Welcome to another engaging episode of the Radio Ranch with Roger Sayles, where we dive deep into the intricacies of the 13th and 14th Amendments and their implications on citizenship and taxation. We explore the historical context and legal interpretations of these amendments, particularly focusing on the concept of birthright citizenship and its evolution over time.
Our discussion is enriched by insights from Dr. John Eastman, a constitutional scholar, who sheds light on the misconceptions surrounding the 14th Amendment and the notion of jurisdiction. We delve into the legal and policy issues related to immigration and citizenship, examining how historical treaties and Supreme Court cases have shaped current understandings.
The episode also touches on the practical aspects of managing personal finances and investments as a national, including the nuances of tax obligations on dividends and the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding trusts.
Additionally, we discuss the potential future of the IRS and taxation in the United States, considering recent political developments and proposals. Join us for a thought-provoking conversation that challenges conventional wisdom and offers a fresh perspective on American citizenship and financial independence.
[00:00:26]
Unknown:
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymytoboost.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. Visceral fat is weighing your body down. It's causing sluggish response of your organs, and it's gotta go. It's gotta go. It's gotta get rid of it. You just gotta. And, also, iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com.
Thank you, and welcome to the program. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:51] Unknown:
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And we would too. We try it on a six day a week basis here at the Radio Ranch, and we put our collective shoulders to the wheel and try and get that little ball uphill a bit. Good morning. Roger Sales Radio Ranch. It is the fifth, March the fifth. You know? And I missed it yesterday, Paul and Mark, and I'm very I'm very recalcitrant for doing that. Has anybody got it? Does anybody have it where we are? March
[00:02:24] Unknown:
March fourth.
[00:02:25] Unknown:
Beware of the odds of March. Yep. Beware. It's not a one day. It's evidently about a three day period of the Ides of March. We're right square in it. I forgot it yesterday, and I'm very sorry. So, anyway, we'll roll on. We've got a number of people that help us with, extend our reach a bit. And, mister Beaner is, the keeper of that because he knows all these people. He's got a hand on all of it, which day they're here and which day they're not and all that kind of stuff. So, Paul, if you would be so kind to be able to give these people a little bit of thanks for their efforts.
[00:03:05] Unknown:
Oh, I would be happy to. Normally, we're on one zero six point nine WVOU FM in Chicago for the first hour. That brought to us by WDRN productions, Port Collins, Colorado, part of the NET family of broadcast services. However, those streams are not joining us today. There's, a technical trouser hiccup going on with the DRN servers, and we're working on it. They may join us later in the show. We're on RadioSoapbox.com this morning for the first hour, so we will be doing the Radio Soapbox sign off at the top of the hour. And, of course, we're on the old standby, the original stream.
Thanks to pastor Eli James EuroFolk Mhmm. Radio.com. And, another pet project of mine, Global Voice Radio Network. Just to give you a heads up, there are a couple of other streams that will be coming online. There will be a 247, 365 radio station and also GVTV, global voice television, dot net. Wow. So,
[00:04:27] Unknown:
we're on this 20 on this twenty four hour thing, it'll just run repeats or whatever whatever you program in there on a twenty four hour spool?
[00:04:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm thinking Radio Ranch twenty four seven three sixty five. Oh, lord. No. Years of archives. Just And I'm coming up there to see you. Hold on. Just
[00:04:46] Unknown:
yeah. Just s a n f o r d period.
[00:04:51] Unknown:
Right. And and also another thing that will be happening with that because the GVN radio stream will be 247365. Your show will be live on that program. Nice. And, Oh, we're gonna have to do that. Should be right. WDRN productions will probably be grabbing the audio from that stream directly at the server level on the cloud. So it really won't matter if DRM studios are live or not. The show will still go on. So You you're you're bucking for a raise, are you?
[00:05:28] Unknown:
It's not we're working on it. We're working on it. Okay. Good work. Good work. I gotta give you a pat on the back there. Oh, we got Mark with us today. Yeah. Are you finished with our friends and stuff or and the proposed things that are Yes. Except for
[00:05:43] Unknown:
except for the, the other links available on the matrixdocs.com. You can find the free conference call links to join us live. Leave like I said, we've got room for about a thousand of you, and I have 2,000 more seats waiting in the wings to be brought in. It's just gonna be very interesting to see how many of those get filled here in the next, whatever immediacy we've got.
[00:06:11] Unknown:
Quite excited about all of these events that are happening and are impending. Mark's with us this morning. Mark, you kinda joined us on Wednesday and Saturday. Right?
[00:06:21] Unknown:
Right. That's correct. For for the time being.
[00:06:24] Unknown:
Okay. And you've got a lot of responsibilities.
[00:06:27] Unknown:
On a more regular basis.
[00:06:29] Unknown:
Right. Well, Mark takes care of his elderly parents. I know that that's a well, it's not a burden. It's just something that takes a lot of your time and attention. It's gotta be some sort of a pleasure to help your parents as much as they put in and put up with us when we were young. I think back on my parents, man. Well, I put my parents through an just an unbearable crap. I can't believe they didn't, you know, kick me out a long time ago, but they continued to love me. And I turned around and, and even though my father my my father told my mother she told me this after he died. Well, Rod, I'm afraid Roger will never amount to anything.
So, dad, I keep trying to please you. You know? But but your It's actually
[00:07:15] Unknown:
payback time, Roger. Because, here oh, a couple of years ago, we stopped by a automotive repair place that my sister, used to use and she had had some problems with her with the car and we wanted to check on them to see if they could take it. And I guess one of the guys had been there for a long time. We we pulled in and it was an old gas station that had been converted for auto repair. So this guy had walked out from the back as my dad and I were talking to the manager. My dad recognized him and he said, Hey, I hadn't seen you forever. I thought you'd be dead. Or something like that. I was like, Dad?
Oh, I think he said, I didn't know you were still alive. That's what he said. I didn't know you were still alive. And I was like, Dad, you know, what What's going on? Easy. Easy. Yep.
[00:08:11] Unknown:
The other day Really?
[00:08:13] Unknown:
The other day, I was asked he said something about, you know, my my my dad's in his nineties. Okay? So, I said, he goes, you know, I'm the one that gave you your name. I said, really? Was it all capital letters? No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said, really? So, well, did you base that off the Bible or, you know, how did you come up with the name Mark? And he said, well, you know, I just didn't think Jose would sound right.
[00:08:42] Unknown:
That's funny. Your dad's got a good sense of humor, obviously.
[00:08:45] Unknown:
Yes. Yes. He does. He keeps everybody
[00:08:48] Unknown:
you. Or you got yours. Well, glad to have you back, Mark. Good to be here. Yesterday, at the end of the show yesterday, this is pretty interesting now. I think you'll enjoy this, Mark, or find it interesting as I did. Julie, our new student, Julie. Yep. Julie, I'm sure is in the audience today. And, she was taking you were taking some sort of a real estate test in DC to get your license renewed or something, I think, up there. Julie is a broker, not an agent, also a CPA, so a gal of much accomplishment here. And, she was taking this test, and I think she said the only question that she got wrong was on the thirteenth amendment.
And, the test whoever wrote the test says that the blacks were freed in the thirteenth amendment, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.
[00:09:45] Unknown:
That's not true.
[00:09:46] Unknown:
I don't think it's true either. And and and but the test did, and that's the only question she missed because, of course, she's been hanging around with us for a few months and had her own different ideas on that. But we got to the end of the show, and then we were discussing it yesterday. And we said, we're just starting just pick that up this morning. K? And then on top of that, to add to the fourteenth amendment, Paul took the, Eastman, attorney I don't know what his John Eastman. I don't know what his first name is, and ran it through the Paul machine, which makes audio mucho mejor better.
And, we're gonna maybe play that today or tomorrow, one of the two, whichever time frame we get to to to drop that in. So just giving Paul a little heads up. So let's go back and look at the, the entire sequence of events here. And, what really happened I'm sorry that my eyes aren't better. There's a whole half a page in the slaughterhouse cases. Mark, have you ever read the story or even breezed over a slaughterhouse case? Yeah. Yeah. I had it. It had to do with a bunch of, like, meat processors. Yeah. French. Well, they're French they were French plantation owners.
[00:11:02] Unknown:
Right. So they were dumping all their waste into, like, a river. Yep. And it come down to had who had jurisdiction over them dumping that into the rivers is if I recall correctly.
[00:11:14] Unknown:
Well, it's very interesting. And this is courses eighteen seventy one, and it was the first case, what they call landmark decision or a case of first impression on the fourteenth amendment and its effects. And, what happened was there's a group of these butchers, and they were mostly French, They had, settled and had, you know, plantations there next to the river. You know how dirty the French are. I mean, it's no secret. Okay? I mean, they'll just leave raw meat hanging outside a butcher shop on a on a hook, you know, flies and everything all over it. Although, I guess, the end product over there is pretty good, but, they have some questionable processes to put it that way. Right.
So, of course, France had the the Louisiana and and later bought by Jefferson, I believe, Louisiana Purchase, which was a vast extensive land. I found out something at lunch yesterday, kind of talking about this, that I didn't know before. When the French settled the the the land there on the French possession, the first capital was not New Orleans. It was Mobile. K? And then they moved it over to New Orleans. So what is happening is these French would not the cleanliest of habits would butcher their animals. And whether they live next to the river or close to it, they would take the carcasses and the parts they didn't want, and they go throw them in the Mississippi River. And as the Mississippi River would take that refuge downstream, some of it would get caught in the water intake valve that supplied New Orleans' water.
Oh. So it was legitimately contaminating the water supply. K? So Louisiana passed a law, and they said that anybody that has plantations is gonna do this. You have to go to a state sponsored slaughterhouse. Excuse me. And dispose of the remains of the carcass of your animal. Well, for a lot of people, that was a real inconvenience. They might not had one close, this, that, and the other. And there was a lot of rhubarb about it, and so a number of them took cases to court. They did it under the police powers and the health powers of the state, which is, of course, vested in them in the constitution that I would think. You know? So, they a bunch of them took these cases to court, the only remedy they had, And that's why they lumped them. There were so many of them. They lumped them all together, and that's why it's a plural, slaughterhouse cases.
K? Right. And so they took the case pardon me?
[00:13:54] Unknown:
The yeah. They combined them all.
[00:13:56] Unknown:
Right. And so, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and, basically, the Supreme Court. They they did it on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, if I remember correctly, Mark. And, so when it got to the Supreme Court, they said, look. We empathize with you, basically. We sympathize with you, but you're white butchers. You're French plantation owners. And the fourteenth amendment was mainly written for blacks. So bring us the case and something we can consider and we'll consider it, and they remanded it. K? So very interesting case because several reasons.
One, it was 1871. So it's as if we were saying here, boy, you remember that COVID stuff a couple years ago and and how they did this and did that and tried to do this and wanted to do another? And all of us would remember that because it was in our recent memory. And that's the way this case is, and that's one of the reasons it's so important. Okay? And so in the case there, there's about a half a page written on what we're gonna talk about leading up to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. And the it starts out with something, you know, it was a controversial case then, and it's still a controversial case today.
And I know Mark knows what I'm talking about, and this is the Dred Scott decision. Okay? And they they they talk about that in in the slaughterhouse cases. They said this was all set up by Dred Scott. You know, and Dred Scott was a finding by the way, a little history on that. You may not know, Mark. The sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court was a guy from South Carolina named Roger Taney, t a n e y. He was the chief justice of the Supreme Court for twenty years or more, I believe. He never went to law school, Mark. Never. Wow.
Okay? And so, and and now Barnes refers to Dred Scott as a bunch of slaveholder with slaveholding interest, against those who don't. Now I don't know about that. Maybe Mark Barnes does great research. I'm not gonna, put him down on something I haven't studied. And that may be the case. But regardless, that finding is still over a 50, now. Almost 200 is, still controversial. K? And what it says, there was an escaped slave from a slave state. I don't remember which one, but he had escaped the slave state and gone to Illinois and claimed he was a free man. And Dred Scott came back and said, no af no man of African descent can be free whether he's in a slave state or not.
Well, you can imagine that sent a lot of ripples around. Yep. And so that was, one of the door openers here. Now on top of that, what this little excerpt from the slaughterhouse cases talks about is it says, well, you know, there was a lot of discussion around here in DC. It was in the newspapers. It was in the public journals and in political circles that someone who had been born with the recent Dred Scott decision, someone who had been born and raised in DC and the territories was not only not a citizen of The United States, but could not become one by anything short of an amendment to the constitution.
Boom. Here's your loophole. That's what they that's what they drove this through. K. And so, they they got together after the Civil War, eighteen sixty eight, I I wanna say. And they got together and they let all the, representatives and senators from the Southern states who'd been trying to fight to secede, they fought a war to secede from from what they consider tyranny, and they let all of the legislators back into congress to vote on the thirteenth amendment. They passed it. Six months later, after they got the fourteenth amendment cooked up, and they sent it around to the states to ratify it, if your state did not ratify the fourteenth amendment, they kicked you out of the union.
Yeah. Now here, these states had been trying to get out of a war for four years. They said no, and then they come back. And because they won't pass the fourteenth amendment, they kick them out. Is that a little suspect to you, Mark?
[00:18:26] Unknown:
Yeah. I would say so.
[00:18:28] Unknown:
Okay. So, that's why people say the fourteenth amendment was not legitimately ratified. Okay? But let's go back to the thirteenth. So that was there. It's constitutional. And, Julie, if you didn't catch yesterday, was, as I was saying, was taking a broker's test. Julie, are you with us? I'm sure you are. You right there, girl? Julie's not with us. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. I'm here. Girl. Alright. Well, what let's give us your input. You had to go up and take a broker's test in DC for your license. Right?
[00:19:01] Unknown:
Yeah. I had to do, continuing education. And, one of the and and for DC, it was just all based on, the civil war and, the thirteenth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, fair housing, and all that stuff. And one of the questions related to slavery, and it said, which amendment I think it was, you know, freed the slaves or something like that. And, I I clicked on, I think it was, an answer like none of the above. And, I got it wrong. They said it was the thirteenth amendment.
[00:19:34] Unknown:
Okay. Well, it's very interesting. You know, as long as I've been involved in all this, I've never heard that before. So that's one of the things that kinda perk my interest. And in thinking about it after the show yesterday and last night, it it is a very interesting question, quite frankly, because it does outlaw slavery in the thirteenth amendment. But the thirteenth amendment was for the states because at the bottom, it says their jurisdictions. So I can understand where somebody could take that away from this. But here's my question. If they outlawed slavery in the thirteenth amendment, where where did they move the slaves to?
Well, they didn't move them. It was only for the states. Right? Julie? Yeah. At that time. It was only for the states. So if they gave them freedom in the state at that point, what were they? What's their political status? Well, they're not whitey. The state citizen was whitey and Jim Crow, But they don't have a status yet. It may have freed them, and it better be a wonderful point of debate here, really. But it couldn't have freed them totally because it didn't give them anywhere to go. They didn't have a status for another six months. So you see what I'm saying?
[00:20:53] Unknown:
I do.
[00:20:54] Unknown:
Okay. So, I mean, it it may have, and they may have a little bit of validity on the argument. I'm dying to hear Mark's input on this. But I think it was more to set up the fourteenth amendment because they left out voluntary servitude, which they have to. They can't outlaw it, but it's legal by omission sitting right there. That's a big fat softball over over the plate right in the middle. Okay. Just a second, Paul. And then, of course, it goes down a couple of, lines, and it says their jurisdictions. So it was plainly for the states. And the way I see this, they have a very slanted narrow view of this, I believe.
The way that we see it on a broader standpoint is this was the setup where they could throw the broad net over the states and get everybody into this subject to the jurisdiction of condition. And that's what I see it as. So I think they're well, they they might not be incorrect, but if they're correct, they had no place for the new freed blacks to go. They didn't have they were still they were in in in in essence, if their conclusion is correct, the blacks were stateless for six months. And and we know this isn't about black and white. That's what they don't know. This is about political status.
Whitey, the state citizen, had god given rights and duties and constitutional protections. The slave had civil rights under the fourteenth amendment and and you the federal government's their daddy. So that's really the difference, although it did manifest itself primarily in the black race. K? Because they freed a whole bunch of them. But you can't tell me, especially from that paragraph in the slaughterhouse cases, you can't tell me that everybody in Washington, DC and the territories were black slaves. Now granted, there's a lot of state citizens that would no doubt go to the federal government to help perform the collective duties of of the states. I mean, as we said the other day, Virginia and North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia and Massachusetts, well, they couldn't all have their own navy. They couldn't afford it.
They couldn't all have ambassadors to England and of Paris and to Germany and Russia. They couldn't all afford it. They'd be tripping all over each other up there. So they had a nondefined federal government. There there were no citizens or there weren't any really abridging rules to my knowledge or anything else, constitution, of course. But they had limitations, but they may have been partial state citizens that were over there working for the collective good of the country. But you can't tell me under any circumstances that everybody in DC and the territories was either former was either state citizens or former black slaves. I just don't buy that. K? So there had to be a small percentage of people here that were affected by the fourteenth amendment that were not black.
K? So the question is, interestingly enough, when Jim Crow came in, which bathroom did they go to? They go to the black bathroom? They go to the white bathroom? Well, we don't know, but I'm just speculating here. They couldn't have all been black slaves and other state citizens. There had to be some people in that vast territory, The US and all the territories that were born and raised there that were affected by the fourteenth amendment. Up to that point, they were stateless. And if the thirteenth amendment freed the slaves as these people are trying to pull pull the wool over your eyes, then for six months, they were stateless too. They had no political status.
They didn't get the political status till the fourteenth amendment because that identifies who, the citizen of The United States and a resident is. Okay? And as all you know, I'll just go it bears repeating. The the the fourteenth amendment is a two pronged legal test. You know, if you get into law, Mark knows. You came on to talked about it the other day about a case with trust, which had a six point plan, and they the judge says, well, the trust, even though that didn't really look kosher, the trust met all six points of the test. Right? You were talking about that, Mark. That's correct. So That's correct. Here we go. Well, this is a two part legal test.
You gotta be born or naturalized in The United States, and then you gotta be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's the phrase that everybody hangs up on. That's what Barnes was talking about a few weeks ago in '11, the subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Well, what may you see, the only time that's ever been covered in the court, Mark, to my knowledge, is Elk versus Wilkins, which was 1878. Elk was an Indian, came off the reservation. Wilkins was the registrar. This is out in the, you know, Kansas, Iowa, somewhere in Indian territory out there.
And Elk comes off the reservation. He goes in to register to vote under the new fourteenth amendment. And Wilkins says, you're an Indian. You can't register to vote. This is for blacks. So one thing that's going on there is they recognize the Indian tribes as sovereign, don't they? Well, you bet you they do. Okay? So then Elk, disappointed, no doubt, goes back to the reservation. Election day comes along. Elk comes off the reservation, goes to the polls. Wilkin the register Wilkin the registrar sitting on the polls. He sees Elk again. He says, you can't vote and you can't register. You're an Indian. You're a sovereign, basically.
And so in that case, it's the only point only case I've ever seen, Mark, where they went back and covered subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I remember I was working with an attorney back in Atlanta back then, and I went and gave him that. And he goes, god. Thank you. I've been looking for this for years. Well, there it is. It's right there in Elk v Wilkins. Okay? And what they said was subject to the jurisdiction thereof is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the federal United States. Now that was repeated in US versus Wong Kim Ark, but there's never been, to my knowledge, visited by the court again.
And it's the key out of the whole thing. Okay? Here it is. Here's this voluntary servitude, and here's all this other stuff. By the way, we're gonna take that first point, and we're gonna take care of that for you. We're gonna bankrupt the country, and we're gonna take this this political status that's sitting on a shelf, and we're gonna come over and plug everybody in as sureties to the debt. Now we know that from Colonel House's note that was found in Woodrow Wilson's possessions after he died. And House starts out the whole thing with, we will attach them to the debt by using utilizing the ancient pledge. We make them sure these, I forget the wording, make them sure at ease for the debt by, by, invoking the ancient pledge. Well, okay. What the hell's the ancient pledge?
I mean, you go dance around the fire and go, woo, woo, woo. What? No. It's the oath of fealty in the feudal system. That's the ancient pledge where you get in front of the lord of the manor voluntarily, go in, get on your knees, both knees, very important. You're you're the Lord of the manor is now your God. You're on both knees. If you don't understand the significance of that, you're on both knees. You put your hands above your head as if you're praying. The Lord of the manner puts his hands on yours and you receive you. You basically give him your body and all of your worldly goods. You give him your body as property and then you don't own any worldly goods, so you're gonna give them to him because he's got a property right in you. You can't own anything. You can control some things, but you can't own them. That's straight from Colonel House's mouth.
Okay? Now you could go back even to more contemporary, Carol Quigley. Carol Quigley, tragedy and hope, was a CFR guy. He was Bill Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown. Okay? And he was all for the CFR and what they were doing in this scheme. He just didn't think they should keep it secret. He thought they ought to make it public. Well, that's what we're doing, mister Quigley. We're making it public. Okay? And then people can make their own decision on it. His statement in that book where he had two years access to the internal files of the Council on Foreign Relations.
And in his book, he said the me the financial leaders of the world met in regular secret sessions where they fashioned the world's financial system in a feudalism fashion. That's Carroll Quigley. That's two years into the CFR archives. I think the guy knows what he's talking about. He's that is a unreproachable, statement. Okay? You you can't disprove that. Well, I dare to say, you can't have a world financial system shaped in a feudalist fashion if you don't have serfs. Yep. Period. And so that's what we're dealing with here. So they'll take the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, and they're gonna do that for you. We're gonna bankrupt the country. We're gonna come in and grab this. Oh, well, here's this little status over here sitting up on a shelf. Well, I'll be darned. We'll just put everybody in there, and now we got a property right in you, and you're sureties for this bankruptcy.
That's what's going on. Okay? And that's subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Nobody's hit it yet. Barnes didn't hit it. Levin didn't hit it. I'm sure mister Eastman, if we get to hit and he's very in-depth, a little that I could listen to here. He didn't get it. So here are all these superb attorneys that are within an onion skin of getting the answer, but they never asked the right question. They never asked the right question in the respect of what gee, I wonder what other societies had this attribute to their society, this birthright citizenship. Nobody's asked that yet. If they'd asked that question, they'd get the answer.
K? Yeah. So that's where we are, Julie. I don't believe they're correct. I I don't think that they were intentionally there to free the slaves with the thirteenth amendment because they didn't have any place to put them yet. I think that was there so that they could make people think they were doing that and that they're hidden in the background as voluntary servitude, and they're setting you up where eighty years later, they could stick you into this position. And then a couple of, about twenty years later, fifties, after Brown versus Board of Education, they could start asking you that question legitimately because they combined both of those statuses, blessy v Ferguson, the Jim Crow laws were now combined, and equal in the classroom, equal in the society. That was the thumbnail of Brown.
Remember, it was only sixty days after that. That was evidently as you look back and try and un unravel this, that was their big obstacle, Mark, was getting over Jim Crow. They had to get rid of the two separate distinctive statuses and mold them in the one where they could ask you that question and not have to put national in there. That's what they're doing. Yes, Paul. I'm sorry. I got ranting. Yes.
[00:33:04] Unknown:
That's exactly what they had going on. The thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude, but it did not give them any recognizable political status. It did not give them any protections Yep. Under the constitution, and it did not give them any states' rights.
[00:33:24] Unknown:
Nope. So Hey, guys. See, it may have and so from the slant of your people up there in DC, which are always slanted to the black side, obviously, I I don't think I think it was for the states, their jurisdictions, and not for the blacks necessarily, because they didn't have anywhere to put them. They didn't have anywhere to put them for six months. So that's why, Julie, I would say that you were correct and that they're wrong. Do you have any comments on that, Julie?
[00:33:59] Unknown:
No comments except for just the fact that when you read the thirteenth amendment to the constitution, you know, I everybody in DC views the word slavery as, you know, the black slaves. Oh, of course. Well,
[00:34:13] Unknown:
I can under well, they're prohibiting that in the future. So, but I just don't think they're right in their interpretation because they might have freed them back then, but they had no place to put them. If they were to have them freed, they'd give them a political status in the thirteenth amendment, and they didn't. They were waiting for the fourteenth amendment and setting it up where eighty years, a hundred years later, they could trap all of us. In other words, yes. You could say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but it wasn't fought over the kind of slavery we're talking about here. It was caught fought over setting up the blacks in a position that they could trick all of us into where we'd all be slaves.
[00:34:57] Unknown:
That makes sense.
[00:34:58] Unknown:
Okay. And I I have that video queued. Alright. Hold on. We'll get some we're gonna get some chatter here. Paul, what your first Larry's next. I have that video queued if you wanna go to it. Okay. Well, let's listen away. Let's get the discussion out of the way. Larry, what do you got?
[00:35:15] Unknown:
Didn't you mention in the past that, there's something missing out of Carol Quigley's book, like the first edition had it in there and then later editions did not. Am I messing up with another book?
[00:35:29] Unknown:
You I don't know. Quite frankly, I saw that, in a set of quotes, and it referred back to Carol Quigley. So that's where I learned that quote. But he clearly said it in one of the editions. The, the the leaders of financial leaders of the world met in regular secret sessions where they fashioned the world's financial system in a feudalist fashion, right out of Carol Quigley.
[00:35:56] Unknown:
K?
[00:35:58] Unknown:
Mark, you got anything to weigh in on here?
[00:36:01] Unknown:
No. I I agree. I think it's just a blanket statement, you know, and, you know, we had we had other slaves in our country, you know, outside of of, of the blacks. Blacks. So Well, actually slaves that came over and and They were so predominant.
[00:36:23] Unknown:
They were so predominant, the Irish slaves, because the black slaves cost an average of $2,000 a piece in those days. That's for an average specimen, not a healthy big, you know, male or whatever. Alright? But, the Irish were nothing. That's why they would keep the Irish in the fields, and they would let the blacks work in the house because they cost a lot of money.
[00:36:52] Unknown:
Well, you know, in in a lot of the Irish, I think they voluntarily came over as a slave just to pay their way to get here.
[00:37:01] Unknown:
Many. Yeah. So But they were going around London and getting little ragamuffins in the streets and stuff, and they'd grab them by the nape of the neck and go throw them on the slave ship, send them to The US. Wow. Well, that wasn't uncommon either. Roger, the the thirteenth amendment that you're talking about, is that the new one or the old the No. It's the new one. I don't I I know the old ones here. I don't ever refer to it. I I this is the one we're dealing with because they they this is the one they use to throw the net over everybody. It's the setup. Remember, these guys have to do any hold on, Myrka. They don't ever do anything where they don't do it in a two step process.
They set it up like cocking a gun, and then they pull the trigger. They can't do it all at one time. Okay? So the thirteenth amendment is the setup. The fourteenth amendment is pulling the trigger. Now what what's your comment? All part of the Reconstruction? Well, could be. Yeah. Probably. You know? We know a little bit about that, but just just concentrating on congress and what they're doing. And this will has led me to thinking this through. Like we just explained it here, has led me to the conclusion that this is a valid thesis. Now I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove it, but this is a valid thesis that the Civil War was fought to get these two amendments in the Constitution so that a hundred years later, they could control the world by using us as slaves and collateral for the world's reserve currency and thereby controlling the world. That's what I think is going on here.
[00:38:38] Unknown:
Roger?
[00:38:39] Unknown:
Yes, sir.
[00:38:41] Unknown:
Yeah. They, the the Reconstruction Act stipulated that the southern states, in order to be let back into the union and seat in congress, through the Reconstruction Act, had to vote for the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment.
[00:39:00] Unknown:
Well, the thirteenth amendment was already done. The thirteenth amendment was done. They led all the Congress Reconstruction Act. Base this fourteenth amendment. That's the booger. Go ahead.
[00:39:11] Unknown:
No. They're both part of the Reconstruction Act, and this this is where where Johnson vetoed, a lot of this stuff. He was against he he he was feeling leaving the South in without all this stipulations and moves to coerce them was the way back to a peaceful society and he just never got his way. Of course, they came within one vote of impeaching him. So and it was for opposing and, you know, what they made up a bunch of crap about him trying to replace Stanton is really what the impeachment was about. But it had they were just being mean spirited about him trying to veto all of the reconstruction laws that they were trying to put on the South. And, of course, they're they're occupied by the the North's military and being forced to do archive stuff. So I I think I told you all the story. I was watching
[00:40:16] Unknown:
SEC Network a couple years ago did an outstanding multi part documentary on the history of Southern football. Okay? And, from the start and all, SEC was founded and all that kind of stuff. And they got up to a part in that series since 1925, I believe. And in 1925, the Rose Bowl, they they didn't name it the Rose Bowl till the next year. Okay? So it's in the early stages of the Rose Bowl. Mark, have you heard this? This this is No. Fascinating. Well, it's fascinating. Okay? And so the two teams that the Rose Bowl invited out, one of them couldn't make it. And so they went searching for another team, and Alabama had won the SEC that year. And they, asked Alabama to come. And interestingly enough, one of the members of the Rose Bowl committee said, I didn't even know Alabama had a football team.
Okay? And so they and this is before that was nationally broadcast the year before, and the only announcement they had was, over Western Union. And the people around the South particularly would all all went and hung out around the Western Union Station. They get play by play, over the tell telephone not telephone, telegram. So, anyway, Alabama went out. There's a five day trip, and they stopped along the way to practice. And, they went to play in the bowl, and they were being defeated, I forget by who, at halftime. And they came out, and it was one of the real early, games where the forward pass took prominence. And Alabama came out in the second half with the forward pass. I don't remember the players, pretty famous, and, won the game.
And so, then they had to get on the train and come home. And so as they got close to the south, every town they went through had giant crowds at the train station, you know, to celebrate. And, and they finally got to Tuscaloosa. And the guy that was doing the commentary on that, he said, part of the reason that this out outreach of a a a fandom on this was because this was the first time since the Civil War that the south had beaten the north at anything.
[00:42:42] Unknown:
Wow.
[00:42:44] Unknown:
Nineteen twenty five.
[00:42:47] Unknown:
Wow.
[00:42:48] Unknown:
I just thought that was really hit me when they said it. You know?
[00:42:53] Unknown:
Yep. That was actually the Southern Conference.
[00:42:56] Unknown:
SEC won't form till thirty. Yeah.
[00:42:59] Unknown:
Okay. But it was in that range, and that was the background for it. My it might have been wrong on a date there. But, and if you ever if you like football, especially SEC football, which many of us do, that is a wonderful documentary. I I I think they call it Saturdays in the South. Rick, did you see any of that? You seen any of those episodes? No. Well, it's worth watching, especially if you like if you like football and history stuff. Anyway, I just thought that was very interesting. That's the first time the South had beaten it the North at anything since 1868.
That's fifty five years, folks.
[00:43:43] Unknown:
K?
[00:43:45] Unknown:
So and that's the burden that people like me I mean, I've lived my whole life. Even though I lived in Alaska and Texas and New Mexico and other places, I'm still always a southern boy, you know, and had that culture from both of my parents. And this is something that's plagued the South for, what, a hundred and fifty years now? Is all this civil war stuff? We can't fly the Confederate battle flag, which I've got one in my window right here to my left, or any of those things, without being shouted down. If you remember the old days, the SEC, when I was, in school, Old Miss was the rebels. They're still the rebels. They used to have Johnny Reb, the little plantation owner, as their mascot.
And if you'd watch an Old Miss game at home, there was, like, thousands of rebel battle flags being waved. Boy, they got rid of that. Okay? So it just is a way and this information here that we deal with is a way for me to shed a lot of that crap that I've been through in my adult lifetime just because I'm in the South. And these ideals were I've heard a term Jefferson America, Jeffersonian America, where the other is Lincoln Tony in America. I by far prefer Jeffersonian America. Thank you. And the beautiful part with what we do is I can get you back to that. K? So, who else has got something to comment on this discussion here this morning? I think it's been pretty fruitful so far.
[00:45:18] Unknown:
Hello? Does anybody know the difference between the two different thirteenth amendment?
[00:45:25] Unknown:
Well, one of them, the old one, Joan, if it goes back and you can go back. That's what people always ask about this, don't they? You go back, it was I I forget when it was ratified. It was earlier in the century. Could somebody help me out when the original thirteenth amendment and it was ratified even though they say it wasn't, Joan. And I say that because we found old law books with that thirteenth amendment in the constitution in a law book. Well, they don't put that kind of stuff in a law book if it hadn't been ratified. Okay? So that's it's got to do with titles of nobility, Joan, which Brent says is not attorneys.
Our patriot group, always says, well, that means attorneys can't be in congress. Brent says that's not correct. If you've got a question about it, you can ask him tomorrow. What was your comment, Mark?
[00:46:16] Unknown:
Yeah. December of eighteen sixty five is when the thirteenth Amendment was, ratified.
[00:46:22] Unknown:
Sixty five? No. No. That's the new one. No. No. No. No. No. Eighteen twelve.
[00:46:28] Unknown:
Eighteen '12, and they started a war to obfuscate the fact that it Well, could be. Was ratified. Could be. So it was there. The
[00:46:37] Unknown:
Roger, Alan shared a article. Yeah. Alan shared a article in 2023, a little while ago, and it says on here the real thirteenth amendment shown above was ratified in 03/12/1819.
[00:46:56] Unknown:
Okay. So it had been on the books for decades. And Yeah. They went in and swept it out. Joan, I've never put much time or effort into studying it. I know it's there. I concentrate on the one that deals with us and affects us. If you wanna go do a bunch of research or anybody else, you go go ahead and go do it and bring back your findings for us. Yes.
[00:47:19] Unknown:
I have the the amendment part that I guess probably changed, and I could read it to you real quick.
[00:47:26] Unknown:
Well, you can read it to the audience if you want. It really has nothing to do with us, but let's go ahead and do it. Yeah. Tell me what you think.
[00:47:34] Unknown:
If any it says, if any citizen of The United States shall accept
[00:47:38] Unknown:
claim with Okay. There it is right there. Now let me let me stop you. And then notice they don't say if any citizen of The United States Of America. And that's the technical thing at that entire time, but they just referred to it as The United States because everybody knew what they were talking about because there wasn't another option.
[00:47:58] Unknown:
Go ahead. The states that are united. Exactly.
[00:48:01] Unknown:
Good. Do what, Rick? It meant the states that are united. That's the way they thought of it. Okay. Well, everybody knew what they were talking about. If this is the equivocation,
[00:48:13] Unknown:
folks, that they drove this whole plan through, is that difference right there? Go ahead, ma'am. It talks it talks about the nobility part too here. So if any citizen of The United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title, nobility, or honor, or shall without consent of congress accept and retain any present pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever kind whatever from the emperor, king, prince, or foreign power. Such person shall cease to be a citizen of The United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or prohibit under them or either of them
[00:49:00] Unknown:
at the end. So Well That's it. Had to be something yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Rick.
[00:49:06] Unknown:
That restriction on titles of nobility was in the articles of Confederation.
[00:49:11] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that's good information. Thank you. And this come up before Brent. He said it doesn't mean attorneys, and that's what the majority of patriots interpret that as. My point is, okay. It was there. It's gone. Does it have any difference on your freedom, Joan?
[00:49:31] Unknown:
So when George Washington was president, he and any current president, they should not say that they are king or they wanna be king
[00:49:42] Unknown:
because that's the title of nobility. Right? No one I I don't know if I'd interpret it like that. George Washington had some limitations. You know? He was, part of the constitution. Says you have to be a natural born president to to, national born, American to be president. Well, I don't think his parents were both born in The US, so they had to make a little leeway for the first guy. So, so I I just don't know, Joan. I've really never spent a lot of time going into that, because it, because I concentrate on the one that's in there now and what effects it has on us. Okay? Right. Thank you. Right. Alright. You're welcome. So anybody else got something to add on that topic?
Okay. I'm gonna say yes. That's a no. Yes, ma'am.
[00:50:32] Unknown:
Hey. This is Nancy.
[00:50:33] Unknown:
Hey, Nancy.
[00:50:35] Unknown:
Hey. You were bringing up the Dred Scott decision and and Taney. And I've I think I've I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I've had this thought before as you've talked about later, cases that were were obviously setups to take to the Supreme Court to get a decision as a part of their plans. So my question I I it's more of amusing, about painting. I wonder what and especially since he didn't wasn't an a lawyer, didn't go to law school. Were you still what his connect what his connections to Jews were.
[00:51:17] Unknown:
I don't know, but you still you still don't have to go to law school to be on the Supreme Court.
[00:51:24] Unknown:
Yeah. That's it's kind of amazing.
[00:51:27] Unknown:
I I don't know. I I really never looked into it a lot. I know about Dred Scott, all that. I just don't know. Chaney was, I believe, from the cursory research that I did, was, sitting chief justice for over twenty years, though. And I believe he was very, very respected also, Nancy. You can probably find some references to it, but isn't that interesting that his decision, I think it was in 1857, is still controversial today?
[00:51:59] Unknown:
Well, I wonder how factually isn't it the case? You've talked about, you know, seeing, on NPR some or the antique roadshow of the Massachusetts that that someone may have this you're tip for Negro or freed slave or Right. Citizenship in Massachusetts. And I'm I'm thinking that was early nineteenth century. I may not be recalling that correctly, but I I question whether the assertion that freed slaves could not be,
[00:52:32] Unknown:
citizens in their state because I think that there's evidence Well like that one that Well, there well, that was the state's decision. Taney obviously took a different him and the the court took a different track on that. Now why would they take a different track on that? It is possibly because of a strict interpretation of private property, which is one of the things that our our Anglo Saxon cultures are built on is private property. That's the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. It used to say life, liberty, and pursuit of property, and they changed it to a pursuit of happiness or life, liberty, and property.
So, I believe the decision was more skewed on that and that people do not understand that, that they take the emotional surface argument that somebody can't be a citizen if they're black no matter what state they're in and, and extrapolate an opinion on that aspect of it. So I think it was more heavily weighted on the private property. Mark, what do you know about Dred Scott?
[00:53:40] Unknown:
Man, it's been a long time since I've looked at that. I really couldn't tell you to stop the top of my head.
[00:53:48] Unknown:
Okay. Well, it's just like I said, it's just an interesting case. And here all these years later, hell, it's still controversial. But I believe if you look at it from an angle of private property, it's not quite as offensive to you, Nancy.
[00:54:04] Unknown:
I I'm not connecting those dots, Raj, because about private property. So with regard to Property rights.
[00:54:10] Unknown:
Property rights. Well, he was a slave. He was a slave. He was property. Somebody owned him.
[00:54:15] Unknown:
Right.
[00:54:17] Unknown:
They had a property right in him, and he escaped the state and went to another state that wasn't a slave state and declared his freedom.
[00:54:27] Unknown:
And all Taney and them They wouldn't accept it.
[00:54:31] Unknown:
Yep. And Taney and them said, no. He was private property of somebody in a slave state, which we recognize, and he can't change that. And over the right overriding opinion was a man of black, a a a black Negro descent could not become a citizen of The United States without an additional amendment to the constitution. Wow.
[00:54:56] Unknown:
Well, and this, I think, I'm gonna have Hey, Roger. Oh, hold on. Hold on with Nancy. Talk right in your phone, Nancy, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me better? Yes. It's better. Okay. Oh, good. Well, I'm just thinking of the free soil doctrine of the of England. Of England. We didn't have that. So just No. Going to a free state did not, confer it would not mean that you could declare your freedom. So we didn't have that same doctrine here. All these Jewish slavers,
[00:55:29] Unknown:
most of them were doing that under a license from England who has a free soil doctrine, But we didn't. Remember, Brent said they they didn't wanna let us have the common law either. Remember? They said, you colonies, you don't have access to the common law.
[00:55:50] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I think I think that
[00:55:53] Unknown:
I think that the the setup I think it's the I just can't help but think that there's a direct setup from the Dred Scott decision for the fourteenth
[00:56:05] Unknown:
amendment thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. Well, man, sure. Well, go go back and do some research and and bring your findings to us.
[00:56:14] Unknown:
K?
[00:56:16] Unknown:
Well, I may. Please. I try to get you guys to go out and do this. I've done a lot of research over a lot of years. I I've got my core message here. We get into these peripheral objects, you go out and do the research. I'd love to hear the results.
[00:56:32] Unknown:
That's fine, Roger. I'm just saying that it seems clear clear that that's a a a setup to the need of creating those amendments. So Well and and I'll just toss that out there.
[00:56:45] Unknown:
Yeah. As as it says in the slaughterhouse case as well, this is what opened the door. It's this Dred Scott thing. But as that gets a lot of discussion, we also get into discussions that people born and raised in DC and the territories, well, they need the same that that they've got the same impediments. They need the same relief because they're not citizens of a state, and there is no federal citizenship, so they're in the same capacity. Interesting, isn't it?
[00:57:19] Unknown:
It also seems like they wait for a generation to die off before they implement in that another step.
[00:57:26] Unknown:
Could be. Now there was somebody trying to say
[00:57:29] Unknown:
go ahead, man. They're not short they're not short term. Their game plan is not short term. No. They're long term. They're long term. They're very long term. Even, you know, they talk about planting the seed for a tree that you may never see. That's right. You know? And that's the problem they've got. Right? Lined up. They get them lined up, and and, you know, we don't know what's coming down the road, and we just slowly kinda get it engulfed in their plan.
[00:57:56] Unknown:
Who could have seen at that time that the thirteenth amendment was a setup to enslave everybody?
[00:58:03] Unknown:
No.
[00:58:04] Unknown:
You you couldn't see that because you don't have their vision and their ultimate goals in mind. And thank God we don't think like them. Who's the guy that was trying to say something when Nancy was speaking there? Sir,
[00:58:20] Unknown:
I'm trying to recognize you. Nope. That was me, Roger. It's Dominic. How you doing? I listen Oh, okay. A lot.
[00:58:27] Unknown:
Okay. Then it's been a while. Yeah. What you got to add here?
[00:58:32] Unknown:
Well, don't you think the fourteenth amendment in a way, overthrew the Dred Scott decision?
[00:58:38] Unknown:
Well, it did overturn the Dred Scott decision. That's what that whole sec sequence in slaughterhouses about. We need an amendment to the constitution because even the people that were in DC and born and raised, well, they were stateless. They didn't have state citizenship. And so that's why with with with Julie's question, well, I I guess you could say that it may have freed the slaves. And but if you get into any kind of dissection of that, it couldn't have freed them because it had no place to put them. The place to put them was the next amendment.
This was a setup amendment, folks. They knew eighty years ahead of time what they're gonna do with this. That's my feeling. Gotcha. The whistlers there. Paul is gonna bid our, good loyal listeners up there in Chicago to do. And, hopefully, the we've stimulated them enough here in the first hour. They may wanna come over and join us live, Paul. What do you think?
[00:59:36] Unknown:
Yeah. They may want to. Actually, Chicago's not with us today, but radiosoaparks.com is. So if you guys wanna follow us into the second hour, please go to the matrixdogs.com. You can click on the free conference call link. You can go to eurofolkradio.com, or you can go to radio.globalvoiceradio.net, or just click on the links on the matrix docs. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Get that frog out of your throat there, Paul.
[01:00:08] Unknown:
Alright. Now we we come to the very interesting part of taking where we are and what's going on in our country. And the fact that when they founded our country, they came over. They didn't come over to found a country. They came over to found a base where they could go back and try and straighten England out and take it over. That's why they call, as Brent said, New England. So, obviously, they weren't successful at doing that, but they were pretty successful at doing the startup of our country. So now with mister Trump battling the English, are we going to actually go over and possibly save England after all these years?
Two hundred and fifty years? I had a statistic yesterday, Paul. I'm an Aquaria here. And the guy was comparing Russia to England, all the, oh, all the verbiage that's being thrown around politically, the rhetoric. Last year, Russia jailed 400 people for things like I don't know exactly what, but they jailed them for political speech. K. How many do you think England jail last year, Paul?
[01:01:23] Unknown:
I would say it would be a bigger number than that.
[01:01:28] Unknown:
It is? You wanna take a WAG?
[01:01:33] Unknown:
2,200.
[01:01:35] Unknown:
Slightly undershot. 3,300 is how many were jailed in Europe, in England last year. Only 400 in Russia, but, boy, that Putin, he's held a dictator, isn't he? Yeah. For sure. K. So, well, who else has got input? Somebody right there. Yes, sir.
[01:01:55] Unknown:
Yeah. It's Dave. Hi.
[01:01:57] Unknown:
Hello, Dave. I'd like to touch on that thirteenth amendment a little bit. Something that, you know, when I first learned about that, it just stuck in my craw. It said, without the approval from Congress, You couldn't have this title of nobility unless Congress approved it. Now, from my understanding, there were 34 attorneys, at the constitutional convention, and I think 24 of them signed the constitution. So in, you know, my brain tells me that, look, it it doesn't matter if anybody has a, you know, this Esquire, behind their name. That's an attorney. The the congress is gonna approve it anyway.
What do you think about that?
[01:02:51] Unknown:
Well, you don't know that that's an attorney. I think you ought to bring that up for Brent tomorrow because he's gonna tell you it's not in his opinion and explain it. So that's what I'd say, which I found very interesting when he said it the first time. K?
[01:03:06] Unknown:
I've I've heard many and seen many attorneys, you know, with their with that shingle that says Esquire. And I don't know anybody that isn't an attorney that calls himself an Esquire.
[01:03:20] Unknown:
Okay, Brent. Well, Dave asked Brent, and he'll give you a better explanation because I can't give you one. Okay? I've never put much I know about this. One of our guys, Brent Brent would remember, Brent Bachman would remember Joe D'Ambrosia. Wonderful wonderful individual from our Citizens for Constitutional Georgia group who was very much into family and going back and relatives and genealogy and all that. And he went up to Connecticut, went into a law library there and found an old law book and made copies of it. Well, there it is right there in the constitution in a '18 whatever it was law book. Well, I just don't think that, especially in those days, that they would put things that weren't ratified or correct in a law book.
So for some reason, they got rid of it. But let me ask you, Dave, does it have any bearing on what we do?
[01:04:17] Unknown:
Well, maybe not in the grand scheme, but I think
[01:04:20] Unknown:
it's part of our history. And I think it's important to I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying don't talk about it. I'm just saying don't dwell on it because you're getting distracted on something that really doesn't matter. Okay? Yeah. It was there. I'm trapped. I don't know that we'll ever know. I don't know if we'll ever know why they got rid of it, quite frankly. But, boy, they couldn't wait to get that thing swept out and this new one replaced. And that just gives you a little more insight to there's something more going on here than freeing the slaves. They're going in and getting rid of amendments.
There's something going on here. I don't know if any anybody know of any case where that's been done before. I don't or since. So, yes, probably got some importance. Dave, maybe one of these days, we'll all find out together. But right now, it doesn't seem to me to have much of a bearing on what our really important message is here. Yes, Paul?
[01:05:20] Unknown:
Whether it meant, lawyers had a title of nobility or not, Obviously, considering the even the Paul Harvey recount of, how they considered lawyers in the original colonies.
[01:05:37] Unknown:
Vermon. Vermon.
[01:05:39] Unknown:
Vermon. So one could certainly expect that either it meant lawyers could not be in political office or somebody thought it meant that, and they were operating on a presumption.
[01:05:55] Unknown:
Okay. Could be. It is interesting. Again, it didn't I not any bearing on what we do that I can see. If you can see it, bring it forward.
[01:06:04] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:06:04] Unknown:
So who else has got something to add here? You know, it's funny. You get into this presentation, and I'll say something like, there's only two sections of the Internal Revenue Code that you that are exempt that you're still responsible for. And I gotta stop the whole rest of the presentation because everybody wants to ask questions about those two points.
[01:06:26] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:06:27] Unknown:
That's happened numerous times. It always kind of a you know? Look. Let's get the rest of this. We go back and visit. No. No. What are the two texts? No. No. What do they mean? So it just always is just you people are. Well, just, they're unpredictable at times. That's the best way to do
[01:06:47] Unknown:
that. I think with respect to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment, it really doesn't matter to us. It would doesn't. Go back to the bill of rights.
[01:06:55] Unknown:
It it it just doesn't. Anyway but there's a lot of, history. It's very interesting in our country that well, I never knew about that John Tyler, John Tyler junior there, the story that I heard on Jeff Rentz with this guy he has on there with historical information. Quite often, I don't remember his name. But that put a big piece of the puzzle in the together for me. I'd never heard of it before. So, and nobody's got anything to add. You should we go ahead and play this, Paul? I think it is at Eastman. What's his first name? Do you can you help me, Paul?
John? Yes.
[01:07:34] Unknown:
John Eastman, I believe. John Eastman. Okay.
[01:07:37] Unknown:
Mark, you familiar with this guy? Doctor John Eastman, are you? No. I'm not. No. I'm not. Well, they're trying to debar him out in California. I think he worked on or, or some of the Trump campaign stuff or the lawyering in that, I think. Not sure. But I know one thing. Barnes really respects him. K? Oh. So, so he's pretty much gotta have something going for him. That's a lot. Yeah. Well, it is. Okay. And by the way, did you see Barnes last night in the, the rundown on Seattle or Sunday night? No. No. I didn't. Oh, man. He's stuck up in Seattle this week on this unbelievably ridiculous trial.
[01:08:19] Unknown:
What what where where did you find him?
[01:08:22] Unknown:
Where did you see him? I found it over on Rumble, Rumble Sunday night. Okay. So it was Viva Barnes Law under Viva's I think I think that's probably what it is. It's got that picture of both of them there.
[01:08:35] Unknown:
I don't know. That's I don't know. The one thing that I would say is like a silhouette. It's a little caricature of Viva.
[01:08:44] Unknown:
Yeah. No. This is him. He's got Viva on the left and Barnes on the right, and probably Viva Barnes will all drag it up and rumble be my guess. Okay. Anyway, he was talking about this case. He's up there in on in Seattle that he's man, I mean, they must have gone off of the reservation up there totally in that part of the world. It's ridiculous. The they're prosecuting this guy. Gonna try and get him $80.80 80 charges of of abusing his son, and he never touched him. There were never any arguments. There was never anything, and he tried to their divorce, he's trying to keep him from getting the COVID shot. Holy smokes. It's just a nightmare what he laid out there.
I can't remember it all. So but, anyway, some of you saw might have seen that Sunday night.
[01:09:34] Unknown:
Roger, the the title on the video, it says, in this interview, doctor Eastman discusses the fourteenth amendment and the birth right citizenship. He conscious intentions of the founding fathers and the constitution.
[01:09:49] Unknown:
Right. And he's got some pretty legitimate points. I couldn't listen to it all the way through because the audio was terrible. And that's why I asked Paul to go through and and and wave his magic wand on it, which he did. It's considerably better. And, we're gonna play it here in a second. Have you heard this yet, Myrca?
[01:10:09] Unknown:
Yeah. I started to.
[01:10:10] Unknown:
Okay. You started to. K. Bad audio there. Whoever mic'd that, shame on them. Anyway, Paul, anybody else got any comments or we'll roll right into Eastman? It's, it's only sixteen minutes long, I believe. Yep. Okay. Well, Paul, why don't you start at the good doctor, and let's hear what he has to say.
[01:10:33] Unknown:
Alright. Let's do it.
[01:10:36] Unknown:
My name is John Eastman. I'm the dean at Chapman University School of Law. I'm also a constitutional law professor and scholar. And, of course, my comments today are in my capacity as a constitutional scholar, not speaking on behalf of Chapman University. It's not a denial of anybody else's right to travel, not to say I have to put them up in my bedroom. I mean, this this is, and and it's that confusion that that lies at the heart of the the misconceptions about the debate. Yeah. And there are really two issues. There's a legal issue. Does the constitution already mandate birthright citizenship? And then there's the policy issue.
If it does, should we amend it to, get rid of it? Or if it doesn't already mandate it, should we adopt it by statute because it makes good sense. Right? And you've actually been called upon by Congress to address a variety of issues in in terms of illegal immigration. And Indeed. In fact, this goes back to a brief I filed in the US Supreme Court in the Yasser Hamdi case. Hamdi was one of the individuals that was detained in Afghanistan, taken up arms against The United States in our in our war there against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
But when US Officials learned that he'd been born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while his parents were here on a short work visa, they began treating him as a citizen rather than an an enemy combatant, in Guantanamo. They transferred him to Norfolk, and his case went on to the Supreme Court. And we argued that that understanding of citizenship, that just because he was born here made him a citizen, is wrong. And we, started trying to lay the groundwork for revisiting, what what's been about a fifty year popular conception of what the citizenship clause requires. But as a result of that, Hamdi ended up, being sent back to Saudi Arabia, and he renounced his citizenship. So so the question of whether he was a citizen in the first place was never presented. Oh, okay. But but but we had laid the argument out there. And now members of congress who are trying to grapple with, comprehensive immigration reform Sure. And looking at something like temporary guest worker programs.
And they asked the obvious question, if you have guest worker programs and they're coming here with their families, what do you do with the kids born here if they're citizens? So all of a sudden, the birthright citizenship question is front and center on the logistics of comprehensive immigration reform. I think if I were to ask your audience to raise their hands, how many people think if you're born on US soil, you're a citizen, every hand in the room would go up. The text of the fourteenth amendment is actually not quite what we think it is. It says all persons born or naturalized, in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Now it's that last phrase, subject to the jurisdiction where the fight is. Now we also have this common understanding that when you come here to visit, you're subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come from England, you ride on the right side of the road when you're here, not on the left side of the road.
But the founders or the framers of the fourteenth amendment had in mind two different notions of subject to the jurisdiction. There was what they called temporary or partial or territorial jurisdiction. You have to follow the laws in a place where you're where you are. But there was also this more complete or allegiance owing jurisdiction that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn't come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support, becoming part of the body body politic. And it's that jurisdiction that they're talking about in the fourteenth amendment. So that means that somebody's here temporarily like Hamdi's parents Right. Working for a two year, two year work permit, never owed allegiance to The United States. Mister Hamdi couldn't be drafted into the United States army. And if he took up arms against us, he couldn't be prosecuted for treason. He detained as an enemy combatant.
And so he never was a citizen. And and, you know, people here on tourist visas or even more so, people here illegally who never had authority to be here in the first place, but giving birth on US soil doesn't make up their children citizens. How we arrived at this common notion is is is really a rather bizarre story. The framers of the fourteenth amendment all say it applied to this broader owing allegiance jurisdiction. The first Supreme Court cases to take it up said, yeah, that's right. The first legal treatises to to be written in this in the eighteen eighties said that means it's complete jurisdiction. There's a case in 1898, by the Supreme Court called Wong Kim Ark, and this involved the child of a permanent lawful Chinese residence.
And the Supreme Court's decision and you can sympathize with why they we issued this decision. We had we had, entered into a fairly despicable treaty with the Chinese emperor that deprived Chinese immigrants of their human rights to immigrate. We refused to recognize that they could ever renounce their allegiance to the Chinese emperor. And so these folks had come here. They had established permanent residence. They were here lawfully. They had done everything we permitted them to do consistent with the treaty to demonstrate their allegiance to their new sovereign, their new country. And so the Supreme Court said in those contexts, their children will be citizens by virtue of the fourteenth amendment. Now it did it with language much broader than that that said they were born here, therefore, they're citizens.
For the next fifty years, nobody took the broader language as as dispositive. It was you know, that case was limited to its narrow facts. So in the nineteen twenties, for example, congress has extended citizenship to all Native Americans born on US soil. Well, if the fourteenth amendment had already mandated it, that act of congress is unnecessary. Sure. In the nineteen fifties, we have a program with Mexico, the Braceros, the first guest worker program. Right. Their children were not deemed citizens here. And when the Braceros moved back to to Mexico, they took their kids with them because nobody understood that they were citizens yet. Sometime since the nineteen sixties, though, this notion that just mere birth is all you needed started to take root. And I've been debating this issue now for several years, and I have challenged every person who's taken the opposite side of me. Tell me what it was that led to this new notion.
And nobody's there's not an executive order. There's not a court decision. We just gradually start assuming that birth was enough. Yeah. And I think part of it is, the loss of our understanding of the language that the framers of the fourteenth amendment used. By the nineteen fifties, '19 sixties, subject to the jurisdiction has come to mean, you gotta obey our traffic laws when you're here. And and the the older notion, this this notion, was lost on us. And so when then with this new assumption, people would look at the text of the fourteenth amendment. They wouldn't question it critically. They just would take what their they thought the language meant. The article one of the constitution gives to congress what's called plenary power to determine policy judgments about naturalization and the levels of immigration.
And the reason, the founders did that was they understood that immigration policy is, if at root, a fundamental policy discussion. How many people can we absorb from different parts of the world, and and and bring them into the American understanding of the role of self government? And, you know, people have tried to tag that with, well, they want white Europeans rather than Asians or or Latinos. That wasn't it at all. They wanted people coming from countries where they had grown accustomed to governing themselves because it's much easier to assimilate.
If you have wholesale migration from a a despotic form of government, we have people that have habits that rose up in despotic regimes. It's much tougher to assimilate them to self government and and participatory participatory democracy. The same thing with illegal immigrants today. Many come from South And Central America. The first thing that they do to come to The United States is break the law, and then they continue to live in the shadows, law breaking, by definition. And and the notion that the the primacy of the rule of law to our system of government kinda goes out the window, and it's a very dangerous thing. And then there's a different dangerous aspect of it as well. They become preyed upon, by coyotes at the border or or just thugs who know that they won't report the crime for fear of deportation.
And that that undermines their, commitment to to the law as well, in a in a in a devastating way to them, as well as to us. And then and then you get businesses that foster and play off of this because they are able to get cheap labor. And it's not because they're paying them less than the minimum wage because they got all sorts of tax returns, and and, you know, that will come out. The where their benefit comes is they now have a a workforce that won't sue them when they're fired. Oh, and the number of benefits. That's right. And and and, yeah, you step back and ask yourself, with all of the pro expansion of immigration forces, the civil rights communities, and what have you, and big business that claims they need more labors. Right. That's a combination that could get any bill through congress in five minutes if they wanted to increase the level of legal immigration.
And you have to ask yourself, why hasn't that happened? Because because people have a vested interest in having an illegal immigrant population and a subclass that generates it. You know, Thomas Jefferson talks about immigration in very favorable terms. What they were trying to do then is populate a continent, so that we we stand European pressures to take us back over again and what have you. The the dynamic has changed now. And, what we've done by by having very low quotas on legal immigration, and then, turning a blind eye to a massive illegal immigration, you you create, this subclass.
You create this extraordinary drain on our social services that is bankrupting most of the state and local governments that are in the path of this migration wave. You you foster both an entitlement mentality, but also ignoring of the rule of law. And and the legal immigration patterns of the last century were tough enough to assimilate, without losing the rule of law as well, and we are doing that. We we are embarked upon a very dangerous experiment at the moment. We've got, some estimates, 12,000,000, others over 20,000,000 people who are here illegally. There's guns report. Yeah. Who still consider their primary allegiance to be their home country, whether it's Venezuela or Nicaragua or Mexico, or Southeast Asian countries who are coming either directly through the ports or through first through Mexico and then across the Mexican border.
If we were to end up in a war, an economic or a military war with any of those nations, then the number of people here that still feel their allegiance is to that prime country is a very dangerous thing, it seems to me. And it's not because there are people of different color or different language or different origin. It's because there are people that still owe allegiance to a different sovereign. They never have become part of our body politic, our government by consent, to use the language of the Declaration of Independence. And we ought not to be surprised that they owe their allegiance. If I were caught up in France and ended up at war with France, I would still owe my allegiance to United States. I'd be doing everything I could while there to make sure my country, you know, prevailed.
But but there's something much more insidious going on on both sides of the political aisle that really, angers me because I think it is a repudiation of all that America stands for and all that is good of of what we stand for. And it has this uncanny, reflection of the arguments made in the old slave sound. On the one hand, you've got the Democrats who are the social welfare party. And the longer you have huge groups of people that rely on government entitlements, the more political power the Democrats can gain from that. So they have a vested interest in keeping a subclass population.
The Republicans or the big business wing of Republicans have this vested interest in having not a new labor pool, but a new illegal labor pool because of the way they can, take advantage, of them and treat them almost like labor. And the arguments made by the Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal have an uncanny parallel for their arguments made by, John c Calhoun and the old defense of slavery, and it's you know, our economy depends on this and what have you. And it is a travesty that those two positions have gained, you know, enough majority support to force the government to ignore our immigration laws. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafts a version of the Declaration of Independence, his early draft, that criticized slavery. They they forced him to take that language out, but but the idea shared across the the founding generation, North and South alike, was that slavery was a necessary evil to be abolished as soon as possible.
By the eighteen twenties, John c Calhoun and others are arguing that slavery is a positive good. It's the foundation, the economic foundation of the South. You pull the rug out from under it, the economy is destroyed, and it's worse for white it's worse for whites as well as for blacks. And they start making this, economic argument in defense of slavery, and that takes root, and and it and it lasts with us for generations. And I think what's what Wall Street Journal's position and the Chamber's position is is nearly identical to it. You know, agriculture would just be brought to its knees if we had to pay the prevailing wage, and we had to, you know, suffer all the threats of lawsuits if we you know, and all the other things that go with it. They've got a docile, of, labor pool that they are able to put to bear to generate either greater profits or lower consumer prices on on, on agricultural goods. And that's, I think, fairly despicable.
But also, a function of this idea of equality that everybody has to come together and agree to the kind of government they're gonna have. So the only legitimate government you have is one grounded in consent. So you have human rights, natural rights that you have as human beings, and then you have, a government that some portion of human beings decide to create by consent among themselves in order to protect those human rights as best as they seem possible. Now what we do in The United States might be different than what they do in Canada or France or Mexico, but the people in each of those countries come together to try and decide what works best for them. Right? It's consent of all concerned.
To say that I have a human right to insist that you accept me accept me as a member of your political community violates the notion of consent from our side. And when I have then birthright citizenship, that means I can illegally enter your country, give birth, and that demand entry into your political system, by virtue of an illegal act. That's unilateral claims to entitlement to citizenship rather than what what our founders did, which was this notion of mutual consent in order to create the political regime. It doesn't violate your human rights to say I'm not gonna have you as part of my political regime any more than it violates your human rights for me to insist that you accept me into yours. We can no more say in a statute of congress, everybody in Mexico City is now citizens.
If I were them, I would say, wait a minute. Who made you our master? Well, what they're doing is the reverse of that. Everybody in Mexico City that comes to Arizona demands citizenship, and you have nothing to say about it. For a member of congress to be, as ignorant of the history of the three fifths clause as representative Jackson was, was astounding to me. The free press clause was actually a clause designed to aid slaves by giving less power to the slave owners than they otherwise would have had. And it it was not, all blacks were treated as three fifths and all whites were treated as whole persons. It was if you were slaves, your population, three fifths of the population counted for representation purposes.
Because if we counted you entirely, you weren't voting, your master was, the master would have greater power in congress and therefore make it more likely that they would prevent an abolition of slavery. And if you go back and you look at the debates, and what they were trying to do, they were trying to create a government, that would recognize the principle of equality, that would compromise with an existing institution while they try to get the government established, so that in the long run, the possibility of getting rid of slavery would be real. And the last thing you wanted to do was give representation to the southern leaders based not just on their own votes, but on the voting power of the entire slave population. It would be hard to ever abolish slavery.
And and that's all it was. And and what but people that have different vested interests in trying to say this was a racist founding, like to ignore that, and they completely distort what that clause is there for.
[01:27:43] Unknown:
I'd get my read off. Is that it, Paul?
[01:27:46] Unknown:
That's it.
[01:27:47] Unknown:
Okay. Wow. Pretty interesting.
[01:27:53] Unknown:
Yes. Very much so.
[01:27:54] Unknown:
So according to mister Eastman, mister John Eastman, the, the birthright citizen full aspect of what they're asserting didn't come about till the sixties. How about maybe it started coming about after Brown versus Board of Education?
[01:28:12] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:28:14] Unknown:
And the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 was put firmly in place, which we're still under, but probably not for long. Because, unfortunately, mister Trump's gonna take away our best Trump card. It would appear now I'm wondering if they do away with the IRS as we're nationals and we've separated ourselves from the national debt. Are we gonna have some access to a pathway out of paying that if they're charging it as a sales tax or VAT or whatever else? Questions. Questions. Interesting questions. I doubt it. Kinda sad about mister Trump wanting to get rid of the IRS as much as I hate them. They've been my best recruiter for many years.
[01:28:58] Unknown:
I'm actually thinking that there is some basis for, my pretense that a lot of people have been either unable to or unwilling to pay taxes and have volunteered out. So they had to think of a different way to fund the government, and the only way they can do it is through
[01:29:20] Unknown:
Wow. Wow.
[01:29:21] Unknown:
Through increased tariffs. The increased cost of goods. You know, even if you don't even if you buck out of the sales tax, like I like my earlier example, if China makes something and they sell it for 10,000 and there's a $5,000 tariff on it, the importer is gonna have to pay that $5.
[01:29:42] Unknown:
Yes. So it's gonna go on the sale price. Well, of course, ultimately, the consumer pays for it just like corporations don't pay taxes. I mean, you know? So, but, it's very interesting. I'm sorry, that mister Trump won't but, boy, is that a popular move to get rid of the IRS? You wanna get your base all lovey dovey? Well, I'll get rid of those damn bandits, as pastor Pete would call them Babylonian horse thieves because that's what they are. Right? Yeah. So we'll see and don't know how quickly, even at the quickest speed, they're gonna be able to dismantle because they may really get some arguments from the debtors.
See, here is where we come into the picture with our information and maybe about to be widely disseminated and exposed. All of that debt's based on fraud.
[01:30:39] Unknown:
Right. No. What I saw recently was I saw Trump's, presentation. I saw his speech in front of the joint session.
[01:30:50] Unknown:
Yeah. And it was absolutely
[01:30:53] Unknown:
sickening how everybody on the right side of the aisle, like, with respect to the camera view, everything on the everyone on the right side of the aisle was they were clapping, they were cheering, they were standing up. And the left side of the aisle, they were stoic, and they were just sitting in their seats. There was no clapping. They were holding up little signs saying liar, liar. Right. Right. Liar and all this happy shit. And and they have put them one.
[01:31:24] Unknown:
That's right. And they've put them in a position where they've got to defend child rape, mass immigration, those people murdering, raping, killing, all of the other stuff that we that he's uncovered in, what, five weeks, they now have to try and defend that or stand mute. How would you like to defend baby rape there, Paul? You you got a you got a blank you could spin that on?
[01:31:55] Unknown:
How in the hell can they do that? When he's talking about the things he was talking about in the speech, the the government overreach, the the fraud, the the theft of, of, of people's taxes and and money, sending it to four points to the compass. How can they sit there and not cheer
[01:32:23] Unknown:
that they discovered that? That that is the Democratic party not recharting the course and absolutely headed to go over the falls. You wanna see a ship about to go over the Falls? That's the Democratic party. Thank god. Four and a half hours from Niagara.
[01:32:43] Unknown:
Bang. I'm only four and a half hours from Niagara. And if Pelosi wants to get in a barrel, I will push her over. You'll you'll help her get into the Canadian side, won't you?
[01:32:53] Unknown:
So any comments from some of our legal kind of folks? Mark, what'd you think of mister Eastman there and some of his, theses?
[01:33:01] Unknown:
Well, that's really brilliant. The the first part of that, I simply say to this, and I've been saying it for a long time, about the immigration issue is, as far as being born here and and even illegal immigrants. I say the Republicans like the cheap labor, and the Democrats love the votes. Yeah. So neither one of them have the vested interest in stopping this. So k. Fair enough. That basically is my summary, and he just explained it a whole lot further and sound sounded more intellectual than than intellectual. He's,
[01:33:37] Unknown:
obviously, he's quite well studied on these issues. Yes. He is. Very much so. Okay. And I thought that was interesting too that and I realized kind of what they've done with the blacks, but it seems to just become a little bit clearer on any of these subgroups that they get set up. They're absolutely totally 100% beholden to them once they start taking the handout. What's the handout? I don't think you've, you're usually not with us on Friday, Mark. And I may have been exposed to it before, but it didn't register. It did recently, the definition of Satan, distributor of wealth.
Boy, take that little nugget and overlay that issue with that.
[01:34:23] Unknown:
Right. Right. K.
[01:34:26] Unknown:
So, anybody else in the audience have any thoughts on that? On mister, doctor John Eastman's brilliant, soliloquy there we heard.
[01:34:36] Unknown:
Paul, do we have access to the your cleaned up version of that?
[01:34:41] Unknown:
I yes. Yeah. It might be worth posting, Paul.
[01:34:47] Unknown:
Of course you do. It's up in, the videos folder in docs.exposetomatrix.com. It's doctor John Eastman, fourteenth amendment, and birthright citizenship.
[01:34:57] Unknown:
There you go. Thank you. And by the way, you did a brilliant job on playing that up. I mean, that's Boy, you sure did because not you.
[01:35:04] Unknown:
We couldn't have played it before Paul did that to it. I wouldn't have wanted to. Alright. Because you wouldn't have been able to hear it. It was still a little bit faint, but you really got that ambient noise out of there. Thank you, Paul. So skilled. So thank you.
[01:35:17] Unknown:
You're welcome.
[01:35:19] Unknown:
Let's see. Other other folks, nobody else wants to comment on that? I I think you see, what he doesn't know is what we know. Well, I just kinda came around. Nobody can figure out why. Sometime around the the sixties. Yeah. Right right after Brown versus Board of Education. Well, I'll be darned. Switch me.
[01:35:44] Unknown:
Roger, before the show ends, I do have a just a a short announcement. If if we don't have anybody wanting to come online and and make a comment about Eastman's little presentation
[01:35:56] Unknown:
here. Well, let's see if we can drag it. Let me chum them up again. Any of you, legal legally oriented folks in the audience hear something in that Eastman talk that might have stimulated you you wanted to comment on? Boy, I tell you what, he must have been easily understandable, and they absorbed it all. How wonderful, Mark. I need to listen to it about two more times, I think, because he said some pretty deep stuff in there. Yes. He did. Kinda rattled it off stuff. I I wanna go back and listen to it. Well, that you can tell how familiar he was with it with it. That I'd heard that's the second time I'd heard some of that. So I concur with you. It needs to be listened to more than once. And Paul, for the audience has put it up in on the website under something to do with the matrix, Paul. What's the label again? Yeah. It's in it's in docs.expose
[01:36:47] Unknown:
to matrix.com in the videos folder. Oh, okay. I just put the link to it in the FCC chat.
[01:36:56] Unknown:
And the person that really recommended that was Robert Barnes. I didn't know they'd played it the weekend before, and they'd kinda hidden it behind one of their pictures there, Mark, like I was telling you, where they got Viva on the left and Barnes on the right, it wasn't. It was just sixteen minutes of this Eastman thing. And they had posted it, I think, last weekend, weekend before last, something like that. I'm really glad we got it cleaned up enough to play it. I think that is really interesting, his conclusion, that it just appeared out of nowhere around the fifties and the sixties.
Yeah. But guess what? Guess what, John? It was planned for and included in about 1860. Yep. They knew they were gonna do that. They knew this whole plan. And the more that you learn about it and understand it, the easily easier it is to see it to me. Yep. So fabulous. Well, Mark, I I don't think anybody's got anything they wanna come in. I'll ask one last time. Anybody got any comments or questions on what we heard from doctor Eastman? Boys just like the quietest audience from dropping that rock down that well. Chris. Well, there's Chris. Okay, man. Well, thank you. I if I did enough, I can get somebody, Mark. Go ahead, Chris.
[01:38:16] Unknown:
I I I would have listened from the beginning. I just got the tail end, and so I know I'm gonna have to, go back and listen to it. But we just got back from a a friend of ours, a good friend and a patriot for a long time was, we weren't hearing from him and we talk every day and I was sick so I wasn't concerned about it. Then I thought, wait a minute. We haven't heard from Jean now in five days. There's something wrong. So we drove down there and found out he passed away. We found him in his house. Oh. And so we we just got back up from that, so we're kinda tired out. But, yeah, I'm I'm gonna listen to this. I caught part of the tail end. I'll I'll have to find it in the archives and listen to it. No. It's
[01:39:04] Unknown:
Paul's got it posted, under, docs for the matrix there on the website under the video folder. Okay. So you can access it there. And, Greg, well, I'm sorry about the passing of our mutual friend even though I didn't know him.
[01:39:21] Unknown:
But if he was favorable to what we do, we like him, and we're sorry to lose him. So RIP. You're you're about yeah. You were you're about to know him, but it just he just didn't make it that far.
[01:39:32] Unknown:
Okay. Well, unfortunate for me. So, anyway, we're RIP. And, thanks, Chris, for bringing that to our attention. This Eastman thing is something you're gonna wanna listen to because a lot of the meats at the first part. Okay?
[01:39:46] Unknown:
Right. Right. I'll listen to it several times. Yeah. I'll dissect it.
[01:39:51] Unknown:
Okay, buddy. Well, give us your opinion. I was flashing neon signs when he said, well, this aspect of it just appeared. Nobody knows where it came from. Yeah. I do. Thank you, Chris. Mark, anybody else? Anybody else? Chris, Jog, anybody? You know what? Do you wanna say something? A simple comment. I, Okay. Please do. Tell you exactly
[01:40:17] Unknown:
where this comes
[01:40:18] Unknown:
from. Elk versus Is this Abram? Is this Abram? Portion of it. Is this Abram? Yes.
[01:40:24] Unknown:
We haven't heard from you in a while, have we? Oh, man. It's good to hear your voice.
[01:40:29] Unknown:
So he says Okay. Well, welcome back, Abram. What's your comment?
[01:40:33] Unknown:
M. Is this, the second section after defining the persons who owe permanent and or immediate direct and immediate allegiance to The United States. The second section where he defines that Indians are not owing Fact. Immediate allegiance. And so they are excluded. It says, Indians born within the territorial limits of The United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, an alien though dependent power. Although in a geographic sense born in The United States, are no more born in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.
[01:41:23] Unknown:
Yep. Meaning
[01:41:25] Unknown:
Native Americans or Eskimos. There's a section, eight USC, I think it's fourteen oh eight, which, includes the, the outlying territories, the folks from American Samoa. But, eight USC fourteen oh one includes all these different groups as they've been brought in under this citizenship clause. And so it finishes it out with this domain of that foreign government. And then it says, or the children born within The United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. So the important distinction here, the crucial detail is that then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government is added.
That portion is not part of the English common law rule on nationality. The English common law doesn't make any exceptions. Unless you were the child of an ambassador or an enemy, know, within, you know, basically in the country at the time of conflict, you are guaranteed, you know, without any exceptions. So this ex exception here is has been carved out for people that can be born on United States soil, but do not owe direct allegiance. And this set it up for them so they were able to have two national governments as in Downs v Bidwell.
[01:42:52] Unknown:
And, Well, probably true, Abram. Well, good to hear you. Thank you for chiming that in. It's been Elk v Wilkins really confirmed that. And, that's one of the exceptions that an ambassador will say the Queen of England's over here. She's pregnant, and she has her child. It's it's not gonna be a citizen of The United States. That's the carved out exception. And also as as Abraham mentioned, under military campaigns. So if they're over here trying to defeat us and they have a child here, it's not a citizen of our country. So those are no notable and known exceptions to the rule. Good to hear you, Abraham.
And, isn't that interesting? Because that's what they were telling Elk and Elk v Wilkins is that carve out because the Supreme Court says, well, you're basically they didn't say it explicitly. You're sovereign.
[01:43:47] Unknown:
You know? Question. So, Or are you owe allegiance to a a sovereign within the geographic territory?
[01:43:54] Unknown:
Correct. The the Indian tribe. Now what Eastman said that was really interesting in that, Mark, I'll bet you caught it, that they conveyed citizenship to all the Indian tribes in nineteen twenties. Did you hear him say that?
[01:44:07] Unknown:
Yes.
[01:44:08] Unknown:
Yep. Yeah. It's it's in eight USC 14 o one section eight is the first is basically the fourteenth amendment and then b c through h, I think.
[01:44:16] Unknown:
Okay. Thanks, April. Glad to see you coming back around. Hey, Rod. So, Mark, Paul, you got something to say here?
[01:44:26] Unknown:
Well, that being the case, I mean, aren't we nonresident aliens? Well, in so far as the IRS, the tax code. But we are non resident and we are non citizens. So if we was to get busy and add to our families,
[01:44:46] Unknown:
any children born after the affidavit was on file would not be citizens of United States. They would not be citizens of The United States because we weren't in that capacity. And even if they tried to say that they were, you could certainly easily fight that, I would think.
[01:45:06] Unknown:
So, Because you owe allegiance to an alien,
[01:45:09] Unknown:
you know, though dependent power. Like Yep. Now it's interesting on this nonresident alien phrase, which is I've I've told y'all before was the phrase that really kept me going for many years. When they went to an awful lot of trouble to get that and put it in that one place. Because you see, it's like you were saying, Paul, they could have defined that in other places. They could have put that in title 42 in those two sections. Citizens of The United States are are equal, have all the privileges and immunities that the nonresident aliens have, And it would have been correct. But, see, they don't wanna salt the whole mind with that because it's the key to their whole IRS tax code scam. So they just wanna isolate it, and that's the only place they use it. No. They just use the phrase white citizen and labeled themselves racist. Yep. Yeah. And with the quote the thing Abraham was reading there a second ago, territorial citizens, I've seen that in there. We couldn't find it. We're looking for it. You say it's 14 o one, and I believe it says a non, a, national is someone born in American Samoa, Swains Island, and the outlying territories. Isn't that what that says, Abram?
[01:46:27] Unknown:
Actually, they've scrubbed most of that. They've they've scrubbed the word territories and replaced it with the word possessions because they want everyone to think it's possessive.
[01:46:38] Unknown:
Of course. And that's remember, that's what miss Robinson used in her letter. Oh, there aren't those under, possessions. Well, it used to say outlying territories. And this is and what they it's set up in the Nationality Act in 1940 in a paragraph, I challenge even Abram to decipher. Okay? And they bring that over and they hide the states behind outlying territories. So that statement, a national is someone born in American Samoa, Swain's Island, or the outlying territories. Well, the outlying territories are Texas, Nebraska, Washington, North and South Dakota, etcetera.
And that's where Peter Neece was right so many years ago on on Stan Miller's show when he said we're territorial citizens. He understood it, but he didn't understand it. He'd come to the right conclusion, but he didn't understand it, I don't believe.
[01:47:37] Unknown:
K? He was not looking out the door, but the key was busted off in the lock. He was as close as as as,
[01:47:44] Unknown:
Barnes was on the fourteenth Amendment birthright citizen. He was right over it. They just don't ever ask the right question. Now anybody else got a comment? Okay. I'm gonna turn it over to Mark. Mark, what, what's your announcement, my friend?
[01:48:00] Unknown:
Well, in the last Wednesday, we're, we've talked a little bit about the, trust training that I have coming up and we've had several people get on board that had not heard that message before. And so you know it sounded like there might have been some concern about you know kind of a cookie cutter approach and you know people need to do their own paperwork which I agree. But it sounded like you know that maybe there was a misunderstanding about our trust classes so I want to clarify that. The trust class is is gonna be training on how the trust functions. So it's educational in that, how to maintain your trust. But as far as our interaction or my interaction with the students, you're gonna get an outline of all your property.
It's a checklist of all your property that you want to put into a trust. Then I'll have an outline for a trust and then I'm working one on one with each student to, to complete that trust in a manner that they that will fit their future needs. So it's not a cookie cutter approach. I do have an outline of a basic trust that's that's an irrevocable private trust. What people would refer to as a common law trust but it's not a fill in the blank form. You're going to have to amend it and change it be familiar with it and we're going to go over how to maintain and operate your trust. So you know I just want to let people know that in the cutoff date if you're wanting to you know, be a member and this is a lifetime membership of one time fee $750 you can email me at markmark,@yourlegacytrust.org.
That's your, y o u r, legacy, l e g a c y, trust, t r u s t, dot o r g. So email me there for more information. I'll be happy to send that, but the cutoff date is gonna be Friday midnight central time. We don't have your payment by then. You'll have to wait till the next class. And I've already looked at everything that I've got set up set up. We have the website going. I'm adding content to it. The next training will be $997. And when when I go out there and look at how much it would cost you to go hire an attorney to put together a trust for you Yeah. And and then they just kind of hand it to you, you know, they Yeah. They'll they'll do their cookie cutter and fill in the blanks, not really teach you anything because they know that when and they're gonna do a living trust they're not gonna do an irrevocable common law trust they're gonna do a revocable trust which I just breaks my heart to see so many people have this and when one of the it's usually you know we're talking about the common you know husband and wife or even a single elderly person as they get older their mental cognition declines and they'll have an unscrupulous family member come in and have them sign a whole new trust and it replaces the old trust because you could do that with a revocable trust and then they get all the they get all the property.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen that. You would be shocked. So what we're doing is an irrevocable private trust that is kept outside of the court system. So in and again I'll give you an outline for one and we're gonna help you fill in the blanks on what triggers the execution of your trust, how to maintain it, and work on how you want to have your property you know distributed. For an example, if you have a house and you got multiple heirs maybe you got three or four children and you know who you're gonna give the house to? Well, maybe none of them. So you may say okay sell the home and divide up the funds and then give it to my heirs give it to my beneficiaries you can put a church in as a beneficiary we've got some people that are looking at that is they're wanting their property to go to some nonprofit organizations or churches there's also a way that you can set that up in a long term trust where you can have your money go into a vehicle maybe like an annuity and and every month it pays the beneficiary a certain amount of funds so even after you've passed and gone you can have your trust helping other individuals or organizations or even a combination long after you're gone they can still be getting monthly payments of you know whatever you've got in your in your trust account so well, thank you very much. This is really looking good and again the cutoff date is going to be this Friday.
You know you got just a couple more days Friday at midnight to get your payment in. If you're paying by check or money order as soon as you put it in the mail send me the tracking number and I will hold your membership place. So even if you just mail that Friday
[01:53:54] Unknown:
just give me the tracking number and I will hold your membership place. Okay. I think Annette had something. Hold on. Annette was there. I think, Paul, if you don't mind. Annette, did you ever was that you?
[01:54:05] Unknown:
Yes. I have two questions. Okay. The first one is if, not not not been able to change the the, trust. What if there's significant changes, like people passing away as, you know, like, the trustee
[01:54:22] Unknown:
passes away? Yeah. I know you that I yeah. You you have six you have means of selecting successor trustees.
[01:54:30] Unknown:
Okay. The second question is is what if there's significant changes, like, let's say, nonprofit and the the the one that was in position of leadership passes and the successor to that to that nonprofit dramatically changes the the and and and it's no longer to the liking of
[01:54:56] Unknown:
the one who set up the the guarantor. I think it's guarantor. Do that. They can't do that. The grantor or the settlor is the one who creates the trust. Okay. And that could be individual or spouses together creating this trust. You have a trustee that executes the trust and whenever a trigger date happens or trigger event whether it's a passing of one of the people who created the trust or the last surviving spouse who created the trust and it triggers the event for the trust to be executed according to what's written in the trust and then that goes forward. It really depends on what you put in there and it's flexible. You can you can make options.
[01:55:42] Unknown:
Tailor it for your needs.
[01:55:44] Unknown:
Yes. Exactly. You can tailor it to your own specific needs.
[01:55:48] Unknown:
So my point was, you know, while while the creator of the trust is still alive, there's dramatic changes to let's say he wants to give it to a nonprofit organization. There's dramatic changes in the nonprofit where it's no longer, the focus is no longer what what motivated the person to Sure. Do that. So is there a mechanism to change
[01:56:13] Unknown:
what If you write if you write it in there, Annette, if this is all tailored to what you wanna put in, those are really excellent points. But it depends on what's written into the trust. If you have a if you have a clause that says you know you can amend the beneficiary then Right. You can do
[01:56:37] Unknown:
that. Right. Which is what you were talking about. So, yes. Paul, you had something?
[01:56:44] Unknown:
Well, I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, even a revocable trust is amenable as long as the grantor is still alive.
[01:56:56] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's right. It doesn't become irrevocable
[01:56:59] Unknown:
until the grantor, the creator of the trust passes. And
[01:57:05] Unknown:
True. Also Mark. It's a revocable trust. I'm talking about an irrevocable trust, but you are correct about that, Paul. Okay. Most people, they go to an attorney, they're given a family trust. They call it a revocable family trust and up till the death of the last surviving spouse or the creator of the trust it can be revoked they could totally scrap it and do a whole other trust if they want. That's that's dangerous to have it set up that way. But like you said, when they pass, there's usually a clause in the trust that says this trust now becomes irrevocable and it can't be changed.
And it's gotta be executed by the trustee.
[01:57:48] Unknown:
There you go. And the and and the only other point that I was that I was trying to make a few minutes ago when you were talking about revocable versus irrevocable, the, there's a weird thing that happens when a death occurs. Vultures come out of the woodwork, and you may think that nobody in your family would do that. Well, I'm here to tell you, even the most unlikely of suspects will turn into Yep. Venomous pieces of garbage. So an irrevocable trust is necessary.
[01:58:24] Unknown:
And I'm telling you, Paul's right. And it happens more than you could ever imagine. Yep. Mhmm. It's just I've seen When there's piles of currency on the table, it turns people into monsters.
[01:58:38] Unknown:
It does.
[01:58:40] Unknown:
And This is Chris from California.
[01:58:42] Unknown:
Coop cooperation and respect for the departed and the loving relationship with the rest of the family, that is the exception, not the rule. The rule is everybody's out for themselves.
[01:58:59] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's the rule of the world, isn't it? What you got, Chris?
[01:59:03] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. So I've used trust. I've written trust. Mark, are you going to be covering anything about foundations, church trusts,
[01:59:16] Unknown:
corporations? No. Okay. No. That's way too much. This is all this is all geared for holding property. Holding property in a trust. That's real estate and personal property and and we're just going to keep this simple. What you're talking about is a whole other class of trust.
[01:59:39] Unknown:
What about holding it in perpetuity?
[01:59:43] Unknown:
Well, that's what I was, you know, leading up to. You can't hold it to where it can be held in perpetuity.
[01:59:52] Unknown:
Yeah. In other words, for some purpose, like, well, like a church trust, for example, where it's going to go on beyond the depth of everybody involved in the trust trust at the current time. Yeah. That'll be part of what we're talking about, but this is just a basic
[02:00:12] Unknown:
common law trust for protecting your assets and for estate planning.
[02:00:19] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. And and part of there's so many people out there, especially in our patriot community, that are charlatans about this. I mean, go talk to David Strait. Talk to you about his $2,500 trust or or Johnson, Brent Johnson, and his $2,200 where you gotta mail gold to South Dakota. And from then, it goes hell, who knows where? Mark is honest, straightforward, a friend of ours and a member of our family here, and, I think we bring somebody to the table for the offer. This is very trustworthy. And but we always encourage you to do things like go and take Brent Brent Winter's course on trust to find out what he's got to say about it.
It's just a good advice, but I believe we're in pretty good hands with Mark. So if it wouldn't, I wouldn't let him on here with it. So, anyway, other than that, we'll see you tomorrow on JR Day, and we'll see, what comes up between now and then. If you've got any comments, afterthoughts on the doctor, Eastman's talk, we'd love to hear those. And, otherwise than that, we'll see you tomorrow. So I'm sure we're way past done, but, Paul, hit the button.
[02:01:36] Unknown:
Okay?
[02:01:37] Unknown:
We're out. And we're off. And, by the way, again, reminder, Merca, sorry, for seven months starting next Sunday or Monday, we, are in the new time zone. And There we go. Yeah. You're gonna have to get up earlier, girl. I'm sorry. Yeah. Me too. Me too. I gotta get up earlier too, but I do like it because we get finished earlier, so you get more of your day. So, anyway, I'll, anybody got anything for me?
[02:02:12] Unknown:
No? We're pretty quiet on you.
[02:02:15] Unknown:
Well, there's there comes Sketch. Well, thank you, sir. We're cloudy again today, so I'll get out and go find some lunch and take it easy. Break the leg Thursday night. Well, yeah. Thank you, Mark. I listen. I'm so excited. I'm about to wet my pants, and, I think we'll do just fine. I think Jeff and I'll get along real well.
[02:02:36] Unknown:
So, Yeah. Anyway Can we access that? How can we access that? Expectations, though. Do what, Chris?
[02:02:43] Unknown:
How can we access that and listen to it Thursday? Rents.com.
[02:02:47] Unknown:
Well, I sure Paul will probably carry it here as he's prone to do on an event like that, but you can go to rents.com, r e n s e Com. Very are you not familiar with rents' site, Chris?
[02:03:03] Unknown:
I'm not. No.
[02:03:05] Unknown:
Wow. I'm surprised. He's been around for thirty years. He was one of the real early pioneers of news conglomeration. You know, having a site where you pick other news stories and stuff from all over, and he's been doing three hours a night of radio for thirty something years. He's got an unbelievably large audience, very sophisticated, intelligent, and, truth seeking. And, you can go to that website, r e n s e. And over on the top left, there's a thing that says, Rents Radio Network listen live, and it probably give the lineup of tonight of that night. Sometimes it doesn't. And hit that button. He's got an embedded player there.
[02:03:49] Unknown:
Mhmm. Okay.
[02:03:51] Unknown:
Alright. But, man, he's got a bunch a bunch of audience. Yes, sir. Samuel.
[02:03:59] Unknown:
Yeah. I've got another Georgia trivia for you. Georgia, was led into the union, when they ratified or went along with, I should say, the fourteenth amendment. But when when they tacked on the fifteenth amendment, they, they had they had a problem with that, so they were thrown back out until they voted for it. So they were the last ones in, and they were thrown out and allowed back in again.
[02:04:27] Unknown:
Wow. Well, I you know, Georgia was originally a slave colony. Did you know that? Like Australia.
[02:04:35] Unknown:
Really? No.
[02:04:37] Unknown:
Yep. Sure was. So, anyway, great state of Georgia. They got Atlanta turned, and, unfortunately, the state's very conservative. Yes. Someone?
[02:04:51] Unknown:
Roger.
[02:04:53] Unknown:
Okay. Well, I'm gonna you know, I'm gonna go with the female. Yes, ma'am.
[02:04:57] Unknown:
It's Tess from Colorado.
[02:05:00] Unknown:
Hello, Tess. How have you been?
[02:05:05] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:05:06] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:05:08] Unknown:
I would just because I'm at work all the time, and I can't really ask questions or whatever. I was wondering if if you guys got the letter form letter written out for us to send back to the IRS from this frivolous
[02:05:21] Unknown:
charge that we're being told we're doing. Yeah. I think that that's just an insinuation. I don't think they're charging you with anything. They're threatening you. Mark, what what's your response?
[02:05:32] Unknown:
Yeah. Tess, I can help you with that. If if any if anybody's, like seriously facing if you're a national, let me qualify this. If you're a national and the IRS is trying to hang fines or penalties on you, they can't lawfully do that. And I've got a response letter that you can use for that and it just basically says I'm out of your jurisdiction and and you can't hit me with fines and penalties like that.
[02:06:01] Unknown:
Okay. Because I know one show and I called in, Roger said that you guys were working on a letter for all of us. Because now all three of us in our little group have gotten the letter. Yeah. And I'm not Okay. I'm not freaking out about it. I just need to get stuff off my table because What? I have so many problems going on with my Tennessee move.
[02:06:24] Unknown:
Tess, do I have a copy of your latest letter?
[02:06:28] Unknown:
The one I I that I got from them? I think so.
[02:06:32] Unknown:
When did you get that?
[02:06:34] Unknown:
January.
[02:06:35] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Yeah. I probably do. Okay. He was sick back then for real bad for about a month. I know.
[02:06:43] Unknown:
January 1. So I know.
[02:06:46] Unknown:
I've just been going through so much trying to get Okay. Everything done, and I'm not getting anywhere.
[02:06:51] Unknown:
Should she for you.
[02:06:53] Unknown:
Should she shoot you another email, Mark, or or you you find out when she Just as a reminder, since I don't have a secretary, he'll keep me on track. Sometimes I feel like a pinball in a pinball machine Yeah, man. Tracking up the numbers, you know. So
[02:07:09] Unknown:
it's kind of Trust me. I've got a major problem like that. So Yeah. I mean, if anybody knows a lawyer that can work with real estate in Tennessee on the Eastern Side, let me know.
[02:07:22] Unknown:
Wow. It's like Yeah. We were dealing with somebody tonight. We were we were dealing with somebody in Tennessee, and they gave us a good reference in Nashville that somebody could at least bird dog you. But, Tess, I just flat don't remember any of that information.
[02:07:38] Unknown:
It's okay.
[02:07:39] Unknown:
Legal test. Check check do a search on, like, legal support in Tennessee or something and see if some of those organizations don't pop up, and call them and ask them who they might recommend.
[02:07:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I would do real estate attorney. Just and also do a search for real estate attorney in, like, Nashville
[02:08:01] Unknown:
Tennessee. Right? Knoxville or Chattanooga?
[02:08:04] Unknown:
Well, whichever major city you're close to. So yep. If Knoxville is closer to you, then do Knoxville.
[02:08:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Right. And I'd I'd call, like, 20 different ones because I would call some and they would give me numbers to call, and then they would give me numbers, and I can't find anybody. Yep. And I got a structural engineer that said how bad the house is.
[02:08:26] Unknown:
Okay. You bought a house that's got deficiencies?
[02:08:31] Unknown:
Oh, I bought a manufactured home that they moved in and almost rolled.
[02:08:35] Unknown:
Oh my goodness gracious.
[02:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[02:08:39] Unknown:
I I just
[02:08:41] Unknown:
see if there isn't some sort of an organization, of especially real estate oriented people that might could help you. That's the best suggestion I can give you.
[02:08:50] Unknown:
Okay. Comment for tech. Alright?
[02:08:52] Unknown:
Yep. Okay. That alright. Now who was our guy who was trying to say something right there? Carl. Carl. Carl in Utah. Sorry.
[02:08:59] Unknown:
Tess, you may wanna look at biggerpockets.com. There's a lot of resources on that. Or you can go to, Facebook and do real estate investment groups in whatever state you're looking at and ask that group for a real estate lawyer that they trust.
[02:09:21] Unknown:
And you should come up with quite a few choices. Thank you. There's a couple of suggestions for you, Tess. Excellent. So drop, drop Mark a Right. I got a question for you. Okay. Alright. That's Sketch. Go ahead, Sketch.
[02:09:37] Unknown:
Yes. Specifically on taxes, the constitutional taxes, not the expatriation tax, but the other one. Who lawfully,
[02:09:47] Unknown:
collects those taxes? Is it it's not the IRS. Right? IRS. Well, no. No. They're you're charged with, with those sections. I think that's eight seventy one. I'm not totally sure. But if you get, if you get hold on. If you get, I guess and I'm gonna defer to Mark here in a second. I thought it was just federally, chartered corporations, but evidently, that's not. Mark, what is the application of that other section in your opinion?
[02:10:15] Unknown:
Eight seventy seven b, had to do with if you're a nonresident alien, which nationals are nonresident aliens in relationship to the to the IRS. And eight seventy seven b as in bravo says if it's a domestic corporation, you own stocks from a domestic corporation that pays you dividends. Now that's not a mutual fund. It's not a four zero one ks. It's none of that. But if you went out and purchased specific stock from a company that that pays dividends, that's like on a quarterly, biannual, or annual basis, however they got their setup, then you owe a tax just on those dividends.
Now you can when you sell the stock and, you know, if you made money, that's not taxable. It's just There's no capital gains tax attached. Right. Exactly. There's no capital gains, but just on the dividends from that domestic corporation.
[02:11:25] Unknown:
There you go. Right.
[02:11:27] Unknown:
Now that now that we've filed our affidavit with, the IRS and the state department, they cannot prove that we are liable for even those constitutional taxes. Is is that correct? Say that again? I didn't quite understand the first part. I didn't need I think I think there's something in the law saying that the IRS cannot collect unless they can prove you're a citizen of The US. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Yes. So now that we've we've filed our affidavit Yes. With the secretary of state and the IRS, and we can prove that we aren't citizens, can they still collect on those constitutional taxes? Because it's spelled out in the jurisdictional,
[02:12:14] Unknown:
and the nonresident alien owes $8.71 and $8.77.
[02:12:19] Unknown:
Yes. They can charge you. But isn't it isn't it true that if they cannot prove that you are a citizen, that they cannot collect?
[02:12:28] Unknown:
No. Because it's spelled out that the nonresident alien owes those two. And guess what? Okay. Guess what? Yep. Sketch, they're both constitutional taxes.
[02:12:39] Unknown:
No. I understand that. I've just said I think there was some law saying if they can't prove that you're a citizen
[02:12:46] Unknown:
Well, that doesn't have anything to do with us. These are two sections stipulated and broken out that nonresident aliens are responsible for. So the whole premise of your question and your inquiry there is wrong.
[02:12:58] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:12:59] Unknown:
I I I
[02:13:01] Unknown:
It has to do with the presumption. You know, it has to do with the presumption. And where you're coming from and where you're coming from on that is there was a recent case about the IRS going to third parties investigating a potential taxpayer. Right. And they said as long as you're a US citizen, the IRS has as the the ability to investigate you including going to third parties like your employer or a bank or stock stock broker, whatever. Right. And investigate whether you have income that could be taxable. I gotcha. But we're nationals, so they can't do that. Right?
Not lawfully. They can't investigate. They shouldn't. No. Right. And even if they did and tried to say something, your your Trump card is Roger's affidavit of citizenship evidence that you have on file with The US Secretary Of State. You know one thing I love, Roger? When you when you take the the acronym for affidavit of citizenship evidence, it spells ACE. That's my ace up my sleep.
[02:14:13] Unknown:
Well, that's good. Thank you.
[02:14:16] Unknown:
Raj? Welcome.
[02:14:18] Unknown:
Yes. I have Paul. I have a comment for both tests and, Sketch. Sketch, what you're referring to is the, I believe it was the Supreme Court or a district court decision that said unless, the, citizen of The United States or unless a person can prove they're not a citizen of The United States, the IRS can move to assessment and collections.
[02:14:43] Unknown:
Move forward.
[02:14:44] Unknown:
That's that's correct. That was an appellate level. Yeah. And and that's what you're referring to. And, Taz, if you go to, the matrixdocs.com Well, Taz, did you dial in, or or are you in with an app? Can you see the chat or not? Oh, Taz. She might as well get back to work. Oh, good grief. She was at work. Test.
[02:15:14] Unknown:
You got distracted. The boss came in.
[02:15:19] Unknown:
Yes. One more call.
[02:15:21] Unknown:
Must have been.
[02:15:23] Unknown:
Okay. Well, if anybody else runs into test, let her know, please, that if she goes to the matrixdocs.com and she goes down to the the bonus materials where the links to the telegram groups and the docs. Exposthematrix Com. Thing is, go into docs.exposthematrix.com. And in that docs folder is Shane's IRS letter RTF. And that is a sanitized blank copy of the letter that Roger wrote for Shane to send to the IRS that actually burned their retinas when they read it. It's right there.
[02:16:02] Unknown:
Well, we hope so. It was intended to.
[02:16:06] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that r that RTF is there. It's downloadable. It's editable, and just fill in the blanks and send it off. There you go. But you might wanna send a copy of it. Did you come back?
[02:16:21] Unknown:
Approval. Did you come back and get the back end of that? Evidently not. As a customer, evidently. So alright. I'll ask. Would the of course you can, Julie.
[02:16:34] Unknown:
Hi. Was Hi. Just the one that was also looking for a real estate lawyer?
[02:16:39] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:16:40] Unknown:
So if she is listening and just can't talk, she can go to a b b o, which is alpha Victor Victor o dot com. You can search for lawyers on there by state and by, profession and, Specialty. And you can specialty, and you can also go to Martindale Hubbell, and they have ratings and reviews. So she might also want to utilize that in addition to the Facebook group that somebody else, recommended I yield.
[02:17:09] Unknown:
Yeah. But chance kick the boss out of there and come back so you can get all this good information.
[02:17:15] Unknown:
One last question for Mark. Lifetime membership, is that our lifetime or yours?
[02:17:22] Unknown:
That will be your lifetime.
[02:17:24] Unknown:
So you are going to, have your program,
[02:17:28] Unknown:
continue after you die? Yes. I see. Thank you. Certainly plan on that. I've got, a good friend who's younger than I that, I'm gonna, you know, see if the members are acceptable for him coming on. He's got a super creative, mind when it comes to trust and asset protection and so forth. So, you know, with with approval of our members, wanna bring him on as a collaborator. And and, if if I go, then they'll be passed off. But it is a membership. It is a private group. So, my plan is is that it can be operated and run, after I'm gone.
[02:18:14] Unknown:
Thank you, Mark. You're welcome. There you go.
[02:18:17] Unknown:
Alright. Anybody? Okay. There's somebody. I think it's Larry. Yes, sir.
[02:18:22] Unknown:
Yes. A little while ago, Mark was talking about how eight seventy seven is associated with domestic stock. Isn't that domestic stock of the U. S. Government that has a connection to the US government exclusively?
[02:18:38] Unknown:
No. No. It's those corporations that are registered with the US government. Those types of stocks that pay you dividends, they're all authorized through the SEC. It's a whole big deal, and they're only operating under, I don't wanna say guidance of The United States, but through the the Auspices. Yeah. Through the authorization of The US to be able to sell that kind of stock.
[02:19:06] Unknown:
Now And don't forget, that's the differentiation I did not know. You don't have to pay capital gains on the stock when you sell it, but only on the dividends that it might pay you. And there are some, categories of stock that don't pay dividends. Aren't there? I mean, there's the record stock and preferred stock. Yeah. There's a whole bunch of different kinds of stocks.
[02:19:28] Unknown:
Yeah. From one company. One company can have different tranches of the I think the name they use for it, but they have different levels of of their stock, you know. And one of them is that I'm, you know, familiar with is preferred stock, and then they have, like, a certain classes. That's what I was looking for, classes of stock. And a company could have three or four different classes of stock. They're not all the same.
[02:19:55] Unknown:
Hey, Roger and Mark. Yes, sir. What about an e ETF that pays dividends?
[02:20:02] Unknown:
Nope. Nope. That's not taxable.
[02:20:05] Unknown:
Yeah. Let me explain that. The ETF, you're you don't own the individual stock. The ETF is investing in those. So the dividends are being paid to the ETF and then the ETF pays you. Same thing with the mutual fund because this has come up is is people want to know you know well what if I got a mutual fund what if I got a four zero one ks Well, you're not individually buying and owning that stock in your name. The vehicle that you're buying, you're you have a share of a four zero one k plan. You got a share of a mutual fund plan. And if I'm not mistaken, that's exactly how ETFs are worth because you're not directly investing in a particular stock.
You're doing it via the ETF.
[02:20:59] Unknown:
Okay. And also foreign held companies,
[02:21:02] Unknown:
the dividends are not taxable too. That's correct. That's correct. Probably true. Yep. Okay. Please, folks, if any of you are looked at us Sure.
[02:21:11] Unknown:
If any of you are Okay. I just wanted to clear that up.
[02:21:14] Unknown:
Okay. Thank you. My mind. Thank you. Anybody who wants to acquire gold and silver, which is a very healthy thought these days, do not own it through an ETF. They sell oversell those. They may have a 30 contracts for one ounce of gold. K? Don't do that.
[02:21:33] Unknown:
Now listen to the definition of an, ETF. An ETF is an exchange traded fund like a mutual fund. It's a collection of securities that trades on a stock exchange like stock. So see it's it's a collection. You're you're you're owning part of the ETF not the actual individual stocks. That's why if you get paid a dividend off an ETF or you sell your shares of the ETF you're not owning that individual stock. And there's not you're not getting paid a dividend directly from the individual stock. Hope that clears that up.
[02:22:16] Unknown:
Hey, Mark.
[02:22:18] Unknown:
Good morning.
[02:22:20] Unknown:
One quick comment, Annette. The only thing I know about a stock is until I met Roger and filed my national status declaration affidavit, I felt like I was locked in a stock most of my life. I'm just saying. Go ahead, Annette. Yeah. Alright.
[02:22:39] Unknown:
I hope you weren't found under carnal knowledge there, Paul. Go ahead, Annette.
[02:22:45] Unknown:
So, what is within the membership of your what what are you offering,
[02:22:56] Unknown:
with the membership? Well, Well, I'm gonna have 10 modules. We're gonna start out with an intro to, trust and and talk about how they're structured, how they operate, and then each module go down and expand on that. Every module I'll have a slideshow that will give you explanations of the different aspects of a trust. I'm also going to be holding weekly webinars. I have I'm going to take a poll of the members. It'll be Tuesday or Thursday night and then sometime Saturday afternoon. And those will be recorded and people can go back and watch those at their own convenience. Also, now those modules, there'll be templates, there'll be notes, maybe even links to different videos, but, you know, I'll have resources in every module that you go through.
[02:23:59] Unknown:
So this is just educational. That's it? That's what I'm trying to get at. No. No.
[02:24:06] Unknown:
Well, no. I'm helping every person with their own individual trust. You're gonna have, you know, me as a consultant to help you navigate you to tailor your trust to your specific needs.
[02:24:19] Unknown:
Okay. I appreciate. Thank you. You're welcome. Yep. You're welcome.
[02:24:23] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. Yep. I know, Mark, you do a good job on this, folks. K?
[02:24:28] Unknown:
This is not a boilerplate thing, you know. I'm not just gonna hand you a template and say, well, here's here's the course materials. Bye bye. You know? No. It's this is not an automated, you know. I mean, the the educational parts will be automated parts to that, but you have access to me. And I'm actually even looking at maybe down the road, I can add on a community section where people that are members can go and hang out and do discussion about trust or whatnot or even have like a a board, if you will, to help manage the the private membership association.
So I think it was what Sketch was asking, you know, how long how long is the lifetime for mine or theirs. So, you know, you need you need a board of people that, are responsible and be able to continue this going after I'm gone. I don't think I don't think they have internet access in heaven, so.
[02:25:38] Unknown:
Yes. There's a female. You may.
[02:25:42] Unknown:
Hi. I have a question in regards to your talking about the stock and so in the dividend. So this is Pam in Michigan. So I just had a question about that when they put us on the stock market with that Social Security number. So does that go by each man or woman and does that then go down to their children or is every single one that has the Social Security number their own? Are you
[02:26:15] Unknown:
talking about the stock? Are you talking about the stock or the certificate or Social Security number. Pam, can you be a little more explicit? Talking about
[02:26:27] Unknown:
you were talking about dividends earlier in regards that somebody had a
[02:26:34] Unknown:
We're talking about a corporation. We're talking about a corporation that is filed under the laws of The United States. They're here domestically. They have their headquarters here, and they issue stocks, individual stocks like a hundred shares of Apple stock or a thousand shares of whatever stock and you buy that stock. If that particular stock that you purchase pays dividends because you just own it and from the profits that the corporation makes they pass those dividends on to some of their preferred stockholders. And if you own individually that stock from those companies and that company pays you dividends just because you own the stock, then that is taxable to a national.
[02:27:26] Unknown:
Do you understand why that is, Pam? It's because the state gives life they give the corporation their life. So that they're involved in this again, like being in a birth or a marriage certificate, they get a piece, but only of the dividends, not the capital gains.
[02:27:47] Unknown:
Absolutely. I understand shareholders and all that. So Okay. The question went because I think, Roger, you said something about if you're going to buy gold, you know, don't buy it out of this. So then that made me think, okay, what else do they buy off of, you know, the stock market? So that's what made me think about, okay, what about the, you know, Social Security number that they're selling on stock market, which is us. Is that just me or is it, you know, my family? So that was the question.
[02:28:16] Unknown:
Well, no. It's just you. They attach your birth certificate, to my understanding, to those bonds as the collateral. So it doesn't have anything to do with your family. It's got something to do with you. Now my question is when we do this stuff, you don't really expect them to go in and take that out of the system, do you? I mean, these are just thieves and murderers. But theoretically, they should because we're no longer a client. That
[02:28:43] Unknown:
leads me to another question in regards to the video or audio that you played earlier. So that made me think about generational curses and, you know, stolen bones and viruses and stuff. And I think that if these things have been going on for several years, generational curses, I think, Somebody, like, maybe, you know, who we have in office now, would say, you know what? This is enough. This is enough. And I think that might be, hopefully, where we would go with this because what kind of family would wanna be initiated in like that or whatever? You know? And that's what I was thinking that maybe the world is gonna turn away from, you know, this is how you get initiated in this group or whatever. That's what I'm hoping. And I yield. Well, I hope so too, Pam. We'll pray for that. Okay? And I think mister Trump's got some real dramatic changes
[02:29:37] Unknown:
in mind for the country in the immediate. And even more future, you can see how he's weaving, giving JD Vance an opportunity to be everywhere he is for the most part when he doesn't have him going over and giving speeches to the EU and stuff. Not very many other presidents have vested that kind of confidence and exposure in a vice president cause they consider him a threat, I would guess. Okay? They want the limelight, and many of them are ego oriented. But Trump seems to be setting up JD Vance to run when he's done with this.
[02:30:14] Unknown:
Yeah. I do think one more question.
[02:30:18] Unknown:
Yes. Let me just finish this off. There's already been a idea floated in congress, the path to, to, float a bill that if your presidencies weren't consecutive, you can run for three terms. K? Don't know if that's made any progress or not, but somebody in congress is trying to give an opening for Trump to get another term. I think at his age, with everything he's been through, he wants to go live out the rest of his life with his children and his grandchildren and and and and all of the the things he's been able to acquire, and wants to turn it over to JD Vance.
But it sure seems like he's putting him in a prestigious, visible position a lot in just five weeks to me. So god bless. I like JD Vance. It's turned out that he just he was a hell of a pick. He just hit the bull's eye with JD Vance. K? And I think all of his appointees and you know what? Who they're floating is being his VP, Pam, Tulsi Gabbard. Roger Stone said, Tulsi Gabbard will be the first female president of the country. So keep that in in mind.
[02:31:37] Unknown:
Well, in all this talk about the trust, what you're referring to, and look at the things that, you know, the president has done. He's a businessman, and he created, you know, all those different casinos for each, you know, whatever type of a nationality you are, you might, you know, associate with that if that's what you'd like. But that was the creative thing that I think that he leaves a legacy for different nationalities. He's always forward thinking.
[02:32:06] Unknown:
Yes. And he does like all people. And and he's not a racist or anything they're calling him. I can cite you examples. He gives people a lot of money. Like, someone's in the paper. Somebody's, husband got killed, and Trump stroked him a check for and bought the house for him. But he always says, don't say anything about this. K? So he keeps it undercover, and it's just the goodness of the man. I think he's a hell of a guy. Okay?
[02:32:34] Unknown:
I agree. I think anyone who runs a company should, be a businessman, and that has to be first if you're gonna run a country.
[02:32:41] Unknown:
Thank you. I I would think so too, ma'am. Question. Okay, Annette. We'll get you. Go ahead, girl.
[02:32:49] Unknown:
So
[02:32:52] Unknown:
So what? Woah. What happened?
[02:32:54] Unknown:
I think she muted herself. Annette. Annette? Does she drop does she drop off? I don't know. I just heard that beep beep like star six and just remember that. Poof. They he was gone. It was gone. Poof. She was gone. I don't Annette.
[02:33:16] Unknown:
I don't see her logged in.
[02:33:19] Unknown:
She was previously logged in. I don't I don't see her logged in. So if something happens, she dropped off. Alright. Well, it's probably for you anyway. So I'm a go ahead and chase some lunch here. Oh, there she is. There she is. Oh, she's back. Okay. Annette, you back? Yeah. We got all kinds of problems. It looks like she's muted. It looks like she's muted. Okay. What happened? Well, I'm pretty sure her question was for you anyway. No. No. No. No. No. No. It includes you, Roger. Hold on. Alright. Okay. Well, you went away, so we didn't know.
[02:33:53] Unknown:
Okay. So, you know how if you get the benefit of something you owe the duty?
[02:34:01] Unknown:
Well, that's from the government. Yeah. That's basically a rephrasing of protection for allegiance, allegiance for protection. Go ahead.
[02:34:11] Unknown:
So if we own a stock and we get benefit or we get the benefit of earning, dividends,
[02:34:20] Unknown:
does that put us back under in some aspect? No. No. No. No. This is one but folks, all y'all are all over the map on this. This only applies to nonresident aliens. It applies to the other people that the other people got capital gains on top of that. Okay? You don't. Alright? So it only applies. It's right there at 26 CFR 1.1 dash dash one a with the exception of eight seventy one b and eight seventy seven b, all nonresident alien individuals. The nonresident alien nationals owe that tax on that dividend that that stock issues you.
[02:35:04] Unknown:
So it sounds like besides having land in a load yield title, that's the second
[02:35:10] Unknown:
investment area we can be. Doesn't matter whether it's a load yield or not. If you're a national, you can just wipe off almost every tax that you can imagine. And the exceptions are what we just discussed.
[02:35:25] Unknown:
Merrill, and those two are the only ones that are constitutional. That's why they're there.
[02:35:30] Unknown:
Yes. It's and actually, if you if you want to get to the simplistic part of it, it's from a a source from The US. It's an income source that is from within United States. So that that particular those domestic bonds, domestic stocks that pay you money just because you own them that's considered a source of a US excuse me it's an income source from within The United States. That is true. You have a federal contract. You have a federal contract and you're getting paid directly. That's from a source within The United States. You're gonna be taxed on that.
[02:36:10] Unknown:
Mhmm. It's considered gain. It's considered gain, Annette.
[02:36:16] Unknown:
Can I can I, kind of come tell you where I'm coming from?
[02:36:20] Unknown:
I wish you would.
[02:36:23] Unknown:
The bank you don't have to own a if you, have a bank account, you have some sort of tie that can, they they can seize your assets. No. No. No.
[02:36:37] Unknown:
You can go open your bank account as a national. They can't just tell them it's a non interest bearing account.
[02:36:45] Unknown:
And and they don't just garnish it out of the blue. Yeah. If you got a yawn. Trust me. If if you're if the IRS seizes something out of a bank account or puts something on your property there's a long administrative process of giving you notices and giving you opportunities to respond
[02:37:05] Unknown:
before they ever get to that point. Yeah. You don't have to worry about them swooping out of left field in the dark at night and doing that to you. So Well, my question
[02:37:15] Unknown:
comes from, are you entering in another sort of contract similar to a bank account?
[02:37:20] Unknown:
You may be, but it doesn't override your affidavit. How about that as an answer? Okay. Okay. I yield. Okay. Yeah. It's it's Now after Ackerman and slave salons, it's really hard for people to just grasp the freedom that you have as a national, especially when it comes to taxes. They they want to ask all these exceptions, and it's not not just you, Annette, I'm just generally talking, that people just have a hard time believing that, you know, they can buy and sell and hold real estate and no capital gains. You know, they're not paying all these onerous taxes wrapped around their income except for those exceptions that are from a source of income within The United States and primarily we see that in the dividends of owning stock and interest payments on owning certain domestic bonds.
Okay. I'm sorry. Outside of that, it's not taxable. You have a even if you have a bank account and it's paying you an interest,
[02:38:29] Unknown:
that's not a stock. No. No. That's not taxable now.
[02:38:34] Unknown:
Yeah. It's not taxable.
[02:38:36] Unknown:
If you put the dividends back into to buy another, site more of that same stock Still taxable. Does that Still taxable. Still taxable.
[02:38:46] Unknown:
You got paid it. It's taxable. It doesn't depend on what you did with it. It depends that you received funds that were from a taxable source.
[02:38:55] Unknown:
Mhmm. Thank you. How about how about if you just drip it? If you what? Drip it? If it's dripped, drip it. Actually, kind of really didn't cash out of it.
[02:39:05] Unknown:
Well, that's that's not a dividend pay. Right?
[02:39:08] Unknown:
Well, man, the dividend goes right back into the repurchase.
[02:39:11] Unknown:
And that's taxable. That's just what Annette asked. What if she took those dividends and put them right back in into that that stock or or bought more stock? That those dividends that you receive are taxable no matter what you do with them. What you did with them. Yep. You can put it in stock it, you can reinvest it in the same stock that you've already purchased, you know, that's taxable.
[02:39:39] Unknown:
How about if you didn't meet the threshold of 14,600 to even file a federal tax? You don't even qualify. Let's say your dividends are less than that.
[02:39:50] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I don't see a lot of that. Go back to the statute.
[02:39:54] Unknown:
There's a there's a table, a taxable table for, nonresidents. You go look at the ten forty dash n r, and there is a tax table there. I just don't recall what the totals are off the top of my head.
[02:40:09] Unknown:
Okay. Alright. I just okay.
[02:40:11] Unknown:
I'll try to find that. I doubt if they'd even if it was, I doubt if they'd ever come after you. And they're not gonna be around very much longer, it appears, and we're gonna lose this wonderful ally we've had for so many years that we hated so much.
[02:40:27] Unknown:
But we'll see. Yeah. They're getting a
[02:40:29] Unknown:
50% layoff as of last night of the IRS. Is that well, I haven't heard that, but I know last week, they closed a 20 offices, and they got a 50% layoff of the IRS announced last night. Yeah. Did Trump do that Yeah. In that speech? Yep.
[02:40:44] Unknown:
Wow. I'm not sure of the speech. I saw it on the Gateway Pundit.
[02:40:48] Unknown:
Okay. Well, then I'm sure it's legit with that source. Yeah. Well, too bad. Too bad IRS agents. Oh, good luck finding another job, you slobs. Damn. Hated. They're they they were hated. And we had somebody that had a neighbor as as an IRS agent. Never would tell him what he did for a living. There's a female there. Somebody wouldn't ask a question.
[02:41:12] Unknown:
No. I'm just saying thank you. Thank you. I yield.
[02:41:15] Unknown:
Hey, Rod. Welcome, hon. Roger.
[02:41:17] Unknown:
My my dad was an IRS agent. He was an IRS agent. He couldn't do it. He he he gave that job up. He he was too much of a guy.
[02:41:25] Unknown:
Yeah. Yep. I had a friend who was a CID agent in Atlanta, and he I didn't know that when I first knew him. I just knew he had another job. And he just said when we found out, he said, I just don't like the way they treat people. You know? He was over there in CID and saw the debauchery.
[02:41:44] Unknown:
Okay. Anybody else got something? Whoo. Off we're off in the weeds now. Did did did did Roger and Mark just did Roger and Mark just say that if the IRS has done away with, there will be no taxes on stock dividends?
[02:42:00] Unknown:
The whole IRS code's gonna go if the IRS is done away with, sweetie.
[02:42:05] Unknown:
Yeah. They're talking about any any income tax. Any personal income tax, they're talking about doing away with it. It should be a big boom for the economy.
[02:42:15] Unknown:
Well, it will. And and but they're gonna stick about a 15 or something percent VAT tax on there. Now the question will be, do we get out of that because we're nationals? Because that is to service the national debt, and it's fraudulent.
[02:42:33] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:42:34] Unknown:
Okay. We'll see. We don't know the answer to these questions, Joan. K? Alright. Again, going three times. Anyone else for me? I get to drop the gavel on this one. I love each and every one of you. Right. After two hours, I wanna go eat. Yes, ma'am.
[02:42:56] Unknown:
I just wanted to say thank you to you and Mark today for everything you guys have done. Thank you very much. I'm very appreciative. I hope you guys have a nice day. Thank you, sweetie. We appreciate your Yes. We gotta finish your project.
[02:43:09] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I'm working on the conversion. I'm working on that conversion today. I don't need to wait for you to do it. I just need to send that basic information.
[02:43:18] Unknown:
Okay. I'll respond to your email, Mark. Alright. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. We'll see you all tomorrow on Jeff Rentz day.
[02:43:25] Unknown:
Bye bye. Bye
[02:43:31] Unknown:
bye. Bye bye.
[02:43:36] Unknown:
Hey, Mark. All caps. Do you have one more minute?
[02:43:41] Unknown:
If it's short.
[02:43:43] Unknown:
Okay. I'm sorry. I'm ready to eat lunch myself. Okay. I I I don't think it'll take more than one whole minute. But my phone cut out sometimes when y'all were talking about, taxes I mean, stocks. Did you say that all stocks in the, like, bank like, American local banks that someone has stock No. It's not taxable. The the in the the the dividends are not taxable.
[02:44:13] Unknown:
Okay. It's not dividends. Are you talking about if you have a bank account and you're making interest off that bank account?
[02:44:22] Unknown:
Stock. A bank a stock bank stock. Okay. If you own stock
[02:44:27] Unknown:
from a bank Yeah. And that stock pays you dividends, yes. If that's a domestic bank here in The United States and you went out bought so many shares of Bank of America and that particular stock pays you dividends, then yes, you are potentially owe taxes on the dividends you receive because you own that particular type of stock. It's no different than whether it's Apple or IBM, you know, any of these other big companies, Amazon, a bank. So think of a bank just as a business, and if they have shares of stock and they're domestic, they're they're they're located here, their their corporation was created here, then yes, you would you would owe a potentially, you would owe a tax on dividends that you receive from a stock.
[02:45:27] Unknown:
Okay. And did you say in the my did you did you say the ETFs?
[02:45:33] Unknown:
You do not have that. Okay. Hold on. ETFs, mutual funds, four zero one k's are not individual stocks. You're you're buying a share of a group of stocks in a ETF fund. Right. And so the ETF is purchasing stocks, and those stocks may pay some dividends, but it goes to the ETF. It doesn't go directly to you. And then whoever owns a share of that ETF gets a portion of those profits. So you're not getting directly paid a dividend and therefore, your profit off of an ETF as a national would not be taxable.
[02:46:17] Unknown:
Okay. So when you sell your ETF stock,
[02:46:21] Unknown:
it's not Come on. Work with me, Joan. I'm sorry. You you keep looking for for ways to be taxed and stop doing that, please. Oh, okay. I'm giving you the very strict exceptions of where you are taxed, but you keep looking for another way to get taxed. Stop that. Stop that. There's no boogeyman out there. I'm giving you the very narrow window that allows the government to tax you but you're looking for further ways to get taxed. And I'm telling you, they're not out there. Thank you. You're welcome. I hope that helps. Joni. Joni. There's kind of a there hold on. There's kind of a mindset to this. And I and I see this a lot.
So instead of looking for the, you know, the ways to get taxed, let's just focus on the way that you that you are taxed and stay within that lane.
[02:47:20] Unknown:
Hey, Mark?
[02:47:21] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:47:22] Unknown:
Real quick. I know you wanna go for lunch. So let's just presume and let's just pretend that you look up the nonresident alien table. Let's say that you, as your own as an individual, you went out and you bought, some shares of Apple stock and some shares of Microsoft, and you got, say, tax you got dividend income on your ten ninety nine form at the end of the year for $5,000. Let's say you look up the nonresident, taxable table, and it says that the you know, you don't have to file a return unless you made over $11,000, then you would not have to file and and report that. Am I correct?
[02:48:02] Unknown:
That's correct. Unless you had other taxes withheld that you wanna refund. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. So if you if you didn't have any taxes withheld and the taxable income that you did receive is under that threshold, then you wouldn't have to file a tax return. That's correct. And actually if you do a revocation of election you're really not supposed to file a tax return. I mean you're out of the system for five years before you could opt back in to file tax returns. The only exception to that is if you had taxes withheld, you have a right to file a ten forty NR to get a refund of those taxes.
Alright. Paul, did you have anything to add? I know you were trying to jump in there.
[02:48:54] Unknown:
Were you good? Yeah. Yeah. I actually, I actually found a bunch of stuff on IRS stuff, and I actually found a frivolous IRS filing PDF file that explains what they call frivolous and what isn't.
[02:49:18] Unknown:
Right. Cool.
[02:49:20] Unknown:
And and, yeah, I I found a bunch of stuff. But for Joni Alright. Joni, if you really, really, really want to pay tax, you can pay it to me. I I guarantee you, my schedules are very, very low, very low. You will never ever pay less than a 5% tax in your entire life. I'm just saying.
[02:49:42] Unknown:
No. Thanks. No. Thanks.
[02:49:44] Unknown:
You have further questions? Yep. Hey, Paul. I love you too. Jeez.
[02:49:50] Unknown:
If if you have further questions, you know, you can reach me at strawman@mark,allcaps,.com. Strawman at Mark all caps dot com. That does not have to be capitalized. So if you have questions about being a national, you can reach out there and I'll do my best to answer your questions. If you're wanting information about the trust, the deadline is Friday night at midnight, then you can email me at [email protected]. Mark at your legacy trust dot o r g. So hope everybody enjoys the rest of your week, and I will see you Saturday. If the creeks don't rise and the Lord's willing, I'll I'll be back here on Saturday.
[02:50:41] Unknown:
You have a good Ash Wednesday.
[02:50:44] Unknown:
Alright. Thank you. Everybody have a great day. Bye bye.
[02:50:48] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. I was wondering, that court case on collections. So are you saying they can't they can collect on a national even though they can't can't prove he's a citizen? Paul?
[02:51:16] Unknown:
Oh, Paul. Okay.
[02:51:21] Unknown:
I'll ask you later. Bye bye. No. That was an appellate decision,
[02:51:27] Unknown:
where the IRS was going after somebody. And, the decision was that unless a person can prove they're not a citizen, the IRS can, can proceed to support, to, assessment and collections. And how you prove it Okay. Is with a legal affidavit filed to the appropriate agency.
[02:51:52] Unknown:
Right. Well well, I hope you are understanding my question is as a national, we have to file this this supposed constitutional tax. Right? And, and if we fail to do that, they're gonna send us to IRS collections. Right? Well, they could. So so if they do that, we can prove that we're not citizens, and they they can't collect even on those constitutional taxes. That's what was my my point I was trying to make. I yield. Have a good Ash Wednesday.
[02:52:26] Unknown:
I don't know. I'm confused. I don't know. I'm confused. Have a good Ash Wednesday. Okay. And don't make an ash of yourself.
[02:52:36] Unknown:
What's that?
[02:52:38] Unknown:
Be careful not to make an ash of yourself.
[02:52:42] Unknown:
Okay. I'll I'll I'll I'll, try and do that.
[02:52:50] Unknown:
But Baldridge Try not to do that. Want
[02:52:53] Unknown:
just wanted to thank you for your, wonderful plate spinning today and all that you do. You're welcome. I'm sorry to take you away.
[02:53:07] Unknown:
Sorry sorry to make some ass out of your I'm I'm diligently working on stuff just outside of earshot of the microphone.
[02:53:15] Unknown:
I I can hear. I can hear. So so we'll talk later on that subject. I don't wanna confuse you. I and I I don't wanna be confused either. Right. I yield. I yield. Bye bye. Bye.
[02:53:34] Unknown:
Bye bye.
[02:53:38] Unknown:
Hey. Joan said that she was dropped. I was dropped three times, and the first time, I was a little distance away from my phone. So I don't know if other people are having that. I'm just throwing that out there.
[02:54:02] Unknown:
Hey, Joan? Hi. Hey, Joan?
[02:54:08] Unknown:
Hi.
[02:54:09] Unknown:
Meet Julie. Hey, Joan. I wanted to, just elaborate what Mark was trying to tell you. It when he's talking about dividend income, if you go and you open up a Fidelity account on your computer and you go and and you put some money in your brokerage account and you decide you wanna buy some individual stock, like, you buy one share of Apple stock, you buy one share of Tesla stock, you go buy one share of Microsoft stock, and you get a $10.99 at the end of the the year that says that you got paid, you know, $100 of dividend income, then that is reportable because it's the individual stock from a domestic company.
That's the only time you have to pay that you're subject to those taxes. And so if you're buying through, like, a 401 account if your 401 account is buying those or your a mutual fund is or an ETF, which is elect exchange exchange traded funds. You're not individually going and buying that. That's being bought through, you know, another entity. I'm I'm using entity loosely here. So it's and and then of the so that that's not applicable. That's not taxable. It's the individual stocks that you personally buy or invest in, and then you get dividend income, but then you gotta check what the threshold is. I mean, I'm sure it's I don't know what it is for a nonresident alien, but I would assume it's around it's $10,000 or more. So if you didn't get dividend income of that amount, that exceeds that amount, then you don't you don't have to file. Does that make sense? Yes.
Thank you. Yep. That's I just wanted to clarify that for you. So you don't need to worry about ETFs and stuff like that because those those are funds that then invest in stocks. It's you as a person who has to individually buy an individual share of stock or two or three or four shares, whatever you want, and then receive dividend income. And not all stocks pay dividends. There's some that don't pay dividends. And so it's just the ones where you get a form at the end of the year that says dividend income on it. It's a $10.99. I yield. I hope that helps.
[02:56:21] Unknown:
Thank you, Julie.
[02:56:23] Unknown:
Wow. Oh my goodness. I just found something. Oh my god. I'm gonna have to sell my microphone.
[02:56:44] Unknown:
Sell your microphone.
[02:56:46] Unknown:
I'm gonna have to sell my microphone because I found my comprehensive boycotted, company's list as of, 02/01/2021. And, Yeti Yeti, is, anti second amendment and, donated to the Biden campaign. Damn it. I'm gonna have to sell my Nano. I don't know if I want Nano in the house anyway. Even if it's a Yeti Nano.
[02:57:21] Unknown:
Well, you could always purchase an EIB microphone and be just like Rush.
[02:57:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I guess. If I could afford one. And, also, Rachel Ray. She's anti first amendment, anti second amendment, and donated to the Biden campaign.
[02:57:45] Unknown:
She ain't right.
[02:57:49] Unknown:
Rachel Ray.
[02:57:52] Unknown:
I heard that she likes little kids. I yield.
[02:57:58] Unknown:
Uh-oh.
[02:58:02] Unknown:
Yeah. Well woah. Damn. Drop my stapler. I'm keeping this here list.
[02:58:23] Unknown:
Is that a physical list or a data list?
[02:58:27] Unknown:
It's a physical list. Oh. Let's see if Amazon's on it.
[02:58:34] Unknown:
If you can, find a way to scan it in, I'd like a copy of that. I want to ask my corporate
[02:58:47] Unknown:
Amazon, supported BLM, Antifa, NAACP, Equal Justice Initiative, Second Amendment, anti First Amendment, and donated to Biden. Amazon did that.
[02:59:02] Unknown:
Good grief. Still the richest guy in the world. What? He made a billion something in one day during COVID? Yeah. Something like that.
[02:59:17] Unknown:
Yep. Something like that there. Bezos.
[02:59:22] Unknown:
What a bozo.
[02:59:25] Unknown:
Yeah. Bezos the bozo. Yep.
[02:59:35] Unknown:
Well, we can't forget Diddy. Diddy took out some PPP loans during COVID too. Millions. Matter of fact, the billionaire, asking for millions for COVID.
[02:59:49] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's because he had to buy all he had to pay the invoice for all that baby oil.
[03:00:03] Unknown:
Oh my god. Coming to you. Coming to you.
[03:00:17] Unknown:
Oh, come on. Unbelievable.
[03:00:47] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. I swear you got more issues than Sports Illustrated.
[03:00:53] Unknown:
I do.
[03:00:55] Unknown:
Just getting bored, National Geographic.
[03:00:59] Unknown:
But, thankfully, I don't have the swimsuit edition. Comprehensive boycotted companies list, two one twenty twenty one. You know what? I probably didn't have this electronically and printed it because it looks kinda clean for, I might actually have it on my computer somewhere. Maybe.
[03:02:02] Unknown:
Now they call people who break the union line and go to work when they're striking. Scam. What do what do we yes. Scam. But what do we call them? What do we yes. Scam. But what do we call, people who know they need to boycott somebody, but they still patronize the the ones that are supposed to boycott? What do we call them? Me.
[03:02:32] Unknown:
You still have to do what you gotta do if somebody's yelling at me.
[03:02:38] Unknown:
You gotta get what you gotta get. You gotta do what you gotta do.
[03:02:42] Unknown:
Yeah. It's called the law of necessity.
[03:02:46] Unknown:
Yeah. But Well, what I do speak to? I I boycott, divest, and sanction, but there's this one company that has this one park, and they're the only game in town. And I opt to get that part and that part only.
[03:03:07] Unknown:
Yeah. I mean, I may I may support some a company on the boycott list, but I feel just terrible about it afterwards. Just terrible. Just terrible.
[03:03:23] Unknown:
I'm still doing it. To defeat. I'm gonna use it to defeat them.
[03:03:31] Unknown:
So Oh, there you go. Yeah. I I I may do it, but I'll feel awful about it afterwards.
[03:03:43] Unknown:
Yep.
[03:03:45] Unknown:
And I really try and look, you know, to see if a company is like that. And I, I passed out a list a while ago of companies that were unfriendly to the two way.
[03:03:59] Unknown:
Yep. Well, this list this list is, oh, probably, I don't know. I don't even know if I can count the pages. It's probably 20 pages printed both sides.
[03:04:23] Unknown:
I don't I don't magnify.
[03:04:28] Unknown:
Okay. Three m Corporation, seven eleven, twenty twenty vision, twenty three and me, twenty hour, twenty four hour fitness, seventy two and sunny, and pizza, a and m records, a and p, aARP, AbbVie, Abbey Road Studios, Abbott Laboratories, ABC, Activision, Blizzard, Adidas, Adobe Inc, AIG, Airbnb, Alaska Airlines, Allied Van Lines, and that is just page one.
[03:05:06] Unknown:
Oh, if we could just figure how to use federal reserves to get rid of the federal reserve.
[03:05:16] Unknown:
There was a book back in the early two thousands, Joyce Riley, highlighted, called rating your own corporate conscience. And it
[03:05:29] Unknown:
had, you know, friendly companies.
[03:05:39] Unknown:
Let's see.
[03:05:40] Unknown:
There there was a a great documentary characteristics of psychopaths, I yield. Mhmm.
[03:06:05] Unknown:
Well, if you listen to Mike Gaddy. A lot of these companies. I guess they have a profile they meet or, try and go by for hiring their management. And a good many of them are psychopaths.
[03:06:28] Unknown:
Question? I know we were talking about taxes earlier.
[03:06:36] Unknown:
Yes.
[03:06:38] Unknown:
Does anyone know the name of the form to get sales tax exempt in states that one shops? Somebody said they they you could use your passport number, file file some kind of form.
[03:06:52] Unknown:
Yeah. You just go to the retailer and you say, I need a pack a tax exempt application form. And when, and in the spot for the tax ID number, you put your passport number.
[03:07:07] Unknown:
Okay. The number that's on the passport or passport card?
[03:07:11] Unknown:
Oh, I don't know for sure. Pick one. Okay. They're both they're both attributed to you. I would I would do the, passport
[03:07:23] Unknown:
card, maybe. The one under the one underneath the picture?
[03:07:29] Unknown:
Yeah. I believe so.
[03:07:31] Unknown:
Okay. There's several different numbers. Can can it be a passport number from a regular passport before you became a national, or does it have to be one that has that has the a passport number that when when applied for the passport, affidavit of of what's included.
[03:07:52] Unknown:
It's the nine digit number. Your tax your your passport your passport card ID number, nine digits like your social.
[03:08:05] Unknown:
Let me let me ask you let me ask you a qualifying question. Do you have any passport that has an affidavit associated with it?
[03:08:18] Unknown:
No.
[03:08:19] Unknown:
Then don't. Because you're a citizen of The United States and and claiming to be tax exempt using a, a passport number that claims you're a citizen of The United States, you would be committing tax fraud.
[03:08:33] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Tax evasion. May I? May I?
[03:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:08:40] Unknown:
There is a way that you can you don't have to use your passport if you haven't changed over to a national. And I I'm trying to figure this out, but there's a type of a state number that you can get off of the IRS website that you can use in lieu of a passport number. And I would recommend this go ahead. EIN.
[03:09:02] Unknown:
EIN. Yeah. Employer identification
[03:09:04] Unknown:
number. Or it might be a TIN, a taxable identification number or trust identification number. I'm not sure, but, it's not your Social Security number. And I would recommend that you go to your department of revenue services and just search or use Google or Yandex and search for sales sales and use tax resale certificate. Put that in, punch that in, and see if you can pull something else something up. And then for how you're registered or engaged, just check the box other and put a religious organization down there. I yield.
[03:09:51] Unknown:
Paul Butler. Thanks, Julie. You you mentioned you go to some office and you get a, tax exempt form.
[03:09:59] Unknown:
I would Google this. I think you can pull it down off the Internet. I would Google your state, whatever state you're in, Department of Revenue Services, or just just Google sales and youth tax retail certificate.
[03:10:13] Unknown:
Yeah. I got a full tax sale or exemption.
[03:10:17] Unknown:
Go ahead, Paul.
[03:10:18] Unknown:
I don't think you'd wanna do that because the resale the resale certificate puts you on their books as somebody that is buying things tax free because you're gonna be reselling at a higher retail value. Therefore, the tax that you'll be collecting would be greater than the tax that you would pay. I mean, they just putting yourself on the freaking radar that way would not be good. Just go to the damn retailer and say, I need a tax exempt application form and just either put a TIN on it or put your passport number on it. Give it back to them. And then they will put you in their system as being tax exempt.
[03:11:02] Unknown:
You don't got it. So every teller has has one of those?
[03:11:06] Unknown:
Yeah. They should. They're doing business.
[03:11:10] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay.
[03:11:13] Unknown:
Yeah. I I I sure as hell wouldn't fill out a tax a resale certificate. Hell no.
[03:11:20] Unknown:
Absolutely not. It didn't look like that. Yeah. It didn't look like it was, that was the right one.
[03:11:27] Unknown:
So, Paul, you said hang on. Yeah. So, Paul, you said go to the store that you're buying groceries or, clothes or whatever from and ask them for a tax exempt what?
[03:11:42] Unknown:
Application. Application. Yeah. Just ask them for a tax exempt application form. Then I have to get And they may call it something different, but they're but they're gonna know that the tax exempt form is whatever form that they're gonna use.
[03:11:58] Unknown:
They're gonna know that. To be a national in order for you to be tax exempt, though.
[03:12:03] Unknown:
Absolutely. You have to be a national. If you attempt to be if you attempt to claim to be tax exempt when you're not tax exempt, well, I suppose I can bake you a cake with a file in it, but you're not gonna wanna eat the cake because I'm not that good a baker.
[03:12:22] Unknown:
Oh, and then did you say I have to give a TIN with it with that tax exempt app application?
[03:12:30] Unknown:
Well, you can get an EIN from the IRS. You can get a TIN, which I thought was a taxpayer identification number. It could it could stand for trust identification
[03:12:45] Unknown:
number. I don't That would be a TPN.
[03:12:51] Unknown:
Or a t p I n, a taxpayer.
[03:12:54] Unknown:
That's two words.
[03:12:56] Unknown:
Well, I have a question for you. I I have a question for you. How much do you buy?
[03:13:04] Unknown:
Not much.
[03:13:07] Unknown:
So so you're you're talking about anywhere between 812% paying, sales tax.
[03:13:15] Unknown:
Right? Principal. Right? It's the principal. Right?
[03:13:19] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. Well, people have also been locked up on principal.
[03:13:25] Unknown:
Okay. So what were you saying then? If you don't buy much if you don't buy much, then just pay it?
[03:13:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. If you don't buy much, I would I would just pay it. Now somebody that buys a bunch of stuff has a lot more money than me to buy shit. Maybe. Fine.
[03:13:50] Unknown:
I don't know. I'm thinking got it.
[03:13:53] Unknown:
When I think about it it would probably only make a $25 difference in what in in my available funds in a month.
[03:14:06] Unknown:
Okay.
[03:14:10] Unknown:
Thank you, dear.
[03:14:12] Unknown:
Oh, you're welcome. It's what I live for. Okay. That's a hundred and 19 k. Let's see. I'm looking for I'm searching, Buku, Noah has Boycott Everything by Miles Mathis. Okay. I'm searching Buku terabytes of data for, for anything that has to do with boycott. I'm looking.
[03:14:45] Unknown:
Boycott. So for me I would I would say if we're men, we should be mancodding, not boycotting.
[03:15:00] Unknown:
She hits I it's really gotta be time to take the radio station down. You know, it's just you know, it's it's very considering you're getting into a weird area here.
[03:15:13] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. Yeah. Okay, Murr.
[03:15:17] Unknown:
Okay, Murr.
[03:15:18] Unknown:
Yeah. No kidding. What?
[03:15:22] Unknown:
My name, Cody.
[03:15:29] Unknown:
Twenty twenty one comprehensive boycott companies list. A comprehensive list of companies. What kind of investment incentives? Ethical consumers. Yes. This is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Amazon, Booking dot com.
[03:16:23] Unknown:
Annette. Annette, what were you gonna say?
[03:19:33] Unknown:
Okay. Well, might as well take the station down. So let's do that. Thanks for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales, the Wednesday edition for 03/05/2025. Catches tomorrow for the Thursday edition of the radio range from 11AM to 1PM eastern on eurofolkradio.com, Global Voice Radio Network, and radiosoapbox.com. For more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixdocs.com. You can click on the downloadable resources, interviews, court sites, exhibits, radio streams. Oh my goodness. You can just click on a bunch of stuff there. Pack a lunch? Stay the day. Thanks for joining us. We'll catch you back here tomorrow, 11AM on the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales.
Bye. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:20:36] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
[03:20:43] Unknown:
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
This Mirror Stream is brought to you in part by mymymytoboost.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. Visceral fat is weighing your body down. It's causing sluggish response of your organs, and it's gotta go. It's gotta go. It's gotta get rid of it. You just gotta. And, also, iTero Planet for the terahertz frequency wand by Preif International. That's iTeroPlanet.com.
Thank you, and welcome to the program. Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[00:01:51] Unknown:
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And we would too. We try it on a six day a week basis here at the Radio Ranch, and we put our collective shoulders to the wheel and try and get that little ball uphill a bit. Good morning. Roger Sales Radio Ranch. It is the fifth, March the fifth. You know? And I missed it yesterday, Paul and Mark, and I'm very I'm very recalcitrant for doing that. Has anybody got it? Does anybody have it where we are? March
[00:02:24] Unknown:
March fourth.
[00:02:25] Unknown:
Beware of the odds of March. Yep. Beware. It's not a one day. It's evidently about a three day period of the Ides of March. We're right square in it. I forgot it yesterday, and I'm very sorry. So, anyway, we'll roll on. We've got a number of people that help us with, extend our reach a bit. And, mister Beaner is, the keeper of that because he knows all these people. He's got a hand on all of it, which day they're here and which day they're not and all that kind of stuff. So, Paul, if you would be so kind to be able to give these people a little bit of thanks for their efforts.
[00:03:05] Unknown:
Oh, I would be happy to. Normally, we're on one zero six point nine WVOU FM in Chicago for the first hour. That brought to us by WDRN productions, Port Collins, Colorado, part of the NET family of broadcast services. However, those streams are not joining us today. There's, a technical trouser hiccup going on with the DRN servers, and we're working on it. They may join us later in the show. We're on RadioSoapbox.com this morning for the first hour, so we will be doing the Radio Soapbox sign off at the top of the hour. And, of course, we're on the old standby, the original stream.
Thanks to pastor Eli James EuroFolk Mhmm. Radio.com. And, another pet project of mine, Global Voice Radio Network. Just to give you a heads up, there are a couple of other streams that will be coming online. There will be a 247, 365 radio station and also GVTV, global voice television, dot net. Wow. So,
[00:04:27] Unknown:
we're on this 20 on this twenty four hour thing, it'll just run repeats or whatever whatever you program in there on a twenty four hour spool?
[00:04:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm thinking Radio Ranch twenty four seven three sixty five. Oh, lord. No. Years of archives. Just And I'm coming up there to see you. Hold on. Just
[00:04:46] Unknown:
yeah. Just s a n f o r d period.
[00:04:51] Unknown:
Right. And and also another thing that will be happening with that because the GVN radio stream will be 247365. Your show will be live on that program. Nice. And, Oh, we're gonna have to do that. Should be right. WDRN productions will probably be grabbing the audio from that stream directly at the server level on the cloud. So it really won't matter if DRM studios are live or not. The show will still go on. So You you're you're bucking for a raise, are you?
[00:05:28] Unknown:
It's not we're working on it. We're working on it. Okay. Good work. Good work. I gotta give you a pat on the back there. Oh, we got Mark with us today. Yeah. Are you finished with our friends and stuff or and the proposed things that are Yes. Except for
[00:05:43] Unknown:
except for the, the other links available on the matrixdocs.com. You can find the free conference call links to join us live. Leave like I said, we've got room for about a thousand of you, and I have 2,000 more seats waiting in the wings to be brought in. It's just gonna be very interesting to see how many of those get filled here in the next, whatever immediacy we've got.
[00:06:11] Unknown:
Quite excited about all of these events that are happening and are impending. Mark's with us this morning. Mark, you kinda joined us on Wednesday and Saturday. Right?
[00:06:21] Unknown:
Right. That's correct. For for the time being.
[00:06:24] Unknown:
Okay. And you've got a lot of responsibilities.
[00:06:27] Unknown:
On a more regular basis.
[00:06:29] Unknown:
Right. Well, Mark takes care of his elderly parents. I know that that's a well, it's not a burden. It's just something that takes a lot of your time and attention. It's gotta be some sort of a pleasure to help your parents as much as they put in and put up with us when we were young. I think back on my parents, man. Well, I put my parents through an just an unbearable crap. I can't believe they didn't, you know, kick me out a long time ago, but they continued to love me. And I turned around and, and even though my father my my father told my mother she told me this after he died. Well, Rod, I'm afraid Roger will never amount to anything.
So, dad, I keep trying to please you. You know? But but your It's actually
[00:07:15] Unknown:
payback time, Roger. Because, here oh, a couple of years ago, we stopped by a automotive repair place that my sister, used to use and she had had some problems with her with the car and we wanted to check on them to see if they could take it. And I guess one of the guys had been there for a long time. We we pulled in and it was an old gas station that had been converted for auto repair. So this guy had walked out from the back as my dad and I were talking to the manager. My dad recognized him and he said, Hey, I hadn't seen you forever. I thought you'd be dead. Or something like that. I was like, Dad?
Oh, I think he said, I didn't know you were still alive. That's what he said. I didn't know you were still alive. And I was like, Dad, you know, what What's going on? Easy. Easy. Yep.
[00:08:11] Unknown:
The other day Really?
[00:08:13] Unknown:
The other day, I was asked he said something about, you know, my my my dad's in his nineties. Okay? So, I said, he goes, you know, I'm the one that gave you your name. I said, really? Was it all capital letters? No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said, really? So, well, did you base that off the Bible or, you know, how did you come up with the name Mark? And he said, well, you know, I just didn't think Jose would sound right.
[00:08:42] Unknown:
That's funny. Your dad's got a good sense of humor, obviously.
[00:08:45] Unknown:
Yes. Yes. He does. He keeps everybody
[00:08:48] Unknown:
you. Or you got yours. Well, glad to have you back, Mark. Good to be here. Yesterday, at the end of the show yesterday, this is pretty interesting now. I think you'll enjoy this, Mark, or find it interesting as I did. Julie, our new student, Julie. Yep. Julie, I'm sure is in the audience today. And, she was taking you were taking some sort of a real estate test in DC to get your license renewed or something, I think, up there. Julie is a broker, not an agent, also a CPA, so a gal of much accomplishment here. And, she was taking this test, and I think she said the only question that she got wrong was on the thirteenth amendment.
And, the test whoever wrote the test says that the blacks were freed in the thirteenth amendment, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.
[00:09:45] Unknown:
That's not true.
[00:09:46] Unknown:
I don't think it's true either. And and and but the test did, and that's the only question she missed because, of course, she's been hanging around with us for a few months and had her own different ideas on that. But we got to the end of the show, and then we were discussing it yesterday. And we said, we're just starting just pick that up this morning. K? And then on top of that, to add to the fourteenth amendment, Paul took the, Eastman, attorney I don't know what his John Eastman. I don't know what his first name is, and ran it through the Paul machine, which makes audio mucho mejor better.
And, we're gonna maybe play that today or tomorrow, one of the two, whichever time frame we get to to to drop that in. So just giving Paul a little heads up. So let's go back and look at the, the entire sequence of events here. And, what really happened I'm sorry that my eyes aren't better. There's a whole half a page in the slaughterhouse cases. Mark, have you ever read the story or even breezed over a slaughterhouse case? Yeah. Yeah. I had it. It had to do with a bunch of, like, meat processors. Yeah. French. Well, they're French they were French plantation owners.
[00:11:02] Unknown:
Right. So they were dumping all their waste into, like, a river. Yep. And it come down to had who had jurisdiction over them dumping that into the rivers is if I recall correctly.
[00:11:14] Unknown:
Well, it's very interesting. And this is courses eighteen seventy one, and it was the first case, what they call landmark decision or a case of first impression on the fourteenth amendment and its effects. And, what happened was there's a group of these butchers, and they were mostly French, They had, settled and had, you know, plantations there next to the river. You know how dirty the French are. I mean, it's no secret. Okay? I mean, they'll just leave raw meat hanging outside a butcher shop on a on a hook, you know, flies and everything all over it. Although, I guess, the end product over there is pretty good, but, they have some questionable processes to put it that way. Right.
So, of course, France had the the Louisiana and and later bought by Jefferson, I believe, Louisiana Purchase, which was a vast extensive land. I found out something at lunch yesterday, kind of talking about this, that I didn't know before. When the French settled the the the land there on the French possession, the first capital was not New Orleans. It was Mobile. K? And then they moved it over to New Orleans. So what is happening is these French would not the cleanliest of habits would butcher their animals. And whether they live next to the river or close to it, they would take the carcasses and the parts they didn't want, and they go throw them in the Mississippi River. And as the Mississippi River would take that refuge downstream, some of it would get caught in the water intake valve that supplied New Orleans' water.
Oh. So it was legitimately contaminating the water supply. K? So Louisiana passed a law, and they said that anybody that has plantations is gonna do this. You have to go to a state sponsored slaughterhouse. Excuse me. And dispose of the remains of the carcass of your animal. Well, for a lot of people, that was a real inconvenience. They might not had one close, this, that, and the other. And there was a lot of rhubarb about it, and so a number of them took cases to court. They did it under the police powers and the health powers of the state, which is, of course, vested in them in the constitution that I would think. You know? So, they a bunch of them took these cases to court, the only remedy they had, And that's why they lumped them. There were so many of them. They lumped them all together, and that's why it's a plural, slaughterhouse cases.
K? Right. And so they took the case pardon me?
[00:13:54] Unknown:
The yeah. They combined them all.
[00:13:56] Unknown:
Right. And so, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and, basically, the Supreme Court. They they did it on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, if I remember correctly, Mark. And, so when it got to the Supreme Court, they said, look. We empathize with you, basically. We sympathize with you, but you're white butchers. You're French plantation owners. And the fourteenth amendment was mainly written for blacks. So bring us the case and something we can consider and we'll consider it, and they remanded it. K? So very interesting case because several reasons.
One, it was 1871. So it's as if we were saying here, boy, you remember that COVID stuff a couple years ago and and how they did this and did that and tried to do this and wanted to do another? And all of us would remember that because it was in our recent memory. And that's the way this case is, and that's one of the reasons it's so important. Okay? And so in the case there, there's about a half a page written on what we're gonna talk about leading up to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. And the it starts out with something, you know, it was a controversial case then, and it's still a controversial case today.
And I know Mark knows what I'm talking about, and this is the Dred Scott decision. Okay? And they they they talk about that in in the slaughterhouse cases. They said this was all set up by Dred Scott. You know, and Dred Scott was a finding by the way, a little history on that. You may not know, Mark. The sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court was a guy from South Carolina named Roger Taney, t a n e y. He was the chief justice of the Supreme Court for twenty years or more, I believe. He never went to law school, Mark. Never. Wow.
Okay? And so, and and now Barnes refers to Dred Scott as a bunch of slaveholder with slaveholding interest, against those who don't. Now I don't know about that. Maybe Mark Barnes does great research. I'm not gonna, put him down on something I haven't studied. And that may be the case. But regardless, that finding is still over a 50, now. Almost 200 is, still controversial. K? And what it says, there was an escaped slave from a slave state. I don't remember which one, but he had escaped the slave state and gone to Illinois and claimed he was a free man. And Dred Scott came back and said, no af no man of African descent can be free whether he's in a slave state or not.
Well, you can imagine that sent a lot of ripples around. Yep. And so that was, one of the door openers here. Now on top of that, what this little excerpt from the slaughterhouse cases talks about is it says, well, you know, there was a lot of discussion around here in DC. It was in the newspapers. It was in the public journals and in political circles that someone who had been born with the recent Dred Scott decision, someone who had been born and raised in DC and the territories was not only not a citizen of The United States, but could not become one by anything short of an amendment to the constitution.
Boom. Here's your loophole. That's what they that's what they drove this through. K. And so, they they got together after the Civil War, eighteen sixty eight, I I wanna say. And they got together and they let all the, representatives and senators from the Southern states who'd been trying to fight to secede, they fought a war to secede from from what they consider tyranny, and they let all of the legislators back into congress to vote on the thirteenth amendment. They passed it. Six months later, after they got the fourteenth amendment cooked up, and they sent it around to the states to ratify it, if your state did not ratify the fourteenth amendment, they kicked you out of the union.
Yeah. Now here, these states had been trying to get out of a war for four years. They said no, and then they come back. And because they won't pass the fourteenth amendment, they kick them out. Is that a little suspect to you, Mark?
[00:18:26] Unknown:
Yeah. I would say so.
[00:18:28] Unknown:
Okay. So, that's why people say the fourteenth amendment was not legitimately ratified. Okay? But let's go back to the thirteenth. So that was there. It's constitutional. And, Julie, if you didn't catch yesterday, was, as I was saying, was taking a broker's test. Julie, are you with us? I'm sure you are. You right there, girl? Julie's not with us. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. I'm here. Girl. Alright. Well, what let's give us your input. You had to go up and take a broker's test in DC for your license. Right?
[00:19:01] Unknown:
Yeah. I had to do, continuing education. And, one of the and and for DC, it was just all based on, the civil war and, the thirteenth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, fair housing, and all that stuff. And one of the questions related to slavery, and it said, which amendment I think it was, you know, freed the slaves or something like that. And, I I clicked on, I think it was, an answer like none of the above. And, I got it wrong. They said it was the thirteenth amendment.
[00:19:34] Unknown:
Okay. Well, it's very interesting. You know, as long as I've been involved in all this, I've never heard that before. So that's one of the things that kinda perk my interest. And in thinking about it after the show yesterday and last night, it it is a very interesting question, quite frankly, because it does outlaw slavery in the thirteenth amendment. But the thirteenth amendment was for the states because at the bottom, it says their jurisdictions. So I can understand where somebody could take that away from this. But here's my question. If they outlawed slavery in the thirteenth amendment, where where did they move the slaves to?
Well, they didn't move them. It was only for the states. Right? Julie? Yeah. At that time. It was only for the states. So if they gave them freedom in the state at that point, what were they? What's their political status? Well, they're not whitey. The state citizen was whitey and Jim Crow, But they don't have a status yet. It may have freed them, and it better be a wonderful point of debate here, really. But it couldn't have freed them totally because it didn't give them anywhere to go. They didn't have a status for another six months. So you see what I'm saying?
[00:20:53] Unknown:
I do.
[00:20:54] Unknown:
Okay. So, I mean, it it may have, and they may have a little bit of validity on the argument. I'm dying to hear Mark's input on this. But I think it was more to set up the fourteenth amendment because they left out voluntary servitude, which they have to. They can't outlaw it, but it's legal by omission sitting right there. That's a big fat softball over over the plate right in the middle. Okay. Just a second, Paul. And then, of course, it goes down a couple of, lines, and it says their jurisdictions. So it was plainly for the states. And the way I see this, they have a very slanted narrow view of this, I believe.
The way that we see it on a broader standpoint is this was the setup where they could throw the broad net over the states and get everybody into this subject to the jurisdiction of condition. And that's what I see it as. So I think they're well, they they might not be incorrect, but if they're correct, they had no place for the new freed blacks to go. They didn't have they were still they were in in in in essence, if their conclusion is correct, the blacks were stateless for six months. And and we know this isn't about black and white. That's what they don't know. This is about political status.
Whitey, the state citizen, had god given rights and duties and constitutional protections. The slave had civil rights under the fourteenth amendment and and you the federal government's their daddy. So that's really the difference, although it did manifest itself primarily in the black race. K? Because they freed a whole bunch of them. But you can't tell me, especially from that paragraph in the slaughterhouse cases, you can't tell me that everybody in Washington, DC and the territories were black slaves. Now granted, there's a lot of state citizens that would no doubt go to the federal government to help perform the collective duties of of the states. I mean, as we said the other day, Virginia and North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia and Massachusetts, well, they couldn't all have their own navy. They couldn't afford it.
They couldn't all have ambassadors to England and of Paris and to Germany and Russia. They couldn't all afford it. They'd be tripping all over each other up there. So they had a nondefined federal government. There there were no citizens or there weren't any really abridging rules to my knowledge or anything else, constitution, of course. But they had limitations, but they may have been partial state citizens that were over there working for the collective good of the country. But you can't tell me under any circumstances that everybody in DC and the territories was either former was either state citizens or former black slaves. I just don't buy that. K? So there had to be a small percentage of people here that were affected by the fourteenth amendment that were not black.
K? So the question is, interestingly enough, when Jim Crow came in, which bathroom did they go to? They go to the black bathroom? They go to the white bathroom? Well, we don't know, but I'm just speculating here. They couldn't have all been black slaves and other state citizens. There had to be some people in that vast territory, The US and all the territories that were born and raised there that were affected by the fourteenth amendment. Up to that point, they were stateless. And if the thirteenth amendment freed the slaves as these people are trying to pull pull the wool over your eyes, then for six months, they were stateless too. They had no political status.
They didn't get the political status till the fourteenth amendment because that identifies who, the citizen of The United States and a resident is. Okay? And as all you know, I'll just go it bears repeating. The the the fourteenth amendment is a two pronged legal test. You know, if you get into law, Mark knows. You came on to talked about it the other day about a case with trust, which had a six point plan, and they the judge says, well, the trust, even though that didn't really look kosher, the trust met all six points of the test. Right? You were talking about that, Mark. That's correct. So That's correct. Here we go. Well, this is a two part legal test.
You gotta be born or naturalized in The United States, and then you gotta be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's the phrase that everybody hangs up on. That's what Barnes was talking about a few weeks ago in '11, the subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Well, what may you see, the only time that's ever been covered in the court, Mark, to my knowledge, is Elk versus Wilkins, which was 1878. Elk was an Indian, came off the reservation. Wilkins was the registrar. This is out in the, you know, Kansas, Iowa, somewhere in Indian territory out there.
And Elk comes off the reservation. He goes in to register to vote under the new fourteenth amendment. And Wilkins says, you're an Indian. You can't register to vote. This is for blacks. So one thing that's going on there is they recognize the Indian tribes as sovereign, don't they? Well, you bet you they do. Okay? So then Elk, disappointed, no doubt, goes back to the reservation. Election day comes along. Elk comes off the reservation, goes to the polls. Wilkin the register Wilkin the registrar sitting on the polls. He sees Elk again. He says, you can't vote and you can't register. You're an Indian. You're a sovereign, basically.
And so in that case, it's the only point only case I've ever seen, Mark, where they went back and covered subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I remember I was working with an attorney back in Atlanta back then, and I went and gave him that. And he goes, god. Thank you. I've been looking for this for years. Well, there it is. It's right there in Elk v Wilkins. Okay? And what they said was subject to the jurisdiction thereof is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the federal United States. Now that was repeated in US versus Wong Kim Ark, but there's never been, to my knowledge, visited by the court again.
And it's the key out of the whole thing. Okay? Here it is. Here's this voluntary servitude, and here's all this other stuff. By the way, we're gonna take that first point, and we're gonna take care of that for you. We're gonna bankrupt the country, and we're gonna take this this political status that's sitting on a shelf, and we're gonna come over and plug everybody in as sureties to the debt. Now we know that from Colonel House's note that was found in Woodrow Wilson's possessions after he died. And House starts out the whole thing with, we will attach them to the debt by using utilizing the ancient pledge. We make them sure these, I forget the wording, make them sure at ease for the debt by, by, invoking the ancient pledge. Well, okay. What the hell's the ancient pledge?
I mean, you go dance around the fire and go, woo, woo, woo. What? No. It's the oath of fealty in the feudal system. That's the ancient pledge where you get in front of the lord of the manor voluntarily, go in, get on your knees, both knees, very important. You're you're the Lord of the manor is now your God. You're on both knees. If you don't understand the significance of that, you're on both knees. You put your hands above your head as if you're praying. The Lord of the manner puts his hands on yours and you receive you. You basically give him your body and all of your worldly goods. You give him your body as property and then you don't own any worldly goods, so you're gonna give them to him because he's got a property right in you. You can't own anything. You can control some things, but you can't own them. That's straight from Colonel House's mouth.
Okay? Now you could go back even to more contemporary, Carol Quigley. Carol Quigley, tragedy and hope, was a CFR guy. He was Bill Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown. Okay? And he was all for the CFR and what they were doing in this scheme. He just didn't think they should keep it secret. He thought they ought to make it public. Well, that's what we're doing, mister Quigley. We're making it public. Okay? And then people can make their own decision on it. His statement in that book where he had two years access to the internal files of the Council on Foreign Relations.
And in his book, he said the me the financial leaders of the world met in regular secret sessions where they fashioned the world's financial system in a feudalism fashion. That's Carroll Quigley. That's two years into the CFR archives. I think the guy knows what he's talking about. He's that is a unreproachable, statement. Okay? You you can't disprove that. Well, I dare to say, you can't have a world financial system shaped in a feudalist fashion if you don't have serfs. Yep. Period. And so that's what we're dealing with here. So they'll take the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, and they're gonna do that for you. We're gonna bankrupt the country. We're gonna come in and grab this. Oh, well, here's this little status over here sitting up on a shelf. Well, I'll be darned. We'll just put everybody in there, and now we got a property right in you, and you're sureties for this bankruptcy.
That's what's going on. Okay? And that's subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Nobody's hit it yet. Barnes didn't hit it. Levin didn't hit it. I'm sure mister Eastman, if we get to hit and he's very in-depth, a little that I could listen to here. He didn't get it. So here are all these superb attorneys that are within an onion skin of getting the answer, but they never asked the right question. They never asked the right question in the respect of what gee, I wonder what other societies had this attribute to their society, this birthright citizenship. Nobody's asked that yet. If they'd asked that question, they'd get the answer.
K? Yeah. So that's where we are, Julie. I don't believe they're correct. I I don't think that they were intentionally there to free the slaves with the thirteenth amendment because they didn't have any place to put them yet. I think that was there so that they could make people think they were doing that and that they're hidden in the background as voluntary servitude, and they're setting you up where eighty years later, they could stick you into this position. And then a couple of, about twenty years later, fifties, after Brown versus Board of Education, they could start asking you that question legitimately because they combined both of those statuses, blessy v Ferguson, the Jim Crow laws were now combined, and equal in the classroom, equal in the society. That was the thumbnail of Brown.
Remember, it was only sixty days after that. That was evidently as you look back and try and un unravel this, that was their big obstacle, Mark, was getting over Jim Crow. They had to get rid of the two separate distinctive statuses and mold them in the one where they could ask you that question and not have to put national in there. That's what they're doing. Yes, Paul. I'm sorry. I got ranting. Yes.
[00:33:04] Unknown:
That's exactly what they had going on. The thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude, but it did not give them any recognizable political status. It did not give them any protections Yep. Under the constitution, and it did not give them any states' rights.
[00:33:24] Unknown:
Nope. So Hey, guys. See, it may have and so from the slant of your people up there in DC, which are always slanted to the black side, obviously, I I don't think I think it was for the states, their jurisdictions, and not for the blacks necessarily, because they didn't have anywhere to put them. They didn't have anywhere to put them for six months. So that's why, Julie, I would say that you were correct and that they're wrong. Do you have any comments on that, Julie?
[00:33:59] Unknown:
No comments except for just the fact that when you read the thirteenth amendment to the constitution, you know, I everybody in DC views the word slavery as, you know, the black slaves. Oh, of course. Well,
[00:34:13] Unknown:
I can under well, they're prohibiting that in the future. So, but I just don't think they're right in their interpretation because they might have freed them back then, but they had no place to put them. If they were to have them freed, they'd give them a political status in the thirteenth amendment, and they didn't. They were waiting for the fourteenth amendment and setting it up where eighty years, a hundred years later, they could trap all of us. In other words, yes. You could say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but it wasn't fought over the kind of slavery we're talking about here. It was caught fought over setting up the blacks in a position that they could trick all of us into where we'd all be slaves.
[00:34:57] Unknown:
That makes sense.
[00:34:58] Unknown:
Okay. And I I have that video queued. Alright. Hold on. We'll get some we're gonna get some chatter here. Paul, what your first Larry's next. I have that video queued if you wanna go to it. Okay. Well, let's listen away. Let's get the discussion out of the way. Larry, what do you got?
[00:35:15] Unknown:
Didn't you mention in the past that, there's something missing out of Carol Quigley's book, like the first edition had it in there and then later editions did not. Am I messing up with another book?
[00:35:29] Unknown:
You I don't know. Quite frankly, I saw that, in a set of quotes, and it referred back to Carol Quigley. So that's where I learned that quote. But he clearly said it in one of the editions. The, the the leaders of financial leaders of the world met in regular secret sessions where they fashioned the world's financial system in a feudalist fashion, right out of Carol Quigley.
[00:35:56] Unknown:
K?
[00:35:58] Unknown:
Mark, you got anything to weigh in on here?
[00:36:01] Unknown:
No. I I agree. I think it's just a blanket statement, you know, and, you know, we had we had other slaves in our country, you know, outside of of, of the blacks. Blacks. So Well, actually slaves that came over and and They were so predominant.
[00:36:23] Unknown:
They were so predominant, the Irish slaves, because the black slaves cost an average of $2,000 a piece in those days. That's for an average specimen, not a healthy big, you know, male or whatever. Alright? But, the Irish were nothing. That's why they would keep the Irish in the fields, and they would let the blacks work in the house because they cost a lot of money.
[00:36:52] Unknown:
Well, you know, in in a lot of the Irish, I think they voluntarily came over as a slave just to pay their way to get here.
[00:37:01] Unknown:
Many. Yeah. So But they were going around London and getting little ragamuffins in the streets and stuff, and they'd grab them by the nape of the neck and go throw them on the slave ship, send them to The US. Wow. Well, that wasn't uncommon either. Roger, the the thirteenth amendment that you're talking about, is that the new one or the old the No. It's the new one. I don't I I know the old ones here. I don't ever refer to it. I I this is the one we're dealing with because they they this is the one they use to throw the net over everybody. It's the setup. Remember, these guys have to do any hold on, Myrka. They don't ever do anything where they don't do it in a two step process.
They set it up like cocking a gun, and then they pull the trigger. They can't do it all at one time. Okay? So the thirteenth amendment is the setup. The fourteenth amendment is pulling the trigger. Now what what's your comment? All part of the Reconstruction? Well, could be. Yeah. Probably. You know? We know a little bit about that, but just just concentrating on congress and what they're doing. And this will has led me to thinking this through. Like we just explained it here, has led me to the conclusion that this is a valid thesis. Now I don't know that we'll ever be able to prove it, but this is a valid thesis that the Civil War was fought to get these two amendments in the Constitution so that a hundred years later, they could control the world by using us as slaves and collateral for the world's reserve currency and thereby controlling the world. That's what I think is going on here.
[00:38:38] Unknown:
Roger?
[00:38:39] Unknown:
Yes, sir.
[00:38:41] Unknown:
Yeah. They, the the Reconstruction Act stipulated that the southern states, in order to be let back into the union and seat in congress, through the Reconstruction Act, had to vote for the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment.
[00:39:00] Unknown:
Well, the thirteenth amendment was already done. The thirteenth amendment was done. They led all the Congress Reconstruction Act. Base this fourteenth amendment. That's the booger. Go ahead.
[00:39:11] Unknown:
No. They're both part of the Reconstruction Act, and this this is where where Johnson vetoed, a lot of this stuff. He was against he he he was feeling leaving the South in without all this stipulations and moves to coerce them was the way back to a peaceful society and he just never got his way. Of course, they came within one vote of impeaching him. So and it was for opposing and, you know, what they made up a bunch of crap about him trying to replace Stanton is really what the impeachment was about. But it had they were just being mean spirited about him trying to veto all of the reconstruction laws that they were trying to put on the South. And, of course, they're they're occupied by the the North's military and being forced to do archive stuff. So I I think I told you all the story. I was watching
[00:40:16] Unknown:
SEC Network a couple years ago did an outstanding multi part documentary on the history of Southern football. Okay? And, from the start and all, SEC was founded and all that kind of stuff. And they got up to a part in that series since 1925, I believe. And in 1925, the Rose Bowl, they they didn't name it the Rose Bowl till the next year. Okay? So it's in the early stages of the Rose Bowl. Mark, have you heard this? This this is No. Fascinating. Well, it's fascinating. Okay? And so the two teams that the Rose Bowl invited out, one of them couldn't make it. And so they went searching for another team, and Alabama had won the SEC that year. And they, asked Alabama to come. And interestingly enough, one of the members of the Rose Bowl committee said, I didn't even know Alabama had a football team.
Okay? And so they and this is before that was nationally broadcast the year before, and the only announcement they had was, over Western Union. And the people around the South particularly would all all went and hung out around the Western Union Station. They get play by play, over the tell telephone not telephone, telegram. So, anyway, Alabama went out. There's a five day trip, and they stopped along the way to practice. And, they went to play in the bowl, and they were being defeated, I forget by who, at halftime. And they came out, and it was one of the real early, games where the forward pass took prominence. And Alabama came out in the second half with the forward pass. I don't remember the players, pretty famous, and, won the game.
And so, then they had to get on the train and come home. And so as they got close to the south, every town they went through had giant crowds at the train station, you know, to celebrate. And, and they finally got to Tuscaloosa. And the guy that was doing the commentary on that, he said, part of the reason that this out outreach of a a a fandom on this was because this was the first time since the Civil War that the south had beaten the north at anything.
[00:42:42] Unknown:
Wow.
[00:42:44] Unknown:
Nineteen twenty five.
[00:42:47] Unknown:
Wow.
[00:42:48] Unknown:
I just thought that was really hit me when they said it. You know?
[00:42:53] Unknown:
Yep. That was actually the Southern Conference.
[00:42:56] Unknown:
SEC won't form till thirty. Yeah.
[00:42:59] Unknown:
Okay. But it was in that range, and that was the background for it. My it might have been wrong on a date there. But, and if you ever if you like football, especially SEC football, which many of us do, that is a wonderful documentary. I I I think they call it Saturdays in the South. Rick, did you see any of that? You seen any of those episodes? No. Well, it's worth watching, especially if you like if you like football and history stuff. Anyway, I just thought that was very interesting. That's the first time the South had beaten it the North at anything since 1868.
That's fifty five years, folks.
[00:43:43] Unknown:
K?
[00:43:45] Unknown:
So and that's the burden that people like me I mean, I've lived my whole life. Even though I lived in Alaska and Texas and New Mexico and other places, I'm still always a southern boy, you know, and had that culture from both of my parents. And this is something that's plagued the South for, what, a hundred and fifty years now? Is all this civil war stuff? We can't fly the Confederate battle flag, which I've got one in my window right here to my left, or any of those things, without being shouted down. If you remember the old days, the SEC, when I was, in school, Old Miss was the rebels. They're still the rebels. They used to have Johnny Reb, the little plantation owner, as their mascot.
And if you'd watch an Old Miss game at home, there was, like, thousands of rebel battle flags being waved. Boy, they got rid of that. Okay? So it just is a way and this information here that we deal with is a way for me to shed a lot of that crap that I've been through in my adult lifetime just because I'm in the South. And these ideals were I've heard a term Jefferson America, Jeffersonian America, where the other is Lincoln Tony in America. I by far prefer Jeffersonian America. Thank you. And the beautiful part with what we do is I can get you back to that. K? So, who else has got something to comment on this discussion here this morning? I think it's been pretty fruitful so far.
[00:45:18] Unknown:
Hello? Does anybody know the difference between the two different thirteenth amendment?
[00:45:25] Unknown:
Well, one of them, the old one, Joan, if it goes back and you can go back. That's what people always ask about this, don't they? You go back, it was I I forget when it was ratified. It was earlier in the century. Could somebody help me out when the original thirteenth amendment and it was ratified even though they say it wasn't, Joan. And I say that because we found old law books with that thirteenth amendment in the constitution in a law book. Well, they don't put that kind of stuff in a law book if it hadn't been ratified. Okay? So that's it's got to do with titles of nobility, Joan, which Brent says is not attorneys.
Our patriot group, always says, well, that means attorneys can't be in congress. Brent says that's not correct. If you've got a question about it, you can ask him tomorrow. What was your comment, Mark?
[00:46:16] Unknown:
Yeah. December of eighteen sixty five is when the thirteenth Amendment was, ratified.
[00:46:22] Unknown:
Sixty five? No. No. That's the new one. No. No. No. No. No. Eighteen twelve.
[00:46:28] Unknown:
Eighteen '12, and they started a war to obfuscate the fact that it Well, could be. Was ratified. Could be. So it was there. The
[00:46:37] Unknown:
Roger, Alan shared a article. Yeah. Alan shared a article in 2023, a little while ago, and it says on here the real thirteenth amendment shown above was ratified in 03/12/1819.
[00:46:56] Unknown:
Okay. So it had been on the books for decades. And Yeah. They went in and swept it out. Joan, I've never put much time or effort into studying it. I know it's there. I concentrate on the one that deals with us and affects us. If you wanna go do a bunch of research or anybody else, you go go ahead and go do it and bring back your findings for us. Yes.
[00:47:19] Unknown:
I have the the amendment part that I guess probably changed, and I could read it to you real quick.
[00:47:26] Unknown:
Well, you can read it to the audience if you want. It really has nothing to do with us, but let's go ahead and do it. Yeah. Tell me what you think.
[00:47:34] Unknown:
If any it says, if any citizen of The United States shall accept
[00:47:38] Unknown:
claim with Okay. There it is right there. Now let me let me stop you. And then notice they don't say if any citizen of The United States Of America. And that's the technical thing at that entire time, but they just referred to it as The United States because everybody knew what they were talking about because there wasn't another option.
[00:47:58] Unknown:
Go ahead. The states that are united. Exactly.
[00:48:01] Unknown:
Good. Do what, Rick? It meant the states that are united. That's the way they thought of it. Okay. Well, everybody knew what they were talking about. If this is the equivocation,
[00:48:13] Unknown:
folks, that they drove this whole plan through, is that difference right there? Go ahead, ma'am. It talks it talks about the nobility part too here. So if any citizen of The United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title, nobility, or honor, or shall without consent of congress accept and retain any present pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever kind whatever from the emperor, king, prince, or foreign power. Such person shall cease to be a citizen of The United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or prohibit under them or either of them
[00:49:00] Unknown:
at the end. So Well That's it. Had to be something yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Rick.
[00:49:06] Unknown:
That restriction on titles of nobility was in the articles of Confederation.
[00:49:11] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that's good information. Thank you. And this come up before Brent. He said it doesn't mean attorneys, and that's what the majority of patriots interpret that as. My point is, okay. It was there. It's gone. Does it have any difference on your freedom, Joan?
[00:49:31] Unknown:
So when George Washington was president, he and any current president, they should not say that they are king or they wanna be king
[00:49:42] Unknown:
because that's the title of nobility. Right? No one I I don't know if I'd interpret it like that. George Washington had some limitations. You know? He was, part of the constitution. Says you have to be a natural born president to to, national born, American to be president. Well, I don't think his parents were both born in The US, so they had to make a little leeway for the first guy. So, so I I just don't know, Joan. I've really never spent a lot of time going into that, because it, because I concentrate on the one that's in there now and what effects it has on us. Okay? Right. Thank you. Right. Alright. You're welcome. So anybody else got something to add on that topic?
Okay. I'm gonna say yes. That's a no. Yes, ma'am.
[00:50:32] Unknown:
Hey. This is Nancy.
[00:50:33] Unknown:
Hey, Nancy.
[00:50:35] Unknown:
Hey. You were bringing up the Dred Scott decision and and Taney. And I've I think I've I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I've had this thought before as you've talked about later, cases that were were obviously setups to take to the Supreme Court to get a decision as a part of their plans. So my question I I it's more of amusing, about painting. I wonder what and especially since he didn't wasn't an a lawyer, didn't go to law school. Were you still what his connect what his connections to Jews were.
[00:51:17] Unknown:
I don't know, but you still you still don't have to go to law school to be on the Supreme Court.
[00:51:24] Unknown:
Yeah. That's it's kind of amazing.
[00:51:27] Unknown:
I I don't know. I I really never looked into it a lot. I know about Dred Scott, all that. I just don't know. Chaney was, I believe, from the cursory research that I did, was, sitting chief justice for over twenty years, though. And I believe he was very, very respected also, Nancy. You can probably find some references to it, but isn't that interesting that his decision, I think it was in 1857, is still controversial today?
[00:51:59] Unknown:
Well, I wonder how factually isn't it the case? You've talked about, you know, seeing, on NPR some or the antique roadshow of the Massachusetts that that someone may have this you're tip for Negro or freed slave or Right. Citizenship in Massachusetts. And I'm I'm thinking that was early nineteenth century. I may not be recalling that correctly, but I I question whether the assertion that freed slaves could not be,
[00:52:32] Unknown:
citizens in their state because I think that there's evidence Well like that one that Well, there well, that was the state's decision. Taney obviously took a different him and the the court took a different track on that. Now why would they take a different track on that? It is possibly because of a strict interpretation of private property, which is one of the things that our our Anglo Saxon cultures are built on is private property. That's the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. It used to say life, liberty, and pursuit of property, and they changed it to a pursuit of happiness or life, liberty, and property.
So, I believe the decision was more skewed on that and that people do not understand that, that they take the emotional surface argument that somebody can't be a citizen if they're black no matter what state they're in and, and extrapolate an opinion on that aspect of it. So I think it was more heavily weighted on the private property. Mark, what do you know about Dred Scott?
[00:53:40] Unknown:
Man, it's been a long time since I've looked at that. I really couldn't tell you to stop the top of my head.
[00:53:48] Unknown:
Okay. Well, it's just like I said, it's just an interesting case. And here all these years later, hell, it's still controversial. But I believe if you look at it from an angle of private property, it's not quite as offensive to you, Nancy.
[00:54:04] Unknown:
I I'm not connecting those dots, Raj, because about private property. So with regard to Property rights.
[00:54:10] Unknown:
Property rights. Well, he was a slave. He was a slave. He was property. Somebody owned him.
[00:54:15] Unknown:
Right.
[00:54:17] Unknown:
They had a property right in him, and he escaped the state and went to another state that wasn't a slave state and declared his freedom.
[00:54:27] Unknown:
And all Taney and them They wouldn't accept it.
[00:54:31] Unknown:
Yep. And Taney and them said, no. He was private property of somebody in a slave state, which we recognize, and he can't change that. And over the right overriding opinion was a man of black, a a a black Negro descent could not become a citizen of The United States without an additional amendment to the constitution. Wow.
[00:54:56] Unknown:
Well, and this, I think, I'm gonna have Hey, Roger. Oh, hold on. Hold on with Nancy. Talk right in your phone, Nancy, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me better? Yes. It's better. Okay. Oh, good. Well, I'm just thinking of the free soil doctrine of the of England. Of England. We didn't have that. So just No. Going to a free state did not, confer it would not mean that you could declare your freedom. So we didn't have that same doctrine here. All these Jewish slavers,
[00:55:29] Unknown:
most of them were doing that under a license from England who has a free soil doctrine, But we didn't. Remember, Brent said they they didn't wanna let us have the common law either. Remember? They said, you colonies, you don't have access to the common law.
[00:55:50] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I think I think that
[00:55:53] Unknown:
I think that the the setup I think it's the I just can't help but think that there's a direct setup from the Dred Scott decision for the fourteenth
[00:56:05] Unknown:
amendment thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. Well, man, sure. Well, go go back and do some research and and bring your findings to us.
[00:56:14] Unknown:
K?
[00:56:16] Unknown:
Well, I may. Please. I try to get you guys to go out and do this. I've done a lot of research over a lot of years. I I've got my core message here. We get into these peripheral objects, you go out and do the research. I'd love to hear the results.
[00:56:32] Unknown:
That's fine, Roger. I'm just saying that it seems clear clear that that's a a a setup to the need of creating those amendments. So Well and and I'll just toss that out there.
[00:56:45] Unknown:
Yeah. As as it says in the slaughterhouse case as well, this is what opened the door. It's this Dred Scott thing. But as that gets a lot of discussion, we also get into discussions that people born and raised in DC and the territories, well, they need the same that that they've got the same impediments. They need the same relief because they're not citizens of a state, and there is no federal citizenship, so they're in the same capacity. Interesting, isn't it?
[00:57:19] Unknown:
It also seems like they wait for a generation to die off before they implement in that another step.
[00:57:26] Unknown:
Could be. Now there was somebody trying to say
[00:57:29] Unknown:
go ahead, man. They're not short they're not short term. Their game plan is not short term. No. They're long term. They're long term. They're very long term. Even, you know, they talk about planting the seed for a tree that you may never see. That's right. You know? And that's the problem they've got. Right? Lined up. They get them lined up, and and, you know, we don't know what's coming down the road, and we just slowly kinda get it engulfed in their plan.
[00:57:56] Unknown:
Who could have seen at that time that the thirteenth amendment was a setup to enslave everybody?
[00:58:03] Unknown:
No.
[00:58:04] Unknown:
You you couldn't see that because you don't have their vision and their ultimate goals in mind. And thank God we don't think like them. Who's the guy that was trying to say something when Nancy was speaking there? Sir,
[00:58:20] Unknown:
I'm trying to recognize you. Nope. That was me, Roger. It's Dominic. How you doing? I listen Oh, okay. A lot.
[00:58:27] Unknown:
Okay. Then it's been a while. Yeah. What you got to add here?
[00:58:32] Unknown:
Well, don't you think the fourteenth amendment in a way, overthrew the Dred Scott decision?
[00:58:38] Unknown:
Well, it did overturn the Dred Scott decision. That's what that whole sec sequence in slaughterhouses about. We need an amendment to the constitution because even the people that were in DC and born and raised, well, they were stateless. They didn't have state citizenship. And so that's why with with with Julie's question, well, I I guess you could say that it may have freed the slaves. And but if you get into any kind of dissection of that, it couldn't have freed them because it had no place to put them. The place to put them was the next amendment.
This was a setup amendment, folks. They knew eighty years ahead of time what they're gonna do with this. That's my feeling. Gotcha. The whistlers there. Paul is gonna bid our, good loyal listeners up there in Chicago to do. And, hopefully, the we've stimulated them enough here in the first hour. They may wanna come over and join us live, Paul. What do you think?
[00:59:36] Unknown:
Yeah. They may want to. Actually, Chicago's not with us today, but radiosoaparks.com is. So if you guys wanna follow us into the second hour, please go to the matrixdogs.com. You can click on the free conference call link. You can go to eurofolkradio.com, or you can go to radio.globalvoiceradio.net, or just click on the links on the matrix docs. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Get that frog out of your throat there, Paul.
[01:00:08] Unknown:
Alright. Now we we come to the very interesting part of taking where we are and what's going on in our country. And the fact that when they founded our country, they came over. They didn't come over to found a country. They came over to found a base where they could go back and try and straighten England out and take it over. That's why they call, as Brent said, New England. So, obviously, they weren't successful at doing that, but they were pretty successful at doing the startup of our country. So now with mister Trump battling the English, are we going to actually go over and possibly save England after all these years?
Two hundred and fifty years? I had a statistic yesterday, Paul. I'm an Aquaria here. And the guy was comparing Russia to England, all the, oh, all the verbiage that's being thrown around politically, the rhetoric. Last year, Russia jailed 400 people for things like I don't know exactly what, but they jailed them for political speech. K. How many do you think England jail last year, Paul?
[01:01:23] Unknown:
I would say it would be a bigger number than that.
[01:01:28] Unknown:
It is? You wanna take a WAG?
[01:01:33] Unknown:
2,200.
[01:01:35] Unknown:
Slightly undershot. 3,300 is how many were jailed in Europe, in England last year. Only 400 in Russia, but, boy, that Putin, he's held a dictator, isn't he? Yeah. For sure. K. So, well, who else has got input? Somebody right there. Yes, sir.
[01:01:55] Unknown:
Yeah. It's Dave. Hi.
[01:01:57] Unknown:
Hello, Dave. I'd like to touch on that thirteenth amendment a little bit. Something that, you know, when I first learned about that, it just stuck in my craw. It said, without the approval from Congress, You couldn't have this title of nobility unless Congress approved it. Now, from my understanding, there were 34 attorneys, at the constitutional convention, and I think 24 of them signed the constitution. So in, you know, my brain tells me that, look, it it doesn't matter if anybody has a, you know, this Esquire, behind their name. That's an attorney. The the congress is gonna approve it anyway.
What do you think about that?
[01:02:51] Unknown:
Well, you don't know that that's an attorney. I think you ought to bring that up for Brent tomorrow because he's gonna tell you it's not in his opinion and explain it. So that's what I'd say, which I found very interesting when he said it the first time. K?
[01:03:06] Unknown:
I've I've heard many and seen many attorneys, you know, with their with that shingle that says Esquire. And I don't know anybody that isn't an attorney that calls himself an Esquire.
[01:03:20] Unknown:
Okay, Brent. Well, Dave asked Brent, and he'll give you a better explanation because I can't give you one. Okay? I've never put much I know about this. One of our guys, Brent Brent would remember, Brent Bachman would remember Joe D'Ambrosia. Wonderful wonderful individual from our Citizens for Constitutional Georgia group who was very much into family and going back and relatives and genealogy and all that. And he went up to Connecticut, went into a law library there and found an old law book and made copies of it. Well, there it is right there in the constitution in a '18 whatever it was law book. Well, I just don't think that, especially in those days, that they would put things that weren't ratified or correct in a law book.
So for some reason, they got rid of it. But let me ask you, Dave, does it have any bearing on what we do?
[01:04:17] Unknown:
Well, maybe not in the grand scheme, but I think
[01:04:20] Unknown:
it's part of our history. And I think it's important to I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying don't talk about it. I'm just saying don't dwell on it because you're getting distracted on something that really doesn't matter. Okay? Yeah. It was there. I'm trapped. I don't know that we'll ever know. I don't know if we'll ever know why they got rid of it, quite frankly. But, boy, they couldn't wait to get that thing swept out and this new one replaced. And that just gives you a little more insight to there's something more going on here than freeing the slaves. They're going in and getting rid of amendments.
There's something going on here. I don't know if any anybody know of any case where that's been done before. I don't or since. So, yes, probably got some importance. Dave, maybe one of these days, we'll all find out together. But right now, it doesn't seem to me to have much of a bearing on what our really important message is here. Yes, Paul?
[01:05:20] Unknown:
Whether it meant, lawyers had a title of nobility or not, Obviously, considering the even the Paul Harvey recount of, how they considered lawyers in the original colonies.
[01:05:37] Unknown:
Vermon. Vermon.
[01:05:39] Unknown:
Vermon. So one could certainly expect that either it meant lawyers could not be in political office or somebody thought it meant that, and they were operating on a presumption.
[01:05:55] Unknown:
Okay. Could be. It is interesting. Again, it didn't I not any bearing on what we do that I can see. If you can see it, bring it forward.
[01:06:04] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:06:04] Unknown:
So who else has got something to add here? You know, it's funny. You get into this presentation, and I'll say something like, there's only two sections of the Internal Revenue Code that you that are exempt that you're still responsible for. And I gotta stop the whole rest of the presentation because everybody wants to ask questions about those two points.
[01:06:26] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:06:27] Unknown:
That's happened numerous times. It always kind of a you know? Look. Let's get the rest of this. We go back and visit. No. No. What are the two texts? No. No. What do they mean? So it just always is just you people are. Well, just, they're unpredictable at times. That's the best way to do
[01:06:47] Unknown:
that. I think with respect to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment, it really doesn't matter to us. It would doesn't. Go back to the bill of rights.
[01:06:55] Unknown:
It it it just doesn't. Anyway but there's a lot of, history. It's very interesting in our country that well, I never knew about that John Tyler, John Tyler junior there, the story that I heard on Jeff Rentz with this guy he has on there with historical information. Quite often, I don't remember his name. But that put a big piece of the puzzle in the together for me. I'd never heard of it before. So, and nobody's got anything to add. You should we go ahead and play this, Paul? I think it is at Eastman. What's his first name? Do you can you help me, Paul?
John? Yes.
[01:07:34] Unknown:
John Eastman, I believe. John Eastman. Okay.
[01:07:37] Unknown:
Mark, you familiar with this guy? Doctor John Eastman, are you? No. I'm not. No. I'm not. Well, they're trying to debar him out in California. I think he worked on or, or some of the Trump campaign stuff or the lawyering in that, I think. Not sure. But I know one thing. Barnes really respects him. K? Oh. So, so he's pretty much gotta have something going for him. That's a lot. Yeah. Well, it is. Okay. And by the way, did you see Barnes last night in the, the rundown on Seattle or Sunday night? No. No. I didn't. Oh, man. He's stuck up in Seattle this week on this unbelievably ridiculous trial.
[01:08:19] Unknown:
What what where where did you find him?
[01:08:22] Unknown:
Where did you see him? I found it over on Rumble, Rumble Sunday night. Okay. So it was Viva Barnes Law under Viva's I think I think that's probably what it is. It's got that picture of both of them there.
[01:08:35] Unknown:
I don't know. That's I don't know. The one thing that I would say is like a silhouette. It's a little caricature of Viva.
[01:08:44] Unknown:
Yeah. No. This is him. He's got Viva on the left and Barnes on the right, and probably Viva Barnes will all drag it up and rumble be my guess. Okay. Anyway, he was talking about this case. He's up there in on in Seattle that he's man, I mean, they must have gone off of the reservation up there totally in that part of the world. It's ridiculous. The they're prosecuting this guy. Gonna try and get him $80.80 80 charges of of abusing his son, and he never touched him. There were never any arguments. There was never anything, and he tried to their divorce, he's trying to keep him from getting the COVID shot. Holy smokes. It's just a nightmare what he laid out there.
I can't remember it all. So but, anyway, some of you saw might have seen that Sunday night.
[01:09:34] Unknown:
Roger, the the title on the video, it says, in this interview, doctor Eastman discusses the fourteenth amendment and the birth right citizenship. He conscious intentions of the founding fathers and the constitution.
[01:09:49] Unknown:
Right. And he's got some pretty legitimate points. I couldn't listen to it all the way through because the audio was terrible. And that's why I asked Paul to go through and and and wave his magic wand on it, which he did. It's considerably better. And, we're gonna play it here in a second. Have you heard this yet, Myrca?
[01:10:09] Unknown:
Yeah. I started to.
[01:10:10] Unknown:
Okay. You started to. K. Bad audio there. Whoever mic'd that, shame on them. Anyway, Paul, anybody else got any comments or we'll roll right into Eastman? It's, it's only sixteen minutes long, I believe. Yep. Okay. Well, Paul, why don't you start at the good doctor, and let's hear what he has to say.
[01:10:33] Unknown:
Alright. Let's do it.
[01:10:36] Unknown:
My name is John Eastman. I'm the dean at Chapman University School of Law. I'm also a constitutional law professor and scholar. And, of course, my comments today are in my capacity as a constitutional scholar, not speaking on behalf of Chapman University. It's not a denial of anybody else's right to travel, not to say I have to put them up in my bedroom. I mean, this this is, and and it's that confusion that that lies at the heart of the the misconceptions about the debate. Yeah. And there are really two issues. There's a legal issue. Does the constitution already mandate birthright citizenship? And then there's the policy issue.
If it does, should we amend it to, get rid of it? Or if it doesn't already mandate it, should we adopt it by statute because it makes good sense. Right? And you've actually been called upon by Congress to address a variety of issues in in terms of illegal immigration. And Indeed. In fact, this goes back to a brief I filed in the US Supreme Court in the Yasser Hamdi case. Hamdi was one of the individuals that was detained in Afghanistan, taken up arms against The United States in our in our war there against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
But when US Officials learned that he'd been born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while his parents were here on a short work visa, they began treating him as a citizen rather than an an enemy combatant, in Guantanamo. They transferred him to Norfolk, and his case went on to the Supreme Court. And we argued that that understanding of citizenship, that just because he was born here made him a citizen, is wrong. And we, started trying to lay the groundwork for revisiting, what what's been about a fifty year popular conception of what the citizenship clause requires. But as a result of that, Hamdi ended up, being sent back to Saudi Arabia, and he renounced his citizenship. So so the question of whether he was a citizen in the first place was never presented. Oh, okay. But but but we had laid the argument out there. And now members of congress who are trying to grapple with, comprehensive immigration reform Sure. And looking at something like temporary guest worker programs.
And they asked the obvious question, if you have guest worker programs and they're coming here with their families, what do you do with the kids born here if they're citizens? So all of a sudden, the birthright citizenship question is front and center on the logistics of comprehensive immigration reform. I think if I were to ask your audience to raise their hands, how many people think if you're born on US soil, you're a citizen, every hand in the room would go up. The text of the fourteenth amendment is actually not quite what we think it is. It says all persons born or naturalized, in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Now it's that last phrase, subject to the jurisdiction where the fight is. Now we also have this common understanding that when you come here to visit, you're subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come from England, you ride on the right side of the road when you're here, not on the left side of the road.
But the founders or the framers of the fourteenth amendment had in mind two different notions of subject to the jurisdiction. There was what they called temporary or partial or territorial jurisdiction. You have to follow the laws in a place where you're where you are. But there was also this more complete or allegiance owing jurisdiction that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn't come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support, becoming part of the body body politic. And it's that jurisdiction that they're talking about in the fourteenth amendment. So that means that somebody's here temporarily like Hamdi's parents Right. Working for a two year, two year work permit, never owed allegiance to The United States. Mister Hamdi couldn't be drafted into the United States army. And if he took up arms against us, he couldn't be prosecuted for treason. He detained as an enemy combatant.
And so he never was a citizen. And and, you know, people here on tourist visas or even more so, people here illegally who never had authority to be here in the first place, but giving birth on US soil doesn't make up their children citizens. How we arrived at this common notion is is is really a rather bizarre story. The framers of the fourteenth amendment all say it applied to this broader owing allegiance jurisdiction. The first Supreme Court cases to take it up said, yeah, that's right. The first legal treatises to to be written in this in the eighteen eighties said that means it's complete jurisdiction. There's a case in 1898, by the Supreme Court called Wong Kim Ark, and this involved the child of a permanent lawful Chinese residence.
And the Supreme Court's decision and you can sympathize with why they we issued this decision. We had we had, entered into a fairly despicable treaty with the Chinese emperor that deprived Chinese immigrants of their human rights to immigrate. We refused to recognize that they could ever renounce their allegiance to the Chinese emperor. And so these folks had come here. They had established permanent residence. They were here lawfully. They had done everything we permitted them to do consistent with the treaty to demonstrate their allegiance to their new sovereign, their new country. And so the Supreme Court said in those contexts, their children will be citizens by virtue of the fourteenth amendment. Now it did it with language much broader than that that said they were born here, therefore, they're citizens.
For the next fifty years, nobody took the broader language as as dispositive. It was you know, that case was limited to its narrow facts. So in the nineteen twenties, for example, congress has extended citizenship to all Native Americans born on US soil. Well, if the fourteenth amendment had already mandated it, that act of congress is unnecessary. Sure. In the nineteen fifties, we have a program with Mexico, the Braceros, the first guest worker program. Right. Their children were not deemed citizens here. And when the Braceros moved back to to Mexico, they took their kids with them because nobody understood that they were citizens yet. Sometime since the nineteen sixties, though, this notion that just mere birth is all you needed started to take root. And I've been debating this issue now for several years, and I have challenged every person who's taken the opposite side of me. Tell me what it was that led to this new notion.
And nobody's there's not an executive order. There's not a court decision. We just gradually start assuming that birth was enough. Yeah. And I think part of it is, the loss of our understanding of the language that the framers of the fourteenth amendment used. By the nineteen fifties, '19 sixties, subject to the jurisdiction has come to mean, you gotta obey our traffic laws when you're here. And and the the older notion, this this notion, was lost on us. And so when then with this new assumption, people would look at the text of the fourteenth amendment. They wouldn't question it critically. They just would take what their they thought the language meant. The article one of the constitution gives to congress what's called plenary power to determine policy judgments about naturalization and the levels of immigration.
And the reason, the founders did that was they understood that immigration policy is, if at root, a fundamental policy discussion. How many people can we absorb from different parts of the world, and and and bring them into the American understanding of the role of self government? And, you know, people have tried to tag that with, well, they want white Europeans rather than Asians or or Latinos. That wasn't it at all. They wanted people coming from countries where they had grown accustomed to governing themselves because it's much easier to assimilate.
If you have wholesale migration from a a despotic form of government, we have people that have habits that rose up in despotic regimes. It's much tougher to assimilate them to self government and and participatory participatory democracy. The same thing with illegal immigrants today. Many come from South And Central America. The first thing that they do to come to The United States is break the law, and then they continue to live in the shadows, law breaking, by definition. And and the notion that the the primacy of the rule of law to our system of government kinda goes out the window, and it's a very dangerous thing. And then there's a different dangerous aspect of it as well. They become preyed upon, by coyotes at the border or or just thugs who know that they won't report the crime for fear of deportation.
And that that undermines their, commitment to to the law as well, in a in a in a devastating way to them, as well as to us. And then and then you get businesses that foster and play off of this because they are able to get cheap labor. And it's not because they're paying them less than the minimum wage because they got all sorts of tax returns, and and, you know, that will come out. The where their benefit comes is they now have a a workforce that won't sue them when they're fired. Oh, and the number of benefits. That's right. And and and, yeah, you step back and ask yourself, with all of the pro expansion of immigration forces, the civil rights communities, and what have you, and big business that claims they need more labors. Right. That's a combination that could get any bill through congress in five minutes if they wanted to increase the level of legal immigration.
And you have to ask yourself, why hasn't that happened? Because because people have a vested interest in having an illegal immigrant population and a subclass that generates it. You know, Thomas Jefferson talks about immigration in very favorable terms. What they were trying to do then is populate a continent, so that we we stand European pressures to take us back over again and what have you. The the dynamic has changed now. And, what we've done by by having very low quotas on legal immigration, and then, turning a blind eye to a massive illegal immigration, you you create, this subclass.
You create this extraordinary drain on our social services that is bankrupting most of the state and local governments that are in the path of this migration wave. You you foster both an entitlement mentality, but also ignoring of the rule of law. And and the legal immigration patterns of the last century were tough enough to assimilate, without losing the rule of law as well, and we are doing that. We we are embarked upon a very dangerous experiment at the moment. We've got, some estimates, 12,000,000, others over 20,000,000 people who are here illegally. There's guns report. Yeah. Who still consider their primary allegiance to be their home country, whether it's Venezuela or Nicaragua or Mexico, or Southeast Asian countries who are coming either directly through the ports or through first through Mexico and then across the Mexican border.
If we were to end up in a war, an economic or a military war with any of those nations, then the number of people here that still feel their allegiance is to that prime country is a very dangerous thing, it seems to me. And it's not because there are people of different color or different language or different origin. It's because there are people that still owe allegiance to a different sovereign. They never have become part of our body politic, our government by consent, to use the language of the Declaration of Independence. And we ought not to be surprised that they owe their allegiance. If I were caught up in France and ended up at war with France, I would still owe my allegiance to United States. I'd be doing everything I could while there to make sure my country, you know, prevailed.
But but there's something much more insidious going on on both sides of the political aisle that really, angers me because I think it is a repudiation of all that America stands for and all that is good of of what we stand for. And it has this uncanny, reflection of the arguments made in the old slave sound. On the one hand, you've got the Democrats who are the social welfare party. And the longer you have huge groups of people that rely on government entitlements, the more political power the Democrats can gain from that. So they have a vested interest in keeping a subclass population.
The Republicans or the big business wing of Republicans have this vested interest in having not a new labor pool, but a new illegal labor pool because of the way they can, take advantage, of them and treat them almost like labor. And the arguments made by the Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal have an uncanny parallel for their arguments made by, John c Calhoun and the old defense of slavery, and it's you know, our economy depends on this and what have you. And it is a travesty that those two positions have gained, you know, enough majority support to force the government to ignore our immigration laws. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafts a version of the Declaration of Independence, his early draft, that criticized slavery. They they forced him to take that language out, but but the idea shared across the the founding generation, North and South alike, was that slavery was a necessary evil to be abolished as soon as possible.
By the eighteen twenties, John c Calhoun and others are arguing that slavery is a positive good. It's the foundation, the economic foundation of the South. You pull the rug out from under it, the economy is destroyed, and it's worse for white it's worse for whites as well as for blacks. And they start making this, economic argument in defense of slavery, and that takes root, and and it and it lasts with us for generations. And I think what's what Wall Street Journal's position and the Chamber's position is is nearly identical to it. You know, agriculture would just be brought to its knees if we had to pay the prevailing wage, and we had to, you know, suffer all the threats of lawsuits if we you know, and all the other things that go with it. They've got a docile, of, labor pool that they are able to put to bear to generate either greater profits or lower consumer prices on on, on agricultural goods. And that's, I think, fairly despicable.
But also, a function of this idea of equality that everybody has to come together and agree to the kind of government they're gonna have. So the only legitimate government you have is one grounded in consent. So you have human rights, natural rights that you have as human beings, and then you have, a government that some portion of human beings decide to create by consent among themselves in order to protect those human rights as best as they seem possible. Now what we do in The United States might be different than what they do in Canada or France or Mexico, but the people in each of those countries come together to try and decide what works best for them. Right? It's consent of all concerned.
To say that I have a human right to insist that you accept me accept me as a member of your political community violates the notion of consent from our side. And when I have then birthright citizenship, that means I can illegally enter your country, give birth, and that demand entry into your political system, by virtue of an illegal act. That's unilateral claims to entitlement to citizenship rather than what what our founders did, which was this notion of mutual consent in order to create the political regime. It doesn't violate your human rights to say I'm not gonna have you as part of my political regime any more than it violates your human rights for me to insist that you accept me into yours. We can no more say in a statute of congress, everybody in Mexico City is now citizens.
If I were them, I would say, wait a minute. Who made you our master? Well, what they're doing is the reverse of that. Everybody in Mexico City that comes to Arizona demands citizenship, and you have nothing to say about it. For a member of congress to be, as ignorant of the history of the three fifths clause as representative Jackson was, was astounding to me. The free press clause was actually a clause designed to aid slaves by giving less power to the slave owners than they otherwise would have had. And it it was not, all blacks were treated as three fifths and all whites were treated as whole persons. It was if you were slaves, your population, three fifths of the population counted for representation purposes.
Because if we counted you entirely, you weren't voting, your master was, the master would have greater power in congress and therefore make it more likely that they would prevent an abolition of slavery. And if you go back and you look at the debates, and what they were trying to do, they were trying to create a government, that would recognize the principle of equality, that would compromise with an existing institution while they try to get the government established, so that in the long run, the possibility of getting rid of slavery would be real. And the last thing you wanted to do was give representation to the southern leaders based not just on their own votes, but on the voting power of the entire slave population. It would be hard to ever abolish slavery.
And and that's all it was. And and what but people that have different vested interests in trying to say this was a racist founding, like to ignore that, and they completely distort what that clause is there for.
[01:27:43] Unknown:
I'd get my read off. Is that it, Paul?
[01:27:46] Unknown:
That's it.
[01:27:47] Unknown:
Okay. Wow. Pretty interesting.
[01:27:53] Unknown:
Yes. Very much so.
[01:27:54] Unknown:
So according to mister Eastman, mister John Eastman, the, the birthright citizen full aspect of what they're asserting didn't come about till the sixties. How about maybe it started coming about after Brown versus Board of Education?
[01:28:12] Unknown:
Mhmm.
[01:28:14] Unknown:
And the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 was put firmly in place, which we're still under, but probably not for long. Because, unfortunately, mister Trump's gonna take away our best Trump card. It would appear now I'm wondering if they do away with the IRS as we're nationals and we've separated ourselves from the national debt. Are we gonna have some access to a pathway out of paying that if they're charging it as a sales tax or VAT or whatever else? Questions. Questions. Interesting questions. I doubt it. Kinda sad about mister Trump wanting to get rid of the IRS as much as I hate them. They've been my best recruiter for many years.
[01:28:58] Unknown:
I'm actually thinking that there is some basis for, my pretense that a lot of people have been either unable to or unwilling to pay taxes and have volunteered out. So they had to think of a different way to fund the government, and the only way they can do it is through
[01:29:20] Unknown:
Wow. Wow.
[01:29:21] Unknown:
Through increased tariffs. The increased cost of goods. You know, even if you don't even if you buck out of the sales tax, like I like my earlier example, if China makes something and they sell it for 10,000 and there's a $5,000 tariff on it, the importer is gonna have to pay that $5.
[01:29:42] Unknown:
Yes. So it's gonna go on the sale price. Well, of course, ultimately, the consumer pays for it just like corporations don't pay taxes. I mean, you know? So, but, it's very interesting. I'm sorry, that mister Trump won't but, boy, is that a popular move to get rid of the IRS? You wanna get your base all lovey dovey? Well, I'll get rid of those damn bandits, as pastor Pete would call them Babylonian horse thieves because that's what they are. Right? Yeah. So we'll see and don't know how quickly, even at the quickest speed, they're gonna be able to dismantle because they may really get some arguments from the debtors.
See, here is where we come into the picture with our information and maybe about to be widely disseminated and exposed. All of that debt's based on fraud.
[01:30:39] Unknown:
Right. No. What I saw recently was I saw Trump's, presentation. I saw his speech in front of the joint session.
[01:30:50] Unknown:
Yeah. And it was absolutely
[01:30:53] Unknown:
sickening how everybody on the right side of the aisle, like, with respect to the camera view, everything on the everyone on the right side of the aisle was they were clapping, they were cheering, they were standing up. And the left side of the aisle, they were stoic, and they were just sitting in their seats. There was no clapping. They were holding up little signs saying liar, liar. Right. Right. Liar and all this happy shit. And and they have put them one.
[01:31:24] Unknown:
That's right. And they've put them in a position where they've got to defend child rape, mass immigration, those people murdering, raping, killing, all of the other stuff that we that he's uncovered in, what, five weeks, they now have to try and defend that or stand mute. How would you like to defend baby rape there, Paul? You you got a you got a blank you could spin that on?
[01:31:55] Unknown:
How in the hell can they do that? When he's talking about the things he was talking about in the speech, the the government overreach, the the fraud, the the theft of, of, of people's taxes and and money, sending it to four points to the compass. How can they sit there and not cheer
[01:32:23] Unknown:
that they discovered that? That that is the Democratic party not recharting the course and absolutely headed to go over the falls. You wanna see a ship about to go over the Falls? That's the Democratic party. Thank god. Four and a half hours from Niagara.
[01:32:43] Unknown:
Bang. I'm only four and a half hours from Niagara. And if Pelosi wants to get in a barrel, I will push her over. You'll you'll help her get into the Canadian side, won't you?
[01:32:53] Unknown:
So any comments from some of our legal kind of folks? Mark, what'd you think of mister Eastman there and some of his, theses?
[01:33:01] Unknown:
Well, that's really brilliant. The the first part of that, I simply say to this, and I've been saying it for a long time, about the immigration issue is, as far as being born here and and even illegal immigrants. I say the Republicans like the cheap labor, and the Democrats love the votes. Yeah. So neither one of them have the vested interest in stopping this. So k. Fair enough. That basically is my summary, and he just explained it a whole lot further and sound sounded more intellectual than than intellectual. He's,
[01:33:37] Unknown:
obviously, he's quite well studied on these issues. Yes. He is. Very much so. Okay. And I thought that was interesting too that and I realized kind of what they've done with the blacks, but it seems to just become a little bit clearer on any of these subgroups that they get set up. They're absolutely totally 100% beholden to them once they start taking the handout. What's the handout? I don't think you've, you're usually not with us on Friday, Mark. And I may have been exposed to it before, but it didn't register. It did recently, the definition of Satan, distributor of wealth.
Boy, take that little nugget and overlay that issue with that.
[01:34:23] Unknown:
Right. Right. K.
[01:34:26] Unknown:
So, anybody else in the audience have any thoughts on that? On mister, doctor John Eastman's brilliant, soliloquy there we heard.
[01:34:36] Unknown:
Paul, do we have access to the your cleaned up version of that?
[01:34:41] Unknown:
I yes. Yeah. It might be worth posting, Paul.
[01:34:47] Unknown:
Of course you do. It's up in, the videos folder in docs.exposetomatrix.com. It's doctor John Eastman, fourteenth amendment, and birthright citizenship.
[01:34:57] Unknown:
There you go. Thank you. And by the way, you did a brilliant job on playing that up. I mean, that's Boy, you sure did because not you.
[01:35:04] Unknown:
We couldn't have played it before Paul did that to it. I wouldn't have wanted to. Alright. Because you wouldn't have been able to hear it. It was still a little bit faint, but you really got that ambient noise out of there. Thank you, Paul. So skilled. So thank you.
[01:35:17] Unknown:
You're welcome.
[01:35:19] Unknown:
Let's see. Other other folks, nobody else wants to comment on that? I I think you see, what he doesn't know is what we know. Well, I just kinda came around. Nobody can figure out why. Sometime around the the sixties. Yeah. Right right after Brown versus Board of Education. Well, I'll be darned. Switch me.
[01:35:44] Unknown:
Roger, before the show ends, I do have a just a a short announcement. If if we don't have anybody wanting to come online and and make a comment about Eastman's little presentation
[01:35:56] Unknown:
here. Well, let's see if we can drag it. Let me chum them up again. Any of you, legal legally oriented folks in the audience hear something in that Eastman talk that might have stimulated you you wanted to comment on? Boy, I tell you what, he must have been easily understandable, and they absorbed it all. How wonderful, Mark. I need to listen to it about two more times, I think, because he said some pretty deep stuff in there. Yes. He did. Kinda rattled it off stuff. I I wanna go back and listen to it. Well, that you can tell how familiar he was with it with it. That I'd heard that's the second time I'd heard some of that. So I concur with you. It needs to be listened to more than once. And Paul, for the audience has put it up in on the website under something to do with the matrix, Paul. What's the label again? Yeah. It's in it's in docs.expose
[01:36:47] Unknown:
to matrix.com in the videos folder. Oh, okay. I just put the link to it in the FCC chat.
[01:36:56] Unknown:
And the person that really recommended that was Robert Barnes. I didn't know they'd played it the weekend before, and they'd kinda hidden it behind one of their pictures there, Mark, like I was telling you, where they got Viva on the left and Barnes on the right, it wasn't. It was just sixteen minutes of this Eastman thing. And they had posted it, I think, last weekend, weekend before last, something like that. I'm really glad we got it cleaned up enough to play it. I think that is really interesting, his conclusion, that it just appeared out of nowhere around the fifties and the sixties.
Yeah. But guess what? Guess what, John? It was planned for and included in about 1860. Yep. They knew they were gonna do that. They knew this whole plan. And the more that you learn about it and understand it, the easily easier it is to see it to me. Yep. So fabulous. Well, Mark, I I don't think anybody's got anything they wanna come in. I'll ask one last time. Anybody got any comments or questions on what we heard from doctor Eastman? Boys just like the quietest audience from dropping that rock down that well. Chris. Well, there's Chris. Okay, man. Well, thank you. I if I did enough, I can get somebody, Mark. Go ahead, Chris.
[01:38:16] Unknown:
I I I would have listened from the beginning. I just got the tail end, and so I know I'm gonna have to, go back and listen to it. But we just got back from a a friend of ours, a good friend and a patriot for a long time was, we weren't hearing from him and we talk every day and I was sick so I wasn't concerned about it. Then I thought, wait a minute. We haven't heard from Jean now in five days. There's something wrong. So we drove down there and found out he passed away. We found him in his house. Oh. And so we we just got back up from that, so we're kinda tired out. But, yeah, I'm I'm gonna listen to this. I caught part of the tail end. I'll I'll have to find it in the archives and listen to it. No. It's
[01:39:04] Unknown:
Paul's got it posted, under, docs for the matrix there on the website under the video folder. Okay. So you can access it there. And, Greg, well, I'm sorry about the passing of our mutual friend even though I didn't know him.
[01:39:21] Unknown:
But if he was favorable to what we do, we like him, and we're sorry to lose him. So RIP. You're you're about yeah. You were you're about to know him, but it just he just didn't make it that far.
[01:39:32] Unknown:
Okay. Well, unfortunate for me. So, anyway, we're RIP. And, thanks, Chris, for bringing that to our attention. This Eastman thing is something you're gonna wanna listen to because a lot of the meats at the first part. Okay?
[01:39:46] Unknown:
Right. Right. I'll listen to it several times. Yeah. I'll dissect it.
[01:39:51] Unknown:
Okay, buddy. Well, give us your opinion. I was flashing neon signs when he said, well, this aspect of it just appeared. Nobody knows where it came from. Yeah. I do. Thank you, Chris. Mark, anybody else? Anybody else? Chris, Jog, anybody? You know what? Do you wanna say something? A simple comment. I, Okay. Please do. Tell you exactly
[01:40:17] Unknown:
where this comes
[01:40:18] Unknown:
from. Elk versus Is this Abram? Is this Abram? Portion of it. Is this Abram? Yes.
[01:40:24] Unknown:
We haven't heard from you in a while, have we? Oh, man. It's good to hear your voice.
[01:40:29] Unknown:
So he says Okay. Well, welcome back, Abram. What's your comment?
[01:40:33] Unknown:
M. Is this, the second section after defining the persons who owe permanent and or immediate direct and immediate allegiance to The United States. The second section where he defines that Indians are not owing Fact. Immediate allegiance. And so they are excluded. It says, Indians born within the territorial limits of The United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, an alien though dependent power. Although in a geographic sense born in The United States, are no more born in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.
[01:41:23] Unknown:
Yep. Meaning
[01:41:25] Unknown:
Native Americans or Eskimos. There's a section, eight USC, I think it's fourteen oh eight, which, includes the, the outlying territories, the folks from American Samoa. But, eight USC fourteen oh one includes all these different groups as they've been brought in under this citizenship clause. And so it finishes it out with this domain of that foreign government. And then it says, or the children born within The United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. So the important distinction here, the crucial detail is that then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government is added.
That portion is not part of the English common law rule on nationality. The English common law doesn't make any exceptions. Unless you were the child of an ambassador or an enemy, know, within, you know, basically in the country at the time of conflict, you are guaranteed, you know, without any exceptions. So this ex exception here is has been carved out for people that can be born on United States soil, but do not owe direct allegiance. And this set it up for them so they were able to have two national governments as in Downs v Bidwell.
[01:42:52] Unknown:
And, Well, probably true, Abram. Well, good to hear you. Thank you for chiming that in. It's been Elk v Wilkins really confirmed that. And, that's one of the exceptions that an ambassador will say the Queen of England's over here. She's pregnant, and she has her child. It's it's not gonna be a citizen of The United States. That's the carved out exception. And also as as Abraham mentioned, under military campaigns. So if they're over here trying to defeat us and they have a child here, it's not a citizen of our country. So those are no notable and known exceptions to the rule. Good to hear you, Abraham.
And, isn't that interesting? Because that's what they were telling Elk and Elk v Wilkins is that carve out because the Supreme Court says, well, you're basically they didn't say it explicitly. You're sovereign.
[01:43:47] Unknown:
You know? Question. So, Or are you owe allegiance to a a sovereign within the geographic territory?
[01:43:54] Unknown:
Correct. The the Indian tribe. Now what Eastman said that was really interesting in that, Mark, I'll bet you caught it, that they conveyed citizenship to all the Indian tribes in nineteen twenties. Did you hear him say that?
[01:44:07] Unknown:
Yes.
[01:44:08] Unknown:
Yep. Yeah. It's it's in eight USC 14 o one section eight is the first is basically the fourteenth amendment and then b c through h, I think.
[01:44:16] Unknown:
Okay. Thanks, April. Glad to see you coming back around. Hey, Rod. So, Mark, Paul, you got something to say here?
[01:44:26] Unknown:
Well, that being the case, I mean, aren't we nonresident aliens? Well, in so far as the IRS, the tax code. But we are non resident and we are non citizens. So if we was to get busy and add to our families,
[01:44:46] Unknown:
any children born after the affidavit was on file would not be citizens of United States. They would not be citizens of The United States because we weren't in that capacity. And even if they tried to say that they were, you could certainly easily fight that, I would think.
[01:45:06] Unknown:
So, Because you owe allegiance to an alien,
[01:45:09] Unknown:
you know, though dependent power. Like Yep. Now it's interesting on this nonresident alien phrase, which is I've I've told y'all before was the phrase that really kept me going for many years. When they went to an awful lot of trouble to get that and put it in that one place. Because you see, it's like you were saying, Paul, they could have defined that in other places. They could have put that in title 42 in those two sections. Citizens of The United States are are equal, have all the privileges and immunities that the nonresident aliens have, And it would have been correct. But, see, they don't wanna salt the whole mind with that because it's the key to their whole IRS tax code scam. So they just wanna isolate it, and that's the only place they use it. No. They just use the phrase white citizen and labeled themselves racist. Yep. Yeah. And with the quote the thing Abraham was reading there a second ago, territorial citizens, I've seen that in there. We couldn't find it. We're looking for it. You say it's 14 o one, and I believe it says a non, a, national is someone born in American Samoa, Swains Island, and the outlying territories. Isn't that what that says, Abram?
[01:46:27] Unknown:
Actually, they've scrubbed most of that. They've they've scrubbed the word territories and replaced it with the word possessions because they want everyone to think it's possessive.
[01:46:38] Unknown:
Of course. And that's remember, that's what miss Robinson used in her letter. Oh, there aren't those under, possessions. Well, it used to say outlying territories. And this is and what they it's set up in the Nationality Act in 1940 in a paragraph, I challenge even Abram to decipher. Okay? And they bring that over and they hide the states behind outlying territories. So that statement, a national is someone born in American Samoa, Swain's Island, or the outlying territories. Well, the outlying territories are Texas, Nebraska, Washington, North and South Dakota, etcetera.
And that's where Peter Neece was right so many years ago on on Stan Miller's show when he said we're territorial citizens. He understood it, but he didn't understand it. He'd come to the right conclusion, but he didn't understand it, I don't believe.
[01:47:37] Unknown:
K? He was not looking out the door, but the key was busted off in the lock. He was as close as as as,
[01:47:44] Unknown:
Barnes was on the fourteenth Amendment birthright citizen. He was right over it. They just don't ever ask the right question. Now anybody else got a comment? Okay. I'm gonna turn it over to Mark. Mark, what, what's your announcement, my friend?
[01:48:00] Unknown:
Well, in the last Wednesday, we're, we've talked a little bit about the, trust training that I have coming up and we've had several people get on board that had not heard that message before. And so you know it sounded like there might have been some concern about you know kind of a cookie cutter approach and you know people need to do their own paperwork which I agree. But it sounded like you know that maybe there was a misunderstanding about our trust classes so I want to clarify that. The trust class is is gonna be training on how the trust functions. So it's educational in that, how to maintain your trust. But as far as our interaction or my interaction with the students, you're gonna get an outline of all your property.
It's a checklist of all your property that you want to put into a trust. Then I'll have an outline for a trust and then I'm working one on one with each student to, to complete that trust in a manner that they that will fit their future needs. So it's not a cookie cutter approach. I do have an outline of a basic trust that's that's an irrevocable private trust. What people would refer to as a common law trust but it's not a fill in the blank form. You're going to have to amend it and change it be familiar with it and we're going to go over how to maintain and operate your trust. So you know I just want to let people know that in the cutoff date if you're wanting to you know, be a member and this is a lifetime membership of one time fee $750 you can email me at markmark,@yourlegacytrust.org.
That's your, y o u r, legacy, l e g a c y, trust, t r u s t, dot o r g. So email me there for more information. I'll be happy to send that, but the cutoff date is gonna be Friday midnight central time. We don't have your payment by then. You'll have to wait till the next class. And I've already looked at everything that I've got set up set up. We have the website going. I'm adding content to it. The next training will be $997. And when when I go out there and look at how much it would cost you to go hire an attorney to put together a trust for you Yeah. And and then they just kind of hand it to you, you know, they Yeah. They'll they'll do their cookie cutter and fill in the blanks, not really teach you anything because they know that when and they're gonna do a living trust they're not gonna do an irrevocable common law trust they're gonna do a revocable trust which I just breaks my heart to see so many people have this and when one of the it's usually you know we're talking about the common you know husband and wife or even a single elderly person as they get older their mental cognition declines and they'll have an unscrupulous family member come in and have them sign a whole new trust and it replaces the old trust because you could do that with a revocable trust and then they get all the they get all the property.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen that. You would be shocked. So what we're doing is an irrevocable private trust that is kept outside of the court system. So in and again I'll give you an outline for one and we're gonna help you fill in the blanks on what triggers the execution of your trust, how to maintain it, and work on how you want to have your property you know distributed. For an example, if you have a house and you got multiple heirs maybe you got three or four children and you know who you're gonna give the house to? Well, maybe none of them. So you may say okay sell the home and divide up the funds and then give it to my heirs give it to my beneficiaries you can put a church in as a beneficiary we've got some people that are looking at that is they're wanting their property to go to some nonprofit organizations or churches there's also a way that you can set that up in a long term trust where you can have your money go into a vehicle maybe like an annuity and and every month it pays the beneficiary a certain amount of funds so even after you've passed and gone you can have your trust helping other individuals or organizations or even a combination long after you're gone they can still be getting monthly payments of you know whatever you've got in your in your trust account so well, thank you very much. This is really looking good and again the cutoff date is going to be this Friday.
You know you got just a couple more days Friday at midnight to get your payment in. If you're paying by check or money order as soon as you put it in the mail send me the tracking number and I will hold your membership place. So even if you just mail that Friday
[01:53:54] Unknown:
just give me the tracking number and I will hold your membership place. Okay. I think Annette had something. Hold on. Annette was there. I think, Paul, if you don't mind. Annette, did you ever was that you?
[01:54:05] Unknown:
Yes. I have two questions. Okay. The first one is if, not not not been able to change the the, trust. What if there's significant changes, like people passing away as, you know, like, the trustee
[01:54:22] Unknown:
passes away? Yeah. I know you that I yeah. You you have six you have means of selecting successor trustees.
[01:54:30] Unknown:
Okay. The second question is is what if there's significant changes, like, let's say, nonprofit and the the the one that was in position of leadership passes and the successor to that to that nonprofit dramatically changes the the and and and it's no longer to the liking of
[01:54:56] Unknown:
the one who set up the the guarantor. I think it's guarantor. Do that. They can't do that. The grantor or the settlor is the one who creates the trust. Okay. And that could be individual or spouses together creating this trust. You have a trustee that executes the trust and whenever a trigger date happens or trigger event whether it's a passing of one of the people who created the trust or the last surviving spouse who created the trust and it triggers the event for the trust to be executed according to what's written in the trust and then that goes forward. It really depends on what you put in there and it's flexible. You can you can make options.
[01:55:42] Unknown:
Tailor it for your needs.
[01:55:44] Unknown:
Yes. Exactly. You can tailor it to your own specific needs.
[01:55:48] Unknown:
So my point was, you know, while while the creator of the trust is still alive, there's dramatic changes to let's say he wants to give it to a nonprofit organization. There's dramatic changes in the nonprofit where it's no longer, the focus is no longer what what motivated the person to Sure. Do that. So is there a mechanism to change
[01:56:13] Unknown:
what If you write if you write it in there, Annette, if this is all tailored to what you wanna put in, those are really excellent points. But it depends on what's written into the trust. If you have a if you have a clause that says you know you can amend the beneficiary then Right. You can do
[01:56:37] Unknown:
that. Right. Which is what you were talking about. So, yes. Paul, you had something?
[01:56:44] Unknown:
Well, I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, even a revocable trust is amenable as long as the grantor is still alive.
[01:56:56] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's right. It doesn't become irrevocable
[01:56:59] Unknown:
until the grantor, the creator of the trust passes. And
[01:57:05] Unknown:
True. Also Mark. It's a revocable trust. I'm talking about an irrevocable trust, but you are correct about that, Paul. Okay. Most people, they go to an attorney, they're given a family trust. They call it a revocable family trust and up till the death of the last surviving spouse or the creator of the trust it can be revoked they could totally scrap it and do a whole other trust if they want. That's that's dangerous to have it set up that way. But like you said, when they pass, there's usually a clause in the trust that says this trust now becomes irrevocable and it can't be changed.
And it's gotta be executed by the trustee.
[01:57:48] Unknown:
There you go. And the and and the only other point that I was that I was trying to make a few minutes ago when you were talking about revocable versus irrevocable, the, there's a weird thing that happens when a death occurs. Vultures come out of the woodwork, and you may think that nobody in your family would do that. Well, I'm here to tell you, even the most unlikely of suspects will turn into Yep. Venomous pieces of garbage. So an irrevocable trust is necessary.
[01:58:24] Unknown:
And I'm telling you, Paul's right. And it happens more than you could ever imagine. Yep. Mhmm. It's just I've seen When there's piles of currency on the table, it turns people into monsters.
[01:58:38] Unknown:
It does.
[01:58:40] Unknown:
And This is Chris from California.
[01:58:42] Unknown:
Coop cooperation and respect for the departed and the loving relationship with the rest of the family, that is the exception, not the rule. The rule is everybody's out for themselves.
[01:58:59] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's the rule of the world, isn't it? What you got, Chris?
[01:59:03] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. So I've used trust. I've written trust. Mark, are you going to be covering anything about foundations, church trusts,
[01:59:16] Unknown:
corporations? No. Okay. No. That's way too much. This is all this is all geared for holding property. Holding property in a trust. That's real estate and personal property and and we're just going to keep this simple. What you're talking about is a whole other class of trust.
[01:59:39] Unknown:
What about holding it in perpetuity?
[01:59:43] Unknown:
Well, that's what I was, you know, leading up to. You can't hold it to where it can be held in perpetuity.
[01:59:52] Unknown:
Yeah. In other words, for some purpose, like, well, like a church trust, for example, where it's going to go on beyond the depth of everybody involved in the trust trust at the current time. Yeah. That'll be part of what we're talking about, but this is just a basic
[02:00:12] Unknown:
common law trust for protecting your assets and for estate planning.
[02:00:19] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. And and part of there's so many people out there, especially in our patriot community, that are charlatans about this. I mean, go talk to David Strait. Talk to you about his $2,500 trust or or Johnson, Brent Johnson, and his $2,200 where you gotta mail gold to South Dakota. And from then, it goes hell, who knows where? Mark is honest, straightforward, a friend of ours and a member of our family here, and, I think we bring somebody to the table for the offer. This is very trustworthy. And but we always encourage you to do things like go and take Brent Brent Winter's course on trust to find out what he's got to say about it.
It's just a good advice, but I believe we're in pretty good hands with Mark. So if it wouldn't, I wouldn't let him on here with it. So, anyway, other than that, we'll see you tomorrow on JR Day, and we'll see, what comes up between now and then. If you've got any comments, afterthoughts on the doctor, Eastman's talk, we'd love to hear those. And, otherwise than that, we'll see you tomorrow. So I'm sure we're way past done, but, Paul, hit the button.
[02:01:36] Unknown:
Okay?
[02:01:37] Unknown:
We're out. And we're off. And, by the way, again, reminder, Merca, sorry, for seven months starting next Sunday or Monday, we, are in the new time zone. And There we go. Yeah. You're gonna have to get up earlier, girl. I'm sorry. Yeah. Me too. Me too. I gotta get up earlier too, but I do like it because we get finished earlier, so you get more of your day. So, anyway, I'll, anybody got anything for me?
[02:02:12] Unknown:
No? We're pretty quiet on you.
[02:02:15] Unknown:
Well, there's there comes Sketch. Well, thank you, sir. We're cloudy again today, so I'll get out and go find some lunch and take it easy. Break the leg Thursday night. Well, yeah. Thank you, Mark. I listen. I'm so excited. I'm about to wet my pants, and, I think we'll do just fine. I think Jeff and I'll get along real well.
[02:02:36] Unknown:
So, Yeah. Anyway Can we access that? How can we access that? Expectations, though. Do what, Chris?
[02:02:43] Unknown:
How can we access that and listen to it Thursday? Rents.com.
[02:02:47] Unknown:
Well, I sure Paul will probably carry it here as he's prone to do on an event like that, but you can go to rents.com, r e n s e Com. Very are you not familiar with rents' site, Chris?
[02:03:03] Unknown:
I'm not. No.
[02:03:05] Unknown:
Wow. I'm surprised. He's been around for thirty years. He was one of the real early pioneers of news conglomeration. You know, having a site where you pick other news stories and stuff from all over, and he's been doing three hours a night of radio for thirty something years. He's got an unbelievably large audience, very sophisticated, intelligent, and, truth seeking. And, you can go to that website, r e n s e. And over on the top left, there's a thing that says, Rents Radio Network listen live, and it probably give the lineup of tonight of that night. Sometimes it doesn't. And hit that button. He's got an embedded player there.
[02:03:49] Unknown:
Mhmm. Okay.
[02:03:51] Unknown:
Alright. But, man, he's got a bunch a bunch of audience. Yes, sir. Samuel.
[02:03:59] Unknown:
Yeah. I've got another Georgia trivia for you. Georgia, was led into the union, when they ratified or went along with, I should say, the fourteenth amendment. But when when they tacked on the fifteenth amendment, they, they had they had a problem with that, so they were thrown back out until they voted for it. So they were the last ones in, and they were thrown out and allowed back in again.
[02:04:27] Unknown:
Wow. Well, I you know, Georgia was originally a slave colony. Did you know that? Like Australia.
[02:04:35] Unknown:
Really? No.
[02:04:37] Unknown:
Yep. Sure was. So, anyway, great state of Georgia. They got Atlanta turned, and, unfortunately, the state's very conservative. Yes. Someone?
[02:04:51] Unknown:
Roger.
[02:04:53] Unknown:
Okay. Well, I'm gonna you know, I'm gonna go with the female. Yes, ma'am.
[02:04:57] Unknown:
It's Tess from Colorado.
[02:05:00] Unknown:
Hello, Tess. How have you been?
[02:05:05] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:05:06] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:05:08] Unknown:
I would just because I'm at work all the time, and I can't really ask questions or whatever. I was wondering if if you guys got the letter form letter written out for us to send back to the IRS from this frivolous
[02:05:21] Unknown:
charge that we're being told we're doing. Yeah. I think that that's just an insinuation. I don't think they're charging you with anything. They're threatening you. Mark, what what's your response?
[02:05:32] Unknown:
Yeah. Tess, I can help you with that. If if any if anybody's, like seriously facing if you're a national, let me qualify this. If you're a national and the IRS is trying to hang fines or penalties on you, they can't lawfully do that. And I've got a response letter that you can use for that and it just basically says I'm out of your jurisdiction and and you can't hit me with fines and penalties like that.
[02:06:01] Unknown:
Okay. Because I know one show and I called in, Roger said that you guys were working on a letter for all of us. Because now all three of us in our little group have gotten the letter. Yeah. And I'm not Okay. I'm not freaking out about it. I just need to get stuff off my table because What? I have so many problems going on with my Tennessee move.
[02:06:24] Unknown:
Tess, do I have a copy of your latest letter?
[02:06:28] Unknown:
The one I I that I got from them? I think so.
[02:06:32] Unknown:
When did you get that?
[02:06:34] Unknown:
January.
[02:06:35] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Yeah. I probably do. Okay. He was sick back then for real bad for about a month. I know.
[02:06:43] Unknown:
January 1. So I know.
[02:06:46] Unknown:
I've just been going through so much trying to get Okay. Everything done, and I'm not getting anywhere.
[02:06:51] Unknown:
Should she for you.
[02:06:53] Unknown:
Should she shoot you another email, Mark, or or you you find out when she Just as a reminder, since I don't have a secretary, he'll keep me on track. Sometimes I feel like a pinball in a pinball machine Yeah, man. Tracking up the numbers, you know. So
[02:07:09] Unknown:
it's kind of Trust me. I've got a major problem like that. So Yeah. I mean, if anybody knows a lawyer that can work with real estate in Tennessee on the Eastern Side, let me know.
[02:07:22] Unknown:
Wow. It's like Yeah. We were dealing with somebody tonight. We were we were dealing with somebody in Tennessee, and they gave us a good reference in Nashville that somebody could at least bird dog you. But, Tess, I just flat don't remember any of that information.
[02:07:38] Unknown:
It's okay.
[02:07:39] Unknown:
Legal test. Check check do a search on, like, legal support in Tennessee or something and see if some of those organizations don't pop up, and call them and ask them who they might recommend.
[02:07:51] Unknown:
Yeah. I would do real estate attorney. Just and also do a search for real estate attorney in, like, Nashville
[02:08:01] Unknown:
Tennessee. Right? Knoxville or Chattanooga?
[02:08:04] Unknown:
Well, whichever major city you're close to. So yep. If Knoxville is closer to you, then do Knoxville.
[02:08:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Right. And I'd I'd call, like, 20 different ones because I would call some and they would give me numbers to call, and then they would give me numbers, and I can't find anybody. Yep. And I got a structural engineer that said how bad the house is.
[02:08:26] Unknown:
Okay. You bought a house that's got deficiencies?
[02:08:31] Unknown:
Oh, I bought a manufactured home that they moved in and almost rolled.
[02:08:35] Unknown:
Oh my goodness gracious.
[02:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[02:08:39] Unknown:
I I just
[02:08:41] Unknown:
see if there isn't some sort of an organization, of especially real estate oriented people that might could help you. That's the best suggestion I can give you.
[02:08:50] Unknown:
Okay. Comment for tech. Alright?
[02:08:52] Unknown:
Yep. Okay. That alright. Now who was our guy who was trying to say something right there? Carl. Carl. Carl in Utah. Sorry.
[02:08:59] Unknown:
Tess, you may wanna look at biggerpockets.com. There's a lot of resources on that. Or you can go to, Facebook and do real estate investment groups in whatever state you're looking at and ask that group for a real estate lawyer that they trust.
[02:09:21] Unknown:
And you should come up with quite a few choices. Thank you. There's a couple of suggestions for you, Tess. Excellent. So drop, drop Mark a Right. I got a question for you. Okay. Alright. That's Sketch. Go ahead, Sketch.
[02:09:37] Unknown:
Yes. Specifically on taxes, the constitutional taxes, not the expatriation tax, but the other one. Who lawfully,
[02:09:47] Unknown:
collects those taxes? Is it it's not the IRS. Right? IRS. Well, no. No. They're you're charged with, with those sections. I think that's eight seventy one. I'm not totally sure. But if you get, if you get hold on. If you get, I guess and I'm gonna defer to Mark here in a second. I thought it was just federally, chartered corporations, but evidently, that's not. Mark, what is the application of that other section in your opinion?
[02:10:15] Unknown:
Eight seventy seven b, had to do with if you're a nonresident alien, which nationals are nonresident aliens in relationship to the to the IRS. And eight seventy seven b as in bravo says if it's a domestic corporation, you own stocks from a domestic corporation that pays you dividends. Now that's not a mutual fund. It's not a four zero one ks. It's none of that. But if you went out and purchased specific stock from a company that that pays dividends, that's like on a quarterly, biannual, or annual basis, however they got their setup, then you owe a tax just on those dividends.
Now you can when you sell the stock and, you know, if you made money, that's not taxable. It's just There's no capital gains tax attached. Right. Exactly. There's no capital gains, but just on the dividends from that domestic corporation.
[02:11:25] Unknown:
There you go. Right.
[02:11:27] Unknown:
Now that now that we've filed our affidavit with, the IRS and the state department, they cannot prove that we are liable for even those constitutional taxes. Is is that correct? Say that again? I didn't quite understand the first part. I didn't need I think I think there's something in the law saying that the IRS cannot collect unless they can prove you're a citizen of The US. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Yes. So now that we've we've filed our affidavit Yes. With the secretary of state and the IRS, and we can prove that we aren't citizens, can they still collect on those constitutional taxes? Because it's spelled out in the jurisdictional,
[02:12:14] Unknown:
and the nonresident alien owes $8.71 and $8.77.
[02:12:19] Unknown:
Yes. They can charge you. But isn't it isn't it true that if they cannot prove that you are a citizen, that they cannot collect?
[02:12:28] Unknown:
No. Because it's spelled out that the nonresident alien owes those two. And guess what? Okay. Guess what? Yep. Sketch, they're both constitutional taxes.
[02:12:39] Unknown:
No. I understand that. I've just said I think there was some law saying if they can't prove that you're a citizen
[02:12:46] Unknown:
Well, that doesn't have anything to do with us. These are two sections stipulated and broken out that nonresident aliens are responsible for. So the whole premise of your question and your inquiry there is wrong.
[02:12:58] Unknown:
Okay.
[02:12:59] Unknown:
I I I
[02:13:01] Unknown:
It has to do with the presumption. You know, it has to do with the presumption. And where you're coming from and where you're coming from on that is there was a recent case about the IRS going to third parties investigating a potential taxpayer. Right. And they said as long as you're a US citizen, the IRS has as the the ability to investigate you including going to third parties like your employer or a bank or stock stock broker, whatever. Right. And investigate whether you have income that could be taxable. I gotcha. But we're nationals, so they can't do that. Right?
Not lawfully. They can't investigate. They shouldn't. No. Right. And even if they did and tried to say something, your your Trump card is Roger's affidavit of citizenship evidence that you have on file with The US Secretary Of State. You know one thing I love, Roger? When you when you take the the acronym for affidavit of citizenship evidence, it spells ACE. That's my ace up my sleep.
[02:14:13] Unknown:
Well, that's good. Thank you.
[02:14:16] Unknown:
Raj? Welcome.
[02:14:18] Unknown:
Yes. I have Paul. I have a comment for both tests and, Sketch. Sketch, what you're referring to is the, I believe it was the Supreme Court or a district court decision that said unless, the, citizen of The United States or unless a person can prove they're not a citizen of The United States, the IRS can move to assessment and collections.
[02:14:43] Unknown:
Move forward.
[02:14:44] Unknown:
That's that's correct. That was an appellate level. Yeah. And and that's what you're referring to. And, Taz, if you go to, the matrixdocs.com Well, Taz, did you dial in, or or are you in with an app? Can you see the chat or not? Oh, Taz. She might as well get back to work. Oh, good grief. She was at work. Test.
[02:15:14] Unknown:
You got distracted. The boss came in.
[02:15:19] Unknown:
Yes. One more call.
[02:15:21] Unknown:
Must have been.
[02:15:23] Unknown:
Okay. Well, if anybody else runs into test, let her know, please, that if she goes to the matrixdocs.com and she goes down to the the bonus materials where the links to the telegram groups and the docs. Exposthematrix Com. Thing is, go into docs.exposthematrix.com. And in that docs folder is Shane's IRS letter RTF. And that is a sanitized blank copy of the letter that Roger wrote for Shane to send to the IRS that actually burned their retinas when they read it. It's right there.
[02:16:02] Unknown:
Well, we hope so. It was intended to.
[02:16:06] Unknown:
Okay. Well, that r that RTF is there. It's downloadable. It's editable, and just fill in the blanks and send it off. There you go. But you might wanna send a copy of it. Did you come back?
[02:16:21] Unknown:
Approval. Did you come back and get the back end of that? Evidently not. As a customer, evidently. So alright. I'll ask. Would the of course you can, Julie.
[02:16:34] Unknown:
Hi. Was Hi. Just the one that was also looking for a real estate lawyer?
[02:16:39] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:16:40] Unknown:
So if she is listening and just can't talk, she can go to a b b o, which is alpha Victor Victor o dot com. You can search for lawyers on there by state and by, profession and, Specialty. And you can specialty, and you can also go to Martindale Hubbell, and they have ratings and reviews. So she might also want to utilize that in addition to the Facebook group that somebody else, recommended I yield.
[02:17:09] Unknown:
Yeah. But chance kick the boss out of there and come back so you can get all this good information.
[02:17:15] Unknown:
One last question for Mark. Lifetime membership, is that our lifetime or yours?
[02:17:22] Unknown:
That will be your lifetime.
[02:17:24] Unknown:
So you are going to, have your program,
[02:17:28] Unknown:
continue after you die? Yes. I see. Thank you. Certainly plan on that. I've got, a good friend who's younger than I that, I'm gonna, you know, see if the members are acceptable for him coming on. He's got a super creative, mind when it comes to trust and asset protection and so forth. So, you know, with with approval of our members, wanna bring him on as a collaborator. And and, if if I go, then they'll be passed off. But it is a membership. It is a private group. So, my plan is is that it can be operated and run, after I'm gone.
[02:18:14] Unknown:
Thank you, Mark. You're welcome. There you go.
[02:18:17] Unknown:
Alright. Anybody? Okay. There's somebody. I think it's Larry. Yes, sir.
[02:18:22] Unknown:
Yes. A little while ago, Mark was talking about how eight seventy seven is associated with domestic stock. Isn't that domestic stock of the U. S. Government that has a connection to the US government exclusively?
[02:18:38] Unknown:
No. No. It's those corporations that are registered with the US government. Those types of stocks that pay you dividends, they're all authorized through the SEC. It's a whole big deal, and they're only operating under, I don't wanna say guidance of The United States, but through the the Auspices. Yeah. Through the authorization of The US to be able to sell that kind of stock.
[02:19:06] Unknown:
Now And don't forget, that's the differentiation I did not know. You don't have to pay capital gains on the stock when you sell it, but only on the dividends that it might pay you. And there are some, categories of stock that don't pay dividends. Aren't there? I mean, there's the record stock and preferred stock. Yeah. There's a whole bunch of different kinds of stocks.
[02:19:28] Unknown:
Yeah. From one company. One company can have different tranches of the I think the name they use for it, but they have different levels of of their stock, you know. And one of them is that I'm, you know, familiar with is preferred stock, and then they have, like, a certain classes. That's what I was looking for, classes of stock. And a company could have three or four different classes of stock. They're not all the same.
[02:19:55] Unknown:
Hey, Roger and Mark. Yes, sir. What about an e ETF that pays dividends?
[02:20:02] Unknown:
Nope. Nope. That's not taxable.
[02:20:05] Unknown:
Yeah. Let me explain that. The ETF, you're you don't own the individual stock. The ETF is investing in those. So the dividends are being paid to the ETF and then the ETF pays you. Same thing with the mutual fund because this has come up is is people want to know you know well what if I got a mutual fund what if I got a four zero one ks Well, you're not individually buying and owning that stock in your name. The vehicle that you're buying, you're you have a share of a four zero one k plan. You got a share of a mutual fund plan. And if I'm not mistaken, that's exactly how ETFs are worth because you're not directly investing in a particular stock.
You're doing it via the ETF.
[02:20:59] Unknown:
Okay. And also foreign held companies,
[02:21:02] Unknown:
the dividends are not taxable too. That's correct. That's correct. Probably true. Yep. Okay. Please, folks, if any of you are looked at us Sure.
[02:21:11] Unknown:
If any of you are Okay. I just wanted to clear that up.
[02:21:14] Unknown:
Okay. Thank you. My mind. Thank you. Anybody who wants to acquire gold and silver, which is a very healthy thought these days, do not own it through an ETF. They sell oversell those. They may have a 30 contracts for one ounce of gold. K? Don't do that.
[02:21:33] Unknown:
Now listen to the definition of an, ETF. An ETF is an exchange traded fund like a mutual fund. It's a collection of securities that trades on a stock exchange like stock. So see it's it's a collection. You're you're you're owning part of the ETF not the actual individual stocks. That's why if you get paid a dividend off an ETF or you sell your shares of the ETF you're not owning that individual stock. And there's not you're not getting paid a dividend directly from the individual stock. Hope that clears that up.
[02:22:16] Unknown:
Hey, Mark.
[02:22:18] Unknown:
Good morning.
[02:22:20] Unknown:
One quick comment, Annette. The only thing I know about a stock is until I met Roger and filed my national status declaration affidavit, I felt like I was locked in a stock most of my life. I'm just saying. Go ahead, Annette. Yeah. Alright.
[02:22:39] Unknown:
I hope you weren't found under carnal knowledge there, Paul. Go ahead, Annette.
[02:22:45] Unknown:
So, what is within the membership of your what what are you offering,
[02:22:56] Unknown:
with the membership? Well, Well, I'm gonna have 10 modules. We're gonna start out with an intro to, trust and and talk about how they're structured, how they operate, and then each module go down and expand on that. Every module I'll have a slideshow that will give you explanations of the different aspects of a trust. I'm also going to be holding weekly webinars. I have I'm going to take a poll of the members. It'll be Tuesday or Thursday night and then sometime Saturday afternoon. And those will be recorded and people can go back and watch those at their own convenience. Also, now those modules, there'll be templates, there'll be notes, maybe even links to different videos, but, you know, I'll have resources in every module that you go through.
[02:23:59] Unknown:
So this is just educational. That's it? That's what I'm trying to get at. No. No.
[02:24:06] Unknown:
Well, no. I'm helping every person with their own individual trust. You're gonna have, you know, me as a consultant to help you navigate you to tailor your trust to your specific needs.
[02:24:19] Unknown:
Okay. I appreciate. Thank you. You're welcome. Yep. You're welcome.
[02:24:23] Unknown:
Yep. Yep. Yep. I know, Mark, you do a good job on this, folks. K?
[02:24:28] Unknown:
This is not a boilerplate thing, you know. I'm not just gonna hand you a template and say, well, here's here's the course materials. Bye bye. You know? No. It's this is not an automated, you know. I mean, the the educational parts will be automated parts to that, but you have access to me. And I'm actually even looking at maybe down the road, I can add on a community section where people that are members can go and hang out and do discussion about trust or whatnot or even have like a a board, if you will, to help manage the the private membership association.
So I think it was what Sketch was asking, you know, how long how long is the lifetime for mine or theirs. So, you know, you need you need a board of people that, are responsible and be able to continue this going after I'm gone. I don't think I don't think they have internet access in heaven, so.
[02:25:38] Unknown:
Yes. There's a female. You may.
[02:25:42] Unknown:
Hi. I have a question in regards to your talking about the stock and so in the dividend. So this is Pam in Michigan. So I just had a question about that when they put us on the stock market with that Social Security number. So does that go by each man or woman and does that then go down to their children or is every single one that has the Social Security number their own? Are you
[02:26:15] Unknown:
talking about the stock? Are you talking about the stock or the certificate or Social Security number. Pam, can you be a little more explicit? Talking about
[02:26:27] Unknown:
you were talking about dividends earlier in regards that somebody had a
[02:26:34] Unknown:
We're talking about a corporation. We're talking about a corporation that is filed under the laws of The United States. They're here domestically. They have their headquarters here, and they issue stocks, individual stocks like a hundred shares of Apple stock or a thousand shares of whatever stock and you buy that stock. If that particular stock that you purchase pays dividends because you just own it and from the profits that the corporation makes they pass those dividends on to some of their preferred stockholders. And if you own individually that stock from those companies and that company pays you dividends just because you own the stock, then that is taxable to a national.
[02:27:26] Unknown:
Do you understand why that is, Pam? It's because the state gives life they give the corporation their life. So that they're involved in this again, like being in a birth or a marriage certificate, they get a piece, but only of the dividends, not the capital gains.
[02:27:47] Unknown:
Absolutely. I understand shareholders and all that. So Okay. The question went because I think, Roger, you said something about if you're going to buy gold, you know, don't buy it out of this. So then that made me think, okay, what else do they buy off of, you know, the stock market? So that's what made me think about, okay, what about the, you know, Social Security number that they're selling on stock market, which is us. Is that just me or is it, you know, my family? So that was the question.
[02:28:16] Unknown:
Well, no. It's just you. They attach your birth certificate, to my understanding, to those bonds as the collateral. So it doesn't have anything to do with your family. It's got something to do with you. Now my question is when we do this stuff, you don't really expect them to go in and take that out of the system, do you? I mean, these are just thieves and murderers. But theoretically, they should because we're no longer a client. That
[02:28:43] Unknown:
leads me to another question in regards to the video or audio that you played earlier. So that made me think about generational curses and, you know, stolen bones and viruses and stuff. And I think that if these things have been going on for several years, generational curses, I think, Somebody, like, maybe, you know, who we have in office now, would say, you know what? This is enough. This is enough. And I think that might be, hopefully, where we would go with this because what kind of family would wanna be initiated in like that or whatever? You know? And that's what I was thinking that maybe the world is gonna turn away from, you know, this is how you get initiated in this group or whatever. That's what I'm hoping. And I yield. Well, I hope so too, Pam. We'll pray for that. Okay? And I think mister Trump's got some real dramatic changes
[02:29:37] Unknown:
in mind for the country in the immediate. And even more future, you can see how he's weaving, giving JD Vance an opportunity to be everywhere he is for the most part when he doesn't have him going over and giving speeches to the EU and stuff. Not very many other presidents have vested that kind of confidence and exposure in a vice president cause they consider him a threat, I would guess. Okay? They want the limelight, and many of them are ego oriented. But Trump seems to be setting up JD Vance to run when he's done with this.
[02:30:14] Unknown:
Yeah. I do think one more question.
[02:30:18] Unknown:
Yes. Let me just finish this off. There's already been a idea floated in congress, the path to, to, float a bill that if your presidencies weren't consecutive, you can run for three terms. K? Don't know if that's made any progress or not, but somebody in congress is trying to give an opening for Trump to get another term. I think at his age, with everything he's been through, he wants to go live out the rest of his life with his children and his grandchildren and and and and all of the the things he's been able to acquire, and wants to turn it over to JD Vance.
But it sure seems like he's putting him in a prestigious, visible position a lot in just five weeks to me. So god bless. I like JD Vance. It's turned out that he just he was a hell of a pick. He just hit the bull's eye with JD Vance. K? And I think all of his appointees and you know what? Who they're floating is being his VP, Pam, Tulsi Gabbard. Roger Stone said, Tulsi Gabbard will be the first female president of the country. So keep that in in mind.
[02:31:37] Unknown:
Well, in all this talk about the trust, what you're referring to, and look at the things that, you know, the president has done. He's a businessman, and he created, you know, all those different casinos for each, you know, whatever type of a nationality you are, you might, you know, associate with that if that's what you'd like. But that was the creative thing that I think that he leaves a legacy for different nationalities. He's always forward thinking.
[02:32:06] Unknown:
Yes. And he does like all people. And and he's not a racist or anything they're calling him. I can cite you examples. He gives people a lot of money. Like, someone's in the paper. Somebody's, husband got killed, and Trump stroked him a check for and bought the house for him. But he always says, don't say anything about this. K? So he keeps it undercover, and it's just the goodness of the man. I think he's a hell of a guy. Okay?
[02:32:34] Unknown:
I agree. I think anyone who runs a company should, be a businessman, and that has to be first if you're gonna run a country.
[02:32:41] Unknown:
Thank you. I I would think so too, ma'am. Question. Okay, Annette. We'll get you. Go ahead, girl.
[02:32:49] Unknown:
So
[02:32:52] Unknown:
So what? Woah. What happened?
[02:32:54] Unknown:
I think she muted herself. Annette. Annette? Does she drop does she drop off? I don't know. I just heard that beep beep like star six and just remember that. Poof. They he was gone. It was gone. Poof. She was gone. I don't Annette.
[02:33:16] Unknown:
I don't see her logged in.
[02:33:19] Unknown:
She was previously logged in. I don't I don't see her logged in. So if something happens, she dropped off. Alright. Well, it's probably for you anyway. So I'm a go ahead and chase some lunch here. Oh, there she is. There she is. Oh, she's back. Okay. Annette, you back? Yeah. We got all kinds of problems. It looks like she's muted. It looks like she's muted. Okay. What happened? Well, I'm pretty sure her question was for you anyway. No. No. No. No. No. No. It includes you, Roger. Hold on. Alright. Okay. Well, you went away, so we didn't know.
[02:33:53] Unknown:
Okay. So, you know how if you get the benefit of something you owe the duty?
[02:34:01] Unknown:
Well, that's from the government. Yeah. That's basically a rephrasing of protection for allegiance, allegiance for protection. Go ahead.
[02:34:11] Unknown:
So if we own a stock and we get benefit or we get the benefit of earning, dividends,
[02:34:20] Unknown:
does that put us back under in some aspect? No. No. No. No. This is one but folks, all y'all are all over the map on this. This only applies to nonresident aliens. It applies to the other people that the other people got capital gains on top of that. Okay? You don't. Alright? So it only applies. It's right there at 26 CFR 1.1 dash dash one a with the exception of eight seventy one b and eight seventy seven b, all nonresident alien individuals. The nonresident alien nationals owe that tax on that dividend that that stock issues you.
[02:35:04] Unknown:
So it sounds like besides having land in a load yield title, that's the second
[02:35:10] Unknown:
investment area we can be. Doesn't matter whether it's a load yield or not. If you're a national, you can just wipe off almost every tax that you can imagine. And the exceptions are what we just discussed.
[02:35:25] Unknown:
Merrill, and those two are the only ones that are constitutional. That's why they're there.
[02:35:30] Unknown:
Yes. It's and actually, if you if you want to get to the simplistic part of it, it's from a a source from The US. It's an income source that is from within United States. So that that particular those domestic bonds, domestic stocks that pay you money just because you own them that's considered a source of a US excuse me it's an income source from within The United States. That is true. You have a federal contract. You have a federal contract and you're getting paid directly. That's from a source within The United States. You're gonna be taxed on that.
[02:36:10] Unknown:
Mhmm. It's considered gain. It's considered gain, Annette.
[02:36:16] Unknown:
Can I can I, kind of come tell you where I'm coming from?
[02:36:20] Unknown:
I wish you would.
[02:36:23] Unknown:
The bank you don't have to own a if you, have a bank account, you have some sort of tie that can, they they can seize your assets. No. No. No.
[02:36:37] Unknown:
You can go open your bank account as a national. They can't just tell them it's a non interest bearing account.
[02:36:45] Unknown:
And and they don't just garnish it out of the blue. Yeah. If you got a yawn. Trust me. If if you're if the IRS seizes something out of a bank account or puts something on your property there's a long administrative process of giving you notices and giving you opportunities to respond
[02:37:05] Unknown:
before they ever get to that point. Yeah. You don't have to worry about them swooping out of left field in the dark at night and doing that to you. So Well, my question
[02:37:15] Unknown:
comes from, are you entering in another sort of contract similar to a bank account?
[02:37:20] Unknown:
You may be, but it doesn't override your affidavit. How about that as an answer? Okay. Okay. I yield. Okay. Yeah. It's it's Now after Ackerman and slave salons, it's really hard for people to just grasp the freedom that you have as a national, especially when it comes to taxes. They they want to ask all these exceptions, and it's not not just you, Annette, I'm just generally talking, that people just have a hard time believing that, you know, they can buy and sell and hold real estate and no capital gains. You know, they're not paying all these onerous taxes wrapped around their income except for those exceptions that are from a source of income within The United States and primarily we see that in the dividends of owning stock and interest payments on owning certain domestic bonds.
Okay. I'm sorry. Outside of that, it's not taxable. You have a even if you have a bank account and it's paying you an interest,
[02:38:29] Unknown:
that's not a stock. No. No. That's not taxable now.
[02:38:34] Unknown:
Yeah. It's not taxable.
[02:38:36] Unknown:
If you put the dividends back into to buy another, site more of that same stock Still taxable. Does that Still taxable. Still taxable.
[02:38:46] Unknown:
You got paid it. It's taxable. It doesn't depend on what you did with it. It depends that you received funds that were from a taxable source.
[02:38:55] Unknown:
Mhmm. Thank you. How about how about if you just drip it? If you what? Drip it? If it's dripped, drip it. Actually, kind of really didn't cash out of it.
[02:39:05] Unknown:
Well, that's that's not a dividend pay. Right?
[02:39:08] Unknown:
Well, man, the dividend goes right back into the repurchase.
[02:39:11] Unknown:
And that's taxable. That's just what Annette asked. What if she took those dividends and put them right back in into that that stock or or bought more stock? That those dividends that you receive are taxable no matter what you do with them. What you did with them. Yep. You can put it in stock it, you can reinvest it in the same stock that you've already purchased, you know, that's taxable.
[02:39:39] Unknown:
How about if you didn't meet the threshold of 14,600 to even file a federal tax? You don't even qualify. Let's say your dividends are less than that.
[02:39:50] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, I don't see a lot of that. Go back to the statute.
[02:39:54] Unknown:
There's a there's a table, a taxable table for, nonresidents. You go look at the ten forty dash n r, and there is a tax table there. I just don't recall what the totals are off the top of my head.
[02:40:09] Unknown:
Okay. Alright. I just okay.
[02:40:11] Unknown:
I'll try to find that. I doubt if they'd even if it was, I doubt if they'd ever come after you. And they're not gonna be around very much longer, it appears, and we're gonna lose this wonderful ally we've had for so many years that we hated so much.
[02:40:27] Unknown:
But we'll see. Yeah. They're getting a
[02:40:29] Unknown:
50% layoff as of last night of the IRS. Is that well, I haven't heard that, but I know last week, they closed a 20 offices, and they got a 50% layoff of the IRS announced last night. Yeah. Did Trump do that Yeah. In that speech? Yep.
[02:40:44] Unknown:
Wow. I'm not sure of the speech. I saw it on the Gateway Pundit.
[02:40:48] Unknown:
Okay. Well, then I'm sure it's legit with that source. Yeah. Well, too bad. Too bad IRS agents. Oh, good luck finding another job, you slobs. Damn. Hated. They're they they were hated. And we had somebody that had a neighbor as as an IRS agent. Never would tell him what he did for a living. There's a female there. Somebody wouldn't ask a question.
[02:41:12] Unknown:
No. I'm just saying thank you. Thank you. I yield.
[02:41:15] Unknown:
Hey, Rod. Welcome, hon. Roger.
[02:41:17] Unknown:
My my dad was an IRS agent. He was an IRS agent. He couldn't do it. He he he gave that job up. He he was too much of a guy.
[02:41:25] Unknown:
Yeah. Yep. I had a friend who was a CID agent in Atlanta, and he I didn't know that when I first knew him. I just knew he had another job. And he just said when we found out, he said, I just don't like the way they treat people. You know? He was over there in CID and saw the debauchery.
[02:41:44] Unknown:
Okay. Anybody else got something? Whoo. Off we're off in the weeds now. Did did did did Roger and Mark just did Roger and Mark just say that if the IRS has done away with, there will be no taxes on stock dividends?
[02:42:00] Unknown:
The whole IRS code's gonna go if the IRS is done away with, sweetie.
[02:42:05] Unknown:
Yeah. They're talking about any any income tax. Any personal income tax, they're talking about doing away with it. It should be a big boom for the economy.
[02:42:15] Unknown:
Well, it will. And and but they're gonna stick about a 15 or something percent VAT tax on there. Now the question will be, do we get out of that because we're nationals? Because that is to service the national debt, and it's fraudulent.
[02:42:33] Unknown:
Yeah.
[02:42:34] Unknown:
Okay. We'll see. We don't know the answer to these questions, Joan. K? Alright. Again, going three times. Anyone else for me? I get to drop the gavel on this one. I love each and every one of you. Right. After two hours, I wanna go eat. Yes, ma'am.
[02:42:56] Unknown:
I just wanted to say thank you to you and Mark today for everything you guys have done. Thank you very much. I'm very appreciative. I hope you guys have a nice day. Thank you, sweetie. We appreciate your Yes. We gotta finish your project.
[02:43:09] Unknown:
Okay. Yeah. I'm working on the conversion. I'm working on that conversion today. I don't need to wait for you to do it. I just need to send that basic information.
[02:43:18] Unknown:
Okay. I'll respond to your email, Mark. Alright. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. We'll see you all tomorrow on Jeff Rentz day.
[02:43:25] Unknown:
Bye bye. Bye
[02:43:31] Unknown:
bye. Bye bye.
[02:43:36] Unknown:
Hey, Mark. All caps. Do you have one more minute?
[02:43:41] Unknown:
If it's short.
[02:43:43] Unknown:
Okay. I'm sorry. I'm ready to eat lunch myself. Okay. I I I don't think it'll take more than one whole minute. But my phone cut out sometimes when y'all were talking about, taxes I mean, stocks. Did you say that all stocks in the, like, bank like, American local banks that someone has stock No. It's not taxable. The the in the the the dividends are not taxable.
[02:44:13] Unknown:
Okay. It's not dividends. Are you talking about if you have a bank account and you're making interest off that bank account?
[02:44:22] Unknown:
Stock. A bank a stock bank stock. Okay. If you own stock
[02:44:27] Unknown:
from a bank Yeah. And that stock pays you dividends, yes. If that's a domestic bank here in The United States and you went out bought so many shares of Bank of America and that particular stock pays you dividends, then yes, you are potentially owe taxes on the dividends you receive because you own that particular type of stock. It's no different than whether it's Apple or IBM, you know, any of these other big companies, Amazon, a bank. So think of a bank just as a business, and if they have shares of stock and they're domestic, they're they're they're located here, their their corporation was created here, then yes, you would you would owe a potentially, you would owe a tax on dividends that you receive from a stock.
[02:45:27] Unknown:
Okay. And did you say in the my did you did you say the ETFs?
[02:45:33] Unknown:
You do not have that. Okay. Hold on. ETFs, mutual funds, four zero one k's are not individual stocks. You're you're buying a share of a group of stocks in a ETF fund. Right. And so the ETF is purchasing stocks, and those stocks may pay some dividends, but it goes to the ETF. It doesn't go directly to you. And then whoever owns a share of that ETF gets a portion of those profits. So you're not getting directly paid a dividend and therefore, your profit off of an ETF as a national would not be taxable.
[02:46:17] Unknown:
Okay. So when you sell your ETF stock,
[02:46:21] Unknown:
it's not Come on. Work with me, Joan. I'm sorry. You you keep looking for for ways to be taxed and stop doing that, please. Oh, okay. I'm giving you the very strict exceptions of where you are taxed, but you keep looking for another way to get taxed. Stop that. Stop that. There's no boogeyman out there. I'm giving you the very narrow window that allows the government to tax you but you're looking for further ways to get taxed. And I'm telling you, they're not out there. Thank you. You're welcome. I hope that helps. Joni. Joni. There's kind of a there hold on. There's kind of a mindset to this. And I and I see this a lot.
So instead of looking for the, you know, the ways to get taxed, let's just focus on the way that you that you are taxed and stay within that lane.
[02:47:20] Unknown:
Hey, Mark?
[02:47:21] Unknown:
Yes.
[02:47:22] Unknown:
Real quick. I know you wanna go for lunch. So let's just presume and let's just pretend that you look up the nonresident alien table. Let's say that you, as your own as an individual, you went out and you bought, some shares of Apple stock and some shares of Microsoft, and you got, say, tax you got dividend income on your ten ninety nine form at the end of the year for $5,000. Let's say you look up the nonresident, taxable table, and it says that the you know, you don't have to file a return unless you made over $11,000, then you would not have to file and and report that. Am I correct?
[02:48:02] Unknown:
That's correct. Unless you had other taxes withheld that you wanna refund. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. So if you if you didn't have any taxes withheld and the taxable income that you did receive is under that threshold, then you wouldn't have to file a tax return. That's correct. And actually if you do a revocation of election you're really not supposed to file a tax return. I mean you're out of the system for five years before you could opt back in to file tax returns. The only exception to that is if you had taxes withheld, you have a right to file a ten forty NR to get a refund of those taxes.
Alright. Paul, did you have anything to add? I know you were trying to jump in there.
[02:48:54] Unknown:
Were you good? Yeah. Yeah. I actually, I actually found a bunch of stuff on IRS stuff, and I actually found a frivolous IRS filing PDF file that explains what they call frivolous and what isn't.
[02:49:18] Unknown:
Right. Cool.
[02:49:20] Unknown:
And and, yeah, I I found a bunch of stuff. But for Joni Alright. Joni, if you really, really, really want to pay tax, you can pay it to me. I I guarantee you, my schedules are very, very low, very low. You will never ever pay less than a 5% tax in your entire life. I'm just saying.
[02:49:42] Unknown:
No. Thanks. No. Thanks.
[02:49:44] Unknown:
You have further questions? Yep. Hey, Paul. I love you too. Jeez.
[02:49:50] Unknown:
If if you have further questions, you know, you can reach me at strawman@mark,allcaps,.com. Strawman at Mark all caps dot com. That does not have to be capitalized. So if you have questions about being a national, you can reach out there and I'll do my best to answer your questions. If you're wanting information about the trust, the deadline is Friday night at midnight, then you can email me at [email protected]. Mark at your legacy trust dot o r g. So hope everybody enjoys the rest of your week, and I will see you Saturday. If the creeks don't rise and the Lord's willing, I'll I'll be back here on Saturday.
[02:50:41] Unknown:
You have a good Ash Wednesday.
[02:50:44] Unknown:
Alright. Thank you. Everybody have a great day. Bye bye.
[02:50:48] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. I was wondering, that court case on collections. So are you saying they can't they can collect on a national even though they can't can't prove he's a citizen? Paul?
[02:51:16] Unknown:
Oh, Paul. Okay.
[02:51:21] Unknown:
I'll ask you later. Bye bye. No. That was an appellate decision,
[02:51:27] Unknown:
where the IRS was going after somebody. And, the decision was that unless a person can prove they're not a citizen, the IRS can, can proceed to support, to, assessment and collections. And how you prove it Okay. Is with a legal affidavit filed to the appropriate agency.
[02:51:52] Unknown:
Right. Well well, I hope you are understanding my question is as a national, we have to file this this supposed constitutional tax. Right? And, and if we fail to do that, they're gonna send us to IRS collections. Right? Well, they could. So so if they do that, we can prove that we're not citizens, and they they can't collect even on those constitutional taxes. That's what was my my point I was trying to make. I yield. Have a good Ash Wednesday.
[02:52:26] Unknown:
I don't know. I'm confused. I don't know. I'm confused. Have a good Ash Wednesday. Okay. And don't make an ash of yourself.
[02:52:36] Unknown:
What's that?
[02:52:38] Unknown:
Be careful not to make an ash of yourself.
[02:52:42] Unknown:
Okay. I'll I'll I'll I'll, try and do that.
[02:52:50] Unknown:
But Baldridge Try not to do that. Want
[02:52:53] Unknown:
just wanted to thank you for your, wonderful plate spinning today and all that you do. You're welcome. I'm sorry to take you away.
[02:53:07] Unknown:
Sorry sorry to make some ass out of your I'm I'm diligently working on stuff just outside of earshot of the microphone.
[02:53:15] Unknown:
I I can hear. I can hear. So so we'll talk later on that subject. I don't wanna confuse you. I and I I don't wanna be confused either. Right. I yield. I yield. Bye bye. Bye.
[02:53:34] Unknown:
Bye bye.
[02:53:38] Unknown:
Hey. Joan said that she was dropped. I was dropped three times, and the first time, I was a little distance away from my phone. So I don't know if other people are having that. I'm just throwing that out there.
[02:54:02] Unknown:
Hey, Joan? Hi. Hey, Joan?
[02:54:08] Unknown:
Hi.
[02:54:09] Unknown:
Meet Julie. Hey, Joan. I wanted to, just elaborate what Mark was trying to tell you. It when he's talking about dividend income, if you go and you open up a Fidelity account on your computer and you go and and you put some money in your brokerage account and you decide you wanna buy some individual stock, like, you buy one share of Apple stock, you buy one share of Tesla stock, you go buy one share of Microsoft stock, and you get a $10.99 at the end of the the year that says that you got paid, you know, $100 of dividend income, then that is reportable because it's the individual stock from a domestic company.
That's the only time you have to pay that you're subject to those taxes. And so if you're buying through, like, a 401 account if your 401 account is buying those or your a mutual fund is or an ETF, which is elect exchange exchange traded funds. You're not individually going and buying that. That's being bought through, you know, another entity. I'm I'm using entity loosely here. So it's and and then of the so that that's not applicable. That's not taxable. It's the individual stocks that you personally buy or invest in, and then you get dividend income, but then you gotta check what the threshold is. I mean, I'm sure it's I don't know what it is for a nonresident alien, but I would assume it's around it's $10,000 or more. So if you didn't get dividend income of that amount, that exceeds that amount, then you don't you don't have to file. Does that make sense? Yes.
Thank you. Yep. That's I just wanted to clarify that for you. So you don't need to worry about ETFs and stuff like that because those those are funds that then invest in stocks. It's you as a person who has to individually buy an individual share of stock or two or three or four shares, whatever you want, and then receive dividend income. And not all stocks pay dividends. There's some that don't pay dividends. And so it's just the ones where you get a form at the end of the year that says dividend income on it. It's a $10.99. I yield. I hope that helps.
[02:56:21] Unknown:
Thank you, Julie.
[02:56:23] Unknown:
Wow. Oh my goodness. I just found something. Oh my god. I'm gonna have to sell my microphone.
[02:56:44] Unknown:
Sell your microphone.
[02:56:46] Unknown:
I'm gonna have to sell my microphone because I found my comprehensive boycotted, company's list as of, 02/01/2021. And, Yeti Yeti, is, anti second amendment and, donated to the Biden campaign. Damn it. I'm gonna have to sell my Nano. I don't know if I want Nano in the house anyway. Even if it's a Yeti Nano.
[02:57:21] Unknown:
Well, you could always purchase an EIB microphone and be just like Rush.
[02:57:28] Unknown:
Yeah. I guess. If I could afford one. And, also, Rachel Ray. She's anti first amendment, anti second amendment, and donated to the Biden campaign.
[02:57:45] Unknown:
She ain't right.
[02:57:49] Unknown:
Rachel Ray.
[02:57:52] Unknown:
I heard that she likes little kids. I yield.
[02:57:58] Unknown:
Uh-oh.
[02:58:02] Unknown:
Yeah. Well woah. Damn. Drop my stapler. I'm keeping this here list.
[02:58:23] Unknown:
Is that a physical list or a data list?
[02:58:27] Unknown:
It's a physical list. Oh. Let's see if Amazon's on it.
[02:58:34] Unknown:
If you can, find a way to scan it in, I'd like a copy of that. I want to ask my corporate
[02:58:47] Unknown:
Amazon, supported BLM, Antifa, NAACP, Equal Justice Initiative, Second Amendment, anti First Amendment, and donated to Biden. Amazon did that.
[02:59:02] Unknown:
Good grief. Still the richest guy in the world. What? He made a billion something in one day during COVID? Yeah. Something like that.
[02:59:17] Unknown:
Yep. Something like that there. Bezos.
[02:59:22] Unknown:
What a bozo.
[02:59:25] Unknown:
Yeah. Bezos the bozo. Yep.
[02:59:35] Unknown:
Well, we can't forget Diddy. Diddy took out some PPP loans during COVID too. Millions. Matter of fact, the billionaire, asking for millions for COVID.
[02:59:49] Unknown:
Right. Well, that's because he had to buy all he had to pay the invoice for all that baby oil.
[03:00:03] Unknown:
Oh my god. Coming to you. Coming to you.
[03:00:17] Unknown:
Oh, come on. Unbelievable.
[03:00:47] Unknown:
Hey, Paul. I swear you got more issues than Sports Illustrated.
[03:00:53] Unknown:
I do.
[03:00:55] Unknown:
Just getting bored, National Geographic.
[03:00:59] Unknown:
But, thankfully, I don't have the swimsuit edition. Comprehensive boycotted companies list, two one twenty twenty one. You know what? I probably didn't have this electronically and printed it because it looks kinda clean for, I might actually have it on my computer somewhere. Maybe.
[03:02:02] Unknown:
Now they call people who break the union line and go to work when they're striking. Scam. What do what do we yes. Scam. But what do we call them? What do we yes. Scam. But what do we call, people who know they need to boycott somebody, but they still patronize the the ones that are supposed to boycott? What do we call them? Me.
[03:02:32] Unknown:
You still have to do what you gotta do if somebody's yelling at me.
[03:02:38] Unknown:
You gotta get what you gotta get. You gotta do what you gotta do.
[03:02:42] Unknown:
Yeah. It's called the law of necessity.
[03:02:46] Unknown:
Yeah. But Well, what I do speak to? I I boycott, divest, and sanction, but there's this one company that has this one park, and they're the only game in town. And I opt to get that part and that part only.
[03:03:07] Unknown:
Yeah. I mean, I may I may support some a company on the boycott list, but I feel just terrible about it afterwards. Just terrible. Just terrible.
[03:03:23] Unknown:
I'm still doing it. To defeat. I'm gonna use it to defeat them.
[03:03:31] Unknown:
So Oh, there you go. Yeah. I I I may do it, but I'll feel awful about it afterwards.
[03:03:43] Unknown:
Yep.
[03:03:45] Unknown:
And I really try and look, you know, to see if a company is like that. And I, I passed out a list a while ago of companies that were unfriendly to the two way.
[03:03:59] Unknown:
Yep. Well, this list this list is, oh, probably, I don't know. I don't even know if I can count the pages. It's probably 20 pages printed both sides.
[03:04:23] Unknown:
I don't I don't magnify.
[03:04:28] Unknown:
Okay. Three m Corporation, seven eleven, twenty twenty vision, twenty three and me, twenty hour, twenty four hour fitness, seventy two and sunny, and pizza, a and m records, a and p, aARP, AbbVie, Abbey Road Studios, Abbott Laboratories, ABC, Activision, Blizzard, Adidas, Adobe Inc, AIG, Airbnb, Alaska Airlines, Allied Van Lines, and that is just page one.
[03:05:06] Unknown:
Oh, if we could just figure how to use federal reserves to get rid of the federal reserve.
[03:05:16] Unknown:
There was a book back in the early two thousands, Joyce Riley, highlighted, called rating your own corporate conscience. And it
[03:05:29] Unknown:
had, you know, friendly companies.
[03:05:39] Unknown:
Let's see.
[03:05:40] Unknown:
There there was a a great documentary characteristics of psychopaths, I yield. Mhmm.
[03:06:05] Unknown:
Well, if you listen to Mike Gaddy. A lot of these companies. I guess they have a profile they meet or, try and go by for hiring their management. And a good many of them are psychopaths.
[03:06:28] Unknown:
Question? I know we were talking about taxes earlier.
[03:06:36] Unknown:
Yes.
[03:06:38] Unknown:
Does anyone know the name of the form to get sales tax exempt in states that one shops? Somebody said they they you could use your passport number, file file some kind of form.
[03:06:52] Unknown:
Yeah. You just go to the retailer and you say, I need a pack a tax exempt application form. And when, and in the spot for the tax ID number, you put your passport number.
[03:07:07] Unknown:
Okay. The number that's on the passport or passport card?
[03:07:11] Unknown:
Oh, I don't know for sure. Pick one. Okay. They're both they're both attributed to you. I would I would do the, passport
[03:07:23] Unknown:
card, maybe. The one under the one underneath the picture?
[03:07:29] Unknown:
Yeah. I believe so.
[03:07:31] Unknown:
Okay. There's several different numbers. Can can it be a passport number from a regular passport before you became a national, or does it have to be one that has that has the a passport number that when when applied for the passport, affidavit of of what's included.
[03:07:52] Unknown:
It's the nine digit number. Your tax your your passport your passport card ID number, nine digits like your social.
[03:08:05] Unknown:
Let me let me ask you let me ask you a qualifying question. Do you have any passport that has an affidavit associated with it?
[03:08:18] Unknown:
No.
[03:08:19] Unknown:
Then don't. Because you're a citizen of The United States and and claiming to be tax exempt using a, a passport number that claims you're a citizen of The United States, you would be committing tax fraud.
[03:08:33] Unknown:
Oh, okay. Tax evasion. May I? May I?
[03:08:37] Unknown:
Yeah. Go ahead.
[03:08:40] Unknown:
There is a way that you can you don't have to use your passport if you haven't changed over to a national. And I I'm trying to figure this out, but there's a type of a state number that you can get off of the IRS website that you can use in lieu of a passport number. And I would recommend this go ahead. EIN.
[03:09:02] Unknown:
EIN. Yeah. Employer identification
[03:09:04] Unknown:
number. Or it might be a TIN, a taxable identification number or trust identification number. I'm not sure, but, it's not your Social Security number. And I would recommend that you go to your department of revenue services and just search or use Google or Yandex and search for sales sales and use tax resale certificate. Put that in, punch that in, and see if you can pull something else something up. And then for how you're registered or engaged, just check the box other and put a religious organization down there. I yield.
[03:09:51] Unknown:
Paul Butler. Thanks, Julie. You you mentioned you go to some office and you get a, tax exempt form.
[03:09:59] Unknown:
I would Google this. I think you can pull it down off the Internet. I would Google your state, whatever state you're in, Department of Revenue Services, or just just Google sales and youth tax retail certificate.
[03:10:13] Unknown:
Yeah. I got a full tax sale or exemption.
[03:10:17] Unknown:
Go ahead, Paul.
[03:10:18] Unknown:
I don't think you'd wanna do that because the resale the resale certificate puts you on their books as somebody that is buying things tax free because you're gonna be reselling at a higher retail value. Therefore, the tax that you'll be collecting would be greater than the tax that you would pay. I mean, they just putting yourself on the freaking radar that way would not be good. Just go to the damn retailer and say, I need a tax exempt application form and just either put a TIN on it or put your passport number on it. Give it back to them. And then they will put you in their system as being tax exempt.
[03:11:02] Unknown:
You don't got it. So every teller has has one of those?
[03:11:06] Unknown:
Yeah. They should. They're doing business.
[03:11:10] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay.
[03:11:13] Unknown:
Yeah. I I I sure as hell wouldn't fill out a tax a resale certificate. Hell no.
[03:11:20] Unknown:
Absolutely not. It didn't look like that. Yeah. It didn't look like it was, that was the right one.
[03:11:27] Unknown:
So, Paul, you said hang on. Yeah. So, Paul, you said go to the store that you're buying groceries or, clothes or whatever from and ask them for a tax exempt what?
[03:11:42] Unknown:
Application. Application. Yeah. Just ask them for a tax exempt application form. Then I have to get And they may call it something different, but they're but they're gonna know that the tax exempt form is whatever form that they're gonna use.
[03:11:58] Unknown:
They're gonna know that. To be a national in order for you to be tax exempt, though.
[03:12:03] Unknown:
Absolutely. You have to be a national. If you attempt to be if you attempt to claim to be tax exempt when you're not tax exempt, well, I suppose I can bake you a cake with a file in it, but you're not gonna wanna eat the cake because I'm not that good a baker.
[03:12:22] Unknown:
Oh, and then did you say I have to give a TIN with it with that tax exempt app application?
[03:12:30] Unknown:
Well, you can get an EIN from the IRS. You can get a TIN, which I thought was a taxpayer identification number. It could it could stand for trust identification
[03:12:45] Unknown:
number. I don't That would be a TPN.
[03:12:51] Unknown:
Or a t p I n, a taxpayer.
[03:12:54] Unknown:
That's two words.
[03:12:56] Unknown:
Well, I have a question for you. I I have a question for you. How much do you buy?
[03:13:04] Unknown:
Not much.
[03:13:07] Unknown:
So so you're you're talking about anywhere between 812% paying, sales tax.
[03:13:15] Unknown:
Right? Principal. Right? It's the principal. Right?
[03:13:19] Unknown:
Yeah. Okay. Well, people have also been locked up on principal.
[03:13:25] Unknown:
Okay. So what were you saying then? If you don't buy much if you don't buy much, then just pay it?
[03:13:35] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. If you don't buy much, I would I would just pay it. Now somebody that buys a bunch of stuff has a lot more money than me to buy shit. Maybe. Fine.
[03:13:50] Unknown:
I don't know. I'm thinking got it.
[03:13:53] Unknown:
When I think about it it would probably only make a $25 difference in what in in my available funds in a month.
[03:14:06] Unknown:
Okay.
[03:14:10] Unknown:
Thank you, dear.
[03:14:12] Unknown:
Oh, you're welcome. It's what I live for. Okay. That's a hundred and 19 k. Let's see. I'm looking for I'm searching, Buku, Noah has Boycott Everything by Miles Mathis. Okay. I'm searching Buku terabytes of data for, for anything that has to do with boycott. I'm looking.
[03:14:45] Unknown:
Boycott. So for me I would I would say if we're men, we should be mancodding, not boycotting.
[03:15:00] Unknown:
She hits I it's really gotta be time to take the radio station down. You know, it's just you know, it's it's very considering you're getting into a weird area here.
[03:15:13] Unknown:
Hey, Dave. Yeah. Okay, Murr.
[03:15:17] Unknown:
Okay, Murr.
[03:15:18] Unknown:
Yeah. No kidding. What?
[03:15:22] Unknown:
My name, Cody.
[03:15:29] Unknown:
Twenty twenty one comprehensive boycott companies list. A comprehensive list of companies. What kind of investment incentives? Ethical consumers. Yes. This is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Amazon, Booking dot com.
[03:16:23] Unknown:
Annette. Annette, what were you gonna say?
[03:19:33] Unknown:
Okay. Well, might as well take the station down. So let's do that. Thanks for joining us for the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales, the Wednesday edition for 03/05/2025. Catches tomorrow for the Thursday edition of the radio range from 11AM to 1PM eastern on eurofolkradio.com, Global Voice Radio Network, and radiosoapbox.com. For more information on the topics discussed, please go to the matrixdocs.com. You can click on the downloadable resources, interviews, court sites, exhibits, radio streams. Oh my goodness. You can just click on a bunch of stuff there. Pack a lunch? Stay the day. Thanks for joining us. We'll catch you back here tomorrow, 11AM on the Radio Ranch with Roger Sales.
Bye. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
[03:20:36] Unknown:
Bye bye, boys. Have fun storming the castle.
[03:20:43] Unknown:
Forward moving and focused on freedom. You're listening to the Global Voice Radio Network.
Introduction and Program Overview
Technical Issues and Broadcast Details
Personal Stories and Anecdotes
Discussion on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
Slaughterhouse Cases and Historical Context
Political Status and Citizenship Debate
Reconstruction and Civil War Implications
Historical Football Anecdote
Southern Identity and Cultural Reflections
Dred Scott Decision and Its Impact
John Eastman on Birthright Citizenship
Analysis of Eastman's Arguments
Trusts and Estate Planning Discussion
Open Floor for Questions and Comments
