said that the source of the common law will be the state courts and the state court decisions, not the federal courts making it up as they go along. And that's a good thing. And I was surprised that people didn't agree with me about that, and that shows the problem. Clearly, having this power at the state level is preferable Yeah. Than having power at the federal level. But Absolutely.
Yeah. So that was, and the patriot mythology Mhmm. Takes that case and says things that are not true. And on and on, the madness goes and distracts people from effectiveness. But then we move on to what's going on right now. The federal courts have been little old district federal court judges have been putting out injunctions that are nationwide, and and that, is not possible. Let me give an example. In state courts, the same principle, within the boundaries of the state, and you take it to federal court, it'd be within the boundaries of The United States. I've been in front of judges before, one particular case, trying to get, folk to pay their rent.
Well, then they'd they'd just, fly the coupe. They'd leave town, and you couldn't get ahold of them. They'd owe money. And so I went into court, and I said to the judge, I'd I'd never heard of this before, but, the lady down I'd go to court, Roger, and I'd have a problem. I was getting ready to go to hearing. I wouldn't know what to do, and I'd stop by. There's a woman that I knew real well that had a a candy business right along right off of the square that where the courthouse was. She had business that her dad had had filling candy bar machines, you know, putting I have a good business, and she had candy bar machines all over three counties, her and her son. I'd stop by and I'd say, Arlene, how you doing? Alright. I'm walking up the courthouse, and I got a problem here. What do you think I ought to do?
And she threw out a couple ideas. That's how you learn law. And she'd been around a long time, done a lot of things. One time, she said, well, why don't you just get a body attachment on those guys? They won't pay their rent, and they flew the coupe. I said, a body attachment? What's that? Sound like something from a sci fi novel or something. You know? And, like the body snatchers and things like that. And I said, well, is that what she said? Well, that's where you you put out a Judd puts out a warrant for somebody's arrest, and it's not a criminal matter. It's just that the judge wants to talk to the guy, and the guy won't come and talk to him. I said, okay. I'll ask the judge. So I went in.
We couldn't find these fellows. They flew the coop, left town, and I said, Judd, will you give me a body attachment on this fella? He said, why? Sure, mister Winters. He said, I'll put out an order here that if he's found anywhere in the state, they'll drag his carcass back here, and we can talk to him. That's we just won't talk to him. So that's called a civil or a noncriminal body attachment. Well, now you can do that. A judge can do that. A a federal judge can do that. He could do a a noncriminal body attachment that's nationwide if he wanted.
But but he couldn't but he can't say, by the way, I wanna attach the bodies. I want other people drug in here that aren't part of this case or part of any case. Here's my point. Judges in courts, common law courts, that's what we have in America by and large, the federal courts, the state courts, have power over the parties before the court, and it's personal jurisdiction. You have personal jurisdiction, then you have property jurisdiction. Property, they call that in rim, and personal, they call in personum. But it's just in English. It's over the the body of the person or or over the the of the over the tangible property itself. You know, I used to read these cases, and this is the way some cases are today. So and so the state is so and so versus a 1967 Chevy Plymouth.
Yes. Well, Chevy no. Shim Chevy, Sedan. Yeah. Sedan. Plymouth would be a different company. That'd be the price of the corporation. So, of of sedan. Well, there's no personal jurisdiction there. There's just jurisdiction over property, and that's why it says that. Is that in rim that would that be considered in rim? Yeah. That's called in rim. Rim's a Latin word that means, the thing itself. Correct. So it'd be over a piece of real property, land, or chattels, a movable property or immovable property.
[00:35:21] Unknown:
Yeah. Not a person. No. And if You'll see them. You'll see ones like US versus a hundred thousand dollars and stuff like that.
[00:35:29] Unknown:
Yeah. And that's over the property itself, but it it's me versus so and so. We had a case one time where a lady wouldn't pay for having the carpet cleaned after mold was found in the apartment building. She was in Kentucky. She was a feisty gal. I really kinda liked her, but, boy, she wouldn't pay the carpet cleaner. You know, if you have mold in your house, just like in the Bible, a lot of the states have statutes that say, you know, you can't get ahold of the landlord. You call somebody in to clean it up because it's deadly. Some of that mold is dead. It will kill you. Yes. It will. Yeah. Just like it says in the bible, you burn the blasted house down. Don't mess with it anymore. Well, they called in the carpet cleaner after the pipes busted and cleaned things up because of the mold, and then she wouldn't pay the bill. And, of course, she was a frugal gal, and she said, I could have done that for less than half the price. I'm not paying it. So we had to drag her carcass into court. Well, we won the case, but that didn't give us personal jurisdiction over her. So then after you win the case, like we used to say, wow. You take me to court with, that, court judgment and a dime, you might be able to get a cup of coffee.
So that's all it's worth. Yes. You gotta enforce the court judgment. So then you gotta go back in and you gotta get personal jurisdiction over her or her property or both. Or once you got that, and then in rim or in persona, and then you can try to nail her. But there it's the part, but she's a party before the court. There's a judgment against her. Well, then the court has authority over her, not over anybody else to say, okay. We're gonna force you to do this. This is personal jurisdiction. Mhmm. You you threatened to shoot the guy that sued you, so we're also gonna get a purse personal jurisdiction over you with an restraining order to stop you from shooting this other fella or whatever we're saying. You know? But the personal jurisdiction, the court, a federal court, like a state court, has personal jurisdiction, can have it, over the parties before the court to put out an injunction. An injunction is against the person. Equity, if you're in equity jurisdiction, equity acts against the person.
Law acts against property. That's another grand distinction. That's good. Don't don't seem to grasp. But, yeah, if you're in equity and you move into equity and the judge takes off his law hat and puts on his equity hat and say, well, what's the problem here? We couldn't find a legal remedy. Maybe there's something in equity that will help you out here. Well, then the equity acts against the person. That's why injunctions are in equity. They force you to do family law is a matter of equity because you're taking jurisdiction over children, for example, to make sure they get put in the right place. That's all equity. But coming back to this thing about, federal courts, they're they're saying these federal courts are saying, oh, by the way, we're putting out an injunction that's nationwide, and nobody can do this, and nobody can do that. Now wait a minute, sister.
That's what ought to be said. You don't have an injury over anybody but the parties before the court. Right. This nationwide injunction baloney isn't even part of our legal tradition. The only time that ever occurred in America, nationwide injunction of a federal court, first time it occurred was in 1963. And you know what was going on back then. And that that was, back Civil civil rights stuff? Civil rights stuff. And there have been a few issued after that, but not until Trump got into his first term. I think there was something like 20 some nationwide injunctions issued. Unheard of. Never happened before.
And now we've got, what, 40 some? I don't know. They put three or four more on yesterday. Well, what yeah. What and what's wrong with that? Number one, there's no precedent for it in our common law tradition. We're a common law country. There's no precedent for it in any of the statutes of the, of the of the Congress. And why is that? Well, shucks. If a if one pissy any federal judge could put out an order that affects people all over The United States, well, then that's that's equivalent in tantamount to being a congressman. No. No. No. That's equivalent in tantamount to be in Congress. That's what that is. Passing a law that applies to everybody. Well, I know this is unheard of. It's blatantly, bluntly, unconstitutional.
No. Not unconstitutional. Let's get real. It's just unlawful in every sense of the word. Constitution doesn't give them any authority to do that. Common law tradition doesn't give them any authority to do that. Congress never gave them any authority to do that. It should never been used, but even starting back in 1963, hogwash. Yeah. No, no. That's the way it is. Yep. It's communist presumption. They
[00:40:17] Unknown:
same thing they've done with everything we talk about. Everything's based under presumption. Presumption. You got to stand up and you gotta confront it, and it's got to be put down or it's gonna continue.
[00:40:28] Unknown:
Right, Roger. So we we can just say here, and this is what's needed to be said everywhere. Not only no, but h double l, no. No. This is this is unlawful. It will destroy our common law tradition. It will destroy and our constitution is a brief of common law government. It will destroy our freedoms if one pissy any federal judge can put out an order that applies nationwide. That's wrong. Our that's not what our common law tradition says. Our common law tradition reduces raw power in the federal courts only to the parties be before the court in any given instance. Period.
Yeah. Well, a federal judge had, for example, in habeas corpus, a federal judge can take personal jurisdiction over a jailer and say a sheriff or whoever the jailer is, bring the body, the carcass of the person whose, whose, this petition of habeas corpus applies to and bring the body of that person before the court. Now that's raw power. Yep. And then if they don't do it, the federal court can send the US marsh marshals out to enforce by force spread of force. And hold them in contempt. Yes. But that's against the parties before the court, not against anybody else. That kind of raw force and power to a federal judge is very, very confined to the parties before the court, but that it's a final power too. It's final.
That's why we we confine it to the parties before the court. In our common law tradition, justice is only given to the parties before the court. Congress's legislation has nothing to do with justice. It paints with a broad brush, and it's very dangerous. Therefore, we have this fallback position in our common law tradition called the courts. And the courts are to listen individually to the to the individual merits of the individual case. They don't paint with a broad brush. Everything is fact driven right down to the facts of this case. And if personal jurisdiction and force and threat of force are to be applied, okay.
Yes. But only to the parties before the court. That this this thing about federal injunctions nationwide, I I'm shocked. And but then again, I'm not shocked. These these judges sitting on the bench are the, folks that I went to law school with that were drunk all the time and had sexual problems. You know, that's what that's what we got on the court saying people went to law school. They're just like you and me, friends, except they're they're wound up and bound up in their own whims and difficulties to even a further extent because somebody hand them a little bit of power and they can't handle. That's what it boils down to. I think there's 15 judges on the DC Circuit, and five of them are foreigners.
[00:43:20] Unknown:
Yeah. There's Larry. And one of them, get this, the female, her brother and her father on one of the islands, wherever she came from, I don't remember which one, Dominican Republic or some place. They were so radical that the communist party of Dominican Republic kicked them out. Yeah. Yeah. That that that is one of this Chikutna or whatever her name is. Larry, you got that woman's that witch's name?
[00:43:48] Unknown:
I'm sure you don't. No. No. I just had a question for Brent. Alright.
[00:43:54] Unknown:
Well, fire away. He lost your question.
[00:43:59] Unknown:
Yeah. So all all these things that you're talking about, the the it it appears the, federal courts are exceeding their jurisdiction. Why isn't anyone raising these objections like Bondi or the justice department? I mean, surely, you're not the only one that knows these things. Why why isn't anyone doing anything about it?
[00:44:20] Unknown:
You might be surprised how many people don't know these things. You'd be surprised how much it's not taught in the law schools. And if a a lawyer doesn't encounter these problems, Bondi never encountered these problems. How many how many lawyers have a clue what's going on in the federal courts? Federal jurisdiction is an exclusive jurisdiction, and most lawyers don't wanna get involved with it because it's dangerous, number one. It's just dangerous to be a lawyer in a federal court. The federal judges, as they say, the formidable power of the federal courts. And I I when I say it's dangerous, I could tell you from personal experience how dangerous it is. If you're a lawyer I mean, a licensed lawyer in a federal court, you do a little better if you don't have a law license, but it's a dangerous place to be because the formidable power of the jurisdiction is very small.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to a very, very narrow juris scope of jurisdiction. But within that scope of jurisdiction, the power is absolute. The closest thing there are two things in our in our, in our, tradition of law that, two jurisdictions that that where you can see somebody that's close to being God. And that's, the captain of a ship at sea that's under admiralty law. And he's he's the he's the law. Of course, it's written out in admiralty law. But then there's a a federal judge within his courtroom. Yeah. A dangerous creature to say the least. Uh-huh. And, one of the reasons why is because but as I said, within that narrow scope of jurisdiction, the the power is plenary.
It goes right out to the very edges. Mhmm. Yep. Plump clear out, and they know it. They're pretty good, federal courts are, to say something good about them, about trying to stay within their narrow jurisdiction and throwing out every case that does not meet all criteria of their jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction has to be, number one, a case that arises under the constitution of The United States. That's language from the constitution. The case has to arise. So the to put it bluntly, if it's not a constitutional US constitutional question, then the gen the, federal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.
Mhmm. Number two, it has to be a real case in controversy. That means there have to be at least two parties that are each at each other's throats and are real serious about fighting because each of them stand to lose life, liberty, or property or combination thereof. But recognize also, Larry, and again, good question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain things that seem inexplicable. And you made a good point. You said, why isn't nobody saying these things? They don't number one, they don't know them. I don't care if they're lawyers. I don't care if they're in federal court. Most lawyers don't have a clue what our legal tradition is, and you can that the truth. Oh, they know they know what they gotta do to make money, and a lot of them make a lot of money. But if they don't have to know anything else, they don't. And comparative law is not a required course in our law schools anymore except in one state, and that's the non common law state of Louisiana. If you go to law school down there, you gotta take comparative law because they want you to know the difference between their tradition, the law of the city, the canon civil laws of Rome, and our common law tradition, the common law of the land. They want you to know that difference, and that's a good thing that they draw that distinction. But lawyers that go to school other places, they're never introduced to the idea. If you ask them what our common law is, they'll say court cases.
Just like in Tompkins versus area railroad, they said there is no more common law tradition in the federal courts. Well, what did they mean when they said that? Well, they had the wrong idea, the wrong terminology, and that meant, there's no more precedent of court cases from the federal courts. That's what that meant. Yeah. That goes common law to them as stare decisis. Roger, what
[00:48:23] Unknown:
No. I'm just agreeing with everything you're saying, Brent. I'm a I'm amening you here, man. Okay. So there's no stare decisis.
[00:48:31] Unknown:
No. The precedent The precedent is now we're gonna use the state court law, what the state courts have said. That's eerie. Well, who understands that? Students in law school are taught the same thing the Patriot Movement is taught, that there is no more common law. It's silliness on steroids. I say stupidity. Yeah. Stupidity. I mean, blindness. They don't care. Well, they don't why don't they care? They can make money without knowing these things. That's why. It was the way the court phrased
[00:49:00] Unknown:
turned the phrase that normal people don't understand the same way there's these two levels all through. Property is another example, etcetera, etcetera. Okay? There's this twin level. It's a colloquial level, and then there's a highly technical level. And when that court said there is no more common law, federal common law, he's just saying and, Brent, you finally, explained it where I understand it. You're just saying because all property law is state law. So any of the common law that arises is one of the states. Yeah. So there is They'll assign it to, like, who's the plaintiff. Right?
[00:49:35] Unknown:
Yeah. So the the the federal courts are using the precedents from the state state court decisions, court decisions, and they're not making it up as they go like they used to. I I can't think that's a pretty good idea. Yeah. But Yeah. But it's all and they and the reason they did that was because they said the constitution of The United States gives no authority to the federal courts to make it up as they go. They're to derive all their powers from the states. That means the state courts as well. So that that's a fascinating concept that the federal courts, again, limiting their jurisdiction. They've been pretty good about that and saying, no, we're going to capitulate to whatever the state courts say instead of what the federal court. We're gonna use precedent, but it's gonna be the precedent from the federal courts. But coming back to Pam Bondi. Well, who's Pam Bondi?
Is she a a woman that is looked at as an expert in her field? No. Does she have to be? No. She just has to have the gumption to do what needs to be done. That's what, that's the most important feature of a lawyer. Do you have the gumption, to do what ought to be done? I would ask the Patriots, the Patriots, you think you really know the law. Good way to phrase it. Yeah. Hey, listen, It what good is knowing a lot of things if you don't have the drive behind you to use them? Now if she has the drive behind her to do what's right, and that's part of what she's thinking, okay. But does she know what I'm saying? I don't know about if she knows what I'm saying about Nationwide and Johnson. I have no idea. Well, you know, she was the AG of Florida before she got anointed here.
[00:51:07] Unknown:
And, I have heard, of course, president Trump praises her, but also his his, alter ego, Roger Stone. And Roger Stone is very, very favorable on her also. I've heard him vocally, talk about what a great gal she is. You know, obviously, she's not hard to look at. And, and one of the criticisms is she's on Fox News every night, and she needs to stay out of the makeup room and Fox News and get over there and get some of these cases going. Yeah. But, because people are antsy, man. We the you know, the the the they're the let's see.
It's almost like, you know, well, I hate I hate to say that. Let's just say, that the natives are restless.
[00:51:56] Unknown:
Well, number one, attorney general of The United States doesn't have to be a lawyer. There's nothing in the constitution that says an attorney. I'm sure that's right. Yep. Or a supreme court justice or a federal judge has to be a lawyer. And there's some many well, we've had a number of them in over the years that haven't been. So does she have to know a lot about law? No. And as attorney general of the of the state or The United States, you know, you don't you don't spend your time doing cases. You just say, well, the governor would like this case prosecuted this way. You could you could run the whole office that way. That's probably right. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what the attorney general of The United States is. The attorney general of The United States, that's a political position. Yep. Oh, if you're on Fox News all the time trying to make your case, I just wish, of course, for somebody to say what I'm saying. I know some people do. It's a very simple matter. If you're you can't wander in off the street, you well, it's against the law to wander in off the street because and you because you read about a case in the paper, and you said, I wanna put my affidavit in this case. Well, if you did that, they were using their heads, they'd throw that affidavit out because you're not a party to the case. The court has no jurisdiction over those that are not parties to the case. And if it's, if it's a matter of an injunction, an injunction is a equitable remedy.
That's the court acting the equity. That means that in equity, equity acts against the person. It does not act against property, my friends. So once you're in equity, you know that the court has, force and threat of force at its disposal to make people do what it wants them to do. You see? That's what equity is. And when you say injunction, that's an equitable remedy. So if you say a nationwide injunction, that's a contradiction in terms. It does not exist in law. It is dangerous in the utter extreme to our common law tradition. That means to our freedoms, three separate and coequal branches of government.
[00:53:47] Unknown:
Yeah. But I'd like to see Trump just go ahead and bypass all of them. And just like Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln with habeas corpus, and even more important, their idle FDR all did.
[00:54:01] Unknown:
Well, of course, he has that, option. But then again, at common law, our common law limits him because he doesn't want to do something that's politically damaging. He wants to get along with the courts if he can, and he wants to act like he's following the courts in some things. And if it's high visibility like this, if he if he bolts too much, he may have to, but they're gonna attack him for not doing he's not following the law. Well, that's not true at all. One of the things that we, need to say more of too and you say, well, how is it they don't know this? I interviewed the Supreme Court justice on on the radio, interviewed the Supreme Court justice of the state of Alabama.
His name was Roy Moore. Right. And he also ran for then after they threw him off the Supreme Court Right. They ran for, US Senate, and he was annihilated. It was terrible what they did to him. But let me say this about him. So I had him on the radio, and it was during that time. I had met him on an airplane back in the nineties coming back from a council on national policy meeting in Charleston, South Carolina. He was one of the speakers. I got on the airplane. He said it right across from me, and that was when he was, he thought he was gonna take over the world, and he was really up. He was willing to tell me everything at that time. He was just a a state judge. Had a little thing of the 10 commandments sitting on his desk in his office, and people raising Cain about it. He made he made this little thing of the 10 commandments when he was in high school, as a matter of fact. Excuse me, Brent.
[00:55:34] Unknown:
Is somebody gonna say something? Yep. Paul. We got about three minutes to talk about,
[00:55:39] Unknown:
We can pay you to call you up on the other side, but he wants you to Okay. Yeah. That's you. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Of course. This is Brent, Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com, w w w dot common lawyer dot com. Coming to you, coming at you from the remote hinterlands of the Wabash River Valley where the hogs, the frogs, and the dogs keep up and racket all night long. Now I say that on my other common lawyer comment presentations. I thought I'd throw it in here for fun just in case there's somebody from the Wabash Valley, which would take up three quarters of the state of Indiana and about a quarter or a third of the state of Illinois. So it's a it's a big area. And those of you that don't know where the Wabash Valley is, you can look it up on the map. You went to the public school system. You might not know geography at all. I understand that. I feel sorry for you. But that my name is Brent. Go to the website commonlawyer.com, and you can take law classes there.
You can see them. We have many of them in the can, audio and visual, and you can you can, access them. We just finished a course on Christian nationalism. What is it? Does it exist? Is it a good idea? We answered some of those questions. But now the next thing we want to do, Roger, I've been talking about this for years. I wrote a book almost a thousand pages long on the subject, then it finally dawned on me, why don't I teach it as a law course? I don't know why I didn't think of that before. I guess I've got my head buried in so many other things. But the next course we want to teach, lord willing, is comparative law, the law of the land versus the law of the city. Man, what a great time. Common law versus the civil law. You can't understand our common law tradition unless you it's compared and contrasted and seen in opposition and contrast to the law of the city.
And you will not you will not understand squat from straight up, sick them from come here about our constitution of The United States unless you know it's the common law that it freights into itself. It's nothing but a dry and dispirited skeleton of words or constitution. That's why it's boring. You know, somebody said a classic book. Oh, Mark Twain said a classic book is a book that everybody says you ought to read, but nobody's ever read. Well, the Bible's like that, and it's about as classic as you did. Absolutely. Constitution of The United States are like that. Well, why is it people don't read it? Because it's boring. That's why. Why is it boring? Because they have no sense no sense of what our common law tradition is as it's as it is applied to government.
And you can't have that sense unless you take some time to resupply your psyche about it. The folks that wrote the Constitution of The United States, more importantly, those that ratified it, were awash and swimming in a sea of our common law tradition. That's all they knew and understood. And then also that it made them different than the continent of Europe. What's that, Roger? No. So I'm a I'm amening you, man. Oh, so let's yeah. Take that course. You can also get the winterized translation of the Bible. A common lawyer translates the Bible from the original tongues, 35 about 35,000 footnotes and, over 200 appendices, tracing major themes through the warp and the woof of the text of the context of the Bible. The 35 about 35,000 footnotes explain why I translated this away or that. I call it Twitter raw translation of the Bible because I don't wanna cook the book. I want to deliver it up just the way it was delivered to me in the original tongues, and I try to do that. And it's a raw book, friends. You talk about raw.
Of course, most translations don't reveal that. It would be offensive in some ways, I suppose, but it's it's for your, enjoyment. Join us on Sundays for church at In Church. That's connected to the law school Winter's Inn. You can join us there. Commonlawyer.com. Common lawyer Com.
[00:59:39] Unknown:
Brent. Treasure, Brent. Go ahead, Paul.
[00:59:41] Unknown:
Thank you, Brent, and thank you radiosoapbox.com for being with us for the first hour. If you wanna follow us into the second hour, go to eurofolkradio.com. That's eurofolkradio.com. If you wanna catch us after the second hour, go to globalvoiceradio.net Or just go to the matrixdogs.com, and you'll find the links right there. Ciao.
[01:00:05] Unknown:
Yep. See you next week.
[01:00:07] Unknown:
Back to Roy Moore. I'll pick up the thread for a sprint. Yeah. No. I like,
[01:00:14] Unknown:
Roy, was a graduate, still is graduate of West Point. Oh, I didn't know that. Yep. Graduate of West Point Military Academy, Vietnam vet, a ambitious fellow from no place in South Carolina. He supported the state of Israel, and they tried to destroy his life. He sued him. He sued the Jews that did it to him. Terrible things have happened to him. But here's here's the thing about judgment. I've never heard about that. Well, get on here. Well, what happened was he went to Israel because as a good Baptist, he supported Israel, and he was gonna make a donation of money or something. I don't know what it was.
And they they hated him, of course, because he's so conservative. So they, humiliated him in the interview and accused him. Oh, it was it was sad what happened. That he sued him and got sued him for the rhino and got judgment against him a few million dollars. Yeah. Fantastic. Yeah. Judge Moore is, he's a fascinating person. Well, here's what I was gonna say about him. So I had him on the radio and he was speaking at a local get together at a, a father's I called it a father's conference. I had a friend down here who was a farmer, and he put up a big tent every year. And he'd have a father's conference, and he'd invite speakers in. He invited judge Moore. And so I I was on, radio at that time, Terre Haute, Indiana.
And I said, well, I'll just have, judge Moore come on, interview him so people know he's gonna be down there because he was well known at that time, and they come hear him talk. And so I interviewed him. Well, he was having a hard time at that time, and, he wasn't the happy man he was when I first met him back at that c, Council for National Policy meeting down in South Carolina. And, man, they were they were coming after him, and they got him. And they got him thrown off the the Supreme Court. He was chief judge of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama, and they got him thrown off. Yeah. Sure did. It was terrible what they did to him. They didn't do it on the merits, by the way. It happened as a matter of a process and procedure, and, he and his team of Christian lawyers didn't catch it. He had every Christian lawyer that's famous on the team, you know, but didn't do any good. That's That's the way it often works in law. You know, all the big names and all that. Doesn't mean squat. Just get you a lawyer that's willing to fight, and you never tell you never can tell what'll happen.
But, he didn't have that, and, they threw him off. So that's why he ran for US senate. But I asked him. I got him in, an interview and on and on we went. And I said, I'm gonna ask this Supreme Court justice a simple question. I thought he'd have the right answer, but he didn't. And I I didn't quarrel with him. I had a policy then. I still, well, if if I'm interviewing somebody and there's a they're a guest, I try not to argue with them. I want them to get their point across if they're a guest that way. And and, and then I can skin them 17 ways from Sunday after they get off the air. You know? That's the way I can do that. So what I was so I I asked him this. I said, well, Judge Moore, one more question.
Yeah. So, if push comes to shove and the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling and, and the, the president of The United States says the opposite, who get who gets to have the final word? Who is final? Who is the court of last resort that can force can force their decision by force and threat of force? He said, well, you know what the answer to that is. I said, yeah. I know the answer. He got kinda testy with me. I said, Judge Moore, I know the answer, but people don't care what I say. I'm I brought you on here because people care what you say. And he didn't wanna answer it. And finally, he said, well, you know that it's the Supreme Court has the final word.
I said, well, thank you very much. And, then I went to hear him speak that night in that big tent out in the middle of nowhere, but he's wrong. And, no, no, the Supreme Court, there's nothing in our constitution of The United States that says the Supreme Court is the final court of last resort when it comes to decisions of the federal government. The Supreme Court has no more of the final word than Congress is and no more of the final word than the president and vice versa on both counts. And some of you that have listened have heard me say this forever, but we're a common law country. And that means that the three branches of government, I learned this in high school, never forgot it, are coequal.
What does that mean? That means none of them trumps the other one as a matter of law, unless the other one wants to go along with them. If they wanna go along with them, fine. But remember, none of us take an oath. None of us have taken an oath or none of us bear a duty of obedience and loyalty to the Supreme Court of the United States. Not in the final analysis. No. No. Our duty and loyalty at the oath we take is to what? The supreme law of the land, which is what? Due process, which is what? Our common law tradition, which is what? Our law of the land, which is what? Well, it's it's the government's constitution of The United States.
[01:05:40] Unknown:
Question. Where is is that coming from you, Brent, or is that somebody else good with somebody else? Yeah. I'm quite a bit question. Oh, it's Joe. Joe. Hey, Joe.
[01:05:51] Unknown:
Question. Joe. Go ahead, Joe. Does does the Supreme Court rule, or do they opine?
[01:06:02] Unknown:
They opine, and more than that, they fined.
[01:06:06] Unknown:
Yeah. Repine. With regard to that just a minute. With regard to that, I revert back to Andy Jackson.
[01:06:16] Unknown:
Yeah. And Andy Andy first came to shove, and he did that on more than one occasion. But he understood that the branches of government are coequal. Remember, our constitution of The United States is a brief of common law government. It does not apply to you and me. It applies to government, to limit government. That's that's the principle behind our constitution. And, that being true, when Andy Jackson, for example, or, DJ Trump, and Andy was his one of his heroes by the way, or still is, takes an oath. Yeah. As Andy Jackson said, I do not I did not take my oath to support and defend, the Supreme Court of the United States or the cons I didn't even take a note to to support and defend our constitution of The United States as another man understands it. As the Supreme court understands it. I took an oath to support and defend it as I understand it. And when you stop to consider, of course it would be the height of silliness for anybody to take an oath and say, I swear to support and defend the constitution of The United States as the Supreme court has interpreted it. Now we don't say that. Why? Because we know that, justices and judges are just as just as ignorant and wrong headed as any other man. That's why.
And that's why we go right back to the fountain, right back to the source, right back to our common law tradition, and say that's our loyalty. We're loyal to the law of the land. It all comes back to land. Our loyalty is to land, and the law that God sends to the land that springs from the land, the law of the land, our common law tradition. And now a lot of you are listening, you're and you still don't have it clear in your head what the common law tradition is because nobody ever told you, and I haven't made it clear yet today. But just keep in mind, that's the bottom line, my friends. That's the bottom line. Well, that's what Andy Jackson said, and, that's our duty as well.
We all are individually responsible, to do what the law of the land says, to follow the law of the land, to insist upon the law of the land, regardless of what anybody else says. If in our heart of hearts, we're, we feel we're informed and our conviction tells us, no, this is right. This is right. That's our common law tradition. That's a Christian tradition. That's a Christian point of view. Am I gonna force my point of view about the Bible on anybody that's listening to me? I seriously doubt it. And that's the strength of our great nation. We're the only country in the world that has really taken that seriously. It's every man must decide for himself. Why? Because in the Christian tradition, when you stand before Jesus Christ in the final day, and you will, he is not going to allow you to say, well, my my preacher told me this is the way to do that, or my preacher said this is the way to understand the Bible, Or the pope said, or the priest said, or the guru said, or the Maharaji said, or the or the the president of the Mormon church said, no. No. A thousand times no. Jesus Christ said every jot and every tittle of this book.
Therefore, what you read the book. You decide. You depend upon the illumination of the person of the spirit of God to tell you what it says. And God will say, but what why did you do what you did? And why did you believe? And when Jesus Christ, who is God in the human flesh, by the way, when he says that, he's not gonna let you stand behind some other mere created person or created things such an idol or an image or a saint or an archangel. None of that baloney. No. He's gonna say, but your relationship with me is without mediation. It's between me and you under the open vault of heaven.
Why did you believe the Bible that applied this way? And you know what? Even if you're wrong, but if you're sincere, then that's a good thing. You're better off to be wrong and sincere than you are to hide behind somebody else and let them tell you what it means by what it says. And Andy Jackson said, well, the constitution means, what I have come to conclude it means, not what somebody else has come to conclude it means in this particular application, in this particular case before the court, in this particular case before the court. Remember, the courts only have jurisdiction over the parties in this particular case before the court. They don't have jurisdiction over anybody else. Justice is only done one person at a time. Justice does not occur any other way. In our common law tradition, there is no justice except before the courts, one person at a time, one person at a time, in a specific case, one at a time. That's it. I don't care if it's family law case, a contract case, a tort case. Our common law tradition covers all of equity.
All of equity and all other case yeah. Joe, go ahead.
[01:11:15] Unknown:
Well, why is it that the people are the plaintiff many times before the SCOTUS.
[01:11:23] Unknown:
Yeah. Right. Repeat that, Roger. I didn't know. The people are the plaintiffs. Oh, the people are the plaintiffs. That's fiction. No. That's right. That's a fiction. But remember, the people are the militia. The people are the militia. But my point is, Brent.
[01:11:40] Unknown:
My point is they have completely overreached. This deal is a big fraud.
[01:11:48] Unknown:
No. The well, the it's a fiction. The the if somebody says so and so versus the people of the state of so and so, that's the kind of thing you're talking about. Right? Yes, sir. Right. Yeah. Well, that that is a fiction. Obviously the people of the state don't have a clue what's going on and don't know anything about the case. And the reason we use that fiction, and now this is me opining here. The reason we use that fiction, because in some states, it'll say the state of so and so versus so and so in a criminal case. In other states, the document will say the people of the state of so and so versus so and so in a criminal case and on and on, it goes like that. That's a fiction because who the question is in our common law tradition, who is the sovereign?
How do we denominate the sovereign? What words do we use to say, this is the sovereign? Now it's my personal, humble, studied conviction that the people is the proper thing to say. And the reason I say that, Joe, again, glad you brought it up. Give me a chance to say things I think are important because the people, the militia of our country state by state are the sovereigns, and they are the sovereigns in individual instances of individual cases of individual people, persons, parties before the court at that specific instance. And the the militiamen make up the jury, and they're the ones that deliver the verdict from whose decision there is no appeal, except if the course of the common law was not followed. Of course, as our constitution says article or amendment seven.
So the people, the militia are sovereign. That means that the jury, which is not an elected position, is a randomly chosen group of militiamen. Their decision is final and they have it's arbitrary. They don't have any requirement to give the reasons for their decision and they don't have to answer to anybody. They can say whatever they think is just. They can come back in the teeth of both the facts and the law, if they want. That's power friends. That's ultimate power down here on earth. There is no greater power than to have to have the power to deliver an unappealable decision, not an arbitrary decision from whose decision there is no appeal. And the only greater power, the only greater power is the sovereign creator of all things who has that arbitrary power in the sky, in heaven, and on land.
But for right now, God has delivered this jurisdiction responsibility to the militiamen of the several states of The United States. That's our common law tradition. Our common law tradition and the Bible backs that up, the jury. That's why I think it's better, Joe, that to say the people, because it is the jury that will have the final say in individual instances.
[01:14:53] Unknown:
Final say Somebody instance. Go ahead. There's a little echo there from maybe from from, connections. That get you, Joe? Connection. Did that get you? I got I barely hear if he's there. If he if it didn't, he'll come back in a minute when he gets signal. Anybody else got anything they'd like to bring up? Well, Brent, that's unusual. Well, yes, there's Larry. And then there and anybody else? And then there's Larry. Hey, man.
[01:15:28] Unknown:
Hey. So, Brent, there's this, there's this belief that's being taught, that it shouldn't be we the people. It shouldn't be we the lawyers because when that constitution was being put together, it was a bunch of lawyers that supposedly put it together, a bunch of elitists, and the people had nothing to do with it. What what are your thoughts on that? Have you ever heard of that type of teaching?
[01:15:56] Unknown:
Who is responsible in the cons for the constitution of The United States? Who is ultimately responsible from whose decision there is no appeal? And the and the answer is obvious, the ratifiers. Who are the ratifiers? The militiamen of the several states. That's why the preamble says we the people of The United States. Now that's just patriot mythology, more of it. Yep. And to say that lawyers are responsible, that's just plum silliness. Yeah. Was Jame Madison a lawyer? No. How about Tom Jefferson? Not to my knowledge. Did he ever practice law? Either people say he was a lawyer. Maybe he was, but he never had a law practice that I know about. I don't think James Madison, the chief framer of our constitution, did. But even if they were lawyers, I say, what's the problem with that? I had somebody to say to me, there are about a hundred in of court graduates in The United States at the time our country began in 1776.
And somebody said to me the other day, sent me a thing, said, we should get rid of we should make bar associations illegal. And, of course, my thought is, how are you gonna do that? That would be a destruction, total destruction, of the First Amendment's freedom of association. Yep. Yep. That that's a private a bar association is a private association in every state, and, it'd be impossible under the constitution to get rid of a private association. I mean, you you could say we don't we don't allow lawyers to have an organization or no camaraderie.
Well, that would be a very denial of our common law tradition because it is the ends of court privately established common law education that kept the common law going after the Norman invasion. The government went they were appointing Roman priests to to the judgeships. And the lawyers got their lawyers. Ben got together and said, look. This ain't gonna happen. We can't let Roman priests be judges. We've got to find a way to push them out. And they did it ever so slowly over the centuries, over the centuries. And now we're we have them again, the Jesuit the Jesuit graduate of Jesuit law schools dominate the federal bench pretty much, always have. And not to mention that the Supreme Court of the United States. The danger is the same as it has always been. So what do we do? Well, we start another private association and a private institution. That's why we have the the law school so that people can come and learn our common law. Go to commonlawyer.com.
Take the courses. Don't complain about it so much. But to get rid of lawyers would be to get rid of the common law tradition. That wouldn't work at all. Not even a little. That would be we'd be in a worse state when it was all over. You think I'd be willing to turn the country over to a a bunch of patriots? Not on your life. They're filled with mythology. I've been in this patriot movement for decades. I'm weary. Yep. I'm weary. It's built on mythology. Yeah. It's just mythology and people want to make how many common law gurus do we have out there that don't know beans from sour apple butter about what they're talking about? And the answer is lots. And they've never taken the time. Here's the problem. They've never taken the time to discipline themselves, to learn Mhmm.
About our common law. And it takes discipline. And and if you try and explain it to them, they don't wanna listen. They call you ugly names. It's not exciting enough for them. It's just like, again, preachers. How many preachers do you have that'd be worth listening to that know the Bible? Very few. The they've never gone through the process of discipline to really learn it. And so they have nothing to offer, but danger,
[01:19:28] Unknown:
back to somebody. I think Larry, I'm gonna hold you on that was you. Right? Yeah. It was Samuel. Oh, Samuel. Well, just let me get something in there I wanted to ask Brent. Brent, I don't know. You probably didn't see it. I don't know if any of the, folks in the audience saw it, but it was maybe three weeks ago as this judicial thing was really building. I forget what instance they were simmering over. But Newt Gingrich, your old buddy, Newt the toot Gingrich, came up and gave a wonderful historical background on the judiciary and how it's been dealt with with the presidency. You didn't happen to see that, did you? No. I'm I'm gonna go watch it. I'm glad you told me. Oh, it's it's really good. You know? I mean, he he he does some stuff good. Anyway, what I thought was interesting that I've thought about several times since, you know how Adams and Jefferson were the great rivals until they died on the same day on July.
Right? And so when Adams was going out, he stacked the bench with about 18 different judges against Jefferson. And and and gave us read out all their names. He said, on this day, yada yada yada, he goes through all the names, and that was something that Jefferson had to overcome even all the way back to the beginnings of the constitution in the country.
[01:20:54] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I know. And he also had a bunch of US marshal commissions laying on his desk when he came into the presidency. And then the question came before the Supreme Court once they're signed or on his desk. I forget what the process at what point can he not reverse them? You know? Uh-huh. All those things were happening and it was more heated and more hot and more ugly than it is today. If you can believe it, it was that hot and ugly against people that were against, the power of the federal government and those that were for or more federal power. And that's what was going on there. Yeah. Okay, Samuel. Sorry. I want I just was on my mind. I didn't wanna forget it again. Go ahead.
[01:21:32] Unknown:
Yeah. Most of the law universities in the country are are Jesuit run, and the first one that went to hell in a handbasket was Harvard.
[01:21:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Now you're saying the universities are what? What did you say they were?
[01:21:47] Unknown:
Jesuit run.
[01:21:49] Unknown:
Oh, well, the Harvard universities. Yeah. Harvard Harvard was taken over by the Unitarians in 1811, thereabouts. And it went it had been a Puritan school. See, John Harvard founded it as a Bible college, donated his library. John Harvard was a Puritan minister, and it was dedicated, says so right on its, the archway and sold entrance that dedicated to training men of God to teach the Bible, pretty much what it says, but it fell to the Unitarians. Yale, was, also a Puritan, and they had broken off from Harvard and went and formed Yale because they didn't think that, Harvard was doing it right. And they maintained their fundamentalism.
When I say fundamentalism, I mean, they were hardcore Bible believers. And, the last president of any fame was a man named Dwight. And he was an an inerrantist about the Bible. And that went up to about almost the year 1900 thereabouts. And then Princeton, it was the Presbyterian school, and it continued as a fundamentalist school until almost 1930. And, it matter of fact, the faculty at Princeton invented the word fundamentalism in the 1920s.
[01:23:04] Unknown:
And Wasn't that didn't Woody Wilson come out of Princeton?
[01:23:07] Unknown:
Yeah, he did. He was a Presbyterian and men like Jimmy Stewart, he went to Princeton back in the days when it wasn't over the hill yet. And but after the 1930, it it started going south and they were the inerrantist and the fundamentalist. As I said, they invented the word fundamentalism. And, Princeton had been around. Well, Princeton, the when our country started, the president of Princeton was, he went in right after Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards died. They volunteered to take smallpox and killed him. That ought to be instructional. And he was the second president. And then, the third one was from Scotland, and they talked him into coming. Benjamin Rush, by the way, one of the founders of the American Bible Society and signer of our declaration of '76 or, yeah. And his name he was a medical doctor doctor.
And he, he him and two or three other fellows prevailed upon, Witherspoon, John Witherspoon to come from Scotland. Witherspoon was the chief, the leader of the Scottish enlightenment unofficial leader. And he came here and he's called the educator of our of our founders the framers of our constitution because more of them the people that signed those founding documents went to school to him than any other educator And by the way, he himself signed the declaration of '76, John Witherspoon. But John Witherspoon's idea of reality was, as is in the Scottish enlightenment, the Scottish reformation had established the authority of the Bible above all things. And then the next move was to establish the authority of the laws of nature.
Secondarily, in other words, God revealed himself not only in writing through the Bible, he revealed himself also in his creation and the laws of the natural world and the Scottish enlightenment continued in force. One of the last vestiges of the Scottish enlightenment and all the things that came out of Scotland, This is phenomenal. What came out of Scotland, a poor country with no money, no institutions. They tried to form a few. See, the reason they formed educational institutions in Scotland was because the people in England hated them so much. They were racist, you know, to the hilt. They hated them. They wouldn't let them come to Oxford. So they said, okay, we'll start our own schools. And they did. And they also, they invented the idea of high school. Adult education came out of Scotland. No. Yeah. And I say in the last last, one of the last notable inventions of the Scottish enlightenment, in other words, seeing and giving close attention to the laws of nature is the invention of the television in 1920 in the nineteen twenties that came out of Scotland. And but a lot of things before that, a lot of discoveries. And again, law is meant to be discovered.
A while ago, Joe made the point about opining. Yeah. Does this court do the courts opine? Yes. In our common law tradition, they opine. That means they give their opinion of what they have found Mhmm. Found to be the law. Not what they don't make law. In our common law tradition, we believe the law is ever present as eternal as God himself, because the law is the will of our maker and every application of it. And there never was a time that our maker did not know all things that could be known. Therefore, anything we discover to be true in law, the way things are, we're trying to discover the mind of God. That's that's what the whole idea when the court says these are our findings. These are the findings of the jury.
That's our common law tradition. They don't say that in the rest of the world because they view the state as sovereign and you just do what he says and shut up. Islam's that way, the Jesuits are that way. What is the motto of the Jesuit order? It is this, the ends justifies the means.
[01:27:05] Unknown:
Machiavellian.
[01:27:06] Unknown:
Well, if the ends justify the means, then, it doesn't make any difference what you do to, to get to where you want to go, the outcome you want. You kill, steal, destroy, torture. And that's what the law of the city is. It's just stealing, killing, torture. They'll make the trains run on time, no matter no matter how many throats they have to slit. That's, El Duque. He got it done. Well, if the it justifies the means, there is no law. My friends accept men doing what they want. The junk it was the law of the jungle right there. Yeah. Well, a powerful party. Sure.
[01:27:43] Unknown:
Who was interacting? Is that Larry again? Brett. Brent, I I'm sorry. I I got to off point by mentioning Harvard. But if you even go back to Martin Luther, he was saying, hey. These guys are taking over our universities and our colleges and teaching things that we shouldn't be in in in league with. And the Jesuits run all the law schools in this country, almost all of them. Well, Martin Luther They don't want they don't run Brandeis.
[01:28:12] Unknown:
Martin Luther did not say that the Jesuits have taken over the law schools. The the Jesuits, Rome founded the the universities all over Europe. Didn't say Jesuit. The universities
[01:28:24] Unknown:
are putting a general warning out about bad teachings.
[01:28:28] Unknown:
Well, the but the the the Rome is the inventor and the founder of the university system in all the all the world. Yeah. And the university system was founded to put the code of to to put the code of Justinian, the canon civil laws of Rome, at the center of all learning and to supplant the Bible. That was the expressed expressed purpose for the university. So Martin Luther said, actually, he said, he encouraged the electors of Saxony to take on, receive the canon civil laws of the city so that they would have the militaristic power to fight Rome.
See, the common law tradition came from Saxony and the North Of Europe. And, it had prevailed there until the Reformation. And Martin Luther is the one that's responsible for it being done away with in the North Of Europe. And the so that they could fight this fight. You see, the law of the city is a martial kind of a law. At its very foundation, it started as a martial law. And so it's the, you have a commander, it's imperium. And so he encouraged the electors to have that kind of instantaneous obedience to fight Rome, because Rome has that. By the way, to bring up another subject, I was really put off yesterday. I noticed, and I've noticed this for months, every seems like every day, the American flag is flying at half staff, Roger.
[01:29:56] Unknown:
Yeah.
[01:29:57] Unknown:
I'm I'm weary of it. There there are special occasions, I suppose, where that's justified. Well, I went into a hotel, and I said, why in the Sam Hill have you got your flag out here flying at half mast? And the manager of the hotel said, well, that's because the pope died. Well, I said, well, since when do we fly half mast, over some religious leader dying? I mean, when the president of the Southern Baptist Convention dies, is the is the flag gonna go to half mast or the president of the Mormon church or the president of the church of Christ or the Presbyterian church, and the answer is no, then why are we doing it for the pope? Well, isn't that a violation of the first amendment? And the answer is clearly yes. But why is it done? Because the it's done for political reasons to satisfy people. Well, then why don't we do it for the Greek Orthodox church when, the head patriarch kicks the bucket?
Well, because it's not politically expedient. You see how, important politics is to all this, but it is an absolute horrendous hellish travesty that we make a law respecting an establishment of religion and fly the flag at half staff. That's false. Even what, three or four days after the event? Yeah. I can see it next day. Unconstitutional. And then ask the pope to come and speak as Boehner did when he was speaker of the house before the Congress of the United States. I mean, how blatantly, obviously, unconstitutional can you get? But they do it. This is the thing that we're not screaming about. We should be screaming to high heaven, and it's gonna continue if the people, the militia, don't have a different point of view. That's why I'm Same thing about when
[01:31:34] Unknown:
Netanyahu gets up there in front of the congress and gets, what, 57 standing ovations or something?
[01:31:42] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Now that's not as bad. Well, it's getting close, though. It's dangerous. It's dangerous to have other people come in like that because you begin to play favorites. But when it comes to religion, especially Yeah. How wrong can you get?
[01:31:57] Unknown:
Well, I mean, somebody's breathing. Somebody's breathing. How is it, Mike? How is it? Well, okay. Okay, Larry. Just hold on. Let Brett finish. Something. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Go ahead. Larry, who who's You want me to know the mic? You want Larry? I I don't know. Whoever was just breathing into the mic, chomping at the bit, say something. Some Larry, who is who is wanting to say something?
[01:32:28] Unknown:
Well, I'd I wanna say something. Okay. Go ahead. I don't know if you're referring to someone else.
[01:32:35] Unknown:
I don't know either. Yeah.
[01:32:38] Unknown:
I'm glad Samuel's, here because you had already gone off the show last week, and I'm not trying to rehash anything. But Samuel and and, Brent spent, like, thirty minutes going back and forth over the the the Erie Railroad versus Tompkins case, and there is a disagreement amongst them. And I was wondering if Samuel could in a very because I I'm I kinda got lost in in all the information. At the first of the show when we discussed this? Yeah. I listened to the whole show, but I was I wanted to hear this. Today.
[01:33:15] Unknown:
Today. Earlier in the first hour, we covered this already. Were you were you not did you not hear that? Yeah. Yeah.
[01:33:23] Unknown:
Yeah. But, I don't think you went over the disagreement with Samuel.
[01:33:27] Unknown:
Well, no. Well, you did too. But, anyway, alright. Hash it up. Bring it up again. I don't care.
[01:33:36] Unknown:
Yeah. So I was wondering if Samuel could, make make a concise statement of what his disagreement was with Brent.
[01:33:50] Unknown:
Okay. Well, like, main main issue I have with and and a lot of this is coming from Libros. And if if, to give, Brent a a proper opportunity to respond. He should really read that piece. Just not really that long because it'll give him a little better idea of where I'm coming from because it's relatively complex, but my whole point is the jurisdiction during that case had changed, and a lot of it had changed because of the fourteenth amendment and no gold and a few other things. But the commerce in this country and jurisdiction of this country, diversity in, What are you talking about here?
You're talking about a guy, Tompkins, who was a fourteenth amendment citizen. And if you don't take that into consideration, you really aren't getting the point of what Rose does. Unless he had not been overturned for over fifteen
[01:34:52] Unknown:
years ahead. So you don't know he was, and we don't know those circumstances. And
[01:35:01] Unknown:
I Number one, as I've said before, Tompkins wasn't a fourteenth amendment citizen. Nobody is a fourteenth amendment citizen. All the fourteenth amendment citizens are dead. They're gone. The freed slaves, they're gone. And to say that otherwise, just silliness. I don't care what the government says. I don't care what the courts say. I don't care what anybody said. That's silliness. And number two, Tompkin, never raised that issue. And, of course, wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you'd have raised it. And if you take the fourteenth Amendment out of the mix, you still get the same result. Because it wasn't about the fourteenth Amendment. It was about the, federal courts submitting, submitting to the court decisions of the states.
That's what it's about. And that's what it did. And again, I don't see how anybody could argue with that. Any patriot, returning power It was about the the state government. That's what
[01:35:54] Unknown:
Wasn't it about diversity, the different jurisdictions?
[01:35:59] Unknown:
How can you not put the fourteenth amendment in there? Change all the jurisdictions. Why why would you what on the basis of what would you even say such a thing? Listen, if I live in Pennsylvania and the railroads incorporated in New Jersey, you got diversity. That's it. You don't need all this citizenship baloney. Home is home.
[01:36:18] Unknown:
Home is domicile. And if you're, if you, if you, if you Larry,
[01:36:26] Unknown:
thanks for bring Larry, thanks for bringing this up. Okay? Everybody else stops. That's the rule here, and the same thing when Roger talks. But, that's the only way we can maintain order. But if I put my head on my pillar in Pennsylvania, oh, that's my home. And you can talk citizenship, now the cows come home and how to define it, and it won't make any difference because the courts aren't gonna pay any attention. And you go into federal court, they don't care about all that. They just wanna know where home is. And home is defined as domicile.
That gets kind of fancy, but what it comes down to, home is that place from which you have once departed. You are a stranger until you return. It's that place you always go back to. Yep. Home is home. And so that's what it was all about. He lived in Pennsylvania, and the other party lived in, had their or their court incorporation, their domicile in, New York. The fourteenth amendment didn't figure into it. Nobody mentioned citizenship except and as a fancy word to use in diversity jurisdiction. They don't think about that. The courts don't think about it. The lawyers don't think about it. They don't care. They just wanna know where you lay your head at night and where you intend to come back to. That's home. And that's what brings diversity jurisdiction. Back to you.
[01:37:42] Unknown:
Is anybody else, a question? Any questions or Brent, my, my my permanent address is my body.
[01:37:50] Unknown:
Well, whatever you want, and you tell the court that, and they're gonna make a decision on wherever home is and whatever they decide is your home. And there are different tests to tell you.
[01:37:59] Unknown:
Yeah. They're gonna do that according to the fourteenth amendment.
[01:38:03] Unknown:
No, they don't. No, they don't. I can just give you my personal testimony and you're calling me a liar. That's what you're doing. I go into court for years. I go into court for years. I listen to what the judges say. I know the standard they use. I make arguments on the basis of that. And then, and then I, then somebody comes along and said, no, no, the fourteenth amendment. No, it doesn't. That's fantasy. That's Patriot mythology. People don't understand what you're talking about, even if you mentioned it to us. That's for sure. It just comes down to where your home is. Law is not that complicated. Law is not written for lawyers, But it's amazing to me that the people that aren't lawyers wanna try to be lawyers and talk fancy and use all the fancy stuff and bring in all the complicated stuff. And lawyers usually, lawyers and judges say, I don't care. I'm tired. All that all that detail and all that minutia. If there are people that have practiced law very long, they pretty soon, I hope, get tired of the chicken manure. And that's what that is. Nobody cares. No. Because we're down to reality.
Reality. Not the fancy word citizenship, not even the fancy word domicile. We're just down to where's your home. You know? Through kingdoms and palaces, though we may roam, be it ever so humble, there's no place like home. That guy in Pennsylvania may go to New York City, but he wants to get out of there and go back home. That's the end of it. Domiciled in two different states. That's how you decide for diversity jurisdiction. And the other thing about Erie is it just a narrow, narrow, narrow set of cases that are diversity cases. And there aren't very many of those that come up, frankly. So whatever ruling applied in Erie
[01:39:46] Unknown:
just applied Both. A very few cases. Go ahead. And you could see why that would beat federal jurisdiction because you couldn't go to to either state in dispute.
[01:39:55] Unknown:
They'd have a court advantage over the other one. Yes. But you can do it if people submit to it, but most people don't want because, yeah, you're if you're from, Nevada and you're suing somebody in California and you go to court in Nevada, the guy in California is not on his home court, and the courts there aren't gonna care about him. Yeah. That's why we do that. Yeah. It's that simple.
[01:40:16] Unknown:
Paul, you were trying to get something in a second ago. Yeah. Question.
[01:40:21] Unknown:
So what, do what law do does the federal court use? Does it use the court or the law of the state of the plaintiff or the respondent?
[01:40:37] Unknown:
That's an important question, and that that's there's a whole body of law in America that deals with what's called, choice of law, conflict of law. A whole volume's written on it, but there's tests we use to say you use this law or that law in, in any given situation. So that's a whole body of law too. But in in either case, the important thing about area is, the federal courts will use the law of a state. One of the two. One of the two states or one of the three states, however many states are involved, and they have test, to determine what law will prevail.
Choice of law, it's called.
[01:41:18] Unknown:
So okay. So instead of bringing a case against somebody in New Jersey in a court in Pennsylvania, you bring the case against the person in New Jersey in a federal court, and the federal court decides which state's law to apply to the case.
[01:41:37] Unknown:
Yes. Now in the case of, Erie Tom Tomkin versus Erie Railroad, it was a matter of, in that case, he wanted it in New York. He was from Pennsylvania, but he wanted New York law to apply. He didn't want Pennsylvania law to apply because Pennsylvania law, he wouldn't have gotten anything. And as the case turned out, he didn't because Pennsylvania law said if you're on a railroad right of way, you're a trespasser, which stands to reason. It's not your property. But they but they say, you well, if you wanna walk along the right of way, you can do that. But just understand, if you get injured, we're not liable. The railroad's not liable. No liability. Yeah. And that that's good law. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
But there there are other cases in other states where it's a little bit different, and it changes. And so that's, see, well, here's what's going on, for example, with president Trump. And the same thing happens in diversity cases. It's called judge shopping or forum shopping where you say, well, where am I gonna do this? I wanna do it where I have the best chance, case in point, applied to, Congress. Newt Gingrich is not from Georgia. He he was congressman there for years. He didn't know anything about Georgia. He set up when he ran for Congress, he set up, a bunch of guys to study the states and find out where he could go to run, where he stood the best chance of getting elected.
And they came up with Georgia Cobb County area, and so that's what he did. Kennesaw State College. Yeah. Where do you stand the best chance? Yeah. I didn't know about that. Kennesaw, Georgia, where everybody's required to have a gun. Yeah. Question. Okay. Well and then Hillary Clinton, well, she wasn't from New York. Didn't know anything about New York. Why did she go to New York? She's from Chicago, I think. So she went to New York and ran for US Senate because they did a study and she had the money to do it. And they discovered that's where she stood the best chance to get elected. Will people go into, the people that hate Trump or they're going around the federal judges all over the country trying to find a case they can put with a certain judge they know will rule in their favor and issue one of those national injunctions? Yeah. Well, is that justice, friends? No. No. No. Lawfare.
Yeah. That's that's just playing the gaming the system as the courts say. Gaming the system. And it's not right to do that. And Paul wants to make a comment. He's dying. He's chomping. Go ahead. I wanna make another question.
[01:44:01] Unknown:
God gave man dominion over the earth. What law are they applying? My guess is that it's the law of the city, statutory law. It's not common law because under common law, a man has a right to be wherever he wants to be as long as he does no harm, as long as he's he he doesn't pose an injury or a threat.
[01:44:29] Unknown:
Well, that see, there's more there that's there's more patriot mythology. It that's not in our common law anywhere that, you aren't culpable if you cause no harm to another another person. In both cases, that's true, but not in every case. It depends upon the circumstances. There are a lot of wrongs you can commit without hurting anybody. And our common law passing?
[01:44:51] Unknown:
What? Is trespassing, a crime you can commit under common law? That that should be It
[01:44:58] Unknown:
is and always has been. A trespass is trespass. You stay out of my house and off of my property. I don't care whether you could did harm or not. I don't want you here. That's my property. That's our common law tradition. That's the foundation of our common law tradition. You come onto my property inadvertently, you're still a trespasser without even knowing it, and it's actionable. Or you come onto my property and I tell you to get off and you don't, that's criminal trespass. You could be saying, I'm not hurting anything. I don't care. Get off of my property. It's my property. You're not allowed to trespass. That's our common law tradition. Burglary is the same way. Burglary is not going into somebody's home and stealing something or doing harm of any kind. Burglary is define our common law has always defined it as breaking and entering. Period. Once you do that, you can leave and not commit any harm or hurt anybody or damage any property. You're guilty of crime, and you may go to prison.
[01:45:55] Unknown:
That's our common law. Causing damage?
[01:45:58] Unknown:
What?
[01:45:59] Unknown:
Breaking and entering is still causing damage. No. No. It isn't. No.
[01:46:04] Unknown:
No. No. It isn't. No. If I see a door, a jar, and all and I can't even see any light coming through the crack, and I just push it open and step inside, I'm guilty of burglary. If I had intent to steal something when I went in, I didn't you don't have to steal anything. You go in and then leave. And that's, that's, that's a criminal act. Always has been. Why? Because land and that's what real estate is, developed land. Land is synchrosynced, and everybody owns whatever land there is. Somebody somebody owns every piece of land in the in in our common law tradition. And I have the right to defend it against the whole world at common law. And that's what our common law says. And by the way, another piece of patriot mythology.
The statutes aren't common law. Well, every state legislature has a duty to pass statutes that are compliant, consonant, and consistent with our common law. And if they do, well, though, that's the common law too. Everything we say and everything we do. Nothing as William Blackstone says, nothing that is askew or contrary to the Bible is part of our common law tradition, and nothing in our common law tradition nothing in our common law tradition is contrary to the laws of nature. And if anything is said to be a part of our common law tradition that is contrary to the Bible or the laws of nature, Well, we've made a mistake, and we need to correct it. And we have provisions in our common law tradition to do that. But don't say friends, neighbors, and kin, you're gonna have a hard row to row, hard row to hoe, if you tell people, patriots, oh, well, if, you don't have to commit harm or damage to be, culpable at common law, they're not gonna believe you because they've heard it so often. It's hogwash.
And it's a distraction that people get off on and it makes them less effective and they scream and holler about that. And that's not the law. Now, of course, Paul, I'm not criticizing you or anybody else that says that because that's No. I have another question. And it's not true. What's that? Go ahead. No. I have another question.
[01:48:13] Unknown:
Well, actually, I had it a moment ago, and it just flew out. I'll get it back.
[01:48:18] Unknown:
While you're while you're getting it back, let me ask Brent one. Your book, comparing the two bodies of law, you say, is almost a thousand pages. How long do you anticipate how it's gonna take you to cover that on your, on the series?
[01:48:35] Unknown:
Six to twelve weeks.
[01:48:37] Unknown:
Yeah. About twelve to fifteen weeks. There are fundamentals, and I'm gonna go over the fundamentals. You know, with everything, there are just fundamentals. That's why the faculty at Princeton University said there are fundamentals of the Christian faith, and they invented that word. Why? Because the fundus, that's a Latin word that means foundation. All we need to look at is the foundation. Once you've got the foundation, then any structure you build on it, even if it's not exactly like mine, it's gonna be solid. You see? As a foundation is what's important. Yep. And you all know the parable of the man that built upon sand and the, and the man that built upon the solid rock. And Jesus Christ tells that parable about the two parable about the two men. One built his house upon a rock. Another built his house upon the sand, and everything was same so far except the house and the sand. And then this rains came, and the wind came, and the storm came, and the house that was built upon the sand got knocked flatter than the flitter. And the house that was built upon the rock did not fall down.
[01:49:37] Unknown:
And those
[01:49:39] Unknown:
Those two houses are analogous by the terms of that parable to a man's life. You build your life upon sand, it's gonna no matter how much you put into it, you're gonna get to the top of the structure, climbing the ladder of life as, we're talking about, Pistol Pete Maravich. Yes. Pistol Pete Maravich, he found out, and he got and he said this pretty much same way I'm gonna say it. He said, I climbed the ladder of life, and I got to the top of the ladder and found out it was leaning against the wrong building. Yeah. Well, that's what happens when people build their houses on sand. They build it all up, and it's it's a beautiful sand castle. It's beautiful. And then the inundating tides of reality just wash away the sea. That happens year after year, day after day. And Jesus Christ said, no. You don't have to do that. You whatever you build can last, but you gotta have the funness. So when we talk about the funness, the foundation, that's what we're gonna talk about in this course coming up.
And I'll we're gonna try to get it up on the website, and you can sign up for it. But once you have the foundation, then you got something to build on. You got something you can understand it with. Mhmm. If you approach our common law tradition with all the wrong premises, all the wrong foundation, all the wrong mythology, you're not gonna understand the common law tradition at all. You're not gonna be able to use it at all. It'll just be empty distraction of foolishness. And that's sheriff Darr will be a real big, help in that one. What's that? Sheriff Darr will be a real big assist. I'll always look forward to sheriff thing. Yeah. He teaches classes with me and sheriff Darr of Barry County, Michigan. And that puts the rubber to the road in a lot of ways. He's had over twenty years of experience as sheriff, and you just see a lot of things. And it's a very personal upfront job. It's a very it's a political job, but it's a it's a necessary job. It's a common law office.
He's got a lot to offer. Yeah. That's right. And he does. He he comes across everything, and most of what he does pertains to what we're talking about. So, again, all of you that have said these things, and I I say again, if it weren't for you saying these things that wouldn't come up, we wouldn't talk about them. And if I try to say, well, no. That's not it. This is it. This is Patriot Mythology. You're integral in this discussion because you're the one bringing them up, and that's important to all of us. I got my question. What
[01:52:05] Unknown:
it came back to me. I got I I got my question. It came back to me. The state legislatures, they swear an oath to defend and uphold the constitution of The United States and the constitution of the state of, let's say, Pennsylvania. Now was that pre incorporation doctrine or post incorporation? Because not all of the constitution was brought forward post incorporation. Yeah. Well, you're talking about incorporation through the fourteenth. Is that what you're talking about? Well, yeah. It it does seem to kind of I can see where Samuel's coming from. I don't exactly know how we can get there, but I can see a link between the law of the city, post incorporation, the fourteenth amendment, and the status of the citizen in general, and the authority of the state.
[01:53:04] Unknown:
Yes. And that that what you say about it, though, right now, Paul, re referenced to incorporation, Oh, that doesn't have anything to do with diversity jurisdiction. That only has to do with incorporating the the, the enjoyment of the bill of rights to the state government. Fully incorporate them. They didn't incorporate all of them. So the what it is, I'd come back to the simplicity of it. The fourteenth amendment is contrary to the fundamentals of our constitution of The United States. Therefore, it's created nothing but confusion, And there's no consistency to it. And if you think you're gonna try to understand it, you're not. Nobody does. People come up with insane doctrines. I'm talking about Supreme Court justices trying to hammer this stuff out, and they're all they're doing is confusing things worse. That's all they're doing. The fourteenth amendment doesn't fit.
And it it's like the amendment that says, there shall be no slavery or no slave trade in The United States. That's thirteenth. No. That's the thirteenth. Yes. Should there be slave trade in The United States? No. Should there be, slavery in The United States? No. But the constitution of The United States is not the place to well, they did it wrong. They could have put an amendment in that says we repealed all of the amendments that refer that, imply that we allow slavery in The United States. They could have done that. Each of the states were gonna do that anyway. Once you put things in the constitution that limit the private sector outside of government, that's contrary to the whole document.
And I realize there are a lot of injustices that go on, in in the world, but our constitution of The United States is not the place to address those injustices. That's like saying, there will be no abortion. People wanna pass an amendment saying there are no abortion in The United States. Well, the constitution of The United States is not the place to address that. No. And so the Supreme Court recently said, no. The states are to address that. Right. Reform this back to the states. Yep. Abortion is murder. Over abortion
[01:55:13] Unknown:
at the general government in Washington, DC. Well, it depend by what standard you look at it, Paul.
[01:55:19] Unknown:
But abortion abortion is murder. They just call it something different so it doesn't sound like murder. Like I said, a different standard. But the general government in Washington DC has no jurisdiction over murder. That's the whole point. That's a matter of state law. Says state law. Yeah. That's state law. And I know that congress has passed passed, statutes about murder. And
[01:55:42] Unknown:
and the whole our our v Wade thing was based on a lie because whatever her name was that brought the suit admitted she lied in the affidavit.
[01:55:52] Unknown:
Now we yes. That's true too. We have to be careful, though. Of course, if a murder occurs on a military installation or in a federal courthouse, congress or in Washington, DC, Congress have jurisdiction over that. They will. Yeah. Our constitution says that. Yeah. But they don't have jurisdiction, again, like a nationwide injunction, same idea. They don't have jurisdiction to say any anybody that shoots a US marshal anywhere in The United States, that's murder. No. No. The state the state governments can control that, and they can define what's murder in their state. And they've done that. And if you shoot a US marshal in the state of South Dakota, there there are statutes in South Dakota that cover that. Murder's against the law. It has always been been against the law. Is there any difference between shooting a US marshal and shooting my alcoholic cousin? If I had one, I may. I don't know. But is he any less is it his is his life any less value than a US marshal? Well, Congress says that US marshal life is more valuable.
[01:56:49] Unknown:
See, that's what Reminiscent of Gordon Call?
[01:56:53] Unknown:
Yeah. Gordon Call is another good example. Is his life that he lived in the US marshal? Yeah.
[01:56:59] Unknown:
I have I I have one other follow-up on on a portion. Basically, if, a baby is aborted, particularly one that has a heartbeat So at the point that it has a heartbeat, it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually surviving if it's born early. If that baby is aborted, that baby will not be born. That baby will not become a fourteenth amendment citizen and not become a person with the US government has a property right in. That injures the federal government. So in the federal government's instant interest, it should be able to outlaw countrywide murder in the form of abortion.
[01:57:48] Unknown:
No. Don't believe so, and I'll tell you why. Murder, again, it comes back to murder is, a subject of state law. Our constitution in The United States does not address torts, contracts, murder, burglary, all the common law crimes we have, grand theft auto. Our constitution is just there to limit those that work as as employees of the general government of Washington DC Mhmm. And as officeholders. It limits them. It doesn't limit me. And to put anything in the constitution that professed to limit me or you is puts the constitution on its head, creates confusion for the whole document that will not be remedied. It can't be. And then it will become useless. And then people will begin to forget about it. And that's what's happening because the general government has gone beyond this jurisdiction.
And, abortion, we haven't even decided in America what constitutes life. Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this instead? Why don't we just do what the Bible says? The Bible addresses all these things about what to do with a man who causes a premature birth. It's all in there. It's all in there. And it's not what the conservatives are saying, and it's not what the left wing lack wackos are saying. No. It's what the Bible says. It's what God says. It's all there. As as, Van Till said, the Bible speaks to all of life. There's nothing there it doesn't address in first principle.
Why don't we go look? Why do we argue over things when the Bible, as, Blackstone points out, the Bible has set the limits and the boundaries of all of it. But we're not doing that. This is Brent Allen Winters, common lawyer dot com. I'm here with Roger Sales, of Radio Ranch. Common lawyer dot com. Roger
[01:59:43] Unknown:
At Radio Ranch fame and fortune, and we're glad to have Brent every Friday, I'm gonna tell you. I have said it a number of times. It's hard. It's difficult. It's virtually impossible to do a bad show with Brent alongside us. So, always a pleasure, Brent. We appreciate, all you bring us. And, I bet this new series is very interesting to me. So we'll be back. You'll be over on your Saturday perch, and I'll be back here tomorrow on our Saturday perch, and we'll cover that. And then, of course, as Brent alluded to earlier, if you don't have a church home on Sundays, his Sunday, Patriot Zobox appearance is, something you might wanna check-in on.
So, otherwise, in that, Brent, have a fabulous week. And, when are you gonna start this new series, by the way? I don't know yet. I've gotta ask those in charge. Okay. You're still looking for date. Alright. We know what's coming. Otherwise, in that, we're gonna see you shortly, and, hope all is well between now and then. We'll see what happens the rest of this Friday. So, sure hope you got something out of today's program. We appreciate you being there and taking your valuable time and spending it with us. So, maybe we'll see you again real soon.
[02:01:04] Unknown:
So that's about it, Paul. And thank you all. Did have a follow-up if if you guys have a minute now that we're off the air or kind of off half the air. Samuel, did you have a follow-up question? I
[02:01:17] Unknown:
yeah. I just had two points. Again, Roe versus Wade, it was totally dominated by the opposition, you know, by the fourteenth amendment. Had to be born. They have civil rights, not god given rights. Case of Erie Railroad, it just so happened, you know, that was a really a nothing case that the supreme courts wanted to take because it wanted to overturn ninety years of law, and it was spearheaded by Brandeis. That was his little baby.
[02:01:57] Unknown:
That's it. And I I remind you again that all of the conservative justices, even the dissent that hated Roosevelt and his New Deal, they voted to overturn Swift versus Tyson and throw the power back to the local states.
[02:02:18] Unknown:
There you go.
[02:02:20] Unknown:
Alright. Quick. Anybody? Hey, Roger. Roger?
[02:02:25] Unknown:
Waheed. Yes, sir.
[02:02:28] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:02:29] Unknown:
I don't mean to go off topic.
[02:02:32] Unknown:
No. No. You you do. You do mean to go off topic because you always do go off topic. Yes. You do.
[02:02:41] Unknown:
Sorry about this, but, do you think gold would be at 4,000 before before July, July?
[02:02:50] Unknown:
I don't know. Think he's got a crystal ball? Save certainly before the end of the year.
[02:02:58] Unknown:
What do you think he's got a crystal ball? This way, Waiheep. Even though the largest Brent, you may not know this. China has found the largest deposit of gold even over the South Africans, and the whole thing totally is valued at 85,000,000,000. We we we gave Ukraine Three Hundred And Eighty Something Billion. So that that's just came out this week, by the way. Outside of, you know, what the metallurgist dream was, why,
[02:03:31] Unknown:
you know, couple hundred years ago? You're talking you're talking about the alchemist?
[02:03:36] Unknown:
Yes. They turn they tried to turn lead into gold. Outside of them being successful, I don't I don't see the price of gold going down anytime soon.
[02:03:50] Unknown:
And and what what is your take what what is your take on silver? I own a lot of silver.
[02:03:54] Unknown:
Well, it depends on how old you are and what your goals are. But if you're really looking for upside, that's the bet the way to go. But, if you're like me, old, no children, no heirs, no nothing, I I'm not interested in upside. You know, it's like Will Rogers used to say, I'm not interested on the return, on my money. I'm interested in the return of my money.
[02:04:20] Unknown:
Yeah. There you go. Actually, it should be possible to turn lead into gold because it's only separated by one atomic number.
[02:04:31] Unknown:
One little silly number.
[02:04:33] Unknown:
One little silly electron Yep. Is the difference between lead and gold. It should be possible, and they probably know how to do it. They're just not sharing that information with us.
[02:04:46] Unknown:
I I wanna repeat again. I'd suggest some of you if you go back and check out that third hour with Harrison yesterday, and, this guy's got this is something big. It involves some of the real big players. They're so slimy. And this one little thing appears to have also, judge Bromberg was mentioned in that cadre of people he named. Worth listening to and understanding. I'm probably gonna go listen to it again. For sure, I'm gonna send it to Mark. So, anyway, that's one thing I wanted to add. Anybody got any questions or comments? This is kind of a quiet bunch today, Paul. What do you think?
[02:05:28] Unknown:
Hey, Roger. What's that Harrison who? What show? Harrison Smith
[02:05:33] Unknown:
over the morning man on Infowars.
[02:05:36] Unknown:
Oh, okay.
[02:05:38] Unknown:
And and, yes, worth listening to. It's very interesting. This guy is not even an attorney, and he states it a number of times. And he caught judge Bromberg. Here's we find let me see if I can restructure some of it. They're using NGOs as five zero one c threes and going after and sue in court stuff, and they can't do political activity. They've gotta be a five zero four c something or whatever. But he go he went and did a lot of research into these kind of details, and, man, they've got them. He even he even got judge Bromberg. He went in and tried to do an amicus curie brief, Brent, and on this, case.
And you have to ask permission if you're not part of the case, I guess. And so they they, they gave him permission, and then he submitted it, and they wouldn't enter it. And, ended up the judge made some kind of a reference on the record relating to the affidavit he was trying to do in him, which allowed him to bring it back into play. And and he just didn't realize there's a couple other things that happened and the some decisions were made before he realized the impact he coulda had if he'd gotten in there and forced them to listen, because they basically had to accept it. Anyway, it's there are a lot of detail there, but it's very interesting. And he somebody's on the, on the chase for another real powerful thread in this, makeup and underwoven New Year deep state stuff, how it interconnected, and how it might can all be brought down in the world's biggest Rico suit.
Anyway, that's about what I know. If you're interested, go watch it. And, otherwise, if nobody's got any questions or comments, I know Brent's traveling. So, I'll I got I wanna go eat some lunch today. Sun's come out. So, otherwise, if you got nothing, we're gonna go and bid you adieu and see you tomorrow.
[02:07:48] Unknown:
I, I, I got my lunch during the show, and I think my bacon was a little bit old. I was feeling weird. If that ever happens to anybody, I did an ounce of of 10 part per million colloidal silver, and my stomach has apparently settled down. So keep that in your quiver.
[02:08:07] Unknown:
Alright. So, anybody else? Brent, safe travels, buddy. And, we'll see you next week. Thank you, Roger. Look forward to it. Do you want me to do you want me to drop you this Harrison Smith thing I'm talking about? Please. If you got oh, okay. If you got time, I think you'll find it most interesting. Okay? Thank you, Roger. Alright, pal. I'll see you next week. Okay, you ultra folks. Tomorrow's the day. Ten o'clock. Central's the time. See you then. See you then. And for the Sabado edition this is the radio. Yeah. For the Sabado edition, we gotta get together and get my Skype thing straightened out here before we get dead lined up. Okay?
[02:08:52] Unknown:
Okay. Will do. If you would. Alright. Okay, man. Alright. Thank you. Thanks. See you soon. Yeah. Thank you, Josh. Thanks for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales and Brent Allen Winters, the Friday edition on eurofolkradio.com, radio soapbox Com, and radio.globalvoiceradio.net. For more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixstocks.com and where you will find the links to Eurofolks, links to Global Voice. You will also find the links for free conference calls so you can join us live on the show. There's a new student section with, lots of great interviews, headlined by Jean Schroeder's presentation on the War and Emergency Powers Act.
Everybody needs to watch that at least a few times. You'll also find links for excellence of the common law. The that that was a book that was headlined today, and the threat of discussions as it were. Catch us tomorrow for the Sabado edition. That will be 10AM to noon central, eleven AM to 1PM eastern. I'm Paul from Global Voice Network. Thanks so much for being here. Ciao.
[02:10:08] Unknown:
Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[02:10:14] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
Introduction and Hosts
Brent's Morning and Dental Visit
Silver and Copper in Medicine
Current Events and Security Concerns
Crime and Order in Cities
Federal Courts and Jurisdiction
Supreme Court and Government Power
Common Law and Patriot Mythology
Upcoming Law Course and Conclusion
