Episode 34: Day 25 Full Episode of Carl Miller

Evening folks. I want to thank you for inviting me into your home tonight to talk to you about an extremely important issue to you. I, I basically, uh, uh, am here to talk about the United States Constitution and our government and some of the principles that, uh, you need to understand most thoroughly so that you can have an effective opportunity to exercise your constitutional rights.

The whole purpose of this is that you understand that these, these rights come from God. Okay? That they are God-inspired. God is the one who, who endowed us with these rights, and that this Constitution merely, uh, offers a legitimate program to protect that all of us can have the rights equally. And, and as long as we respect our neighbor and allow them also to have the rights equally, the, the protections are, are going to last forever. And, and the reality is that we are going to get thoroughly into your Constitution. We want you to find a Constitution wherever you can, and we are going to basically take you step by step through some of the most important parts of this Constitution so that you can better exercise your rights in a timely fashion.

Now, the facts are simple. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any rights. And that's just the way it is. And if you certainly couldn't exercise those rights timely if you don't know what they are. So, what's going to happen is they're going to tell you what your rights are. And do you think they're going to tell you in your favor? Certainly not.

Now, we've come a long way to put this program on to help you. By the way, my name is Carl Miller. I want to thank you again for inviting me into your home. We're going to proceed with vigor. Uh, I should tell you a few things about me that I'm a prior service soldier. I served three combat tours, Republic of Vietnam. I should tell you that I was a participant in the top secret project called Blue Book where the officers in the jungle smelled a rat in the wood pile, and they decided to pull their, their top soldiers aside and they said, "Come on over here. Let's come on over here. We want to talk to you." And they took their top soldiers in the corner and they started teaching them things like duty, honor, country, pride in the corps. They taught us history. They taught us all kind of programming as far as what's going on in our government. They taught us the Constitution. We had to be able to rattle the Constitution off just like we would any manual of arms. And this all took place to totally top secret so that we wouldn't offend any chains of command or any, uh, presidential problems similar to what, uh, happened between General MacArthur. The bottom line is, uh, this was taken totally upon their own, shall we say, careers to pull this thing off. And they, this happened all throughout a lot of the military services in Vietnam. Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, we all, they all pulled aside their best people and they started putting everything on and teaching us our Constitution.

So, I'm going to try and instill in you that flame that was instilled in me over 25 years ago, in which I have been, I have been transferring ever since. I have been fighting tooth and nail to defend the Constitution. I have helped thousands and thousands and thousands of other people do the same. I teach people how to be their own counsel to stand up in courts of law and be able to exercise their constitutional rights in a timely and effective manner. And, uh, the good Lord willing, I'll be able to keep doing that. So, why don't we, uh, right now try and get into some parts of the Constitution?

The most important thing that I can teach you about this Constitution is the importance of reading it. You must read the Constitution and understand what physically is involved. You must know your rights and timely assert them. That is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called latches incurs. Latches is a legal term which is defined as, as latches is a species of action where in a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law and having failed to timely do so loses all right to proceed. So, what is actually happening out there, folks, is that latches is incurring because most people don't read their Constitution and know what's involved. So then you are left to being told, "Well, that's what it means." Okay? So you just got to do what you got to do and you're told. And, and they're going to tell you in favor of them. They're not going to tell you in favor of you. So it's better for you to read the book and understand what's in it. It's not a very big book. I, I highly recommend the book. I, you can get several versions. Uh, a lot of times you contact your congressman. My congressman, Dominic Vincentini, state senator, supplied this one for me. Uh, John, a libertarian candidate, has supplied several also. Uh, some of these folks, uh, just check with your local, uh, congressman or state rep. A lot of times you can, they'll just give you one. If you cannot find one, go down to your United States, uh, government building here in the Detroit vicinity. We, it's called the McIver building on the first floor. And, uh, what we do then is we, uh, go into the government printing office and usually they're about a buck. But I highly recommend you go get one. I, I don't leave home without mine. I usually have three or four of them someplace. And I hand them out also myself. I give them out to whoever. I, I think one of the most kindest things I can do to a person is give them this book and show them how it works. This book is kind of like a genie in a bottle. If you know how to stroke this book, I'm telling you, the genie comes out and it usually with a force that, that you will be clearly recognized in any court and land.

Now, that doesn't mean it'll be easy. You might have to work a little bit. But basically, there's an argument and it comes like this: If I violate your rights, you may or may not know about it. If you know about it, you may or may not be able to do something about it. If you do have an ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to, to go to a finished program. If you do have the, the financial wherewithal, you may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to a finished program. So, most of the time, your governments and your, your abusive personalities in government or your corporations, uh, pretty much have card to, to injure you because in 99.9% of the cases, nobody, most people will not proceed. But every now and then you run into that one hard nut and he doesn't quit or she doesn't quit till the cows come home. And what happens is that person will prevail. And those are the people that are actually generating better protections and better constitutional rights for you. Those are the ones that are going to the Supreme Courts and the courts of appeals and what have you, that are pushing, that are spending their live funds to allow you to have the benefit. But if you aren't there to catch the benefit, then you, you, the benefit is lost.

So, we're going to get right into the Constitution. We're going to teach you some things about it. Pay attention 'cause we're really doing this out of an act of love for you. And we're hoping to God you're going to pick up on it. And pay attention. Okay. Now, I'm going to put one Constitution down here so the folks can see it. I will open this up from time to time to demonstrate things to you. I will basically try and read out of another Constitution so that we can better show you some of the things that are involved.

Now, it's important that you understand that this Constitution is in writing. It's important that you understand that it is a legal document, okay? That it was ratified by all of the members in a Congress together, right? And that that document can be, you can get all the signatures on the document. Okay? And it's important that you understand that there was an offer. Government offered to govern. There was a consideration. The citizens considered how they were going to be governed, and government promised that they would govern by Constitution, and there was an agreement. The citizens agreed that if government promised there would be government by Constitution, that they would agree to allow the Constitution into force.

Now, there's a unique situation here. It's very rare when you find the party of the first part, which is the congressmen, officers of the government, who are also parties of the second part as representatives of "We the People," the Republic. And when they signed the document, they signed the document as officers of government agreeing to the Constitution, and simultaneously as officers of representatives of the people in the republican form of government. And when they signed that document, that constituted an ironclad contract in writing, enforceable in a court of law pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Here in the state of Michigan, that's 566.132 Michigan Compiled Laws Act, which basically states anything in writing is enforceable in court of law pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Now, all we're asking is that they enforce the contract. We want them to enforce the contract. In other words, if we read something in here and we got a good reason for why we believe it's the way it is, then they should honor that. And they should honor it in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. But I'll get into that a little later.

Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. This is called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Located at Article Six. Everybody see that? Paragraph 2, which is going to start right here. And I'm going to read it to you. Okay? And basically, what it says is this: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary or notwithstanding." When they say notwithstanding, that means notwithstanding in law. That means that's a legal definition. Notwithstanding means notwithstanding in law.

Now, a very important case: Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137. It's recorded at volume five, right here. It's an 1803 case. Marbury versus Madison. It's recorded in volume 5, page 137. Now, basically, what this case states, and, and I'm telling you right now, if you want to use a case to cite for any purpose in court, you have to read the case. If you haven't read the case, you haven't read the case and formed a basis upon which a logical determination in your mind could have been reached to form an opinion as to why you should do what you're going to do, then the judge will throw your case out. So, read your cases. Don't just quote cases because that won't, you won't win. If the judge ever pins you down and starts asking you some merits of the case, and you can't even understand what the case is about, nine times out of ten, he's just going to throw your case in the, in the, in the can. So, make sure you read the case.

This is one of the leading cases in the history of the United States of America. The opinion of the court was given by the Honorable Judge John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His opinion was, anything that is in conflict is null and void of law. Clearly, he said that for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical. For certainly, the supreme law would prevail over all other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce. It would bear no obligation to obey. It would purport to settle as if it never existed. For unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law.

Now, let me give you an example in today's timing as to how effective this is. This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady Bill. It nullifies the crime bill. It takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turned into 159 weapons. It, uh, stops this 666 bill that just went through that they're trying to take away the Fourth Amendment. You see, because they have no power to pass a law that's in conflict with the United States Constitution, and it's automatically null and void of law from its inception, not from the date you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional. Now, I want to get that real clear. A lot of people think that they got to go to court and brand it unconstitutional. I'm here to tell you, if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time you will win. Every now and then you run into a hard nose, but I'll show you how to deal with him, too. Okay? But for now, I want everybody that's got a chance to go out to learn your Constitution, your Article 6, Paragraph 2 of your Constitution. I want you to, to pay attention to what's going on here, learn to read about this Marbury versus Madison case.

I want to show you this right here is an example of what is called Shepard Citations. Shepard Citations is a group of reporters that go through and keep track of all the court cases that have come before the courts, especially the Supreme Court. And they clarify before the court all of the cases. Each one of these little numbers here represents somebody hiring a lawyer and going to the Supreme Court. Every one of these, there's nine pages of these folks, almost 200 years worth. It goes against this case, Marbury versus Madison. And I want to tell you, this case is still supreme law of the land. If it wasn't, you would see O's in here where it was overturned. Okay? You don't see any O's. There aren't any O's. That means the case is standing. There'd be an O in this column right next to here. You don't see any O's because there's no case that could come up against this case. That's how strong this case is, folks. Now, this is nine pages each. This is two pages each. There's nine pages of this. This represents, if I was to def, to, to try and teach you what this represents. If I was building a wall from here to the moon out of bricks, that's what that would mean in legal terms because that's how solid this case is.

So, it's very important that you understand your Constitution is an ironclad contract in writing, enforceable in the court of law. It's very important that you understand Article 6, Paragraph 2, the Supremacy Clause, which says the Constitution and the laws in pursuance thereof and the treaties made which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, that judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in conflict or repugnancy is null and void of law, bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed, unconstitutionality dates from the act, that no courts are bound to uphold it, no citizens are bound to obey it. Now, that is one of the most important lessons that I can teach you on the Constitution so, so that you can understand how strong this document is.

And when I go to the law library and I hit some of these law libraries, it's wall-to-wall books, folks. I mean, it's like I take people down there and their chins are on the ground. And then I tell them, there's three floors of this place just like this, filled to the brim with books and books. And did you know that in every one of those cases, this little book right here, this one right here, folks, controls every single book in that law library? Every single one. Every single book in that law library is controlled by this little book. So, can you understand how important it is for you to know what's in this little book so that you can effectively call on that kind of a commanding knowledge? Okay. It is absolutely vital that you get a hold of one of these books and start learning it and don't let anybody take away your constitutional rights. You cannot, you can't even give your constitutional rights away. You have to voluntarily acquiesce by signing a document on a Miranda release form. That's how hard it is to give away your constitutional rights. We don't want you to give away any of your rights. We want you to know these rights backward, forward, upside down, another. We want you to be able to rattle them off. Our soldiers could do it. And they did it with with the great love in their heart and the pride and the and the duty that they hold in their heart. And they swore on a sacred oath that they defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that they perform their duties to the best of their ability. So help them, God. And by God, they do both in the service and out of the service. Okay? We defend the Constitution to the death. We never surrender. We are soldiers above all, and we love our country and our flag and our Constitution. We are what the, the term is under the, the military code of conduct. "I am an American fighting soldier. I serve the forces which guard my country and this constitutional way of government. I am prepared to give my life if necessary in defense of that Constitution." And that's exactly what we're going to do. So, I want you to pay attention. A lot of brave soldiers have died to pay for this book so that you could have the right. And the least you could do for your own self's sake is to learn what's in this book and be able to argue effectively what's in this book. You would be amazed how many times you can win if you just have this book and know what's in it. We're going to go into some other arguments here. We're going to try and show you how to really effectively use this book.

Okay, now that everybody's got that in hand, the next thing we're going to start teaching you is things like about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is one of the biggies that everybody talks about today and the one that gets railroaded probably the most. The next is the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Okay? But the Second Amendment is one of the most vital amendments here because our forefathers had such an important understanding of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That was the first amendment. But they turned around and realized that without the right to protect that first right, they didn't have that right. So the Second Amendment, they, they instituted the right of the people to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Now, they started out by saying, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the maintenance of a free state." Okay? Isn't that a true statement, folks? A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. That's just a true statement. So is oranges are orange. That's why they call them oranges. Okay. But that doesn't have any legal precedence in theory. The most important part about that Second Amendment is it says, "The right of the people." And the Supreme Court has ruled in hundreds of cases that whenever it says "the right of the people," it means the right of each and every single citizen to possess the right equally. Now, a lot of guys like to hand out this manila that, "Well, that's a collective right. You got to be a member of the militia." That's all who done. You don't have to be a member of the militia. All you have to do is be an American. You have the right, the right to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Now, you will note after "infringed" there is no sub-paragraph A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which would stipulate as to what would be an acceptable infringement. So, all infringement is forbidden. Now, who says so? You say so. Do you see that? Does everybody see that? You say so. Who are you? I'm an American, and I'm telling you, you're infringing my rights. You're stealing my rights. I, I, I claim infringement. I claim encroachment. I claim impingement. I claim eucipation. I claim you're stealing my right. 'Cause that's what they're doing. And I ask them, "What is it you don't understand about the word infringement?" 'Cause that's exactly what it says when you look in Black's Law Dictionary. That's another thing I want to bring up. You want to talk to these people in court, you want to get a hold of one of these books right here about Black's Law Dictionary. You would be absolutely amazed what's in Black's Law Dictionary. This is the exact words that you need to be able to definitively define the word game problem that we are having with these people today. They like to keep changing the words. But guess what? The words in this book are the words that were written when we were in the Constitution when it was signed. And the definitions that are in this book are enforceable in a court of law. You can bring this book into court and pull it open and say, "This is the one, judge." And they got to listen. And that's the way it is. So, for sure, if you're going to be in this, go down to one of your bookstores, uh, whichever you may have in your area, Barnes & Noble or any one of the dozens of decent bookstores, and get a copy of Black's Law Dictionary. You need that to be in this because this is kind of like, uh, defining the map of how to get from A to B. You have to have this book to be able to pull it out so that you can turn around and tell them, "Hey, don't trample my rights. I take a real deal with view." Another good book you can pick up on the Constitution is this, this American Constitution put out by West Publishing Company. This goes into a whole lot of widened arguments as to your Constitution.

Now, after I'm finished talking to you, you're going to have a new concept of Constitution and how it works. You're going to understand that it's what you say it is. If you got an honest trade, I'll give you a perfect example. Now, the First Amendment basically talks about the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, right? But isn't the right to work part of the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Got a right to work, right? Contract your labor, your skill, and your time of life as you see fit, right? Does that make sense to you? That's a First Amendment right. Another First Amendment right would be the right to travel freely unencumbered. See, no state can require you to have a license to travel freely on. And we'll go into that and show you how that is, is taken care of. Okay.

The bottom line is you need to learn as much as you absolutely possibly can in the shortest possible time about your Constitution because I'm telling you right now as we speak, they are trying to curtail that Constitution and take away rights that you have that have been given to you from your forefathers. There's only one thing that's going to stop that. Well, maybe two. There's two things. The first thing that's going to stop that is if all of us get together, get a hold of one of these books and start shaking it and say, "Whoa, horsey, we're not letting you take away that Constitution. This is America. We got an American flag on a pole out front. Last time I checked, this is the United States of America. We got a Constitution here and you ain't touching that Constitution." So, you call up that Bill McCollum in Washington and you tell him he's the guy that sponsored that 666 bill to take away the Fourth Amendment right to have a search warrant. You get a hold of him, and I'll give you his number later on in the speech here. And you call that joker up and you say, "Sir, what is it you don't understand about your oath of office? I'd kind of like you to leave the Constitution alone. A matter of fact, we'd like you to make it stronger than it is, not take nothing away from it. Period. And we resent the hell out of you taking an oath of office to protect the Constitution. And we put you in office, and the first thing you do when you get in there is try and scuttle the Constitution and flush it down the toilet. We're not going to put up with that stuff. We want you to understand that real clearly."

The second way we can do it is if necessary and proper, our militias can come together and decide to tell these people that are given aid and comfort to the enemies of our country by breaking down our laws that you have broken the law of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2381, which says that in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law, if you failed to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction, you will be taken by the posse to the nearest and busiest intersection at high noon by until dead. The body to remain in state until dust as an example to anyone who takes their oath of office lightly. You see, without that oath of office, this Constitution is worthless. That's why we have you take that oath of office so that we know you will honor this oath of office and that you will keep our Constitution. We don't want anybody taking our Constitution away. And we're here to tell you right now, don't do it. We'll take a damn view of it. We probably will charge you, and we're not fooling around. Okay.

Now, let's get into some other things in the Constitution. The bottom line here is you have to know to be able to exercise your Constitution. The most important parts about your Constitution are in your first 10 amendments. Okay? Obviously, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed, and that right shall not be infringed. You must claim your right if you want to have it. You have to be willing to do that. And if they are going to take your right, then you have to be willing to challenge them whatever it costs. Now, the bottom line is any law that comes in conflict with that, what do we talk about in Article 6, Paragraph 2? If any law shall come in conflict with this, the supreme law, what happens? It's null and void of law. It bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. Unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law, not from any date so branded in open court of law. So, what happened to the Brady Bill, folks? Cancelled. Due to lack of interest. Okay. What happened to the crime bill with the gun infringements? If any portion of the bill be unconstitutional, the whole bill is unconstitutional. Because why? Repugnancy. Okay. It's repugnant to the United States Constitution. It's null and void of law. Bears no power to enforce. No obligation to obey. Purports to settle as if it ever existed. Which case said so? Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. That's how important that case is. That's why you got to go down to your law library and read. Okay. But Marbury versus Madison is extremely important. It's important that you be able to read the case, understand what they're talking about.

Now, other cases that are involved are your rights to due process, like under your Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, right? "The right of the people to be secure in their houses. The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized." And obviously, that would imply, that would imply, that would imply that he'd gone before a judge and said, "This is the guy. He did it. This is the crime that was done, and this is the evidence we're looking for, judge, and we'd like to get a warrant, and we're swearing everything we told you is the God's truth." And then they can come over and they can search till freezes over. Okay? Does that sound logical to you? Now, that's what Bill 666 is trying to throw out. They don't want you to have that right anymore.

Now, it's important for you to immediately jump to the Ninth Amendment. What does the Ninth Amendment say? "Enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Now, basically, what that means in simplest of terms, Congress has no authority to add onto the Constitution in such a way that would take away rights previously guaranteed. What seems to be Mr. McCollum's problem? Does he not read the King's English? Excuse me. Simply spoken, he has no authority to pass this 666 bill. The Congress had no authority to pass this Brady Bill. They had no authority to pass this crime bill because it clearly infringed on the United States Constitution. I don't care how noble the issue it was. I don't care how learned the people claim to be. They weren't learned enough because if they were learned, they would have understood the Ninth Amendment forbids adding on to the Constitution by any laws whatsoever that takes away rights that are previously guaranteed.

Let's go on. Let's hit the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States." What is there? What are they talking about here? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." See, this is a limited contract. This contract is designed to limit government. And when you get into your police powers, you start understanding your police powers. Almost. You'll hear this all the time. "Well, we have police powers." Broad and sweeping police powers. You look up Black's Law Dictionary, police powers. It says the law of eminent domain of a state or political subdivision to enact laws for the common good and welfare and curb crime. And in great big black letters, it says, "Within constitutional limitations." See the Tenth Amendment. Well, when they're talking about "see the Tenth Amendment," this is the Tenth Amendment they're talking about. Now, do they have powers to take away previous rights guaranteed under the Constitution? The answer is obviously no, they don't. Obviously, the Ninth Amendment sets a clear limit on that. What is it these guys don't understand about their Constitution? They pass these Brady Bills. They pass these crime bills. They pass these 666 bills to take away your Fourth Amendment right requiring a search warrant. What is it that they don't understand about the locks on the Constitution?

Now, do you see how wise our forefathers were? They knew. They knew history, and they knew that history repeats itself if people forget it. So what they did is they set a standard very importantly toward the end of the contract that clearly stipulated exactly what limits would be there. You see, and it clearly stipulated that no powers existed to take away rights that were previously guaranteed. So how, therefore, is this being done? I'll tell you how it's being done. Because they want to, and they're not doing it by law. Now, why are they getting away with it? 'Cause most of the people don't know any better. And if you don't know your rights and you don't timely assert them, latches incurs, being a species of action, wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law, and having failed to timely do so loses our right to proceed. So by you acquiescing, by not jumping up and saying, "Hey, hold the line, Chester. You ain't touching that Fourth Amendment. You aren't touching that Second Amendment. We're not putting up with that stuff. You took an oath of office, we're going to hold you to it. You violate that oath of office, we're going to charge you with capital felony treason under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2381." What difference does it make if they're in open rebellion against the United States or if they're breaking down the laws creating a rebellion? Isn't that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country? It most certainly is. And it's called sedition. Treason by sedition. Okay. Now, we got to start collaring these guys and telling them, "Hey, what is it you don't understand about the Constitution and your oath of office? We're going to clearly correct that in the short interim, and if you don't want to fix it, we will remove you." And that's our duty and our responsibility.

Now, when Benjamin Franklin walked out of all of the hearings to set up this Constitution, a lady reporter walked up to him and asked him, "What is it we have now?" And he turned to her and told her, "We have a republic, if we can keep it." Obviously, the burden is on us to make sure we keep it. So, I'm asking you to get a hold of one of these Constitutions and let's plan on keeping it. All right.

Now, let's get into some more of the arguments on the Constitution. Your Fifth Amendment. Let's pull up your Fifth Amendment. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That's your equal protection clause. You have an equal right to all of your rights under the law. And you have a right to due process of law. Matter of fact, if they don't give you due process of law, Title 5, United States Code, Section 556D, is clear and specific, and it says if they deny you due process of the law, all jurisdiction ceases automatically. That's, that's Title 5, United States Code, Section 556D, also 557, and Section 706 of that code. In other words, if they deny you due process at any time and you can prove it, you can, you can force a showdown and you can turn around and say, "Well, they might have had jurisdiction at one time, judge, but they lost it when they denied me due process." All right. Now, the other parts are, "nor shall any person be subject to the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. You know how many times do you hear about that today? I mean, it's incredible.

The Sixth Amendment is another important one. All of them are important, but there are more important ones. All right. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him." That's the right to confront your accusers. "To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." That's the subpoena rights. "And to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Or you can stand as your own counsel. And I know they tell you that it's a fool that stands as his own counsel, but it's my argument that it's a fool that doesn't, because I'll tell you why. You know your case better than you, better than anybody. How many times do you hear about gripes between attorneys and the citizens? The biggest gripe they have was, "Well, he never said nothing about that," or "She never said nothing about that." Well, she didn't do this, or she didn't do that. Well, why? Because they don't know the case as good as you do. You're the one that knows your best case. The only thing they know is how to apply the law. So, all I'm telling you is learn how to apply the law and your constitutional rights, and then you don't need to do that. The only time you get into trouble is if you run your mouth too much and you get into self-incrimination. So obviously, you have to keep your wits about you and watch your mouth. But the bottom line is, actually, I personally believe you're the best person to present the facts of your case, 'cause you're the best person that knows all the facts. The only thing you know how to do is how to actually do it in a legal and lawful manner that is recognized by the legal community. And that's really not hard to learn. I can teach you. Believe me. All right.

The Seventh Amendment. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, because the jury is the ultimate trier of fact." Then according to the rules of the common law. Now, we'll get into that common law argument. There's a lot of heavy arguments around that common law. Basically, I don't want to overwhelm you on the first time out of the shoot because that's not hard to do. Okay.

Now, the bottom law line of this Constitution is it's all in writing. It clearly represents a contract. I'm asking you to learn your contract. I'm asking you to learn the book. Learn your contract. I mean, when you go to some place to do some work on your car, you read the document that comes with it for the warranty, don't you? Why? Because just in case something goes wrong, you want to be able to bring it back, right? Well, I'm asking you to read the warranty on your Constitution so that you can understand the rights that you have under that Constitution so that if you don't get it right, we can bring it back. Does that make sense to you? All right.

Now, it's also important that you understand that this Constitution is a very unique document, that this Constitution is supposed to be enforced. And I'm going to teach you some things here right now. This right here is representation. I know it's kind of hard to see here, but basically, what we're talking about here is this comes from the books that tell the judge how, right here and over here. This comes and tells the judge how the Constitution is to be interpreted. This is from the Am Jur Prudence volumes, and this is volume 16. You want the Constitutional Law section, right here, Constitutional Law, and you want Section 97. And when you start reading it, the most important part about it, and I'll read it, is that "A constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen. It is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property." Can you see that? Can you all see that? They're coming up right here over more. Okay. All right. "To safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property." See note 31. And *Brie v. United States*, 273 U.S. 28, and all of these 40 Supreme Court cases hold that axiom. In other words, it's supposed to be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protection of rights and property. And a constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. 32. But on 32, the *Jammer v. Hospital Authority of Albany*, and all of these cases. Okay, can you see that? I'm just trying to tell you. You can go look this up and you can better see it. Let's do that over again. "And a constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." Similarly, "a provision intended to afford a remedy to those who have just claims should receive a beneficial construction for the purpose of extending the remedy to all who might fairly come within the meaning of the terms." And that's *Ryder v. Fitchy of Ohio*, a Supreme Court case. Okay, that's note number 33. Okay, now this comes out of 16 Jurist Prudence. In other words, I have this Constitution. This Constitution is a contract in writing, enforceable in court of law pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. I'm asking for specific performance, your Honor, in favor of me. I am the beneficiary of the contract. There's also a basic premise in contract law, basic contract law 101 of any first-year law student that says the contract shall be enforced most favorably in favor of the non-preparer. And that's you. You didn't prepare it. Now, if you believe honestly that you have a right and you can timely bring that right before a proper adjudicated authority and you can clearly stipulate as to what your right was, guess what? They got to listen. That's the way it is. That's the way it's supposed to be. And I'm telling you, if you know your rights and you timely assert those rights, you have those rights. But if you sit on your hunches and you cry out, "It's just terrible. Somebody ought to do something about that." Hey, be a somebody. Do something about it. Don't sit there telling me somebody ought to do something about that. Be a somebody. You do something about it. You honestly got an honest. You go out there and you take care of it. Because that's what it takes to be an American. That's what all, that's what it's all about. That's what being an American is all about. That's what separates you from the rest of the whole world. Because Americans, you don't trample on their rights 'cause they're going to come get you. You do not trample on their rights. They won't put up with it. So, be an American and don't put up with it. Stand up there and be counted.

Now, I want to read the next argument there, which is argument number 98, which basically deals with the effect of an emergency. Argument 98. "While an emergency cannot create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or state constitutions, public emergencies such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers. And it has been declared that because of national exigency, it is the policy of the courts in times of national peril so liberally to construe the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain and effectuate the purpose thereof and to that end also more liberally to construe the constituted division and classification of the powers of the co-ordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the Constitution." Right? In other words, it can't be in conflict with the Constitution to vest extraordinary powers in the chief executive. But I'm telling you, on the other hand, a contention that a grave emergency such as the depression should permit construction of the constitutional provisions which would meet the emergency was rejected. In one case, the court holding that neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in cases of an emergency where the plain and unequivocal terms of the Constitution present no question of construction as to departures in emergencies. So, not even an emergency justifies the taking away of constitutional provisions. And I know you've heard differently. I know you think, "Well, they got an emergency. They just declare an emergency and then the president issues an executive order." But let me ask you, if it's the Republican Constitution of the United States, is it the law? No. Who says so? We do. We're the people. It's our country. It's our Constitution. We're the ones that say you can't do that, and we mean it. You better have a little better listen. All right.

Now, let's get into the next argument here. Now, I hope I'm not boring you to tears here, but it's kind of important that we cover these basic things so that you can understand as to the construction with reference to the common law. An important canon of construction is that constitutions must be construed with reference to the common law. That means the law of the little people out there, not

The corporations. Okay? Since, in most respects, the federal and state constitutions did not repudiate but cherished the established common law, this fact has been taken into consideration by the courts in construing certain clauses in a state constitution, such as the provision securing their right to a jury trial. Also, provisions in regard to crimes have been interpreted with reference to the common law rule that one charged with a crime may be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged. In such cases, the courts of the state always regard the language in the common law sense. So, the common law prevails. Don't let anybody tell you this admiralty law prevails because it only prevails if you get sucked into it. We're not going to let you do that. We're going to teach you how to beat it.

The common law also permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings. Traffic tickets, folks. That's what a traffic ticket does. It is a writ of a system, a bill of the danger. It's unlawful in the United States of America. And it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle. And although there is no common law of the United States in the sense who said so, Area Railroad versus Tompkins. Okay? All right. Of a national customary law, as distinguished from the common law of England adopted in the several states. In interpreting the federal constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the common law of England. It has been said that without reference to this common law, the language of the federal constitution could not be understood. So the common law applies, folks, and we're going to get into that common law heavily in the advanced section. All right. Okay.

Now, let's get back into this. In interpreting the federal constitution adopted by the several states, all right, recourse may still be had to the aid of the common law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the United States Constitution would not be understood. This is due to the fact that this instrument and the plan of government of the United States were founded on the common law as established in England at the time of the revolution. Okay. Therefore, it is the general rule that the phrases in the Bill of Rights taken from the common law must be construed in reference to the latter. Specifically, the United States Supreme Court has taken the common law into consideration in construing the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment provisions relating. All right. So the common law is extremely important that we get, and we will cover that thoroughly. It's important to understand that most of you out there aren't citizens at the common law. That only only those that understand the differences in admiralty and maritime law, those that are corporations, officers of corporations, or officers of government residing in the District of Columbia, the 14th Amendment, the duality of citizenship, which is talked about in the case of Area Railroad versus Tompkins, which is a rather heavy argument, and I will cover that thoroughly with you so that you understand where the traps and the differences are. But for right now, I'm trying to demonstrate to you construction and programming so that you can understand that this constitution right here is the supreme law of the land. It is a contract in writing. It is enforceable in favor of you in an open court of law. You are the beneficiary. Okay?

I want to give you some basic more points on this Am Jur Prudence argument. This is section 114 of the 16th volume of Am Jur Prudence. Second. I'm going to give you a couple more of these sites so that you can understand how powerful a document this is. Okay? By the way, I highly recommend you go down to the law library, grab that 16th volume, Am Jur Prudence. Start at section one and start paging through to section 300. You will absolutely be astounded. We are now in 16th Am Jur Prudence, Second, section 117. And I will read it to you. Basically, various facts and circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to by the courts to aid them in determining its meaning. As previously noted, however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in question is clear and unambiguous. In such a case, the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written, and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument, which that militia argument and that collective law theory of the Second Amendment is. They're reaching. They're reaching far. All right. Clearly, it says in plain English, "The right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed." Now, what is it you don't understand about the word infringed? They're infringing. The Brady Bill, it's infringement. 1968 Gun Control Act, it's infringing. All of these, the CCW acts of these states, they're infringing. Who says so? You do. How shall a document be enforced in favor of who? You. When are you going to enforce it? You're the one that is the the citizen. All power is inherent to people. You're the one with the power. Enforce your power. All right. Does everybody understand that argument? That's the magnificence. I'm bringing the genie out. We're stroking the bottle here. And I'm going to bring the genie out here in a second. You're going to understand the magnificence of the power of this book. You see, once you understand this is an ironclad contract, once you understand that this is enforceable in the court of law pursuant to the statute of frauds, once you understand you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract, "Your Honor, I'm demanding my right to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. I want specific performance. I am the holder of the contract. It's supposed to be enforced in favor of me. I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary of citizen. I want the thing protected in favor of my right." Does that make logical sense to you now? Do you start to understand the power of this document? Okay. See, before, you just thought it was a bunch of writing in some in some uh textbook that you had to take when you took a civics class in high school in the 11th grade. See, I want you to understand that you don't leave home without this. This is more important than your credit card. Okay.

Next, let's get into the next section. I'm going to cover some more of these Am Jur Prudence sections so that you can understand. I want to get into uh section 155. 16th Am Jur Prudence, Second, section 155. Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government, and the judges are sworn to support its provisions. God me sworn as an old sworn. The courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or countenance evasions thereof. It is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences. Thus, it is said that the courts should be and are alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative or otherwise. In accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. If the constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another and a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment. Does everybody understand that? He's they're telling the judge, you got to rule in favor of the constitution. And if you know your constitution, whose favor are they going to rule in? Yours. But you have to have enough hair on your tail feather to walk in there and say, "Hey, I'm an American. And I have a constitutional right. That right shall not be infringed. And you're infringing." And I'm asking you not to do that because it's not nice. And I'm asking the judge to do his duty under a sworn oath of office and uphold the United States Constitution as he swore he would under Article 11, paragraph 1 in this state, which says that he shall swear to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And he will perform his duties to the best of his ability. So help him God. Now let's get closer to "so help him God."

Now let's get into another one of these. We got a load of them, folks. So let's bear with me here. 16th Am Jur Prudence, Second, section 177. Declaratory judgments. Declaratory judgment actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute and government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act makes specific provisions for the determination of construction or validity of statutes in municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statutes and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of assaying the constitutionality of congressional legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the federal or state statute by a single federal judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. You can't enjoin a constitutional right. A court may grant declaratory relief unless there is a case of controversy before the court. That is, the dispute must consist of specific adverse claims based upon present rather than future or speculative facts on which to base the adjudication. All right. I'm trying to tell you, folks, here, you have a right to demand a declaratory judgment, which we are going to do in several of our cases here. And they got to declare: Is it constitutional or isn't it constitutional? If it's constitutional, it has to be judged in favor of who? You, the citizen. Why? Because you're the the beneficiary. It's supposed to be enforced and pay review the beneficiary, the citizen, for the protection of rights and property. See Briers versus United States, 273 US 28, and the 40 Supreme Court cases that support that mandate. Okay.

Now, let's get there's just a couple more here. Bear with me. I know you're probably bored to tears right now, but I don't want you to do that. I want you to pay attention. Okay, we're at section 255. 16th Am Jur Prudence, section 255. In all instances where the court exercises its power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable. The Brady Bill. Irreconcilable. Huh? In other words, the court is without authority to declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is in positive or direct conflict with the statute or with the constitution. Thus, a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof, because that would be violating the constitution. We can't have that. What happened in Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137? Same thing. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified in holding the law constitutional. This principle of is of course in line with the rule that doubts as to constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary, you, the citizen, for the protection of your rights and property. Okay, does everybody pick up on that?

Now let's let's shift to 256. 256 right here. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment and not merely from the date of the decision. So, branding it. Wouldn't it be interesting at 34? 34. Where's 34? There's 35. All right. Here's 34. State XRL versus New Year. But I'll tell you what, Marbury versus Madison comes higher than that. Okay. All right. 34. Let's cover that again. And ineffective for any purpose since the unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment and not merely from the date of the decision. So, branding it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. The Brady Bill, the crime bill, the 1968 gun control bill, all these bills. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract, did everybody pick up on that key word, contract? A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one, and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, the constitution, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. And where a, well, what did I say there? Remains in full force and effect. Is the Second Amendment in full force and effect? You better believe it. Okay. And what is it they don't understand about infringe? And where statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. In other words, the law stands always, the real law, the constitution. The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of several states in so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and the laws of the United States. And let's see if 54 will confer versus Barry, but I can tell you Marbury versus Madison is higher than that. But I'd be willing to bet you they cited Marbury in that. Moreover, a constitution of a statute, a construction of a statute which brings in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectively as if it had in its express terms been enacted in conflict therewith. So anything passed in conflict with the United States Constitution is clearly unconstitutional. It doesn't take a college professor graduating magnum cum laude from Harvard to figure these things out. All you have to do is read. That's why God gave you eyes.

Now the actual existence, well, let's go to 257. 257, same book, 16th Am Jur Prudence. The actual existence of a statute prior determination that it is unconstitutional is an as is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justify being ignored when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of prior determinations deemed to have finally acted upon accordingly, and of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application demand examination. All right. It has been said that an all-inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. Obviously, it would be ex post facto. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity. It may have indeterminate consequences binding upon the people. All right? So, you have to pay attention to what's going on.

Now, let's get a few more and we're out of here. Section 258. I'm just going to read the important section here. On the other hand, it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. It would be what? Nullity. Why? Because it's in conflict or repugnancy. It'd be in violation of Marbury versus Madison. All right. Now, are you starting to see the gist of what's going on here? There's just one more, I think, and we're out of here. All right. Section 260 of the same 16th Am Jur Prudence. Now, folks, head down to the law library. The books are usually green or red in color. They're kind of thick. Ask the librarian where Am Jur Prudence, Second, is stored. Go on over there, grab the 16th volume, start at section one, and just start paging through to say section 300. I'm telling you, you won't believe it. We're going to look at section 260. Although it is manifest that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there are no degrees of constitutionality. In other words, it's either constitutional or it's unconstitutional. There's nothing like it's kind of like half pregnant. There's no such thing. All right? So that an act is either constitutional or it is unconstitutional. Okay? So if you got statute here and most of it's constitutional and a part of it unconstitutional, guess what? It's all unconstitutional. So what we got here is a crime bill and we got part of it is constitutional and part of it's unconstitutional. Obviously, they had no authority under the Second Amendment to fool around with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They couldn't demand that the people not possess certain firearms. So this directly applies to this crime bill. Obviously, part of the bill is constitutional and the other part is not constitutional. So, what is the end result? The whole bill, it's unconstitutional. Does everybody see that?

Now, I want you to start looking at these things and I want you to start hammering these guys and don't let these guys pull this kind of stuff. Hook them over there and counter them. Say, uh, hey, Charlie, let's check over here for a minute. I want to check out something here. I mean, you would if they had your wallet, wouldn't you? Does that make sense to you?

Now, we're going to get into a unique argument. For the last half hour, I've been trying to hammer home the power of this book. This book right here. I'm trying to hammer home the power of this book to teach you that this is the most valuable book in your whole life. If you know what's in this book, I am telling you, you are in full possession of your American citizenship. If you don't know what's in this book, I am telling you, you're going to be a slave subject to the whim of extrajudicial people who want to tell you what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and how high to pack it. Now, my honest philosophy to you is as a kindness and a Christian to you. I tell you, learn this book. I love it when these guys tell me I don't have any rights. I said, "Well, if you believe that, let's go to court and on the end of the day, we'll see who owns who." But I'm going to tell you right now, if you violate any of my constitutional rights, I will sue your socks off and I will attach everything you own, bank, business, and home. And I'm telling you, I'm the one your mama warned you about. So, you damn well better listen. Do not violate my rights because I will come after you and I will take care of business and I will do what is necessary and proper and I will pull every stop out and I will go dig up every nut, bolt, screw, and when it's done, you will find out you messed with the wrong American. Because this American is not going to back down. Okay.

Now, we're going to get into a real special argument. Now, this argument has taken almost 18 and a half years to develop. So, I want you to pay attention. This argument is a unique concept that has been honed like a razor to a very meticulous edge so that you can understand what's going on. Obviously, we have established clearly that you have a constitutional right. And obviously, we have established that you are the beneficiary of the contract. And we have established that the constitution is a contract in writing, enforceable in the court of law. And we have established that you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract. And we have established that it's supposed to be interpreted in your favor. So, if you got an honest constitutional belief, they have to listen. Now, let's take that to the next step. The next step is, can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it? Let's start start with here. We're going to start walking down this sheet. Okay.

Murdoch versus Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court. Now, when you want to go into the law library and you want to look up something, what you want to do is understand that Supreme Court is Trump. Okay? That's the clearest way I can explain it to you. If you got a Supreme Court case, that trumps a district court, that trumps a court of appeals, that trumps a state court, that trumps everything. So, you want to deal with Supreme Court cases as best you can. Murdoch versus Pennsylvania is a unique case. It's recorded at 319 U.S. 105. That's the 319th volume of United States Supreme Court Reports on page 105. So, when you go to the law library, go into U.S. Reports, ask the little gal there, the little guy that's behind the counter, where is the United States Supreme Court Reports? They'll tell you right where it is. You grab volume 319, you turn to page 105, and it'll give you the case of Murdoch versus Pennsylvania. Murdoch versus Pennsylvania is a real unique case. And I'm I'm I'm telling you to read the case. You get the case. The judge always likes to see that you're ready. And I'm going to summate basically the case briefly. Basically, it is a religious test case wherein Jehovah's Witnesses in the in the year of 1943 wanted their right to be able to go and preach among the public because that is their right to evangelize. Okay? Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania, they wanted them to have a license to solicit. Okay? This is basically the crux of the case. Now, what happened was uh this the Jehovah's Witnesses claimed their First Amendment right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the right to worship and and uh exercise their religion unencumbered. Right? And of course, that's one of the mainstays that that founded this country was religious freedom. Okay. And basically, the points on the case that are established are: A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution, and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. Let's pull that over. Everybody see that? Okay. All right. I'll start again. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution, and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberties of the press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the First Amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the federal constitution and exists independently of the state's authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is irrelevant. All right. No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

Now, a lot of people come back to me and say, "Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so that case doesn't apply to me." I want you to reach. I want you to understand, we're not talking about whether you're a Jehovah's Witness here. What we're talking about here is, "Are you an American? and do you have rights?" What they are talking about here is that these Jehovah's Witnesses people exercised their rights timely, that they had a right to worship and exercise and and and worshiped their God and evangelized as they chose, and that the state came in and arbitrarily converted that right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That is totally unconstitutional. Now, we took that case as a pioneering case and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that you are an American and you have constitutional rights. Number one. Number two, you have to keep in mind what right can you pull the right out of the constitution if you can pull the right out of the constitution. And I'll give you an example. How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to versus Thompson? We'll get into that. How about the right to keep and bear arms? Right? Does a state have a right to require a license and a fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do, can you ignore the license and a fee? We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Now, a lot of people come back to me and say, "Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so that case doesn't apply to me." I want you to reach. I want you to understand, we're not talking about whether you're a Jehovah's Witness here. What we're talking about here is, "Are you an American? and do you have rights?" What they are talking about here is that these Jehovah's Witnesses people exercised their rights timely, that they had a right to worship and exercise and and and worshiped their God and evangelized as they chose, and that the state came in and arbitrarily converted that right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That is totally unconstitutional. Now, we took that case as a pioneering case and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that you are an American and you have constitutional rights. Number one. Number two, you have to keep in mind what right can you pull the right out of the constitution if you can pull the right out of the constitution. And I'll give you an example. How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to versus Thompson? We'll get into that. How about the right to keep and bear arms? Right? Does a state have a right to require a license and a fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do, can you ignore the license and a fee? We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get into that. Now obviously in this case, it's clearly established and this is the premise of this case: No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and a fee. We'll get

"The first rule is keep your big mouth shut," he said.

"Okay, what's the second rule?" I said.

"Keep your big mouth shut."

"What's the third rule?" he said. "Keep your big mouth shut."

Is that after you follow them three rules, the rest is easy. It's when you open your big mouth that you get in trouble. Not that you would do anything wrong anyway, but they'll twist, lie, cheat, and steal, and make it into something you didn't do. And before you know it, you won't even recognize what's happened. I'm telling you, it's happened to me. So, I'm telling you as a friend. I'm not telling you as a smart ass or anything else. I'm telling you as a friend. Do not talk to these people. They do not have your best interest at heart. And you may think, well, they're the government and they're responsible and they mean well. Well, they don't mean well. They don't mean you well and they will jam you. Believe me. And if you're not real good at getting out of it, you can be in a lot of trouble.

All right. Now, let's look at this Miranda decision. In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation. Do that, please. And that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

All right. If the individual indicates, prior to enduring questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional counsel right. Don't test that theory. But I'm telling you, it works. I did it. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings required that the waiver needed are in the absence of a fully effective equivalent prerequisite to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with the proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination.

Now, this is the big one, folks. This is the one they're talking about. Did you properly Mirandize him? Was he Mirandized? Was she to Mirandize? If they don't Mirandize you, they got to throw the case out. Almost always, it's very hard to go forward with the case if their witnesses are excludable from the presentation of the case.

Now, I personally got lucky on this one, folks, and I thought I was really, really good. And I am really, really good. Do you want to know something? I have a different standard of equity and law, and I treat everybody kindly, and I basically give them courtesy, and I basically try and be a regular Joe, and I basically try to basically just find out what the heck was going on with this case. I promise you, I would never do that again. I would dummy up like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't say nothing. Not that I do anything wrong, but here's the thing. These people lied so bad. They put so much trash in the record. I was in shock. I couldn't believe that anybody would deliberately do such a thing. But they will. So, I'm telling you as a friend, do not talk to these people, especially BATF people. They are not honorable people. They don't hold, they do not recognize the honor you serve. They are not honorable people. Their whole purpose is to hammer you into a position of ridiculousness. So, I'm telling you, if they come in to talk to you for whatever reason, I don't care what, you dummy up. You don't say nothing. You got me? You hire an attorney. You get an attorney there, and you don't talk till the attorney tells you to. That's what I'm telling you as a friend. Okay?

That's Miranda versus Arizona. Now, there's four Miranda cases. This is the weeding case. There is a Miranda warning case that actually locks down the steps of the warning, and then there's a Miranda interrogation case which locks out the standards for in-custody jail interrogations. Okay. Now, a word to the wise should be sufficient, and I shouldn't have to ever say nothing about that again. Believe me, I learned a valuable lesson. You cannot assume that everybody is a good guy. There are some bad ones out there, and I found them.

Now, the next case we're going to talk about is Norton versus Shelby County, recorded at 118 United States Reports, page 425. Basically, that says an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protections. It creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Okay? And that's what this case holds. All right. Now, I'm telling you, you go read the case. Don't screw around. If the judge asks you questions about the case, you better know about what it says, right? Because if he thinks you didn't read it, he's going to throw your case out.

The court follows a decision of the highest court of the state in construing the Constitution and the laws of the state, unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the federal constitution or of the federal statutes or a rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state courts on questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and the eligibility in election or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon federal courts.

All right. Now, the most important, some of the most important thing is while acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. That's a very important point. Public policy. You want to watch out for the terms public policy. It's often confused with the state's right of eminent domain or police powers. Police powers and public policy are almost the same thing, except one's done without law because we want to, and the other is done because they're claiming a police authority to do so. All right? But when they're talking about public policy, the acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist can have no validity whatever in law. Okay? An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Okay? Does everybody got that?

Now, this basic first portion of this program is designed clearly to help you. And if you take these basic cases on this one page, you will have gone a long way in getting your constitutional rights back. Okay? Now, we're asking you pay attention, learn your Constitution. We're going to go into some heavier stuff through the second portion of this, but we want you to learn your Constitution. This book here is a citizen's rule book. It also has jury instructions in it. It also has a lot of important arguments in it. Some of the important arguments in it go along with what we've been talking about, right? All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137. We already argued that one. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule or lawmaking or legislation which would abrogate your rights. That's again Miranda versus Arizona. An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights and imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. All right, that's Norton versus Shelby County, which we just talked about. The general rule is an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void. All right, 16th Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177 and also 256. Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional rights from liability. That's one versus Independence in Maine versus Tivido. No state shall convert secured liberties into privileges and issue licenses and fees for them. Murdock versus Pennsylvania. If the state does convert liberty or privilege into a privilege, a citizen can engage with impunity. That's Shuttlesburg versus Birmingham, Alabama. The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties. That's Boyd versus United States. Constitutional rights must be interpreted in favor of a citizen. That's Briers versus United States. We have covered all of these cases thoroughly so that you can see clearly. All right. We're trying to teach you how to better effectively use your Constitution. Okay? We're trying to get it down to a serious program. And this book here also brings out all these court cases. All right? Notice it's got Norton versus Shelby County in here. It's got Miranda versus Arizona. It's got Madison, Marbury versus Madison. It's got, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact." John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796. "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." It's United States versus Dohy, 473 Fed. Second 113.

All right. Now, we're going to wrap up this first part here. Basically, we want, we want you folks to hopefully not be overwhelmed. Take your time. Play the tape several times. It'll come to you. It's really not that hard. We want you to have a new reverence for your Constitution. We want you to know that a lot of brave soldiers paid for it with their lives. We want you to know that they died miserably, some of them. And we want you to know that this is a serious, very serious thing here. We want you to know that we love you, America. And we want you to know we need your help to learn your Constitution so you can better and effectively come forward, pick that book up, walk out there, and shake that book and say, "Shake it and boss."

All right. Now that we've gone over the Constitution and we've talked about some of the ways that you can use it, now we're going to go into some of the ways that you can apply it. Okay. The things to do first of all is when you pull over, try not to demonstrate any rapid movements or any like you're reaching under the seat or you're reaching in the glove box. Keep your hands where you can be seen. Do not overreact. Try and be calm. Um, talk to the officer in a mellow voice. Don't yell or holler or use profanity whatsoever. Basically, it's, "Yes, sir. You know, what can I do for you, sir?" They'll usually ask you to produce your documentation. You have license, proof of insurance, and the registration of the vehicle. We're going to go into a lot of issues on those programming to cover that to show you some of the things that you can do and what you can opt to do. Also, I recommend that you treat the officer, as I told the other gentleman there, very courteously because, uh, that is going to get you a lot farther ahead than giving them a lot of negative hype or trying to shout them down or give them a lot of static. So, my honest counsel is, let me show you how we proceed. Most of the time, you will be able to leave the scene without any serious injury. You might have a ticket or this or that, but we'll show you how to deal with that. Okay? But you need to be understanding that this party is an armed party, and you don't want to do any movements that's going to cause him to overreact to an injury of you. Yeah. And you'll find that a lot of times this is the most dangerous thing a police officer does, to stop people all day, because you never know when somebody might do some really serious traumatic thing, you know. So, they're very nervous about this. And the quicker you can relieve their nervousness and just be a regular person and let them realize you're just going to talk in a plain and common voice, the sooner you're going to be in a communicative situation.

Now, obviously, you're going to find out real quick if you got a cooperative officer or not. If you don't have a cooperative officer, then you're going to be in court anyway. So, the best thing I can tell you is be patient. Just let us follow along with our program, and we'll be happy to demonstrate. And again, we would like to let you know that your best defenses are in your Constitution, that that Constitution is a viable contract, that it is enforceable in the court of law under the statute of frauds, that you have a right to claim those rights, that the burden is on you to claim them timely. And a key word here is timely, or you lose the right. So, you want to be cognizant of your rights and be able to timely speak up. Okay.

Now, let's go on to a couple of things here. We're going to concentrate, as we did before, on our main basic cases. We also want to give you some further advanced programming. The book, The Federalist Papers, by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Those are the gentlemen that wrote the United States Constitution. Okay. And you want the Mentor Edition because it is the unabridged edition. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Cohen versus Virginia, that's recorded at 6 Wheat. Reporter, volume 6, page 2. All right. Now, Wheat is an old report, and this was done in 1821. So you may have to go to your leading law library, around like we go to Michigan University of Michigan, or we go to Detroit College of Law. But you want a very, these pages will be so old, you'll have to worry how you turn them without trying to screw them up. But the Supreme Court ruled in the matter of Cohen versus Virginia, 6-2, that this book, The Federalist Papers, was the exact record of the intent of the framers of the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Those are the guys who wrote the Constitution. So obviously, being able to read their published thoughts as they were doing this Constitution is very, very forceful in terms of constitutional interpretation, and the intent of the lawmaker is the law, and it shall be liberally enforced in favor of you. You are the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Got me? So everything you can do to enhance your position in terms of how your lawmakers thought and they framed this Constitution clearly makes your case even stronger for the Constitution to be interpreted in your favor. So we recommend you get a copy of The Federalist Papers. You read it cover to cover. You want the Mentor Edition because that's the unabridged edition. You'll find some of the other editions got some of the pages pulled out. Okay.

Now, we want to get into some of the cases. Basically, the second program that we have here is the advanced section. We are going to be covering procedures. We're going to be teaching you how to be your own counsel. We're going to be telling you some facts and issues on what to do, what happens when you get pulled over. How do you exercise your rights in a timely fashion? We're going to be talking about some of the problems that are going on in America today. We're going to be talking about some of the studies that have been done. We just had a law review study put out by this lady here. Her name is Joyce Lee Malcolm. Joyce Lee Malcolm. She started out working for the anti-gun people. She is a Harvard legal scholar. She is very, very knowledgeable. She researched the right to keep and bear arms of the people back to the 1700s in England, and she came to the honest belief after all of her research, and of course, she would be following her research because she is a person of very acclaim in terms of her study. She researched it back to the 1700s and found out that, yep, our right to keep and bear arms is a positive right. It has come from serious law all the way back to the Magna Carta. And she published a book, and the book here is "To Keep and Bear Arms." It's a rather extensive book. Okay. You might, it's not hard to get a hold of. It did take us about 10 days to order to get a hold of it, but it's a definitive study on the right to keep and bear arms that verifies the holdings that your average person who is NRA oriented or who basically is constitutionally oriented is going to be happy to have, which is basically the right to keep and bear arms is a protected right that goes back with great legal scholarly study. Okay, so these are a couple of things that you can use to help you defend.

Okay, we need to understand that at the beginning of every one of these laws, there is an enabling clause that basically says how the law shall be brought into being. And there is an argument that the law that is presently here today is based on some law in the past. Okay? And almost on every one of these constitutions, all the way up through our history, through the Articles of Confederation, through the U.S. Constitution, through various state constitutions, they'll have an enabling law in the beginning. And of course, the enabling law just allows them to bring their version of the Constitution of what rights are there today, that the rights that were had before are carried on, plus are further delineated by this Constitution. But at no time do they have a right to abrogate the previous document. Now, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, you can see the decisions where it comes down. The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, the Virginia Acts of Concession, the Northwest Ordinance, the Northwest Territorial Government, the Northwest Territorial Division, Indiana, the Indiana Michigan Territorial Division, the Enabling Acts, and that's what I'm trying to explain to you today. The Michigan organization and submitting alternatives, and the Michigan is sent to a condition of admission, and then the state of Michigan became a state in 1837. Now, this is just from my area. So I'm trying to give you an example. There is then we have a Constitution of 1835. We have a Constitution of 1850. We have a Constitution of 1908. We have a Constitution of 1963. Every time one of these constitutions comes by, the enabling acts in the beginning of it state that everything that was before guaranteed is brought forward. Okay. So everything that was before is brought forward and carried forward. And if anything, it's supposed to be made stronger. Okay? It's never made weaker. It's made stronger or it's equal to. So all of the rights brought forward are carried all the way back from the Magna Carta as a line of succession. So this is how you historically review trends and where, what, and how it comes from and how authorities are established in law. Okay.

To our normal procedure. Here we have our court cases. Here we're going to start giving you examples of court cases as we go, and we're going to show you how you can exercise rights. Now, one of the first cases that we are going to bring is basically the right to travel. All right. Now, there's a lot of people that are interested in this particular issue and license plates and driver's licenses and all this, and you have a lot of programming that's problematic from this, and you have a lot of people that are looking to argue. So, we want to share some basic arguments with you. We're going to claim a First Amendment right to travel, and we're going to claim also a Fifth Amendment, it's guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of due process and equal protection under the law. All right.

Now, we come down. We looked up in our state constitution, and this is our constitution, and basically, we have protected a right to travel. Okay. The freedom to travel is a fundamental right that should be unlimited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict movement. Okay. Now then, a law which substantially affects or penalizes the exercise of the right to travel may be justified only by a compelling state interest and must be tailored carefully to avoid unnecessary infringement on the right. Okay.

Now, when we come down here, we start reading some of these arguments. You'll notice these little letters here that say, "Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the federal constitution." See note 54. Everybody see this little note 54 here? Again, we're going to take this note 54. We're going to come down here. The very first case that we have is Shapiro versus Thompson. This is recorded at 394. That's volume 394, U.S. page 618. And I just happen to have a copy of the case here. "They're talking about the purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons into a state is constitutionally impermissible." All right. All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. All right. If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertions of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional. All right. Does everybody pick up on the gist of the argument here? Equal protection clause prohibits apportionment of state services according to per capita tax contributions of its citizens. Any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of a right of interstate travel, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional. Okay.

Now that's clearly established. Now we go into the case, come to find out, says that the right, the right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. This is what I was trying to tell you. You got to use a little bit of wisdom. You read between the lines. In other words, what is your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? What does it mean to you? Think about it. Pick, you know, you can look at the exact words, the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, ducky. What's that mean? I have no idea. Well, I'm telling you to start having an idea because when you have an idea, they got to listen. So, you have an idea and you say, "I have a right to travel freely and uncovered." Right? Now, that a right was so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. We've established that the right is clearly there. So you were right. You had a feeling that you had a right to travel, and you were right. There is such a right there. Okay.

One of the ways you could find arguments on that would be to go into the Federal Digest at the local library. Go down by your Supreme Court cases. There'll be a set of red books called the Federal Digest, right next to the Shepard Citations. You look up the book called Words and Phrases. And in the book, Words and Phrases, you ask for the right to travel. It'll give you every Supreme Court case that has anything to do with the right to travel. Okay? One of the leading cases is this case, Shapiro versus Thompson. It's such a basic right, it doesn't even need to be mentioned. Okay. It is important that you be able to back your arguments up. In other words, it's one thing to pick the argument up. Now, here we go. In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they were exercising their constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of the right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional. All right. Now, the reality was they exercised their right to timely travel. All right. And the state didn't want to allow that. All right.

Now let's flip back here. First of all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, right? We established that. Who said so? Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law conflicts, and all are void. A law. Now, we know that the Constitution is supreme. We know that the right is clearly established in Shapiro versus Thompson. Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert a secured liberty, in this case the right to travel freely unencumbered, into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it? Obviously, we have decided that in Murdock versus Pennsylvania, clearly no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege. Now, does everybody see how we plug that in? Just like on your computer, you fill in the blanks. Okay? You have the court case. It says no state can convert the liberty into a privilege. What right are we talking about? The right to travel freely unencumbered. So you plug that in. So, does the state have a right to require you to have a license for the exercise of that right? No. Does everybody see that? Now, what happens if the state requires you to have the license? Shuttlesburg versus Birmingham, Alabama. You can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can't punish you. Now, what happens if they pull you over? They give you the ticket. Well, you're going to go to court, and you're going to fight it. You're going to file a brief. We're going to show you how to do that at a later time. Show you exactly what to put down there. But these are the cases you're going to be putting down on your memorandum of law as to why you have a reason to feel that you're right. First, that your constitutional right is superior to any law that they would put down. You have that right, and they can't pass a law that takes away that right. Secondly, if they do, it's unconstitutional. Thirdly, no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, you can ignore the license and the fee and engage in the right with impunity. Shuttlesburg versus Birmingham, Alabama. And since you have not willfully done anything evil, you have relied on your Constitution and on the Supreme Court decisions, you have a perfect defense to the charge of willfulness. So you could not have been charged with willfully not going and getting a license. Does everybody see that? Okay. You have a perfect defense. United States versus Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, defines willfulness as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with a moral certainty. Obviously, you didn't do that, did you? Because you have a perfect defense. You relied on previous decisions of the Supreme Court, Shuttlesburg and Murdock and Marbury. You relied on your constitutional right to travel freely pursuant to Shapiro versus Thompson. So you have a perfect defense.

So now, where are we at? "Your honor, may please the court. I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. And I would like to motion to dismiss, and I'd like my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case." Now you have a right to collect your time for going to court. All right. You submit your bill. You submit your proposed order. You fill out your own proposed order. That makes the case go faster. And the judges kind of like that. And it intimidates the hell out of the prosecutor when you do your own order. Now, let's say, "Well, that's how you interpret that, sir." "That's right, sir. That is how I interpret it." And 16th Am. Jur. 2d, Section 97, says that it shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary, the citizen for the protection of rights and property. See Briers versus United States, 273 U.S. 28. Unlawful search and seizure, that deals with an unlawful search and seizure, but it also deals that it's supposed to be interpreted in your favor. Declaring tenant and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of your rights and property. So they got to enforce it in your favor. Right now, Boyd versus United States comes next. The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty. It's their duty. They have no choice. They have to do it. Okay. All right. In Norton versus Shelby County, an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protections. It creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Now, after you write all of this stuff down, you casually say, "Wherefore, Your Honor, I pray before this honorable court for your just and lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. And I pray to court for my just relief for having to defend this patently frivolous and spurious case, and my costs are whatever they are." You submit that on your order. "I have an order. I have a proposed order, Your Honor. It's in my brief." At that point, they will turn to the prosecutor and say, "Well, Mr. Prosecutor, what do you think you'd like to do about this?" And most of the time, they're so overwhelmed at this point that they just go, "I'll go for the dismissal, Your Honor." And the judge will give them some slack. Well, never before, as a young man, not an attorney, so literally overwhelmed when it comes for the prosecution, a licensed attorney. Now, it's not my goal to make attorneys look bad. My goal is to make you look good. My goal is to make you understand your Constitution. Now, if you happen to do it and you do it better than the attorney, God bless you. And God bless America. And if the attorney doesn't do his homework and prepare his case, I have no sympathy for him because he shouldn't have done what he was doing anyway. He'd had any brains, he'd have pulled you aside and he'd have done what other attorneys have done to me and said, "You know, I hate going against a pro se litigant attorney." Almost always, they're really, really good. And you know, I never get to find out if they're really, really good or they're really, really bad until I show up, and then it's too late. So, I'm already on the diving board. And either the pool has water in it or it doesn't. And usually it doesn't. And it hurts when you hit the bottom. So, they don't like going against you. People, they will not like going against you. If you happily know what the hell you're talking about, they're going to be intimidated. And I can tell you many, many, many tales. I had this one gentleman, he didn't have any plates on his car, and they called him into court. And he was standing in the hallway, and the prosecution said, "Would you come over here, sir? I'd like to talk to you." He came in the office and he sat down, and this party said to the prosecutor, "What can I do for you?" The prosecutor said, "Sir," he said, "What can I do for you?" He said, "Well, it's not what you can do for me. I'm the prosecutor. What do you want to do in this case?" "Well, I assumed there was something I could do for you. You called me in here." "Well, what do you want to do? How do you want to plead in your case?" "Well, I don't intend to plead, sir. I intend to answer in the form of a demeanor such that I do not acquiesce to quasi-jurisdiction because that's an issue to be brought up in my pleadings and briefs to file in court." The guy's mouth was on the ground. He said, "Are you an attorney, sir?" He says, "No, I'm a truck driver." The guy absolutely was in a panic. I had the same gentleman, the same gentleman later, he was working as a bricklayer, and he did the same thing. Told the prosecutor he was a bricklayer. The guy saw it was on the ground. See, they don't anticipate that people that are in other jobs other than theirs have any brains, and it blows their doors off, and all of a sudden this bricklayer or this truck driver can come in and argue law, and all of a sudden it's like, "Shoot, this guy's good. I have to treat him like he's an attorney." So what did this guy do? The first thing he does out of the shoot, he walks up to the judge and he tells the judge, he says, "Judge, I'm going to dismiss this case," because he realized he was going to get hammered. And the guy, my guy says, "He can't do that. I took a day off work. Come over here and bow." I told him, I said, "Shut up. Sit down and relax. You won. I'll say nothing. You won." And the judge broke out laughing because this guy didn't want to quit. The judge turned to me. He said, "Well, evidently the prosecutor doesn't want to proceed, sir. I'm going to have to dismiss the case." "He is the complainant. Can you do that, judge? You can't do that. I'm here to battle. I want to go. Let's do it." And the judge laughed again. He says, "Well, apparently, sir, I cannot sustain a complaint that is not properly before the court. Counsel for prosecution has entered a motion to dismiss, and I have no other option but to dismiss." Now, if you want to countersue him, that's another case. "Well, I'll do that. I'll do that. In the meantime, I'm, I told him, "Will you be quiet and submit your bill? Submit your bill. You won. Submit your bill for your damages." So he did. He said, "Well, I'll submit my bill, Your Honor, for my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case." And the judge smiled because people don't usually do that. But if you win, they are required to pay you. That's the rules. If you lose, you pay. So the bottom line is this: When you file your papers and they turn around and you get a win, make sure you got your little bill in there for your lost time from work or any copies that you had to make or any visits to the law library or any what is called real personal damages. And don't pad the account. Put down exactly what you got because if they force you to prove it, you can get busted for perjury. So I don't recommend you stretch the pad. I recommend you put down exactly what your costs are. Believe me, the fact that they got beat is plenty enough of a sting. And the fact they got to pay a couple hundred for your last day at work will be more of a sting. And you will get a code on your license, and the next time you get pulled over, they will just hand your license back and tell you think about slowing down and have a nice day, because they don't like people like you because you're an American. Americans don't give up. They never surrender, and they fight.

One judge told me one time, he said, "You got any idea how much money you cost this court today?" I said, "I hope it was a bunch, Your Honor, because I hope you got to go write a whole bunch more tickets to break even." My way, I figure the more tickets you got to write, the sooner the public's going to wake up to this theft and maybe they'll start doing something positive to stop this kind of stuff because it's my belief they should be having masks on out there because, I mean, if they was an honest crime, they'd be having a mask on there when they rob the people. Okay. Well, he didn't like that answer too good. But the bottom line is he knew I was right. And after a while, they realize what your goals are, and they know, hey, this is more fun than Edgewater Park, and I want to go on all the rides twice. You know what I mean? I want to hit the Wild Mouse and a whole bunch of them other rides. Let's do it. And see, when they see that, they realize there's no point. You're not going to learn anything. You're going to cost some time, money, materials. Now, the system is not profitable. Okay? So, they back off. They put a code on your license. It won't bother you anymore. Now, did everybody see? We take that line down. We take the line from the Constitution. We take the line from the right. Now, let's think up another right. How about the right to work? Contract your labor and your skill and your time of life as you see fit. Now, your right to work is protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment. Again, you have a right to work and contract your labor and your skill and your time of life as you see fit.

I get hauled into court before the chief judge of this big court here in Oakland County. I won't give you the judge's name because he was a fair judge and a good judge, and I'm going to let him slide. But the bottom line is this: He looked just like Abe Lincoln. I mean, exactly. He was the spitting image. And he leans over the chair and he says, "Well," he says, "Uh, it's been reported to me, son, that you don't have a license to practice law. Is that correct?" And I looked up at him and I said, "Judge, I'm not practicing. I know what the hell I'm doing." And the whole court broke out laughing. He said, "That's pretty good. That's pretty good. I like somebody with a sense of humor. He said, "But that doesn't change anything, son. You have to have a license to practice law." And I said, "Your Honor, I'm an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law. I am not a participant in any of these schemes of limited liability and a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate Ponzi schemes. I am just Joe Blow from Cooko down on the street. I just live at the common law, and I have a right to work and contract my labor, my skill, and my time of life as I see fit, not as some third party arbitrary and capricious bar association sees fit." And they had loaded the court with all these attorneys and they said, "Your Honor, the state of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right to work into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That's unconstitutional, Your Honor. Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. Anything in conflict or repugnant is null and void of law." Okay? Can you see that? Marbury versus Madison. And since the state converted my right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it, Murdock versus Pennsylvania. No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttlesburg versus Birmingham, Alabama, says I may ignore the license and the fee and engage in the right with impunity. That means you can't punish me. In versus Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, defines willfulness as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with a moral certainty. I submit, Your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil task because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit the prosecution counsel's burden to prove that I did willfully knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit he specifically precluded, he cannot perform his task, and therefore I'd motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. And I'd kind of like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous, spurious complaint."

The judge rolls back in his chair with a great big smile and he turns to counsel for the prosecution. He says, "Wow, Mr. Bros, what are you going to do about this young gentleman?" The prosecution bounced back. "How about we honor the motion to dismiss, Your Honor?" The judge says, "Good answer, because I don't think you're ready for this kid today." And the whole court broke out laughing. An old gentleman walked up to me and he said, "Son, I just want to shake your hand and tell you, you got to have like King Kong, because you just slammed the bar association right into the ground." On top of that, I've been an attorney for 57 years, and I just want to shake your hand, sir, and tell you that that was one of the most magnificent arguments that I've ever had the privilege to hear in a court of law." Now, he was an honest attorney, and he realized what kind of a chain was around his ankle with this bar association. And these lawyers, they resent that. They really do. They're people just like you. They don't like to have any chains on them, but they hadn't had anybody quite show them how to get those chains off. And when they saw somebody do it in their own skill, with their own, you know, with their own cards, on their own playing field, it actually impressed the hell out of them. I had several gentlemen come up and shake my hand that day. Needless to say, the case was dismissed. And I've been helping little people getting jammed for years. Every time I see some little person get jammed, I'm out there flipping that wrench. Zingy, zingy, zingy. And I flip that wrench on them so good that usually they just back off. Dr. Korin was a perfect example. The poor man was just trying to help these poor people. They were jamming him every which way he would lose. So what we did is we taught him a thing called Quo Warranto. I got a hold of his attorney and submitted all of the arguments.

All right. We're going to bring up several arguments right here. We're going to bring up police powers, and we're going to bring up Quo Warranto. Quo Warranto is a basic right that goes back to English law. Ancient English law. Okay, here it is right here. All right. Quo Warranto. Let's read it. Quo Warranto. In old English practice, a writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right. It lay also in the case of a non-user or long neglected no long neglect of a franchise, corporation, or misuser or abuser of a franchise, being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a corporate franchise having never had any grant of it or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. A common law writ to test whether a person exercising power is legally entitled to do so. An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson versus Manhattan Railroad Company, New York, recorded at volume 289, United States, page 479. Now, it is intended to prevent exercise of powers that are not conferred by law and is not ordinarily available to regulate the manner of exercising such power.

Now, what we did see, police powers are defined as the right of eminent domain of a state or political subdivision to enact laws for the common good welfare. Let's pull that out. Police powers. Anybody got that? Police power right here. See police power right here. Police power. This is out of Black's Law Dictionary, folks. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, upon the individual states and in turn delegated to the local governments through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police. Right? Such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and/or crime and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of its citizens by preserving the public order and preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens and ensuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment. Anybody get that word? Enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the

General laws, the Constitution, the power of the state to place restraints on personal freedoms and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health and morals or to promotion of the public convenience and general propriety. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions. That everybody catch that. And especially to the requirements of due process.

Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals, and general welfare within constitutional limitations. Right, is an essential attribute. Marshall versus Kansas City, Missouri. Recorded at 35 volume Southwest 2. That's another reporter. Southwest 2, page 877.

All right. Now, police powers are the right of the domain of state or political subdivision to enact laws for the common good welfare and to curb crime within constitutional limitations. And the key words in that whole thing are within constitutional limitations. And then it tells you to see the 10th amendment. When you see the 10th amendment, believe it or not, you can go look up the books and it divides the 10th amendment real. The burdens placed on the national government as a result of states regulation. Okay. Regulation of their internal affairs, save as Congress may act to remove them, constitute normal incidents of operation within the same territory of a dual system of government and no immunity of national government from such burden is to be implied from the constitution.

All right. All right. Pen diaries versus milk control commission. All right. The Pennsylvania case recorded at United uh volume 318 US 261. The people of the United States residing within any state are subject to two governments, one state and the other national. But there need be no conflict between the two because the powers which one possesses the other does not. That's United States versus Crookshank. A very famous Supreme Court case.

No. We come over here within the area of delegated powers expressed or implied. This amendment does not reduce the powers of the United States. That's US versus Manning recorded at 215 federal supplement. That's another reported page 272. The Federal Union has only those powers expressly conferred on it and those reasonably implied from powers granted. While each state has all governmental powers except such as the people by the constitution have conferred on the United States denied to the state or reserved to the people themselves. Anderson versus Gladen recorded at volume 188 federal supplement 666. That's bad number.

All right. It is when federal legislation attempts to confer power upon the national government that it is not within it's not within the express or implied powers given by the constitution that the legislation becomes vulnerable to this amendment. Okay. Now, what are we talking about here? Brady Bill, huh? They're not within their powers. They have no 10th amendment powers to take away the second amendment. Does that make sense to everybody? >> They don't have any powers to go and take away the the second amendment or any other amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, nothing. And the ninth amendment precluded them from adding on to the constitution in such a way that would take away the powers. So by the ninth amendment and the 10th amendment, they're totally locked out from doing a lot of the things that they do. But see, you got to know that and be able to timely exercise it. So it's very important to understand your 10th amendment powers.

Now when in the course of human events it becomes necessary and proper and this is what we did. This is what we did to help out Dr. Kavorian. We made sure that his lawyer got this knowledge. We went in there. We dug up a writ of waranto. A writ of Coranto. Right now this doesn't look like much but let me tell you something what we're talking about doing here. See, most cities, at least in the state of Michigan, are by public act 230 public acts or public act 287, the public acts. And in every one of them, there is a rights and power section. Usually, it's recorded at 2.2 or 3.1. And it basically says, and I quote, subject to the constitution of the United States in the general laws of the state of Michigan, the city of or the township of has rights and powers too. And then it starts listing the rights and powers. Right to have a police department, right to have a fire department, right to have a city hall, right? And start listing all these powers. Now, the antithesis to the argument is that if they're not within the Constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan, they don't have any rights and powers. Does that make sense to everybody? In other words, they're in violation of their corporate charter, their franchise. They promised they would be within the Constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan.

Now, a lot of people uh they don't understand the power of this argument. So, I want to really push this one home. I want you to understand whenever these little townships and these little cities and what have you, they start acting like King Farooq and that you're you're don't matter and that they don't got to listen to you. This is what I want you to do. You ask them a point question and ask them, are you violating my constitutionally secured civil rights by however you claim they are? Because if you are, you have just waved your right to be the city of and they'll laugh at you for a little bit. Okay? Then you explain to in public act 230 of public acts which states the rights and powers section. So constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan. You have rights and powers. The antithesis to that argument is if you're not going to be within the constitution of the United States or the general laws of the state of Michigan and you're going to violate my constitutional rights and trample my rights. What we're going to do here is we're going to go for a writ of mandamus or quo warranto, that's the legal term, fancy legal term, but it is an ancient law that goes way back to England in ancient times and basically here is a judgment in a capias action for it. Right? You put down here the case, the case came on regularly for trial before the honorable and you put the judge's name in there whatever it is on a jury trial or non-jury trial dated such and such. The name appeared as for your counsel and name appeared for opposing counsel. Right. The court heard the testimony and examined the proofs offered by the parties. The court considered itself fully advised in the premise filed in its findings of fact and conclusions of law and directed that judgments be entered in accordance with such findings. Right? Which means they figured out that they violated your constitutional rights. They didn't have a right to violate your constitutional rights. And in the hearing you showed they violated your constitutional rights. And the judge figured out they violated your constitutional rights. So now for your prayer for relief, we're going to get this quarranto and this is exactly what happened to the honorable doctor Kavoria. You'll notice that he was in jail and they were hammering the tail out of him. The next thing you know everything got real quiet. Nobody said nothing and then the next thing you know they were letting him go and they were minding their business.

Now this is how it happened. Is therefore ordered and adjudged and decreed one defendant corporation, the city of, you put down what name, has violated provisions of the act under which it was created and also has violated provisions of public act 230 of public act section 2.2 two rights and power section. In other words, it didn't uphold the constitution of the United States or the general laws of the state of Michigan. Defendant corporation, the city of, whatever hack, whatever accordingly has forfeited its charter and become liable to be dissolved by the abuse of its power. How much money am I talking about here folks? We'd be in about nine decimal places wouldn't you understand? Now do you think they're going to buy some little doctor when they're looking at shutting down a major city? What do you think's going to happen? Everything's going to get quiet and they're going to let the good doctor go. Same thing for you.

Now, defendant corporation, you name them, therefore, is dissolved. Corporate rights, privileges, and franchise of defendants are declared forfeited to the people. Defendant corporation, you name them, as trustees, directors, managers, and other official officers, attorneys, and agents are forever restrained in enjoying from exercising any of the corporate franchise powers, rights, and or privileges previously exercised by defendants, said city, and from collecting or receiving any debts and or demands belonging to or held by defendant, city, whatever. And from paying out or in any manner interfering with, transferring or delivering to any person any of the deposits, money, securities, property, and effects of the dependent city or held by it. You name a trustee, which the state would do. Probably the attorney general after your complaint is filed is appointed receiver of all of the property, real and personal things in action and effects of defendant city corporation held by invested in defendants or in or to which defendant may be in any wise interested or entitled there too. Plaintiff, the people of the state of, whatever that's us, state of Michigan shall recover of defendant corporation, whatever city of, the sum of damages real and personal. Got me? They don't like that when you start talking that because they can go 100 million, three times that amount in punitive damages. They get a little upset as costs and disbursements of this action and the receiver is directed to pay this sum out of their pocket to whoever the attorney general. But you can have a stipulated on there's an injured party. Now you put down there the honorable judge so and so presiding date entered and you he signs that and that city is no longer a city. You see, when they violate your constitution, this is one of the most powerful tools that you can use. And when you jam this on, you better wear a bulletproof vest to court because you probably going to get shot at by the time you get home. But it's nice to threaten. You know, you just threaten. Just drop one of them in the mail and say, "If I don't get reasonable cause for my action in the near future, you're going to get one of these in the mail for real."

Here is a summons for Quo Warranto. This is for the start of the thing right here. Summons form 41. By the way, you can get this in 21 AM forms and practice in practical and practical forms and practice. All right. You name the party. If you put down there who you are, the people of the state of Michigan versus you are summoned to appear before which in which court on such and such a date to show by what authority you claim to have use and/or enjoy the rights and liberties and franchise, namely the corporation city of, set out and complained of in such and such a time, summons, and further to do and receive all things which the court shall then order concerning you. This is kind of like pulling their driver's license for drunk driving. Now, that's an oversimplification, but sometimes these city uh halls operate like a drunken sailor and they just think they can abuse citizens rights and trash them. You know who I am? No, I don't care. You know who I am? I'm your boss. I'm the people. You're elected to work for me. And I'm trying to be nice. So, I'd appreciate it if you just we can sit down and work this out. But if we can't work this out, I'm gonna suck it to you, baby. You got me? And that's basically how I feel about it.

Now, we can get into some of these other things right here. This is a very important point. I'm trying to get this across to people and you try and tell them, they kind of look at you with this blank stareyed look. But in the constitution of the state of Michigan, the latest and greatest, the very first thing they talk about, notice it says section one, all political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection. Now let me ask you a question. Do you feel equal benefit? I don't. You know, equal protection and discrimination. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Right. Nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of the civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color, or national ordinance. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. You know, and they start going down through all freedom of worship, you know. I mean, this is what we're talking about here, folks. You know your rights, you got them. You don't know them, you don't got them.

We get back in here to police power generally. This is something you got to understand. Generally, the police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, and health and morals and the general welfare of the society within constitutional limits. Within constitutional limits. Did everybody hear that? Within constitutional limits. Generally, the police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, health, and moral and general welfare of society within the constitutional limits. As otherwise stated, the police power of the state is a power or organization of a system of regulations to foster the health, order, and comfort of the people and to prevent and/or punish injuries and offenses to the public. Right? But it has to be within constitutional limitations. And it embraces all rules for the protection of life, liberty, and property. I mean, that's contradiction of logic today, folks. That doesn't happen. You and I both know it. I mean, who are they kidding? They ain't kidding me. Okay? So, it's up to you and it's up to me. And we got to get a hold of this book right here. You get a hold of this constitution and you start learning that constitution and you quote a chapter and verse and guess what you'll notice a unique different change. One after a while they start to listen and you actually affect what is called positive change and every time they see you in that goofy hat you wear they go for God's sake don't give that guy no ticket.

I have actually been pulled over listening to the the program. Didn't have no plates on my car. Policeman called. He says, "You got positive ID in the guy?" And a friend of mine was taping it off his police radio. He said, "Yeah, it's him." He said, "Well, for God's sake, don't give that guy no ticket." And the guy says, "Sergeant, you ain't got no plates on his car." Said, "I don't give a damn what he ain't got on his car. Don't give that guy no ticket." He said, "But Sergeant, you told me he's just been waiting to fight it and beat it all the way to the Supreme Court." And I wrote that on the ticket. He says, "You give that guy a ticket?" I said, "I just told you not to give that guy a ticket. What do you got some problem with your hearing?" Said, "I told you not to give that guy a ticket. Now, why did you give that guy a ticket?" He said, "Sergeant, no plates on the car." Said, "I told you I don't care what he ain't got in the car." This is all recorded on the radio broadcast. So the Everybody was laughing. The police were laughing. Everybody was laughing. His buddies were laughing. They were ribbing them over the radio. The sergeant told him, "All right, knock it off. Clear the net. This is serious." He said, "Uh, fine." He said, "You give him a ticket." He says, "Fine." He says, "Tomorrow morning, 9:00, I want you to be in here when the city attorney comes in here." And he says, "You're going to personally deliver the ticket to him and he ain't going to be real happy with you cuz he hates that guy. Every time he goes to court, that guy blows his doors off. He looks like a fool. You give the guy a ticket. Now he's got to go to court."

So, sure enough, we go to court. come up before the court. Judge starts operating like a prosecutor. He starts asking me all kind of discovery question. I call them as soon as they call a case. Now, this is something important you got to understand. You're going to be your own attorney. Then you got to know all of the programming. When you hear them call your case, you get off your tail feather and you run right up there as quick and as expediently as possible without knocking anybody down. And you say, "Ready, your honor, you state your appearance. I'm so here before this honorable court. I'm standing as my own counsel. In my state, it's under article 1, section 13. I've appointed myself, my own attorney, and I'm ready to proceed with my administrative procedural matters. And at this time, your honor may please the court. I motion for dismissal of prejudice, failure, state cause of action, virtual can be granted. Bingo."

Now, I'm apologize if I'm talking too fast. I'm going to try and slow down a little bit, but when you when you're in court as much as I am, you just learn, you need to talk fast or you lose. So, I apologize if I'm going a little too fast. I'm going slow down. I'm trying to make it easier for you folks, okay? But the judge right away. Well, you got a ticket on such and such. I said, well, your honor, I said, are you the judge, the disinterested third party that's trying this case, the trier of fact? He said, yes. I said, okay. I said, is this the prosecutor over here? Am I right? He said, yeah, that's him. I said, okay. I said, are you going to prosecute this case, your honor? He said, no, no, I'm the judge. I says, and why are you asking discovery questions? Well, I just want to find out what's going on. I says, isn't that his job over there? That's what he's supposed to do. He's supposed to present his case as the prosecutor trier of the case. You're the trier. In fact, he's the trier of the case. Said, "If you're going to operate as the judge and the prosecutor, I'm going to object on the record as a mistrial." He said, "Okay, I'll let you enter that on the record. Go ahead." I said, "Okay, let it be entered on the record as an appealable issue." He said, "Okay." He said, "Now it's on the record." He said, "Let me ask you this. You get a ticket on September the 30th?" I said, "Yes, sir." He said, "Well, let me ask you this. You have any plates on your car?" I says, "No, sir. And I don't intend to get any." And of course, all the people in the court, oh, that guy is going to jail. Watch this. This is going to be good. He says to me, he says, I assume you have a very good reason for that. I said, yes, sir. And I shut up. I waited. He said, can I hear it? I said, well, your honor, I said, I'm an unenfranchised common law free man. I'm not a participant in any tantine schemes and limited liability. I enjoyed venture for profit with an insurable interest require me to participate in these corporate Ponzi schemes. I'm just a little Joe from Cookamo. I live on the block. I travel at the common law. I have a right to travel freely on cover pursuant to Shapiro versus Thompson. And that right is so basic it doesn't even need to be mentioned. The state of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a privilege and issued a license plate and a fee for it. Murdoch versus Pennsylvania says no state can convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttles versus Birmingham, Alabama says I can ignore the license and engage in a right with impunity. That means you can't punish me since I have relied on previous decisions of the US Supreme Court and on constitutional defenses. I have a perfect defense for willfulness. I am immune to the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution council does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted. I'd motion for dismissal with prejudice for fair state cause of action for which relief can be granted. I'd kind of like to collect my cost and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. The judge starts reading the ticket. Told officer he'd just been waiting to get this ticket so he could fight it and beat it all the way to the Supreme Court. He laughed. He says, "Motion granted." And he ran off the bench before I could get my damages. So I went out in the hall. He went to the can. I waited for him. He came out of the can. I served him with my papers. He says, "You didn't have to do that." Yes. Well, I didn't want you to be inconvenience, judge. He said, "Okay," he signed. I went back in the court as a casualty just to see what kind of reaction would happen, and I sat down. About two cases later, this elder gentleman gets up and he stands up there and he says, "Your honor, I'm not quite as knowledgeable as that young gentleman that was here just two cases ago, and I don't presume to understand all of the issues that he raised, but it really sounded good to me, and I kind of like to ditto everything he said on top of my case." Everybody broke off laughing. The kid says, "All right, how many guys here didn't have no plates on their car?" About five guys raised their hand. He says, "Okay, everybody dismissed. Get the hell out of here." And everybody broke out laughing. It was like, you know, at the carnival on Christmas or something, you know, it was it was a carnival atmosphere.

So, I'm telling you, you can affect change. And see, they had all figured. They said, "Watch this. This guy's going to jail." And then all of a sudden, boom, I'll jump. And I mean, I'm telling you, it's this little book right here. This book. You know what's in this book. You have power. Knowledge is power. You know what's in this book and you know how to exercise your rights in a timely fashion. You have constitutional rights. And if you exercise them, you utilize good judgment and be courteous and just treat people the way you like to be treated with a little dignity. Most of the time, 99% of the time, I win.

Now, I will tell you, I've been to jail. I mean, I'm not going to lie to you. I've been when I go to jail, they really hate it because I usually get, oh, the last time I got five guys cases retried and I got another four guys out like within 24 hours and then I got 11 guys off of their case because they signed up for drug rehab and one bank robber come up to me and said to me, I think you know I'm a hard case. Yeah, I kind of gathered that. He says, I want you to know you changed my life. He said, I really appreciate you helping me with my paperwork. He says, they're going to give me a new chance. you're going to let me out on probation. I'm going to marry my girlfriend. And he started crying and he basically said, "Uh, I'll never forget you, Pops." He says, "You're some kind of guy." He says, "God bless you." And he says, "I want you to know I I really appreciate what you did and I found God, too." And between you and Crazy Charlie, he said, "Uh, Crazy Charlie is a minister that goes around to all the jails. He used to ride for the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. Crazy Charlie is clearly crazy. Last time I saw Crazy Charlie, he was riding down 8 mile road at 85 miles an hour, standing on his seat against another guy, standing on his seat to see who was going to wimp out first. Crazy Charlie did about five years in the slam because he got charged with murdering some guy. Crazy Charlie went to jail and he found God and God spared Crazy Charlie from a life sentence in jail. and Crazy Charlie owes it to God and he goes through all of the jails and he preaches the gospel and he basically is quite a gentleman and he's nobody to screw with. And when we went to chapel, the kids were all joking around, "Pops, you going to chapel?" I said, "Oh, hell yeah." He says, "Pops, you're a badass. What do you want to go to chapel for?" I said, "Let me tell you something, my man. You can always learn something." And I'll tell you, one of the best places to learn is that chapel. So, why don't you come on down and might learn something. We go down there and who do I see? Crazy Charlie. I had seen Crazy Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably Charlie probably for years he looked at me I looked at him what the hell are you doing here so I don't want to talk about it crazy Charlie the guy turns around to me he says pops is there anybody in this joint you don't know I says I'll tell you what this guy is a guy I would listen to because he's serious man is serious and he found God and he's going to try and help you find God and in the end you will have peace well this gentleman this one bank robber found this gentleman in between myself and Crazy Charlie, he found God and I wish you could see the peace on his face. He was in a lot of trouble and uh we did his paperwork for him. We helped him and basically they they redid his whole program and because he found God, they they decided to put him out on lifetime parole. He made restitution. He gave the money back. He he changed his whole life. His whole life was changed just from that instance.

So, I'm telling you, you go when I go into jail, it's hilarious because it's like the jailers don't even know how to act. And it's like I The one jailer told me when I left, he shook my hand. He says, "I'm going to miss you, Pops." He said, "They call me Pops because I'm older." I was a little teed off when he called me Pops the first time. So, I told this kid, he said, "Uh" I said, "What's the look of Pops?" I said, "I bet you can't even do 25 push-ups." He said, "You're probably right, Pops. continue. Boom. Down I went 25 out and here's I'll raise your 25 and here's another 25. Pops, you're in good shape. I said, I'm going to show you how good a shape I'm in. You keep calling me pops. He says, "No, no, no, no. You don't understand, Pops." He said, "If you're an older gentleman in the joint, they treat you with courtesy. They call you pops. That's just out of courtesy." I said, "Oh, I guess you can call them pops in school." So, don't you ever think that I'm getting old, so I'll fool you. So, they laugh. When I left, they winded up to shake my hand and uh even the jailer said he was going to be sorry to see me go because I was helping so many people and people were getting their lives together. And so when I go to jail, it's kind of unique. I actually get a vacation. I got the top bunk and I laid on the window and let God's sunshine in my face and I got a suntan and guys would say, "Pops, why do you climb up on the top bunk?" I says, "Man, I'm out on the beach getting sun and rays. What are you doing?" He says, "You know, pops, you something else. You're going to make you in jail and you're going to make I said I'm laying out here on the beach. What you talking about? I'm laying on my bed right next to the window and the sun comes right through and I'm on the beach. What you talking about? Getting a suntan. So, you got to make the best of where you're at. No matter what, it keeps your spirits up.

And the bottom line is this. I wouldn't have been in jail if I could have more effectively argued my constitution. I ended up having to do a brief from the jail. 28 pages. I share with the pencil on the phone on the wall. Here it is. This is a 28 page motion to dismiss. This right here. This right here. I mean, this is all from hand. Long hand. And when we got to court, the judge looked at it. He goes, "Sir, are you an attorney?" I says, "No." He says, "Uh," he says, "Uh, you ever been to law school?" I says, "No, sir." He says, "You did this from jail?" I says, "Yes, sir." He says, "You did this from jail from memory?" I says, "Yes, sir." It's rather extensive. It's huge. Meanwhile, the prosecutor kicks in. She says, "Jesus, do I got to answer this?" He goes, "Oh, hell yeah." This guy is kind of like this guy at night court on TV and channel 2, kind of flippant. And he says, "Oh, hell yeah, counselor." He says, "What's this, a new hobby you just took up?" He says, "Uh, this guy even did his own proposed order. I don't even have to fill out an order." and she says, "No, that I want it done by 8:00 Monday morning." So all weekend she had to go to law library and answer all this stuff. She was not a happy camper. So then she uh proposed that I have to have a shrink check my bolts out to see if my batteries are charged because if you defend your constitution, you got to be a crazy uh turkey. And she found out I'm pretty well squared away. I just argue my constitution. I asked the judge, I says, "Has it gotten this bad yet, judge, or where they got tossed you in a nut house because you defend your constitution?" He says, "Not in my court." >> I've heard of judges speaking up and saying, "Well, the Constitution has no place in my court. How can they even think about that?" >> Boy, we that is a that is a very s serious statement because what that judge just did in an open court of law under title 18, United States Code section 2381 is he just committed an act of treason. See, the judge is sworn under article 11 in this state, paragraph one, that he will uphold the Constitution of the United States and move as most immediately as is practicable to defend the Constitution. And a violation of that act would be capital felony treason under the people and government of the United States of America and he would be subject upon conviction to be hung by the neck. serial if the defendant had a driver's license and they were trying to argue a traffic matter and they were kind of in the system already and raise a constitutional objection that the judge might say it doesn't apply.

>> Well, here here's how we start a lot of these traffic cases and I'll get right into that. The issue when you first walk before a traffic court, you see when they merged these courts together in 1963, they screwed up. They they wanted to they wanted to lay off half the judge, you see, and they only wanted to have one building. So what they did is they merged the traffic court per se or the or that docket into the criminal court docket. And when they did that, they didn't check the rules. You see, and when they didn't check the rules, they didn't allow for jurisdictional challenges between the two courts. So what happens now is you come before the court, and there's several ways you can come before the court. Now, this gentleman here is correct when he's talking about you have a a driver's license. You have entered into a contractual relationship with the state. In other words, it's not a lawful contract because you cannot enter into an unlawful contract. You understand? It is a contract though because it's recognized as a contract because you have voluntarily entered into this contract. you agree to all of the rules in their law book for that contract. Now, this is what we call admiralty and maritime jurisdiction or artificial jurisdiction. And it's a rather heavy argument going into Eerie Railroad versus Tomkins and uh McCullik versus Maryland. And we'll go into that in depth at the end of this program. But I wanted to share with you briefly when you sign your driver's license and especially today and your voter's registration card, you will notice a little note right under your signature where you agree to the acceptance of the duality of citizenship of not only at the common law, but you accept the national jurisdiction under Admiral T and maritime jurisdiction, which allows you to be sucked into all these uniform commercial code requirements. And this is a very serious thing you're signing here. You don't understand it, but you just sold all your constitutional rights down the sewer when you sign that document. So when you sign it, my honest advice, and this is from experience, you sign the thing and right at the end of your name, you write UD U period D period. At the end of your name, and underneath your name, you write 1-207 without prejudice. Now, what that does, it says, "I'll be glad to accept your uh your ridiculous privilege. I don't really need to, but I will just to keep myself from being in trouble with the cops. And I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll uh we'll exercise our uniform commercial code caveat that allows us to keep all of our constitutional rights. In other words, my signature is not really a signature of contract. It's a signature of convenience that allows me to get a piece of paper to put in my pocket for identification purposes. that allows me to sign my checks and do whatever I got to do, but it doesn't in any way make any admissions or confessions or require me to participate in any of your rulebook schemes under your Admiral T maritime taunting scheme. And I'll tell you how crazy it was. I just got asked by an attorney how he would defend how he would defend a program where a gentleman that he was uh defending was accused of hijacking a car and that they were claiming that because the car is made all over the world and all over the United States that the parts even though they're assembled at one point they are in what is called the the uh interstate jurisdiction. And that because of that, this crime was now a federal crime. You understand? This is how far reaching this thing has gotten. And when this gentleman signed his driver's license, he had no idea that he was entering into this thing and waving all of his god-given constitutional rights, and that he was no longer a common law citizen, that he was actually under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Now, when we pull up some of these statutory requirements, it's an interesting thing that you brought up, but what they do is they're never these regulations are never enacted into law. Uh we'll show you something on that just a little bit later, but they're not enacted into law. They just make a regulation and because you you voluntarily enter into this contract, all of these regulations just come up as enforceable to you, even though you don't know any better. Now, we have a Fair Credit Reporting Act that says if you make any loan or you get involved in any kind of a credit relationship, they got to tell you everything about how much the interest rate is, what the payments are, how long the payments are. I mean, they got to tell you every single thing about the contract. And in theory, all contracts, you're supposed you're supposed to know all of the facts in regard to the contract. They just make the contract one-sided, and they figure, well, these people are not that well informed. They're not real bright. we'll just get them to sign to sign their driver's license and they'll voluntarily acquiesce into the situation and then we can throw all of these regulations at them and they'll never know how we we hit them. So, it's very important that you understand when you sign something, read it for sure. If you don't understand everything that's down there, take it to somebody and ask some questions before you sign it. Cuz once you sign it, it's harder to get out of. But I highly recommend everybody lose their wallet and go down and redo their driver's license and sign the thing UD. when you sign it and put 1-207 without prejudice because right then and there you cut off all this admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and you return back to your contract law of what? You're a common law citizen living at the common law and they can have their contract but it's not enforceable. Why is it not enforceable? Because you can state that you signed it under duress. Well, how do I know that? Look, I put UD right after my name and per there. What do you think that means? Under development. Under the deck, that means that means under duress. When I signed this, I was under duress. I didn't voluntarily sign this. I had to sign this or the cops were going to cuff me about the head. You see, I was under threat, intimidation, coercion. I still believe that I have a right to travel freely in cumber. Notice you're not driving. You have a right to travel. The customary usage of the right to travel today is you get in a car. You don't go down to 7-Eleven on your bicycle, you get in a car. Want to go down and pick up a car and a milk, you get in your car.

Another unique argument along these lines is, "Well, judge," I asked this judge. I says, "Let me ask you a question, judge. If I get in my car, the Constitution was still in effect in full force before I got in my car." Right? Why not? Now, when I got in my car and I had my gun, it was still in effect, right? But when I closed the door, the Constitution was suspended and everybody broke out laughing. How could that be? The act of getting in the car and closing the door made the Second Amendment unconstitutional. I said, "That's totally ludicrous. How could that possibly be?" You see, they have passed these laws and they've gotten away with it for so long that they just it's kind of like a bank robber that's robbed 25 banks in a row and on the 26 is a little myth that you getting excited. Man, I've done this 25 times. What's the big deal now? You're going to bust me on the 26th time and you're going to get all upset. See, they've been getting away with it so long, nobody's ever taken them to the task. They feel like, "Well, I should be able to get away with it on the 26th time." An unconstitutional act. Wrongfully done. Doesn't matter how many times in a row you did it, it's still unconstitutional. And the reality is a person that's properly motivated, properly trained, and properly willing to do whatever is necessary and proper to defend the Constitution will almost always prevail on the merits. And that's what we're doing right now. And they're sweating on that right now. But the reality of this is, and you got to understand, the burden's on you. You want your constitution, and you damn well better grab a hold of it, and you better hold on tight. You don't let go for nothing. You read your constitution, you learn your constitution, you quote your constitution chapter and verse, frontwards, backwards, upside down.

When people come up to you, well, we want you to take a drug test. That's part of your job. Huh? Go fish. I ain't taking no drug test. I'm not required to prove a negative. you're required to prove a positive. If you think I'm doing something negligent, fine. And you go file papers and you take necessary precautions and what have you and we'll go to court. I says, but I'm not I'm not going to be convicted before the fact and then I got to provide evidence that I'm not guilty. That's the cart before the horse. That's back ass words. We're not going to do that. Not only that, the fifth amendment says I got a right not to be a participant in a compulsory process that's going to make an incriminating situation of me. Now, I'm not nothing to hide and I'm not even arguing from what I got to hide. I'm arguing from the fact that the right stands and I'm exercising it. And then I usually ask some simple questions. Well, if they find anything when I get fired, hell yeah. You're going to be penalized. So, there are penalties. And if they find anything, would I be criminally prosecuted? Could be. Huh? So, why would you want to do some damn stupid thing like that and give him a piss test? This guy comes up to me at the last convention we had and they want to take a test as to whether or not he's he's got any drugs in his system. I said, "First of all, what's in my system is between me and my doctor? None of your damn business." I says, "I don't take drugs, but I got nothing to hide. But I'm not going to voluntarily enter in anything. What if your guy screws up and now you say I got drugs? Now I can't get a job ever. What? Are you kidding me? This some new hobby you just took up? I'm not going to play that game. It is not my burden to prove a negative. It is your burden to prove a positive. If you have a just claim for which relief can be granted, you go file your papers and we'll sit down and talk. But until such time, you go fish cuz I'm not going to play. I'm not required to play and I'm not going to play. And if you fire me for the exercise of my constitutional right, I'm going to tell you about United Mill Miller versus United States, which says the claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime. And you're doing that and you're punishing me. And if you fire me for it, I will sue your socks off and attach everything you own business at home. Now, make my day. That's how I feel about it. So, you find another turkey to jerk with, but I'm not going to play. Okay.

Now, we want to get into some serious things. I want to get into this uh this argument about traffic cases. This is the most practical way to deal with traffic cases. When you are pulled over, what is happening? Now, you got a policeman. He's conducting discovery. Anything you say can and will be held against you. And if you don't think so, just keep rattling and it'll all get written down on the ticket. I found that out. Told officer he just been waiting to get this ticket so we can fight it and beat it all the way court. Wrote that word for word right on the ticket. So when these people are with you, you keep your hatch button. And I mean I'm guilty. I admit it. Sometimes I rattle on. It's been known to happen. So I'm telling you not to do it. You button your hatch. If you say anything is yes sir or no sir. What can I do for you? And they always like to say, "Going a little fast, weren't you?" They say, "I neither admit nor deny. I leave you your proofs." Oh, a lawyer. Nah, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut cuz I realize anything I say is going to be putting down on your paper. You say, "You got a charge, you make it, and I'll see you in court." Oh, you want to go to court? Oh, yeah. I always go to court. I fight everything. Murder one. It's kind of like a hobby of mine, you know. Well, see what we get. And they walk back to the car and they start writing. Or they usually come back and they say, "Well, you're going a little fast. Think about slowing down. We're going to let you go with the warning. You got to have a good day." Thank you, officer. You have a good day, too. God bless you and keep you safe. Okay. Courtesy. I can blow their doors off anytime I want. Still, yes, sir. No, sir. Courtesy. Courtesy pays. You treat people the way you like to be treated. Nine times out of 10, you will benefit. You treat people like a Yahoo, and you're going to get treated like a Yahoo yourself. So, I I highly recommend courtesy as an effective way. I had a policeman one time tell me, "Do you ever eat a flashlight the hard way?" And I looked at him and I said, "Quite frankly, officer, most of the officers I have run into are extremely professional and I treat them with a great deal of courtesy and professionalism cuz I respect what they're doing and that they risk their life every day. And at no time would I give an officer enough stag that he would want to make me a flashlight. I mean, I treat them very cordially and I respect what they're trying to do. I don't agree with everything they're trying to do."

cuz some of the stuff is kind of unlawful. I said, "But I will give them the courtesy they have coming." He turned to me and he said, "I'm sorry. I got a big mouth. I didn't mean it. You're right. I was out of line."

See, you treat people with courtesy and nine times out of 10, you can even back down some guy that's talking a lot of manure. But the louder you talk and the more belligerent you talk, the more louder and the more belligerent he has to talk. It's kind of like Newton's third law of physics. Every action has an opposite opposing reaction. You talk crap, then he's got to talk crap.

So my advice to people is don't do that. It's unmotivated. Who's doing this? You or him. Remember, the best weapon you have is the one right between your ears. So use it. And watch your mouth. Don't be talking a lot of trash to these policemen. They don't need to hear it. They got a bad day. You might have a bad day. Best thing to do is say yes or no sir. And if you got an honest pitch, go ahead. Make my day.

Now we've gone past that. You got the ticket. What are you going to do? Well, look on the ticket. See if he signed it. A lot of times they don't sign it. Guess what? If he didn't sign it, there ain't no sworn complaint. How can you defend against a nonsworn complaint? A lot of times the cop doesn't sign the ticket. Look, open your eyes. God gave you a set of eyes. Look. Yeah, this guy didn't sign it today. It says, "Under penalty of perjury, I I attest and certify this is a true and fact complaint." Well, what happens if you don't sign that? It ain't a complaint.

>> Do you have to sign the ticket when the police officer pulls you over in that situation? Don't they make you sign the ticket?

>> Sometimes they do. If you sign it, put UD1-207 without prejudice. That's saying that's saying that you you received the complaint. That's all it's saying. All right.

>> So, it's okay to do that.

>> Yeah. But put UD1-207. It's not an admission of guilt. It just means that you received the complaint. Okay? If you don't sign it, he's going to take you to jail. That's I mean, I realize that it's unconstitutional unless you like jail food. You know, I wouldn't do it. I'd sign the thing UD1-207 without prejudice. The signature doesn't do anything besides you want to copy the complaint anyway because you want to file a brief. How are you going to file the brief if you don't know what the complaint is right now?

Well, the next thing you know, you have to notify the court within the time period, and it's usually 10 days. One of their dirtiest tricks is you call in and you think you got it noticed, and guess what? They claim you didn't call in. And they go ahead and say you didn't show up. Then they find you guilty and bingo, you're out of there. So, I recommend you call them. Tell them that you want a formal hearing. Ask the name of the party you are speaking to and who am I speaking to so that you got a name of somebody that works there. Verify that you called. Then immediately or sooner type up a little notice that says I state your full name do hereby request a formal hearing. Put that in the mail sent certified mail to them or run down there and ver and walk right in and get them to to set up a hearing.

Now you want a formal hearing. Okay. Now, 5 days before that hearing, you are required to serve your papers on opposing counsel. If you don't do it in a timely fashion, Michigan General Court Rule will sock it to you and you will not be able to enter your briefs. Now, sometimes you can get away with at the last minute handing it to them and they won't say nothing. But if they want to hammer you, they can use the 5D court rule. I have used it effectively several times.

Now, you got you look at what it says on the complaint. whenever it says MCLA, whatever you violated, and you go down and you you go to the law library, you look up Michigan's Miles Laws Act, you look up exactly what they say, and then you enter a defense. I neither admit nor deny, and I leave you your strictest proofs in a confinent court of original jurisdiction. But before we go that, depending on how you want to play, there's several ways you can go.

If you want to be the hardest nose that you can be, you walk into court and don't send no paper. And as soon as they call a case, you as expediently as possible, you move to the form to the to the forum up there in the front. You say at a loud and clear voice, ready, your honor. You state your full name. I'm giving my appearance before the court in appropriate persona, which means in your own proper person. In this state, it's pursuant to article 1, section 13. I've appointed myself my own attorney. I'm ready to proceed with my administrative procedural matters. And at this time, your honor, may please the court. I have a motion for dismissal with prejudice, fair state cause of action for which relief can be granted.

And all of a sudden the cop will go, especially if you wear a army jacket and you look like you're three sheets in the wind, the cop will lean back and go, "Oh crap, we're going to get sued. I didn't know the guy was a lawyer." And then he'll start talking to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will go, "Sery, you brought me You brought me one of them kind. I'm going to get killed and you're going to sit here and pay for it. I promise you."

And and then what happens is out of your mouth you tell the judge in the most clearest and expedient language, "Your honor, may it please the court. Is this a court of law or is this a court of equity?" He will immediately sound off with, "There's no equity here." Just like he got hit in the knee with a hammer and his leg jump. And just that fast. It'll happen that fast because he thinks there's no lawsuit here. Therefore, there's no equity. See, the judges don't even understand what happened with this ship from 1963 where they moved these courts together.

So, you got to find out what hat the judge is wearing. Is he wearing a criminal hat or is he wearing the civil hat? So, you have a right to ask, say, "Judge, this court of laws, this court equity." He goes, "There's no equity here." And we just did this in a beautiful case. This little girl, she couldn't have been 80 lb soaking wet. This cop was about 6'2, about 320, big heavy duty state trooper. She walks in Your honor, I am representing myself as my own counsel. I would like to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters. But before we go, I have a declaratory ruling, sir. Could I ask you a question? She sure honey. Go ahead. He says, "But you understand only a fool stands as his own attorney." She says, "That may be, sir, but I'm the best person that knows the facts in my case, and I think I I have a chance. I'd like to try. Is that okay?" No problem. You have a right. Is this a court of law or is this a court of equity? Judge immediate. There's no equity here. She said, "Thank you, sir." She rolled up her hand. In the hand was a ticket that said civil infraction right across the top. And she said, "How may we hear this civil infraction, sir?" The judge did a Homer Simpson. He goes, "So that's where you're going with this?" Uh the whole court broke out laughing. This little girl, I'm telling you, she she is this tiny little thing. She's just a sweetheart. The whole court realized the judge did a Homer Simpson. And then the judge realized that Homer Simpson and then he must have left. He goes, "Oh, honey, you're not going to pull that here today, are you?" And she got a little flushed and she wasn't sure. She This was her first time. She was a little scared. She looked over at an associate of mine. She said, looked at him and he go he gave her he gave her the knot and she turned. She said, "Yes, I am, sir." And everybody broke out laughing again.

The cop goes, "Well, if they're going to play around, I'm going to I'm going to put 15 over on the ticket judge." And the judge goes, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You got what's on the ticket. That's what's on the complaint. You're not changing the complaint after the fact. That's burgy. You want me to put you in the code? No. You can't change a complaint. The complaint is the complaint. You signed it. It's true. Got me? If it was 15 over, you should have wrote 15." He said, "Well, I used to want to screw around. This is just getting out of here. I mean, she was guilty." D. And she goes, "Your honor, right? We haven't even gotten to that yet, your honor. There's no jurisdiction. This is where we're at. We're at no jurisdiction." And we're right. He said, "Are we going to go through with this now? Come on, tell me truth." She says, "Yes, I am, sir. I'm going through all the way all the way to the Supreme Court. And uh the judge goes, "Okay, now we're going to have to set a hearing." She says, "And I'd like a formal hearing, too, sir." He said, "Okay, and I'd like a trial by jury, sir, because the value in controversy is in excess of $20 pursuant to the seventh amendment. I have a right to trial by jury." He says, "Okay, okay. We'll send you notice. It's been three and a half weeks. We got no notice. We call them every day. They don't even want to talk about this case. The only reason they said that was so all of the poor little people in the back of the room didn't get the idea that they could get up there and do the same thing this little gal did. They're not going to call her back cuz they got no jurisdiction. They're not going to try that case cuz she's going to blow their doors up.

Okay. Now, that's one of the most beautiful texts and the fastest and one. The last time I did it, it was before a particularly obnoxious judge, and he basically said to me, "How many times have you pulled this?" And I said, "No, your honor, this will be I think this is the 12th time." He said, "Ah, going for lucky 13, eh?" He said, "This is very clever." He says, "But I'm going to give you some advice, young man. Don't ever get caught doing nothing in my town." Got me? Sure. I really do anything trying to be a regular gentleman. He said, "Well, you better not get caught doing nothing cuz I will hammer your tail." I said, "Does that mean the case is dismissed, your honor?" He says, "It's dismissed. You're out of here." Now, I'm telling you, this works and it works real good.

Now, the next effective step that you can do is you can turn around and ask the judge if he's a licensed attorney to practice law because none of the judges are licensed. Take my word for it. Michigan Constitution says that they are required to be licensed by the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan does not license attorneys. The bar association licenses them. They give them a P number and a card that says, "Yeah, you're a member of the bar association." But if you call up the bar association, they will tell you they don't give nobody a license. The state of Michigan doesn't give them a license. The bar association didn't give a license. So what license could they be talking about? A Mickey Mouse license. Cuz that's the only one that's left. The state doesn't issue one. The bar doesn't issue one. And the one they got hanging on the wall is not a license from the state of Michigan. And the constitution of the state of Michigan says all judges will be licensed to practice law before the state. And you ask him, "Where's the guy's license?" He doesn't have one. And your honor may please the court. Since you don't have a license, I'm asking you to recuse yourself till we can get a judge that has a license.

Now, a little lady name of Virginia Crops, the one that perfected this argument. She's a genius at it. She's a little spitfire. If you ever watch her in court, you're actually going to see a treat because she is something else. She's got character. She graduated a full attorney from Wayne State University and then she refused to join the bar because she didn't want to compromise her rights with their political chicainery. And she she is a full-fledged serious business legal person. And to hear her work in court is absolutely like listening to Stratavary work the violin. She walks in and blows their doors off. Well, she's on about three judges now for the same thing. She blew the first judge out. So then they sent in another judge. They moved her over to the other side of town over in over in Berkeley, Michigan. And then then she walked in and she blew that judge out of the door. So then they sent her to another judge. And then she turned around and went before the state licensing commission. And now they've handed it up to the to the judicial people of the state to try and resolve the problem. They're going to end up dropping it. The judge doesn't have a license.

Now, let's suppose Judge could prove he had a license, which he doesn't. Judge, let me ask you a question. Under your retirement fund, isn't it a fact that you get a certain percentage of the rake off of all the tickets that come before your bench? Well, yeah. And isn't out of the $40 that comes across your bench, you get $18.75. Well, yeah. So, you have a financial interest in this matter. Isn't that correct? Well, yeah. Well, isn't that a violation of judicial canon number seven? You're not supposed to have any financial interest in any matter that comes before your court. I'm going to ask you to recuse yourself for bias for your honor may please the clerk and every single judge has got it.

Now, does everybody understand how many ways you can hammer him just out of the shoot without even getting nasty? The judge don't have a license. The judge has got a personal interest in the case for financial reasons. There is no jurisdiction to hear the matter. And I'll tell you a secret. Once you challenge jurisdiction, the burden falls on the plane of approved jurisdiction. See, and he can't do it. It cannot be done. There isn't any. There is no jurisdiction here. A traffic ticket in the United States of America. I know you're sitting back. Oh, come on. They've been getting this for years. A traffic ticket is a rid of assistance or a bill of a tainer. You look in your Constitution, you'll find out bills of attainer are against the Constitution. And it's stated at least twice that I know of. All right. I'm telling you, you read your constitution. There is no place for a traffic ticket. You cannot have a rid of a system that has civil equity arguments that transmit into law penalties. They can't throw you in jail for a debt because that's a debtor's prison. We have a constitutional argument against that also. So, how do they do it? Co wants to and because you don't know any better. That's how they do it.

>> What if they have a court of they say it's a court of equity?

>> All right. It's a good question. Very I'm glad you're paying attention here. If they say they have a court of equity and there is equity, then you turn to them and say, "Thank you, your honor. I appreciate your time. I would like to know who is the injured party and where the contract is. Can you show me the contract?" There is no contract unless you didn't sign your license on UD1-207 without prejudice. Where is the contract? It's when you sign for that license. So don't sign for that license unless you put UD1-207 without prejudice. UCC1-207. Now they can't produce the contract. And if they could produce the contract, you've exercised your waiver under the contract not to give up your constitutional rights to travel freely uncovered. Right? And let me ask you this. Can you enter into an unconstitutional contract? Not lawfully. The contract is voidable for not lawful performance. It has to be a lawful contract for you to enter into it. All right. Now, the next thing, who's the injured party? Who got injured? Show me, judge. The parking meter out there.

Another neat trick that I like to do, especially in speeding tickets, is I like to confront my accuser. I always like to call a black box that accuse me of speeding to the stand, and the judge always gets upset. And I tell him, well, your honor, I said, I've been asking this policeman here for three hours how this the black box that he's been playing with works, and he can't tell me. And we've been through the whole stationary mobile radar manual from Mcome County Community College Law Enforcement Academy, and I've asked him every question, and I don't know how he passed his second class radio operator's license because he doesn't know how the damn thing works. Period. He doesn't even know how to set up the test, the power test thing in all environments. I said, on top of that, I said, he is not the witness. He is nothing but a hearsay witness and his testimony is inadmissible in any court in the land because you can't have hearsay. He says, "What the hell are you talking about?" I said, "He did not actually accuse me. That black box with flashing lights on it. Little beepers accuse me." I said, "Now, if I had a black box in here with little lights on it and and making noises and accusing and saying, "He didn't speed. He didn't speed. He didn't speed." We know how far I'd go. Right through that window, judge. You'd throw it right out through that window. But you let this guy bring his idiot box in with flashing lights and beepers on it. and his thing is exactly by the book and and admissible in court. He can't tell me how the thing works. We've been trying for three and a half hours to test him to see if he knows how it works. He couldn't pass that test to save his life. And the bottom line is I still don't think the damn thing works. And personally, I want to call up to the stand to confront my accuser. Under article 1, section 13, paragraph 5. I got a right to confront my accuser. And I'd like to confront my accuser. I'm serving a subpoena. A subpoena deuces take them. Which means bring your books and records due. He goes, "That's pretty clever." I says, "Not only that, your honor, he's arguing apples and oranges. See, I got a speedometer in my car, and it might be plus or minus 12 miles an hour on a factory made one. A handmade one is plus or - 6 miles an hour." I said, "And mine's got a little needle on it. It works off a little cable that goes in the transmission that runs off a little gear." I says, "It doesn't have four decimal places, and it doesn't do space logic and all this other stuff and shoot out a mile ahead and tell me how fast the telephone bulbs are flying by." I said, 'He's got this handy dandy gadget in his car that's measuring speed one way and I got this one that's measuring speed my way. So, how could I be guilty to the extent that his is talking about because I don't have one of them in my car? You see the apples and the oranges here, judge? It's not really a fair test, is it? He goes, "That's a pretty good argument you got there." He says, "I'll tell you what we're going to do. You've cost my court enough for the day. I'm going to dismiss the case. What do you think of that?" Fine by me, your honor. But before we do, I have one more your honor. He says, "Bitch, what's that?" I said, "You see that police officer there? I have a great deal of respect for that police officer, and I don't like to see that police officer get injured in any capacity. I personally feel that police officer sitting in that vehicle all day for eight hours a day getting bombarded by high energy, microwave energy is an insult to that police officer's life, to his family. Uh, I personally feel for that police officer. I wonder why these guys are so irritable and why they don't want to eat no food and they don't want to jump the old lady when they go home. And I says, I understand why. It's because they're being bombarded by this high energy microwave. And I said, some of them are getting cancer. I says, I think that this is an atrocity. And I said, I don't think that that officer should be required to sit in that car all day and be bombarded by that high energy microwave energy which could cause him to get testicular cancer and all kind of other problems with his life. And and just so that the city can make bucks off of these tickets. I says this is an atrocity. He says, "You don't worry about that policeman. That's my job. I worry about that police." I said, "Sir." I said, "I worry about him. He works for me. I worry about him." I says, "Now, I personally run tests on this thing where we took a microwave leak detector right from Radio Shack, which you use to detect the microwave leaks on your radar engine at home." And I said, "We went over by the radar car. He flipped the switch out and that thing went in the red." So, I know them guys are being bombarded by high energy microwave energy. And I know that if I had a microwave energy uh oven at home that was leaking that bad, it go in the trash. You understand? Because of the dangerous hazardous energy that is being given off by the thing. I says, "Now you ask my police officer here, my my friend in in in the in the community that's going to protect me to put a risk of cancer or something like that on his body." I says, "I think that's absolutely unamerican and I'm protesting." He said, "Well, I'll take it under consideration." I said, "And I thank you for your concern for our police officer." I said, "That's all right, Honor. I trying to be a good citizen."

So, we walked out of the courtroom. That cop came alongside of me and he says, "I ain't never turning that damn thing on again." What do you bet that didn't go everywhere? Now, that's psychological warfare, folks. That's how it worked. And I was right. And I was honestly trying to help him. But he told me he ain't never turning that damn thing on again. Now, this happened about 1985. Now, they've been publishing in the news just in the last year. You're hearing about all these cops that are coming up with cancer from all kind of various things. Well, this is why, folks, because they're being bombarded by these high energy radar guns. If I was a policeman, I wouldn't turn that thing on for nothing. I'd cut the wire in the thing. I'm not turning it on. What do you think of that? I'll write a ticket. I'll look in the speedometer and I'll see how fast the guy is going. If he's going fast, I'll give him a ticket, but I'm not turning that thing on just so I can have my hair fall out. get a get a chemotherapy treatment. I don't need that kind of stuff. You understand? I told the judge, I says, "You got any kind of idea what kind of power is coming off the end of the antenna on that gun?" I said, "For every inch that it goes past the windshield, the power curve is squaring itself now. It's reaching out a quarter of a mile. You got any kind of idea how much power is coming off the end of that antenna?" I said, "That poor guy is being bombarded with high energy microwave energy. I don't think it's right. So anyway, it got dismissed and uh psychological warfare worked and most of the cops in my area don't even have that thing on anymore cuz I notice when you go by them, my radar detector doesn't even go off. So I know that it's effective. Now that's psychological warfare. It's a combination of honesty and basically I do care about police officers. I don't want them to be in danger. They're good police officers out there. They have a right to work and have a safe job just like anybody else anymore. And I was upset with them when they dumped Agent Orange when we were in Vietnam. I mean, it's illogical.

Okay. Now, the bottom line is a lot of things are going on out here, and you have to be cognizant of what's going on, and you have to be cognizant of your rights, and you have to be willing to take the necessary and appropriate action, and you can have some fun at it. I I like uh an elder gentleman who's one of my mentors, Eustace Mullins. He says, "Uh, if you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." He says, "I'll submit a brief and then he'll send it back to me and he'll tell me all the things that are wrong with it and I'll fix it and I'll send it right back to him and I'll add a few more things in there and he'll get all mad that I fixed it and I then he'll send me back a thing telling me he doesn't agree with it and I'll send him back an answer telling me that's too bad because that's the law." Now, you can have a lot of fun doing this.

Another neat thing you can do is go down and sit in courts. I highly recommend ladies or gentlemen that don't have anything to do for an afternoon, retirees especially, get your best gal or your best uh girlfriend or boyfriend, whatever it is, take two of you. Two of safety and numbers, take two of you dress in your best suit and what have you, tie or best skirt and what have you. Go down and sit in court and take a legal pad. Just two of you and sit there for the day. The left, you want to sit in the left rear side, the last few in the left rear side and just sit there and do not smile. Don't think you're from the Judicial Tenure Commission. You ought to see what happens. It's great. Everybody gets rid their rights. Everybody gets treated like a human creature. It's absolutely uplifting. The judge will stop what he's doing and ask you, "We're not here for anything serious today, are we?" And I'll say, "No, sir. Your honor, I'm just casually observing." He go, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Why are we here today? Honest sir, we were just in the area. We heard that you were a real good judge and we wanted to see you in action. My associate was driving in the area and we stopped by to see. He says that fish smells awful loosely wrapped to me. Now you tell me why you're here right now. Honest to God, sir, we're just casually observing. Okay, all lawyers in my chambers. Shuts the court down. Goes in his chambers. Now look, they start trying cases in the chambers and they started trying them in the hallway and they were on the other side of the clerk's office at the other end of the hallway. Then they come back and then the little girl from the prosecutor goes on. She says, "What's with the nerd patrol?" The judge gave her a look that would kill. Don't you do it today, honey. You keep that mouth zipped. These guys are from the tenure commission. We don't want no problems with the state. your butt dead. I mean, you can have a lot of fun. My associate was just absolutely almost in tears. He could keep your state pace no longer. So, I said, "All right, we're leaving." We got out. He laughed all the way down to the car, laughed all the way down Rochester Road Expressway. That's the most fun I had in my life, just sitting there in that day. And everybody was getting off. Guys were getting sentences canled. Guys were getting out of jail. One guy had $2,500 worth of fines and I got reduced to $124 in five days served. It was $240 and it was going to be 10 days in jail. But the judge turned to me and wked. He says, "You can't throw him in jail for a civil infraction." I knew that. So this is the last offer I'm going to give you, young man. It's going to be $124 and five days served. That sound good to you? The lawyer turns to me and says, "You better take this. This is the best deal you're ever going to get. So, I'm telling you, you can be effective as citizens. You sound off. Tell them, "Hey, this is America. Last time I heard, we got American flag on a poll out there. Last time I heard, we got a constitution." And by God, we're going to keep it forever. Forever. Anybody got a problem with that?

Okay. Now, there's a bunch of other things. We're going to take just a little break here and we're going to come back and we're going to finish off with some really hard stuff for the advanced student. I always take all my lucky charms with me and I was one of the fellas that served with the infamous Apache troop, first squad, ninth air cavalry. Uh we were the fellas that were in the movie Apocalypse Now where they told you I love the smell of a palm in the morning and that gentleman was exactly was exactly like that. Uh, this book is done about the the Apache head hunters uh by a Cobra gunship pilot by the name of Jerome Bole who we used to call uh Dirty Harry because he looked just like uh Dirty Harry make my day. He used to have that painted on the side of his aircraft along with Pinball Wizard and a few other things. Um this is a phenomenal book about a story of uh serious Americans. This is a Cobra pilot. Jerry Bole's own story. A former policeman arrived in Vietnam in March of 70. He went from being a FNG, which I can't tell you what that is in a church, but it's bad to a combat vet in just two months. Whether rescuing down crews, flying fiery combat missions during the invasion of Cambodia, or being shot down himself, Bo saw war quickly turned from a scary game of bullets, rockets, and grenades to a terrifying race against death, where just split seconds could turn a scene of breathtaking beauty into one of stark, absolute terror. He witnessed men risk their lives daily to save others. And he heard the dreaded call, taking fire, taking fire. that were too often a fellow pilot's very last words before his chopper became an inferno. Boy, I learned real fast that there weren't a lot of going home parties for Apache troops pilots. And when you you listen to some of the stuff, this is a cover pilot's life and death experiences in Vietnam's legendary Apache troop, first of the ninth air cavalry. This pilot was the recipient of uh he was a California native and former police invent California among the medals and decorations awarded to him for his service. And this was kind of typical of most of the people in this outfit. Silver star, three distinguished flying crosses, five grand stars, two Army Commenation Medal Surveiller. He now works as a pilot who flies in sport of offshore operations. He lives in Andrea. He lives in OA, California with his wife Andrea of 20 years. And to read some of the stuff about this is absolutely phenomenal. some of the things that get involved. I'll just read you the a closing part of this thing to give you an idea. The Apache troop I served in wasn't part of the army. The army was part of Apache troop. We were mavericks, but the kind of team that any commander with air on his tailpipe would want his unit to be like if you couldn't get what you needed to accomplish the mission through normal channels, we begged, borrowed, or stole it. usually the latter. With few exceptions, I'd follow the men of Apache troop into hell, knowing full well sooner or later someone from the blues, the whites, the reds, the lift the tuner, the miss section would emerge from a smoking hole, dragging the dead smoldering ass of the devil. Now, he kind of exaggerates a little bit, but I can tell you that these men were phenomenal, phenomenal fighters, and it was my great privilege to serve with them. And when I go to court, I take all of my battle stuff, my my Ranger stuff, my first gear cab. This is from the Apache troop logo. There's my flight wing, the actual ones I wore. This is the first of the ninth logo that was put on the nose of all the aircraft. There's the first there's first 75th Infantry Rangers. I have my duty honor country uh coin from the uh MacArthur group of people. It's a special group of people that defend the Constitution. It's a silver coin that's given as a serious defender group momento. This is MacArthur and it's solid silver. Then I got all my Ranger jump stuff. I put that in there. I take my strike like lightning, sound like thunder, all my ranger stuff that when I was in the rangers and I take my first air cavalry when I was in Cambodia because I was with these boys in Cambodia and locked in. My Apache troop that's right off of our shoulder patches from the Apache troop, the original one I was with the Take My Detroit Judo Club. This is a patch they give you for running 50 miles to save your life. You got a certain time to do it in. They give you a boot lace and a pocketk knife. And if you get caught, they put you in a P camp and treat you like a prisoner. So it's like you got 12 hours to run 50 miles or or you go to the P compound and they treat you like a a P. They hung my buddy up in a pit full of poisonous snakes upside down for about a day or two. And then this is my other patches that I wear from from Vietnam and special operations group. I flew in support of Bogs in Cambodia. We used to deliver their supplies. I got my my Ranger belt buckle. All these are momentos of a program. My bronze star medal. My I have 33 of these air medals. I got five of these bronze stars. I got a distinguished flying cross, Vietnamese cross, a gallantry. 33 air medals. Shot down four times. Left for dead twice. walked out of Cambodia with two regiments on my tail feathers. This is the SOG special operations group MAGV that we flew in support of uh Bogites in Cambodia and the Cambodian operation. I was one of the special air crews that was selected personally to fly the infamous Marine sniper in allow to shoot that general at 800 yards. I was one of the guys that flew him in. And we wear the wings of eagles. We support the National Rifle Association totally. You know, we ain't fooling around. We want our Constitution. We want our Second Amendment. I am a member of Vietnam Veterans. And basically, when I go to court, I put all my lucky charms in my pocket. It kind of drives them nuts down at the courthouse. I also have my flag. I always take my flag with me. And I have my Vietnam veterans belt buckles. And my guresso libra, which means the liberator of an oppression and the special forces that was given to me by the boys over there for helping them, you know. So all this goes in my my pockets. I go to court, my lucky charm, I call them. And it it's a little heavy, but I you know it's like when I go I go for memory of those fine soldiers and some of the thing, yeah, I'd rather be killing communists. That's one of the models of the paratroopers from the Charlie Company Ranger Company. Charlie Company Rangers was the boys that supported that paratroo that that Marine sniper that shot him. We shot that general at 800 yards. So I'm a soldier soldier. I've been a soldier soldier. I believe in the things that the soldiers have done. I've seen a lot of good soldiers pay the maximum price. I personally held them in my arms and I listened to their last words. Tell my mother, tell my wife, tell my family I love them. And to me, Constitution is a very serious document. And we defend it to the death. You do not fool around when it comes to the Constitution. I've been doing it for 25 years. I am a graduate of the project blue book the special project. I also take my harmonica harmonica >> blue book is where they pull their soldiers aside and taught you the constitution. And I always take my harmonica and I give them hell. Give it to him. Transport story.

>> Yeah. Well, we uh we were flying interdiction along the Cambodian border and we come up on the door of these uh B model Huey. It was a smaller Huey and it was uh painted blue and silver and uh all along the side of the tailboom was white powder. And I had informed the aircraft commander and he told me he was hailing them on the hailing frequency and he called them up and told them to land. We wanted to inspect their cargo and they told us basically to blank off and die. You know who we are. My pilot told him he didn't care if he was a man from GLAD. he was going to land that aircraft and we were going to inspect his cargo. Basically, he told us, "Uh, we're not landing." My pilot ordered me to roll my guns up and he shot him down. We went down there and we blew his landing gear off, shot up below his fuel cell, and he got the idea we weren't fooling around. He went down and landed in the rice patty, and we inspected his cargo, and sure enough, he was carrying heroin. So, the pilot gave him a choice. he could go to Longman jail with us for contraband trafficking or he could uh hitchhike home, baby. So he chose to hitchhike home and figured he had a chance. Of course, we knew that was going to be rather difficult in Cambodia, him being 3 foot taller than anything there walking and a white man on top of that. But uh we gave him a chance and the bottom line is he didn't want to go to jail. So we torched his aircraft and uh we got back and the co uh you those people they're going to kill you. I call them make my day. I said uh they were trafficking that dope tis and god knows who else. And as far as I'm concerned we stuck it to them for about 15 million and I'm just tickled. If I could do it again tomorrow I'd do it again. That's a true story. We actually did it. So anyway, to make a long story short, I'm a serious soldier. I love my country and its constitution, and I do not compromise when it comes to Constitution. I defend to the death. That's what we do. Anybody who knows Vogue writes, he's the most decorated soldier in the history of the United States. He's a very congenial gentleman. He u when we worked with him in Cambodia, he was all business. All business. And uh we flew as fifth special forces people all over for whatever recon missions they had. And um they got they got to work with us and they know we were pretty serious folks. And I personally think Wright is going to be painted as some desperado no matter what he does only because he is uh associated with the avant guard type constitutional defense. He was the guy that got the Ruby uh rich uh matter resolved peacefully. Um clearly he went in to to save Randy Weaver because Randy Weaver used to be one of his boys on the team and took I mean he was risking his own life. They could have just as easily dispatched him too. So he's a man of great courage. I respect uh what he's doing. I appreciate that he's trying to make things happen, but I also know that he's going to be held in some type of villainist. Uh, no matter what he does, people are going to not understand and they're going to be afraid. And of course, the newspapers will continue to paint him as uh whatever boogeyman in the closet they can.

All right, we're going to go on with our programming here. We just got a little off the track there just to kind of let you give an idea where we're coming from. We uh we take a pretty serious attack on the Constitution and we want to get into some other issues. We want to get into uh things like things like money, money, money, money, money, money, money. And one of the best tapes you can get is from a gentleman uh we call him Ernie. Uh he uh basically is known throughout the movement around here. He delivers all the tapes and what have you. and he has a tape called Wake Up America. And basically, it starts telling you how money works and why it works and what they're doing with our money. And when you're done, you really understand what's going on. But we want to share some things with you about the money. And we got a good story to tell you, too. But basically we want to share with you right now in Michigan the Michigan Compile Laws 21.153 Michigan Compile Laws Act obligations due state or municipality in date operative when paid by check or legal tender whenever any check or bank draft shall be tendered for the payment of any debt taxes or other obligation due the state or to any municipality therein such check draft shall operate as a payment ment made on the date the check or draft was received and accepted by the receiving officer. If it shall be paid on the presentation without deduction for exchange or cost of collection, all agencies of the state of Michigan shall request that checks tendered in payment of an obligation due to state shall be made payable to the state of Michigan. No receiving officer shall be required to receive in payment of any debt, taxes or other obligation collectible or receivable by him any tender other than gold or silver coin of the United States, the United States Treasury notes which you can't get today, gold certificates which you can't get today, silver certificates which you can't get today, or other Federal Reserve bank notes. And there's no bank notes in circulation. There's Federal Reserve notes but there's no Federal Reserve bank notes. Now the reality is by this fact you are specifically procluded from tendering lawfully without being a party to a felony that of the basement of the coin of the realm against the 1792 coinage act the Sherman coinage act. So Roger Sherman wrote a book about this and it tells you all about coinage and the debasement of the coin of the realm and that's why he is affiliated with the 1792 coinage act. Now, the reality to this is what has been going on over a period of time is they've been playing games with the money. As we can see right here, we have right here a silver certificate. This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States, $1, right, of silver. All right? $1 in silver payable to the bearer on demand. Now, we had a little time. We got together. We had some of these notes. We had some gold certificate notes. Also, we got one here that says uh we got one here that says uh United States note, United States of America. Now, notice the difference here, folks. This one just says this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. But we know that that's a lie because article 1, section 10 of the Constitution says nothing but gold and silver coin shall be made a tender in payment of debt. Now, this is going to bring up a real interesting case that we got here. Now, we went down to the Federal Reserve Bank and we took $500 worth of uh these are silver certificates here, but we took gold certificates, $20 gold pieces. We had $500 worth and we went in the Federal Reserve Bank and I walked up to the window and I said, "I'm the bearer on demand and lawful money of account of the United States government, sir." I said, "I said, I want my gold." I handed her the notes. She looked at me and she says, "Sir, we don't have any gold." Listen. Are you trying to tell me this bank is overextended? >> Everybody looks. You can't come in here and do that, sir. You're going to get a run on the bank. I I'm asking you for my gold. I'm the bearer. I'm here and before you demanding it says pay to the bearer on demand and allow money to the county, United States

Government and $20 gold. I got $500 worth of these and I'll take $20 gold pieces. We don't have any gold. Are you trying to tell me this bank is overextended? Well, they called the SWAT team. This lieutenant comes running up and all these guys got rifles and they're all the port arms and the lieutenant walks up to me says, "All right, what the hell is going on here?"

So, I explained to him I said, "Sir, I am the bearer on demand and lawful money of the county, United States government. I'm here in before this bank. This is a lawful bank of the government. And I'm asking you I'm asking them to pay me, the bearer, on demand my $20 in gold for every one of these $20 gold demand deposit notes that I have. And I have up to $500 worth and I just asked her for the gold. She told me she doesn't have any gold. I tried to tell her, 'You told me this bank's overextended.' She told me, 'You can't come in here and do that.'" And the next thing you know, you show up. The lieutenant looked at him and said, "Why don't you get the guy's gold? Come on, guys. We're out of here." So, they left. They couldn't give me my gold cuz they ain't got any gold.

But there is a contract on here that says pay the bearer on demand. Now on this one it's a dollar of silver in theory. The contract is there and you could in theory go collect it. But upon trying to collect it there is no gold. There is no silver. They don't have any. Now over a period a long period of time in barter we have slowly been pushed into a position of of impossibility to perform.

Now, can the hat check be the hat? Can you walk in and check your hat and get a hat check? And then when you come back to get your hat back, they hand you another hatch check. Can you wear the hatch check? Obviously not. So obviously the note is not the dollar. All it is is the promise to pay a dollar. Does everybody understand that? And what has happened over a long period of time in custom uses is the people have been hoodwinkedked into thinking that they have money dollars. There are no dollars. Dollar is unit of measurement.

Which brings up a very famous case, the case of Montgomery Wards versus Eugene Glacier. For those of you who want to order the case, we'll be happy to give you the court case numbers. Let me take this off so it doesn't reflect too much. This is a very famous case. Okay. The docket number is 82-00002087. This is before the honorable district court of 52nd 3rd district court. The judge of the record was the honorable James P. She Okay. Now I'll give you a little synopsis of this case. What happened in this case? Did everybody get the court number first though? 82-002087. All right.

Now, what happened in this case, to make a long story short, this gentleman's wife got a little mad at him, decided to take his credit card and go out and charge to Montgomery Wards from the front door to the back door. And he ran up quite a large sum of debt. The matter got, of course, Montgomery Wards wasn't going to take you back. You bought it, it's yours. You got it now. And they went to court and uh came up before the the the famous judge James P. She a 52nd Thirddist district court who by the way is a very excellent judge very knowledgeable very very a decent man a kindly man pretty serious business though if you're screwing around he's going to hammer you but most of the time he's uh quite congenial and kind of a lot of fun too but it came up before his court and up jumped the devil in the deep blue sea and they're starting to argue and the judge saying well let me ask you a question he said you get a credit card he said yeah so you signed for the credit card he said yeah you get a credit card to your wife he said Yeah. He said, "Here's the bill you pay." He says, "Okay, judge. Now, let me explain something to you. You told me that the judgment is for this amount. Is that right? And I'm asking you and you told me it's this many dollars, and I'm asking you for a determination of the dollars." What? What dollars? He said, "Sir, you can interpret it any way you want. You can make it frankincense or my I don't care. I don't care if you don't even pay his judgment. I'll tell you what. Don't pay it. There's a lot of documents in the basement. They never pay them. says, "Don't pay it. We'll just take judgment against you and we'll attach you, you know, whatever we need for rits of attachment and we're going to collect on this debt." He said, "Sir, you misunderstand my point. Now, you you have told me uh this amount of dollars and and I'm I'm confused here. I need to know something about these dollars." He says, "Well," he said, "let clarify it for you. I've entered a judgment against you for the amount due." All right? He said, 'Yes, sir, but if I ask you for a pound of something, you're going to say a pound of what? If I ask you for a gallon of something, you're going to say a gallon of what? And if I ask you for a foot or a yard of something, you're going to say a foot or a yard of what? Now, you're coming to me and telling me dollars and I'm asking you dollars of what? Cuz dollar is a unit of measurement. He said, "You can make it anything you want." Tell you what, make it coffee beans.

Now, at that instant, the Montgomery Rewards attorney came to a half rise and he went, "Your honor, your honor, there was 40 of us plus in the court and we sat there and all we could do was go." So, we realized instantly what this judge had just did. He had made a determination of the substance of the money of account of the United States government pursuant to coffee beans. With great courage, the honorable judge James Pi had made a determination that the substance of the money accounting the United States government was coffee beans. That's what we told the Wall Street Journal and all the newspapers and television stations that would listen. He was most upset about that. Instantly, the judge looked across the room. We're all sitting with our jaw on the ground. And he leaned back in his chair, flipped his pencil in the air, and he said, "Oh, yes." with a hit on the record. He realized that a landmark Michigan court decision had occurred. He realized that Montgomery Wards wasn't going to say nothing cuz they won. They they ain't going to appeal. They won. They What are they going to appeal? You won. You won. You won. You won. It's not going to appeal. We weren't going to appeal cuz we won too. We got the judge to make a determination that the substance of the money United States government was coffee beans. You can see in the back of this book here, Mr. Glacier took the judgment right here. And this was for 1,98.97. He did it in 100 bean bags certified one bean to the dollar and 97100. So we cut the tip of the bean off, painted a white line on it. He sent it to Montgomery Wards. You got it on there? >> Mhm. >> Please find and close in this package 1,100 48 coffee beans, which is payment in full pursuant to judge of the 52nd District Court October 8, 1982. before his honorable judge James Pi. I thank you sir for your time and trouble concerning this matter most graciously yours truly Eugene Glazure and cert certified mail sent to him. They never said nothing nor would they nor could they. He honored the stipulation of the judge. Okay.

Now to this date. This gentleman comes to court with a big red bag, marble bag full of coffee beans that he's got stenciled on the side. Jeans beans. I'll read you the last statement. This is kind of hilarious. You It's pretty good. He's asking for determination of the substance of the money. I read you about the last three pages. He goes, "All right." Therefore, really out of his own testimony, it seems to me that judgment really is unavoidable in that amount. Thank you, your honor. The court. Anything else, sir? You have the right to a closing argument, Mr. Glacier. Only that I don't think I received a fair and equitable trial here today. the court. This is a closing argument regarding this trial. Okay. As to the subject matter, Mr. Glacier. Subject matter. I have nothing to add to the subject matter here at the court. The court makes the following finding of facts that the court finds it pursuant to PL exhibit number one that Mr. Glacier Eugene Glacier entered into a contract with Montgomery Wards and the company which it is a monthly account. Two, pursuant to plants exhibit number two that the account was used by probably 95 99% of the time of the purchases by his wife while they were married. Number three, that for testimony of Mr. Davidson's unreed testimony, Mr. Davidson, the balance owing on the account is $1,98.97. And the court also finds that Mr. Gman, Mr. Gman, excuse me, from Mr. Glacier's testimony that he just recently got divorced by August 24, 1981. In that divorce proceeding, he accepted the liability to on this account as between he and his wife. Based upon the information, the court makes a conclusion of law that Mr. Eugene Glacier, the this matter owes Montgomery Ward $1,988.97. Court finds a judgment in favor of PLF in the amount of plus cost. Mr. Glacier, you have a right to appeal this. And that appeal I think is in 15 or 20 days, Mr. G. Mr. Gman from 20. You're under 21 actually out of counting 23. I think it's 20 all over now. You're the court. I think it is. It used to be 15 on some cases and 20 on others. And I could never keep it straight, but I think it's 20. You have a right to appeal in 20 days. If you appeal, let me explain to you how you do that. You have the file with the court, the circuit claim of appeal. Are those the ones that are marked by the way those exhibit, Mr. Gman? Oh, yes, sir. Your honor, that's right. The court, we better keep those. You can give him a copy of the other ones. By the by the way, you you can file a claim of appeal with a circuit court in this court. You also make a request to the court for a copy of the record. A copy of the record must file within a certain amount of time. that you can tell you you must file as I say a claim of appeal and then you have a certain number of days after that to file your appeal okay claim of appeal is nothing more than a little form I hereby claim appeal okay so but some but the court clerks can give you more information but if you don't file an appeal within 20 days you've lost your right for an appeal any other questions before the court recesses I'd still like to have a motion for a more definite statement dollars of what am I do I owe the court dollars of what the court the court has made now this is this is after he had already told him dollars of what before and the judge told him frankincense and myrr and then he kept hammering away at this dollars of what and the court lost its school. The court has made a judgment of $1,98.97 and however you interpret that sir if you want that and coffee beans that's okay with me really. Okay, thank you much. And at that point we all went and he went oh s with a hit. He realized he threw his pencil up in the air. Now, this is a magnificent case and an example. And to this day, this gentleman still pays court judgments with coffee beans. And if it's a viable case, you can use the case as a reference. Uh, it's a landmark Michigan court decision. We use it thoroughly.

Okay. Now, to make a long story short, article 1, section 10 of the Constitution is clear and specific. Says nothing but gold and silver coin shall be made a tender in payment of debt. We got article one section 10 right here for those of you are looking for no bill of attainer or expose facto law shall be passed. That's traffic tickets folks. The bill of attainer is a traffic ticket. Can you see that right here? No bill of attainer or expose facto law shall be passed. No capitation or direct tax shall be laid unless by the role of a portionment or census to we'll talk about that later. That's another heavy one. All right. But article 1 section 10 is basically no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debt. All right. Here we go. Here we go. Right here. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. Grant letters of mark and reprisal. A letter of mark or reprisal is like uh your brothers messed with the king. So the king is going to attack your family and put letter of mark out on them. Coin money. Emit bills of credit. What is a Federal Reserve note? Make anything but gold and silver coin a tenure and payment of debts. Why? Because it creates inflation. You got to understand that paper money, if you can't redeem every piece of paper in a society, the amount that you can't redeem is inflation or credit. Credit is inflation, right? Pass any bill of attainer. Huh? What is a bill of attainer? Again a traffic ticket explo or a law carrying the obligation of contracts or grant any title of nobility when they give these guys these gun permits because they got $3,000 in their pocket and they're a rich businessman. Isn't that a title of nobility? Cuz they get more rights. They're more politically correct than you. They have rights. You see, I mean, they violate so many things. It's not funny. It's never funny. But I'm just saying I I mean, you start reading this book, folks. I mean, I read it all the time and I always find something new. This is kind of a book like the Bible. It's one of these books you can read and find something out of it all the time. The bottom line is you read the Constitution and you you holler. You don't let these people jam your Constitution. You keep going. All right. All right.

Now, let's let's talk about let's talk about treason here. Put this down here. What is treason? Title 18. This is this is the penal code and we're talking about treason. Whoever owing allegiance to the United States levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort with in the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or shall be in prison not less than 5 years and/or fine not less than a $10,000 and shall be impeachable of holding any office under the United States. Right? After this section, it gives you all the reasons of how you can be charged with treason. But the basic issues come under adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Now, breaking down the laws of our country has also been construed as giving the enemies aid and comfort. So, if they're violating their oath of office and they're not upholding the Constitution, that is treason because in so doing, they create anarchy in the land and in that they aid the enemies of our country. Does that make legal sense to you?

All right, here we go. We want to talk about title 22, United States Code, section 20 286A. Basically, the part that we want to talk about is the the governor's and executive director's term of office. But basically, when we get over here, we really want to talk about the compensation for services. Now, this is title 22, United States Code, section 286A, right? Okay. Compensation for services. No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States. Did everybody get that? From the United States for services as a governor, executive director, counselor of alternate or associate, United States executive director of the fund. What are we talking about here? The International Monetary Fund shall not be compensated by the fund at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying positions at level four of the executive schedule under section 5315 of title 5 United States Code. All right. The United States alternative executive director to the fund. What fund? International Monetary Fund shall not be compensated by the fund at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying a position of level five of the executive schedule under section 5316 of title 5 United States Code. The Secretary of the Treasurer shall instruct the United States executive director of the fund to present to the fund's executive board a comprehensive set of proposals consistent with the maintaining high levels of competence of the fund personnel and consistent with the articles of agreement with the objective of assuring that the salaries and/or other compensations accorded fund employees who who fund International Monetary Fund do not exceed those received by persons filling similar levels of responsibility within the national government. Got me? Service or private industry. The secretary shall report these proposals, right? Together with any measures adopted by the funds executive board to the Congress prior to February 1, 1979. Now folks, when they're talking about the fund, they're talking about the International Monetary Fund. And when they're talking about being paid, people like Janet Reno, who is a governor of the fund, is paid by the IMF. And who are they talking about? The Secretary of Treasury shall instruct who? Now, these people are paid by another government to our people. That is a violation of our laws. You understand? I mean, if they catch a congressman on the tank, what happens? He's out of there. Why? Because it's considered to be unethical activity. Yet, this foreign operating operating program, this international monetary fund is paying our officers as executive officers. Who whose interest you do they serve? Do they serve the United States or do they serve the funds? Does that make sense to you? Okay. To me, this is an act of sedition or treason. The bottom line is they are not operating in the best interest of the United States of America. They are operating in their interest and they are paid by a foreign power. And how can they sit in a office of government in the United States of America paid by a foreign power? It's inconceivable that this is going on. No want to find out.

Paul also we want to show them this these concurrent resolutions here expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for the president to seek the senator's advice and consent to ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. John Conurs is in on this. He's one of our guys, too. Okay. Now, the bottom line is they're setting the standards. All right. On these standards. Whereas it is estimated that every night in the United States at least 100,000 children go to sleep homeless. Whereas I mean they make all these allegations. Where in the United States has the world's largest gross national product yet American children ranked below the top 15 nations in regard to health and well-being. Whereas in 1989 infant mortality rate for the United States ranked 19th in the world being Singapore or Spain. I mean, they make all these allegations about the United States and the National Commission on Children has declared that every child in America needs an excellent education. Yet, approximately 40% of the nation's children are at risk of school failure. I mean, they go on and on. Whereas the United States 2,600,000 children were reported to be abused and are neglected at 91. I mean, this is ridiculous. Whereas it's estimated that 1,800,000 teenagers were victims of violent crime. Whereas the Supreme Court has never fully articulated the range of rights to be accorded to children under the United States Constitution or fully articulated the manner in the Constitution is applicable to minors. It is whereas the positive futures of our families, communities, nations are dependent. Now you keep reading all these whereases. Whereas 29 others nations have signed convention indicating their intention to ratify the convention in the future. Then you get down whereas it is essential that the United States sign and ratify the convention on rights of the child and begin implement convention legal standards in order to improve and protect the lives of children. Believe me, they're not trying to protect the lives of children. They're trying to create a new federal bureaucracy. Whereas at the world summit of children in September such such to sign the world declaration of survival, protection and development of children which would include commitment to work and promote earliest possible ratification implementation under the United Nations and conventions of the right of the child. Whereas the house of representatives passed a resolution being first congress urging president to seek consent of the Senate to ratification of the convention of the rights of the child. But such action having not occurred is necessary to the congress implore the president to take action on the convention now and now they want to push it. All right. Now, you got to understand, folks, they're not doing this for the children. Believe me, they're doing it because they want to create some new kind of problem. Children, tomorrow, I apologize to you on behalf of those in my time for the things we didn't do. We didn't stop the tyrants so your fate could be prevented. We watched them steal our freedom, but our silence we consented. We didn't choose to circumvent the doom you've not escaped while the Bill of Rights was murdered in the Constitution raped. Some of us were lazy and too busy, others too afraid to think about our children, the ones we have betrayed. We say we were too busy to be concerned or care to try to ease the burden of the change we've made you wear. A debt of 17 trillion more money than exists because we fail to heed God's call of usery resists. We could have been good shepherds when the wolf got in the fold. Yet watched the flame of freedom die which leaves you in the cold. We changed our great republic which was forged in blood for liberty to a socialist welfare state which we call democracy. I'm sorry we were so timid, betrayed by a selfish generation. We left yet a remnant of a free and prosperous nation. I'm sorry for our action like sheep we have behaved. We could have left you freedom. Instead, you are enslaved. Children of tomorrow, descendants of our land, I'm sorry we allowed this fate. You now must understand. Children of tomorrow, educate yourself by reading the Bible of the Bible to break the chains we left you with. Maintain God's ten commandments. Use reason, logic, and common sense. Suffer the little children to come to me for such is the kingdom of God. Dennis Byron this come off of the amateur radio Freeman's bulletin board August September 1992 end of transmission. So I think you can see here at one time they pretend to do all this and yet on the other they do all that. So I thought this was very poant uh thing to put out on the air try and hammer across.

Okay. Now we want to cover some other things. We want to cover the Brentwoods agreement act. Want to cover about the 1-207. Remember I told you sign your name 1-207 UCCC 1-207 without prejudice. This is it right here folks. This is uh the 1-207 uniform commercial code. This section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract. What contract? The bankruptcy contract despite that's 1933. Pending. All right. Pending dispute by adopting the mercantal device of going ahead with delivery acceptable acceptance or payment without prejudice under the protest under reserve with reservation of all rights and the like. All of though all of these phrases completely reserve all rights within the meaning of this section. This section therefore contemplates that limited as well as general reservations and acceptance by a party may be made subject to satisfaction of our purchaser. Subject to acceptance by our customer or the like. This section does not add any new requirement of language of reservation where not already required by law, but merely provides a specific measure on which a party can rely as he makes or concurs in any interim adjustment in the course of performance. When they say performance, they're talking about contractual performance. It does not affect or impair the provisions of this act, such as those under which the buyers, right? Remedies for defect survive acceptance without being expressly claimed if notice of the defect is given within a reasonable time. Nor does it disturb the policy of those cases which restrict the effect of a waiver of a defect to reasonable limits under the circumstances even though no such reservation is expressed. Now this is all what they're talking about when you write down without prejudice. They're telling you you have a right to reserve your rights. So I'm telling you to use it. Don't screw around. Sufficiency of the reservation. Any expression, you see that? Any expression indicating an intention to preserve rights is sufficient such as without prejudice, under protest, under reservation, with reservation of all rights, under duress is another one. The code states an explicit reservation must be made. Explicit undoubtedly is used in place of express to indicate that the reservation must not only be expressed but it must also be clear under duress that such a reservation was intended in advance. Right? The term explicit as used in UCCC1-207 means that which is so clearly stated or distinctly set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning. Okay? Now, that's the reservation I want you to claim. I want you to screw around. I want you to use your head for something other than a hat rack because I'm telling you, >> just do it. Yeah. Just do it. >> Yeah. You don't tell them nothing. You sign it and you walk out. When they ask you what that is, you say, "That's something I put down on my signature every time." So, I know it's you. You're not You didn't learn all this stuff overnight. And you you're not going to give somebody these classes overnight. Believe me, if you think you're going to teach somebody this stuff all night, you're dreaming. It takes a long time of serious study to get to the level of where you're at. And you're not going to deliver that to anybody overnight. So, my sincere advice is don't try and do it because it ain't going to happen in your lifetime. Just sign it. Do what you're supposed to do. If people want to listen, then you let them listen. If they don't want to listen, then you say, "Oh, well, we want to show off some of these things." Under executive order of the president, all persons required to deliver honor before May 1st, 1933. Try and blow that up. That's a good one. That's all here. Gold and silver. Want to make sure we get into all kind of arguments here. Real quick question. >> Should we ask? Yes, I think you should set aside some serious money to put in. I think people shouldn't have everything gold and silver. I think you should have I think you should buy toilet paper and I think you should buy food and I think you should buy cough medicine and I think you should buy laundry soap and I think you should buy you know have some stuff around like you would keep your normal business and put a little bit in gold and silver. I think you should have a pump shotgun in your closet to defend your house. Something. Yeah, something to defend your house. Not that you may need it, but if you do, you got it.

Now, here we go, folks. It's the Brentwoods Agreement Act. And this is the agreement act that that created this problem with this Title 22, United States Code, section 286. Okay. This is heavy duty, folks. So, remember I showed you about treason. Okay. No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States for services as a government executive, director, counselor, alternator, or associate. Right. Congress by law authorizes such action. Neither the president nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the United States request for consent to any change in the quota of the United States under article three, section two, the articles of agreement of the fund. The fund, the International Monetary Fund. All right, let's pull it up here. All right, they're talking about dollar under paragraph six. Okay, that's not what I want. One. Let's see. Make any loan to the fund or bank approve the establishment of any additional trust fund for the special benefit of the single member or of a particular segment of membership of the fund. Yeah. All right. Let's see. In order to carry out the purposes of the decisions of January 1962 of the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make loans not to exceed two looks like ahead. Yep. Outstanding at any one time to the fund. It sounds like I'm hammering on that fund. That's because I am. Under article 7 section one subp paragraph I of the articles of agreement of the fund. I mean they set this thing up. The secretary of the treasury with the approval of the president directly or through such agencies as he may designate as authorized for the account of the fund established in this section to deal in gold and foreign exchange in such other instruments of credit and securities as he may dee necessary to the consistent constituent. No. Consistent and consistent with United States obligations in the International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually make a report on the operation of the fund to the president and to the Congress. That makes the Secretary of Treasury what? An officer of the fund. Okay. The Secretary of Treasury. Yeah, he is guilty. The Secretary of Treasury is authorized to issue gold certificates in such form and in such denomination as he may determine against any gold held by the United States Treasury. The amount of gold certificates issued and/or outstanding shall at no time exceed the value at the legal standard provided in section two of par value modification act 31 United States code 449 on the date of enactment of this amendment of the gold so held against gold certificates. They're in the gold certificates. All right. The amendment made by sections 2, three, four, five, six, and seven of this act shall become effective upon entry into the force of the amendments approved in the resolution number 31-4 of the board of governors of the fund. Now, this is called the Brentwoods Agreement Act, folks. And this is what set up title 22, United States Code, section 286A, which says that these officers are paid out of the fund. They're not paid as United States employees. A peish. Is there any doubt in your mind now who gets paid where? They don't. We don't pay them. They're paid by somebody else. The fund. Who is the fund? All those rich guys that are sitting over in Europe. They're trying to control our country. All right. No. Okay.

Let's move on here. We got things to do. I want to show you something else, too. Let's look at the very first book of title to of the United States codes annotated. I don't care which section you grab. Grab either lawyers edition. This title has been acted in as positive law. Okay? Notice the little asterisk. And you come down here and all these titles that got the little asteris are all part of the law. Title 11 bankruptcy, title 13 census, title 14 coast guard, you know, copyrights, you got crimes and criminal procedure, title 18, right? Well, I want you to notice something as we come over to title 26 here. Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code. It's never been enacted into law. It's a regulation. Can you get it? Can you get it? See that? Look closely. Title 26 and title 27. You see an asterisk there? You don't see one, do you? >> No, sir. >> That's cuz there ain't one. Now, let's look at the other version. The other version is exactly the same. This is just the one out of the official US reports for titles. This title has been enacted as law. Look at all the titles that got an asterisk. You'll notice again title 26 and title 27. Zippo, no asterisk. Everybody see that real clear? Pull it over. No asterisk. Obviously, it's never been enacted as law. How could it be? I'll tell you how. We got a case over here called Erie Railroad versus Tomkins. And I'm going to bring it to your attention. Erie Railroad versus Tomkins is a magnificent court case. Basically what this court case did, this court case is recorded at volume 304, United States Reports section or page 64 is the start of the case. That's 304, volume 304, United States Reports section 604. Now what this case does is it sets up a duality of citizenship. There are the citizens that live at the common law and there are the citizens that live at the national law or what is called admiral t or maritime jurisdiction. Now the way they get away with putting this title 26 and this title 27 out the way they do it is they create this admiral and maritime jurisdiction and if you volunteer into it you are in it. If you step in it it's on you. Okay? So I'm telling you don't do that. You know what the doctor says every time you go to the doctor and you say, "Doc, every time I do this, it hurts." You know what the doctor tells you? Don't do that no more. You don't do that no more, it won't hurt, right? I'm telling you the same thing applies with this. Don't volunteer. How do you volunteer? You enter and you watch what you sign. Number one, any evidences of contracts where you are an admiral or maritime jurisdiction says that you are a party to the contract. So you avoid that when you sign that bank draft to get into that bank and that section 9 form you fill out. Guess what? Look at the bottom. You signed to get into an Admiral T maritime jurisdiction. What the hell would you want to do that for? It's illogical. When you signed up for that social security check. So how are we going to remedy this situation on 207 without prejudice? You sign anything that has to do anything with those guys, take the rights that they'll give them to you. Take the benefits, but make sure when you sign it, you sign it UD1-207 without prejudice. That makes you a common law citizen. And when they pull you into these courts and they claim they have jurisdiction over you, you say the first thing out of your mouth is, "Your honor may please the court. Before this matter goes forward, I wish to state that I am here on a special appearance as distinguished from a general appearance and I am answering in the form of a demir. A demure is an old way of pleading. It's an oldfashioned old country barristister English way of pleading without granting jurisdiction. In other words, I'll answer out of courtesy and I'll give you an answer out of courtesy, but at no time am I granting jurisdiction and I put on my brief. I state my name. I state the defendant inappropriate persona on a special appearance is distinguished from a general appearance for jurisdictional challenges. Now, I've raised the issue of jurisdictional challenges. I'm putting on the record. It's clearly cognizant. Once jurisdiction is raised, the burden is on the planet to prove jurisdiction pursuant to McNut versus General Motors Acceptance Corporation recorded at 56 Supreme Court 502 says jurisdiction may never be assumed but must be substantively proven by the plaint of claimment. They don't prove it in a timely fashion. Latches incurs. Latches is a species of action or a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law and having failed to timely do so loses all right to proceed. So if they don't prove it timely motion to dismiss your honor fail state a cause of action for which your relief can be granted and I'd kind of like to collect my cost and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. Does that make sense to you?

All right. Now let's get into this eerie railroad case. This is a railroad case. What it's about. Guy's walking down the track and a board was hanging off the end of the train and whacked him upside the head. He tried to sue in the state courts. The state courts uh hammered him. So what happened was Eerie Railroad had flipped around and they tried to sue him in the federal courts to get back at him and they thought they were pulling a fast one. What happened was the case bounced back on and guess what? But when it bounced back, it created a very very dangerous thing. Now before this, I want you to understand that for 100 years of law, this case was the one that that was the leading case before this. This was called Makullik versus Maryland, state of Maryland. This is a very leading case. This is the most heavy case. It comes in two sections. That's tells you how thick it is. So you're going to be reading for a while. This case upheld for 100 plus years. Practically almost 100 years. This case is recorded at it's a 1819 case. It is an old case and it upheld for years the uh single citizenship relationship and it deals with corporations. The power of establishing corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the government of the Union, it may be exercised by that government. Now, basically it sets up relationships. The bank of the United States has constitutionally a right to establish its branches or other offices in discount and deposit within any state. All right. The state within which such branch may be established cannot without violating constitution tax that branch. All right. Now, it goes into some heavy arguments on taxes and some other arguments on on programming. But I'm telling you here, this was the law of the land. Want to get a site on this uh for a uh a reference. This book was so old when we got it from it should say what buying is but normally they put it in the case and then they'll site it one time and then they'll say everything after that. Super. They stated it at the beginning. Volume line four. They're right. That's not really a good That's probably You see these reporters in the early This is 1819, folks. That's when this case came down. So this was going to be, you know, shortly after the constitution was signed. 1791 is when the constitution was signed. So it's going to be an early case. All right. William McCullik defendant will branch. Normally they state the case one place and they state it. But anyway, to make a long story short, McCullik versus Maryland is a very heavy case. It was the law of the land and it was replaced by area railroad versus Tommpkins. There is no federal Can you see that there's no federal general common law? Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or general whether they be commercial law or in part of the law of tors. No clause in the constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts except in the matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of cong. The law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. Got me? And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision not a matter of federal concern. Now, in disapproving the doctrine of the Swift versus Tyson, the court does not hold unconstitutional section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any other act of Congress. It mere title 26. It merely declares that by applying the doctrine of that case rights which are reserved by the constitution to the several states have been invaded. Invaded. That's why they can get away with having title 26 without having no asterisk. They don't have to have it in law. They're claiming that's an act of Congress. And if you voluntarily enter into it, guess what? You bought the whole farm. A federal court exercising jurisdiction over such a case on the ground of diversity of citizenship. What am I talking about diversity of citizenship? I'm talking about dual citizenship, right? Is not free to treat this question as one of so-called general law, but must apply the state law as declared by the highest state court. Swift versus Tennyson over the liability of the railroad company for the injury caused by negligent operation of its train to its pedestrian on a muchused beaten path on its right ofway interstate right along and near the rails depends in the absence of a federal or state statute upon the unwritten law of the state where the accident occurred. Now what they're trying to do here is they're trying to justify the existence of this duality of citizenship between common law citizen which you are most of you and this natural national citizen which would fall under title 26 United States code but I'm telling you to look up section 6331A of title 26 and you will see that the treasurer the secretary of treasurer has jurisdiction only over corporations officers of corporations and officers of government residing in the District of Columbia and artificial corporation who are contractors of the fundish. All right. Now, this is an important case. If you guys are going to be in this seriously battling and want to argue jurisdiction, which is a very good defense on almost anything they can pull on you, you're going to have to read these cases. Erie Railroad versus Tomkins recorded at 304, that's volume 304, US page 64 is where it starts. It's vital that you understand these arguments. I just finished battling a United States attorney and we were arguing and he's talking about this is all gibberish. And I told him, I said, "Sir, I don't think you're well read on the law. All you got to do is read several of these cases and they'll tell you one, there is a duality of citizenship. Two, it has to be clearly defined. And three, I have defined it. And now I'm asking you to prove that I'm not a party or prove that I am a party. You tell me. It's your burden. You're the one making the complaint. You make the complaint, you get the burden to prove. Who says so? McNut versus General Motors Acceptance Corporation 56 Supreme Court section 5 page 502. You made it, you prove it. Okay. You don't prove it timely. I motion to dismiss fair state of cause of action for which relief should be drafted and I will beat your little fail. I would highly recommend you get busy approving it. Now if you think the stuff don't work let me tell you something here right here right today government came told me motion to dismiss right United States of America hereby moves pursuant to federal rules of criminal procedure for leave to dismiss the indictment in the case support the statutes okay now you certificate of service order dismissing indictment which the judge will sign the government having moved to dismiss the indictment in the case of this court being fully advised in the premises ordered in the indictment of B and hereby is dismissed with prejudice and that the defense bond is canceled as so ordered and a judged wherefore the United States requests that this court enter the attached order dismissing the indictment without prejudice but we'll figure that out we'll fix it I don't care if we go to court cuz I know who's going going to win. And I pray to God that he'll help me do that. So if they want to go to court, I tell them, "Make my day." When I'm in the court, the guy says to me, "Well, we could get you for an income tax evasion and you might win one, but you won't win them all." I looked at him most calmly and I said to him in the clear and gracious language, I said, "Sir, I'm going to advise you to go look in them law books real carefully because I'm a tyr. I have had occasion to look in them law books and I'm telling you sir if you bring that complaint against me I'm going to tell you to make my day cuz I'm pretty serious fellow and I'm not going to fool with you. I'll sue your socks off and attach everything you own business and home. So best thing I can tell you is before you make a complaint sir I would highly recommend that you seriously consider the merits of your facts before you go writing a bunch of dribble. And when we got him today, he's talking about, "Well, your briefs are nothing but gibberish." So we asked him, he said, "Well, on our proposed order to have it dismissed, do you want us to put it down there for good gibberish shown or just generally good cause shown?" So he got a little red in the face and stormed out. But the bottom line is if you know your facts and you got your stuff together, I'm telling you people out there in TV land, you can do this stuff.

I, as God is my judge, I I'm a truck driver. I'm a been an engineer for a while. I uh I'm a fisherman, a hunter, and a guide. Uh I'm a regular person. I just read a lot. Okay?

I know people like to add stuff in the game, but I'm a regular citizen of the United States. I love my country and its Constitution, and I'm not fooling around. I want them done or my Constitution. And I don't think that's too much to ask. I think a lot of fine soldiers paid for it. They had a lot of patriots. Some of the finest people I've ever known have paid for it.

Uh I especially tout Donald who was the editor of the constitutionalist newspaper and the the initiator and starter of the justice prosade movement in this area. He was a great man. He was a courageous man. Uh he was found shot to death in his home with a bullet in his nose because obviously he stuck his nose in places it shouldn't have been. He was a tireless defender of the people and the constitution. Many a time we uh cruised the countryside doing meetings hither and yan. He wore a white cowboy hat which we used to joke about. Good guys wear white hats. He was an exceptional personality. He lost everything he owned, fighting to the death.

And uh I I uh I especially offer my my serious prayers for his soul and for the soul of all patriots who have suffered tremendous things to put on this constitution and to keep us going. Um the people with the WWCR radio there. Um God bless you. Uh Radio Free America, Tom Valentine, uh Bill Cooper, the infamous uh Jack Mlan from Vampire Killer 2000. The uh there's a some serious serious battlers out here, folks. Uh myself included. There's quite a few patriots all around. Um, I can't tell you the names of the people that I feel absolutely privileged to know because the list would be so long here. It would take another two hours just for the tape. But I can tell you some exceptional people. Some of them are on bond and they can't be doing that. So, so I I'm respecting their, you know, some of the things. the infamous Eugene May, EJ May, there's just so many. The infamous No Tax Jim, James Gordon, Lot. Uh, I mean, the names are endless. Um, so I'm telling you folks out here, there's a lot of good people out here that are pulling for you that have risked a whole lot, gone to jail, have stood out rain protesting.

The infamous Dave Franklin who is one of the most leading arguers on constitutional issues of admiral and maritime jurisdiction. Uh the outstanding uh Art Morris who published the book uh The Greatest Swindle Ever Told which is about 4,000 pages of documentary evidence on income tax situations. Uh we're going to share a couple of arguments in the end and then we're going to kind of close it off here until the next time. But uh I want to thank you very much for inviting me into your home and uh hopefully we haven't bored you to tears and at the same time you will have a new uh love of your constitution and your country and that you will uh push like hell to make sure these people understand, hey, this is America, pal. Last time I checked, there's a flag and a pole out there and that's an American flag. We don't want no blue flag out there. We want that American flag up there. And we got a constitution and we're going to keep it. If you don't like it, move. Preferably someplace out of here like Russia or other places. If you like that kind of government, go for it. Knock yourself out. That's what that's what free America is all about. You got a right to any idea you like is so you don't injure your neighbor. You got a right to free speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Daddy, does that make sense? If you don't like it here, move. You want You don't want to exercise your constitutional rights. That's your prerogative. But if you get abused, don't say we didn't tell you because God kind of wants us to do this thing because this is this is his holy land and he's hoping that we're going to have enough hair on our tail feather to do it.

Now, I want to get into a couple other arguments. One of the things I want to tell you about is procedure. You're going to go to court and you're going to be your own attorney. By the way, this is the infamous no tax gimm. He just died. God rest his soul. The infamous James Gordon lot. I helped the gentleman do his appeal briefs to the US Supreme Court. And I can tell you he was one hell of a gentleman. He can quote tragedy and hope Quigley's tragedy and hope from the from the hip from memory. He just passed away. Just recently he died. I want you to see how he died too. It says he was alone when he died Monday and those services planned and they cremated his body. He fought to the end to his last day. He was on the Mark Scott program. There's another exceptional patriot, Mark Scott. I I can't speak highly enough for the courage it takes to come on the radio and tell God's truth. Uh there's a lot of people like them. Tommy McIntyre, uh Mike Reagan, uh we could get you a list a mile long. There's Patriots and come on and tell it like it is. JP McCarthy is another one that gets on there and tells it like it is. And I remember this one casual time he got Gus Hall out and JP said to Gus Hall, he says, "Gus, don't you get tired of losing?" Because Gus was running for president on the Communist Party ticket. And Gus turned to him and he said, "JP, what makes you think we're losing?" He said, 'We've implemented every plank of the Communist Manifesto. We just haven't got the guns from the people yet. And JP turned to him and said, "Yeah, and you ain't going to get them from the people." What do you think of that? Well, folks, what do you think of that? They're working on it, aren't they?

Now, you're going to go to court and you're going to be your own attorney. You got to be sharp. You got to keep records. You go to court, you write it down. You get anything in paperwork, you write it down. You send them anything in paperwork, you write it down. You got me. Don't be screwing around on me because I'm going to tell you, some of these things got dates and times and things that you got to do. And if you don't take care of business, guess what? They ain't going to take care of it for you. You're your own attorney. You want if you want to be your own attorney, you got to have records. You got to keep on top of things. So, every time you do something, you write it down. You make sure you can go back and say, "Yeah, I remember on such and such a date at such and such a time this happened." and this happened and this happened. You can construct a chronological order of events. Okay. Now, also write down all important numbers to anybody that has anything that's got to be done. Okay.

Now, what we want to get into is we want to get into some serious arguments on taxes. Okay. Also, we should tell you if anybody violates your rights, okay? Title 42, United States Code, section 1983. Everybody got this? Can you see it? Every person who under color of statute, ordinance or regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Colombia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit, inequity, or other proper for proceeding for the redress. For the purpose of this section, any act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia. Why do you think they said that? Cuz they're members of the fund and they are they are under title 26 section 6331A shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Now, does everybody understand about admiraly and maritime jurisdiction? I know you don't, but not not a little bit. They have created a duality of citizenship under the 14th amendment. They're claiming there's common law rights, which everybody gets their constitution, and there's national rights where you wave all your constitution. Now, which did you want? Does that sound like a good deal? >> Sounds like you're being ripped to me. Got the one-207. Remember 1-207, right? Okay. Where are we at here? We want to show Jack Lamb's magnificent books, too. Vampire Killer 2000 and the Aidenette Newsletter. We need to get these out to every police officer in the United States of America. They need to understand what the heck's going on here. You get a hold of Jack McLam and his people of Vampire Killer 2000 and they will be happy to put this book out. This explains to your police officers exactly what the heck's going on. And they have an Aiden Bet newsletter that you can get. Let's get that out. Aiden Abet Aiden Bet police newsletter P. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona 85066. Right. And he has a phone number you can call him too. Okay. Now, they have these vampire killers out and it tells the police everything they need to know. Also, they publish a newsletter, aid in a bet newsletter, make sure aid in a bet, okay? And get that to your police officers. I have, what I like to do is when the police officer bust me for something, what I like to do is I like to enroll him in a free subscription. And you know what? He hands it out to everybody. Plus, I'm doing him a service.

Now, if you folks don't think this is serious, I'm telling you right now, we are building these work camps, these multi-jurisdictional forces, and these work camps all over. Notice that most of them are coordinated between Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. And then they got a bunch more out here, the uh Wyoming, Idaho, >> great. >> The Great West. And they got them in California. Then they got these detention facilities. Everybody paying attention to these detention facilities. Notice where most of them are. And what they call them is regional prisons. Look at all the ones here in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio or Illinois. >> There's a bunch of evil. >> Yeah, there is. I know. I know. I know. They prop up and they call themselves Okay. And then they got battle groups, United Nations battle groups. I mean, we've had reports of Russian troops being in Michigan all summer. We got positive sightings by people that are retired military colonels and above. And we know they were at Camp Gring this summer. So, I'm telling you folks, the time to wake up is now. Wake up, America, before it's too late. where you lose your god-given rights to some foreign politape that might think that you uh you look like a sucker. You want to buy any apples off that cart? I ain't buying no apples off that cart.

Okay, now we want to get into um the next thing we want to get into is demolition, right? Then we want to get into taxes. Seriously. That'll be the close for today. Now, those of you who have been in militia groups and everybody's getting all panicky, let's understand a few things about the militia. Whether you like it or not, you are in the militia in the state of Michigan. And I will tell you right where it says that article 17 militia right here. What does it say? And this is from the n 1850 constitution all the way back in our state to the northwest territories they treaty they have a militia but this is an example of what they're talking about the mil militia shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years except such as are exempted by laws of the United States and of the state but all such citizens of any religious denomination whatever who from scruples of conscience all right other words if Your conscientious objector may be adverse to bearing arms. Shall be excused there from upon such conditions as shall be prescribed by law. May you have cons conscientious object objector statuses. Okay. And you go to the 1908 constitution just to show this is the God's truth here. 1908 Michigan constitution. Michigan militia shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age except such as are exempted by laws of the United States or of this state. But all such citizens of any religious denomination whom from scruples of conscience may be adverse to bearing arms shall be excused there from upon such conditions as shall be prescribed by law. Okay? You know that's the 1908 constitution. Now you come up here. Now this just lets you know the trend. The trend here. Now we're in the 1963 Constitution. Oh, I wanted to show you a little diverse thing here. This right here, common law and statutes and continuence in Michigan. The common law and the statute laws now enforce not repugnant to this constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations or are changed amended or repealed. So the common law is prevailing. The militia here we go. I knew we've seen it. Now notice folks as the as the thing as the thing goes on it gets shorter and shorter. Here's your militia. This is article 3 section 4. The militia shall be organized, equipped, and disciplined as provided by law. That's all you get. Now, now when you look in the beginning of this constitution, there is an there is a a empowering statutory phrase that says all constitutions before everything they had in them are carried forward to this constitution. And that's how they're allowed to do this. So what would happen in this case, because they haven't clearly defined it here, they would have to go back in the law to the previous constitution, which would be the 1908 constitution, which we just read to you. This one right here. So this one would be the militia shall be composed of all ablebodied male citizens 18 to 45 years of age. So that would be the controlling one because that's as prescribed by law just like they said. Does everybody see that? Now the bottom line here is a lot of people are all upset about the militia. All the militia is is concerned citizens that are worried about their constitution getting flushed down a toilet. We're not putting up with that stuff. We want people to understand that we love the Constitution. We love our country. And we're not screwing around.

All right, here we go. Generally, the militia shall be organized, equipped, and disciplined as provided by law. Now, let's get into that. The single section is substituted for all of this relating to the militia in the present 1908 constitution. Remember I told you about empowering the existing article ties the legislature down to an outmoded concept of what the militia should be. You believe that? Boy, our forefathers will be rolling over in their grave. Details as to organizing equipment disciplining the militia are left to the legislative enactment in the interest of the flexibility and future requirements. Ah, does that mean future requirements if it got nasty and down and dirty, we would have our militia come back? Sounds good to me. I could go for that. Bottom line is the people that know what's going around are not screwing around. They blame the militia. Here we go. Article article nine. Let's pull this out. The militia organization and discipline. The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as they shall deem expedient not incompatible with the constitution and laws of the United States. But they're not doing it right. The legislature shall provide for efficient discipline of the officers commission and non-commission and that musicians andor may provide by law for the organization and discipline of the volunteer companies. Volunteer companies. Notice that volunteer companies. Huh? Offices of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. That's what our forefathers had in mind when they had a militia. Now, if they're going to invade us, they're going to change our money. They're going to shut down our constitution. That's why the militia needs to be organized. That's why you need to be down there talking to a militia. That's why you need to be joining the militia. I don't care what church you go to. I don't care what color, national origin, ethnic background you come from. You need to be down to the militia and you need to be talking to them folks about this is the United States of America and I will protect it and its constitutional form of government. And by doing that, if we do it in sufficient numbers, most probably what will happen is the new world order scammers will realize, ah, the people woke up. Ah, we screwed up. We'll have to wait another 300 years to try and pull it again. And let's hope that's what happened. If that isn't what happens, then the militia will defend the republic. just like what our forefathers intended. And we will defend the republic as we always do with vigor. And we will have a government by constitution. That American flag will be on that pole out there. And anybody that wants to try something different, hey, knock yourself out. But plan a very severe battle because we will never give up the United States of America, its constitutional government, or our American flag or our American heritage. So this idea that you're going to wear us out, tie us down, otherwise skew us around is nothing but a lot of hudon. Ain't going to happen in your lifetime, as a matter of fact, your lifetime may not be that long either because we try traders in this country. And the bottom line is the penalty for treason is death. And it's not our purpose to threaten or coersse or otherwise intimidate any person. But we want you to understand that this is the United States of America. This is a country governed by constitutional law. That that constitutional law prescribed penalties for criminal acts and that those criminal acts can be punished by lawful means. We're asking all persons that are involved in all walks of government order any areas of the law to please, please, please, let's get back to the Constitution and quit screwing around. Let's just get back to what's supposed to be done and quit screwing around. Pull back your federalist papers and let's start reading. We're going to find out everything that's in this book is directly applicable today. We need to do it over. We need to get back to a gold and silver standard. We need to get back to a serious means of trade expedience that's going to hold the standards of our country even. We won't have this inflation. We won't have this ridiculous market situation. We're asking you please before God, we're asking you. We want our Constitution. We want it back. We want all the American principles that we stand for that our bravest soldiers died for. And we're asking you to please quit screwing around. Let's get down to brass tax. You've been feeding the pabum to the babies too long. We We're way, believe me, we're way ahead of you. You may not think so, but I'm here to tell you we're way. You're going to wake up someday and you're going to be shocked. We're going to be all standing out there smiling because you're going to be the one that's asleep, not us. We know what we're talking about. We're not fooling around. We want you to honor our Constitution. God bless America. We want you to keep us safe. We want to be into the 21st century stronger than we were in the 17th century. We're not fooling around.

So please, now we can go into this book and this book clearly establishes they never wanted to have a militia or a standing army. They only trusted you. Listen to some of these arguments in here. Okay. But it is said that the laws of the union are to be the supreme law of the land. What inference can be drawn from this? Or what would you what would they amount to if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A law by the very meaning of the term includes supremacy is the rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society of laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies entered into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact pursuant to the powers entrusted entrusted to it by its constitution must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are compro composed of. It would otherwise be a mere treaty dependent on good faith of the parties and not a government which is only another word for a political power and supremacy. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers but which are invasions of the residuary authorizes of the smaller societies will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of which is kind of what's going on and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the union like the one we we have just before considered only declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of the federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution, which I mentioned merely as an instance of caution in the convention, since the limitation would have been to be understood through, though it had not been expressed, though a law therefore for laying a tax for a use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abregating and preventing the collect ction of a tax laid by the authority of the state unless upon imports and exports would not be the supreme law of the land. But of power not granted by the constitution as far as an improper accumulation of taxes on the same object might tend to render the collection difficult or precarious. This would be a mutual inconvenience not arising from the superiority or defect of the power.

Now we want to get into some serious arguments here. We want to go to page 108 about the middle of the page. Except as to the rule of aortionment, the United States have indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money. That means they can ask, but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. That's why we don't have a title 26 that applies to you. The consequences of this is that though in theory their resolution concerning those objects are laws constitutionally binding on the members of the union and in practice they are mere recommendations which the states observe or disregard at their option. This is the intent of the framers. Cohen versus Virginia 621821 says this is the exact intent. Is it pretty hard for you to understand what their intent was? They never intended to have an internal revenue ever. They hated people that operated like that, that operated a tyranny against the people. All right, let's get on with this. Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws though dictated by necessity impairs that sacred revenue which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all or is less urgent and pulpable. Kublius and it teaches us in addition to the rest how unequal parchment provisions are to struggle with public necessity. You know, I mean, you start reading. You got to read. Don't sit there like a bump on the law. Read. Get all kind of good stuff going here. I could I could sit here and read this to you all night.

This constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance sir of and all treaties made which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in constitution or laws of any state to the contrary is notwithstanding. The indiscree zeal of the adversaries to the constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it as also without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the state's constitution had been left complete with a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the state legislature with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not accepted, but the existing articles of confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed constitution. Remember I told you about how they tied them together so far as they exceed those enumerated in the confederation would have been a no. See that? And the new cars would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. I mean, these people were wise way beyond their years. And this talks about the militia. They never wanted to have a standing army. Never. They always wanted the people to defend by a militia. They wanted the militia to be there ready to kick tail if there needed to be. They wanted to have a power of air running down yelling, "The British are coming. The British are coming." Or whoever, somebody. They call them minute men. They call them minute men for a reason. Because they wanted you to grab your kit and be out on the road in a minute, ready to kick tail and repel all borders. That's the way our forefathers thought. Now, they were wise men who had come from a a tyrannical environment in the European marketplaces. They knew exactly what was going on and they weren't screwing around. And the bottom line is they were deadly serious and they were ready to sign their life their they pledged their life, their their future, their their fortunes and everything so that we could have this constitution. And I think we kind of owe them a debt because a lot of them died miserably as poppers because they dared to sign the Declaration of Independence and the king went after him with a vengeance. Do you understand?

Now the bottom line here is we got a we got a duty. We're going to finish this thing up. We want to do some stuff on taxes and then we're going to we're going to be out of here. We're going to do two things on taxes. One is going to be on title 31 United States Code section 742 and we're going to rattle it off. You want the argument later, you'll have to get back with us. Okay. Title 31 United States Code. And we're going to quote it except as otherwise provided by law. All stocks, bonds, treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States government shall be exempt from state, municipal, and local authority. This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require either the obligations or the interest there on or both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax. See Memphis Bank versus State of Tennessee at El Garner. Notice this is Memphis Bank versus State of Tennessee at Algarnner. Everybody got that? That's recorded at volume 459 US page 392. Okay. Right here. Can you see that? Okay. Now what this case is is this is a Supreme Court case that says that title 31 United States code section 742 is the supreme law of land and it does so on a diversity of tax arguments based on um discriminatory franchise of bond holdings. But basically what the Supreme Court said was title 31 section 742 was the supreme law of land recorded right in here is exactly what I just quoted to you right here except as otherwise provided by law. Notice it says that all stocks, bonds, treasury notes and other obligations of the United States shall be exempt from state taxation by or under state or municipal or local authority. Now what does this mean? What are they talking about here? This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require that either the obligations or the interest thereon are both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax. This is a unique tax argument. See, when the states went off the article 1, section 10 gold and silver standard, you can't pay anyway because of Michigan Compiled Laws Act 21.153. You cannot tender anything other than gold or silver coin to an officer of the government without being a party to a felony. On top of that, how do they figure the taxes? How do let's look at our property taxes? This is a big issue. A lot of people get involved with his property taxes are tired of being taxed right out of their home. This tax argument is specifically for you. They come to your house, they set a value on your house, they tell you that, oh, uh, your house is worth $100,000. So, we're going to tax it at a 50% interest, which would be $50,000. That's a 50% amortization value. We'll figure your house is a $50,000 bracket area, and then we're going to go seven points on that, 7%. And or whatever the percentage is. Now, stop for a second here. How did they figure the value on your house? said $50,000. There is no dollars. What dollars? You ain't got no dollars. You got dollars? I ain't got no dollars. Dollars of what? Dollars of coffee beans. I don't think so. The bottom line is they stay talking Federal Reserve notes and they're putting the commodity item at the at the reserve notes. Now, what did they just do? Except it's otherwise provided by law. Oh, stocks, bonds, treasury notes. What is what is the Federal Reserve notes? It's a Treasury note and other obligations of the United States. What? What obligations? Title 12, Section 411 says the said notes shall be deemed to be obligations of the United States government. Whoops. Now, wait a minute. Let's see. Let's look at this again. Except as otherwise provided by law, all stocks, bonds, treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States shall be exempt from taxation by under state or municipal or local authority. Does that mean they can't figure a tax by using obligation to the United States government? You're right. You're absolutely right. This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require either the obligations or the interest they're on or both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax. Now, what are they doing when they figure it's 50% of mortization value and then they add so many points percent and they attack that on and then they they say, "Well, you owe us this much." Aren't they using Federal Reserve notes indirectly? They are, aren't they? and they're forbidden from doing that. The Supreme Court says this is the Supreme Law of Land. Well, guess what folks? This case was originally brought in the matter of people versus shepherd out of Lancing. And after that case, they went in all the law books and they pulled out title 31 section 742. That's how scared they are of this title. And we went to Shepherd's Citations and we noted that in Shepherd's Citations there was no note that says analled, rep, repealed, or otherwise transferred to some other law. There's a hole there, folks. It starts at 7. It starts at title 31, section 734, and then there's a hole and then it goes to 752. What happened here? They went in all the law books and pulled this argument out. Why do you think they did that? Because every state in the union that went off the gold and silver standard under article 1, section 10 was locked out of taxing the citizenry in any capacity by the use of obligations of the United States government. That's the only thing you got in your hand, folks. So rather than play that game, they went in all law books and pulled it out. Then they went and shephered citations and instead of putting a note down there as to what happened, they just created a void. What is that evidence of? >> Fraud. Does not fraud void the contract? Last time I checked, it did. Now, I want you to pay attention to this stuff and get get locked in on this argument and don't try this until you've at least practiced a little bit. But anybody that's getting jammed on their property taxes or any other taxes for the state, lock their heels is all I got to say.

Okay. Now, we're going to go into one last argument on income taxes. And I'm not advising you as your attorney. I'm telling you what I have found as a scholar in the law books. I have found these arguments and if you want to use them, that's your free choice. This is America. Last time I checked, you have a right under the Constitution. Since the Constitution of the United States is a supreme law of the land, we got a unique argument here. It says in article 1 section 9 paragraph 4 most clearly no capitation or under direct tax shall be laid unless by the enumeration or addition here and before directed to be taken and that's in article 1 section 2 clause two which says income taxes and representation shall be by aortionment which I will show you. I like to show everybody the rules. Article one, section two, clause two. Ready? Just so everybody's on the same wavelength. Article one, section two, clause two. Where are we at here? One, section two, clause two. Representatives and direct taxes shall be by aortionment among the several states which may be included within the union according to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding the whole number. All right, we got the idea. All right. One section 9 clause four. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless by the portion to the census or enumeration is here before directed to be taken. Well folks, they're not using the census. They're not using aortionment issue at all. They're evading it totally. Now, there's several arguments here and it's very catchy. So, I want you to pay close attention, right? One of the arguments I want to share with you is brought by an infamous outstanding judge, Judge Beers. He's the gentleman that actually lived the movie Cheaper by the Dozen. He went out and he had two wives and had 12 kids by each and got a lot of guts. All them kids went to college, too. I want to tell you, every one of them, I know some of them personally myself. One of them is the director of the law library at Oakland Oak Oakland County Court. Excellent people. And Judge Beers got mad and he called up Jimmy Carter and he told him, "Look, we need to have a raise for our judges because we're not keeping up with inflation, etc., etc." And Jimmy told him, "No way, Jose." And so, Judge Beers filed in court the case of Evans versus Gore recorded at 253 US 245. Judge Evans sued Ir Gore of the Internal Revenue Service because he claimed that the Internal Revenue Service diminished his salary during his continuence in office. We all know the judges of the Supreme Court and inferior court shall hold their office during good behavior and shall receive for their services a valuable compensation which shall not be dimministering your continuence in office. That's article 3, paragraph one. Wait, I'm sorry. Let's see. Yeah. Let's see. Yeah. Yeah. Right. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges both of the Supreme Court and Court shall hold their office during good behavior and shall receive at stated times for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuous in office. Well, guess what, your honor? They diminish my salary during my continuous in office. You'll notice that there was no diminishment specified. So all diminishment is forbidden. Okay. And since all diminishment is forbidden, I am constitutionally immune from your income taxes. Supreme Court came back and said, "Excellent argument. The 16th amendment didn't create any new taxing power whatsoever." And clearly, Judge Evans is immune from income taxes based on the article 3 paragraph 1 constitutional immunity. So up jump the devil in the deep blue sea. Jimmy Carter was most unhappy. So he had to give the judges all a raise to shut him up and he took his wrath out on Judge Beers and he went and published the fact that Judge Beers was a bigist and he he kind of trashed him and got him disbarred and thrown off the bench which I didn't think was a very nice thing to do at all cuz Judge Beers was a good judge. Now how does this affect you? Basically this case of evidence versus score makes two basic statements. One, the 16th amendment didn't create any new taxing power. And two, there was what? An acceptable possible immunity to the income tax. Right. Whoa. I said, let's go back to article 1, section 9, paragraph 4. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless by the rule of aortionment is here before directed to be taken. Didn't I have a right to be free from a direct tax on my property? A direct tax is one where I actually come in your pocket and I tax. I had a right to be free from a direct tax on my property unless by the role of a portion of his hearing before directly to be taken in article 1 section 2 clause two. Does that mean I'm constitutionally immune? Sure does. But you have to tell them demand that it's a direct tax. You got to say it's a direct tax on my property. Now what are they going to do? They're going to come around and tell you this isn't under title 26. This is under title 27. and that really you're a coal miner or you're a minor of some kind or you're a manufacturing handgun someplace. Well, you ask them, "All right, let's see the form 4456." They'll send you to form 4456 and sure enough they're going to have you down under some excise tax where they're charging you under BATF for having some fraudulent claim that you're involved in mining or something that requires an excise tax and it for the privilege of doing business. You have to pay a fee because you're a corporation, an officer of a corporation or you reside in the District of Columbia. Now, let's ask it. That's 6 section 6331A of the code. Look up section 6331A. Those are the only guys that the Treasury Department can levy against. That's the only ones. Are you any of those? No. How could that be? You're not any of those. They can't levy against you. If they can't levy against you, there's no jurisdiction over you. Got me? That make clear that? I mean, if they could levy against you, they'd have jurisdiction. Now, if they levy against you and you pay them, guess what? You just gave them jurisdiction. You sign your documents. You sign your W4 form. You don't put down there, like I told you, UD1-207 without prejudice. Guess what? You're in. So you think now, isn't that fraud? Doesn't fraud void the contract? You need to read, folks. We need to get you down here. We need to read. There's so many beautiful arguments in here. I mean, we can just hammer them. What is income? There is no income defined anywhere in the code. Oh, section 61A of the code says income is wages. No, it doesn't. It says section 60 61A of the code says this is a list of sources from which income could be derived. Not necessarily is be, but could be compensation. Now, think about the word compensation. Look up salt dictionary. You're going to find out compensation to make whole. Now, if you're out there and you painted your neighbor's barn and he told you he'd give you $300 by by Christmas, all right, you painted a barn and Christmas came and he didn't pay you $300. When you have a loss on paper, you would, wouldn't you? And wouldn't he have a gain? He would, wouldn't he? Now, let's say he pays you the $300. What do you got? Do you have a loss? No. Does he have a gain? No. What happened? An equal exchange of property. What happened? You changed your time of life property in labor. for his consideration. You have a zero zero balance. You aren't ahead and he isn't behind. And you aren't behind and he isn't ahead. That is compensation. That's what it means to make whole. Now, what happens if he doesn't pay you? Doesn't he have a gain? He would have a profit, wouldn't he? A realized profit or gain. He got you to work for him and he didn't pay you, right? And you would have a loss, right? Does that make sense to you now? The only way you would have the only way you would have income by the way they define it in Russer versus Union Pacific and some of these other cases poll versus farmers loan and trust first you would have to have a realized gain from some source right before the period under consideration happened. Did you get paid any more than you agreed to? You didn't. Did you? You got paid 300. You agreed to 300. You got 300. If you got $31, you had a gain. And if you were a corporation, an officer of corporation, and a person that resided in the District of Columbia was officer of the government, you'd have a income. But you're not any of those. You're not a corporation. You're not an officer of a corporation. You don't reside in the District of Columbia as an officer of government. So you're first of all not even in the game. Second of all, you didn't receive any anything above what you bargained for. Okay? So you don't have a realized property or gain before the period under consideration was commenced. So you don't have any income. What you have is compensation before it can become income. It would have to be corporate property. You'd have to be a corporation and you'd have to have a realized property gain. You don't have that. So don't tell anybody you have income. You ain't got none. Every time you volunteer to get in that, you get in trouble. Don't volunteer. Didn't they tell you that in army? Don't volunteer. You volunteer, you get the broom, and you get to drive it around the floor. Just ask me, I'll tell you. I don't.

Now, the bottom line is this. There's a lot of things that you need to know. The biggest thing is that you need to get a hold of one of these books, and you need to read it cover to cover. And you need to be able to rattle it just like I told you. And you need to trust your God in heaven above whom you should put all your trust in love. You need to kick some tail. Try and coordinate this program format. You understand? Holy Bible. You got it. You need to get with the program. We can't keep screwing around like this, folks. You can't keep putting off till tomorrow because I'm going to tell you, there ain't going to be a tomorrow if you keep it up. You're going to have to get serious. Get hooked up on that radio station 5.065 WWCR. Go down to Radio Shack. Get one of them 20 dB gain amplifiers to plug into your radio. so you can make the thing work better. Plug that thing into your external antenna. Runs on a 9volt battery. Put a damn uh about a 3-in strip of coiled uh solder on the tip of the antenna. Go outside, throw your fishing rod over the over the highest limb you can when the weight comes down. Take a roll of a speaker wire, 100 foot speaker wire. You can get it at Radio Shack for three bucks, man. Three, four bucks. bear the end. Twist it together. Tie it in a loop. Put it on the other end of that fishing line. Pull that fishing line up in the air. Get you a 100 foot antenna. Tie that baby off to your fence. Come outside, take that wire, bear it off, and take it into your house and wrap it around the antenna and that 20dB gain amplifier. You can pick up Moscow just like WXYT radio down across the street. You got a 100 foot antenna. You put on that 20 dB gain amplifier and you're going to have your signal generating 20 times the force that it would before. So even if they jam the channel, you're still going to be able to hear. Okay? You need to be listening to Radio Free America, to Jack Mclam, to Tom Ballentine, to to uh Bill Cooper, to Mark from Michigan. You know, you need to get in touch. You need to get in touch with your God. You need to get in touch with your fellow Americans. You need to get down to the milit. You need to quit screwing around sitting on the couch watching the ball game and the life going by and nothing's getting done. You understand? You need to get out there and hit a couple of these patriotic meetings and listen to some of these folks talking and trying to save you and your country. And you need to start realizing that you need to put your money where your mouth is. It's like, you know, put up or shut up because I'm telling you, if you don't do something soon, you're not going to have a country. What you're going to have is a chain around your ankle and you're going to be pissed. So, I'm telling you, the time is now. You know, you want to be a son of liberty or a daughter of liberty. The time is now. Do not put off till tomorrow what you can do today because there won't be a tomorrow if you do. Just start putting one foot in front of the other. Make up your mind you're going to do this. Go get you one of these Constitutions and let's get serious business about America and let's bring her back to the way she was. We need to pull that baby back into the wind and take that ship out. Leave that flag flying high and we tell anybody to their to their face. You know, we leave you to your proofs, pal. You touch my flag and God going to get you tonight. Don't touch my flag. Don't touch my country. Don't touch my constitution. I'm going to wish you God bless America. We love you, America. I love Jack Mclam's phrase, never to the new world order. It'll never happen in your lifetime. You got to quit smoking that stuff. It ain't no good for you. You may think you're going to get away with it, but I'm here to tell you it ain't going to happen in your lifetime. You just keep wishing one hand doing something in the other and see which one fills up faster. You're going to find out real quick. The United States of America is the most serious country in the world. Our people are the most generous, kind, and aggressive. And I'm telling you, we love our country. We love our flag. We love our Constitution. And we're not giving it up for anybody, especially a bunch of Yahoo bankers. Okay? So, we let them understand. Let the word go out. Let them find out. We're not fooling around. I'm going to wish you good night. God bless America. Long live the Constitution. God bless all the fine folks that are standing up and being counted. God bless all the fine soldiers that have given their very life and are still to this day giving their life.

Now come on folks, let's not fool around here. You go down there and you grab a hold of one of these congressmen and let them understand, hey, I don't care what about your bill 666. You're not changing the fourth amendment. You're not doing nothing. You got that? You want to get elected next time? You better listen up, pal. We might even just charge you right in an open court of law with an open indictment for treason. Quit screwing around with my constitution. And this congressman's got this idea that we don't need the Fourth Amendment anymore. His name is Bill or William McCullum, spelled M C O L L U M. He'd like to hear from you about the Fourth Amendment. You need to call him and tell him, "Do not touch my Constitution." Period. Do not change the Fourth Amendment. Not even a little bit. We want our right to be free from an unreasonable search unless with a warrant. Duly signed by a judge in the court. Duly before a sworn magistrate where the guy swears that this is a true and fact case. This is the evidence to be seized. The person to be charged and we want him to be able to hold that right up and say we're not changing that today, sir. And if you got a problem with that, find another job cuz you're fired. Got me? [Music]