Hello. I literally just woke up, and I was going to post this, but I felt this pull to add a little context before I drop you into the portal you're about to enter. So, here's what this episode is and why it matters to me. I invited Brandon Joe Williams onto the podcast. He's a lawyer who spent a lot of time decoding legalese and the legal system. What he reveals might flip your sense of identity inside out. He is someone who challenges almost everything that we take for granted about law and citizenship and government. He also yells and swears and drinks during this episode. And I genuinely think all of it might blow your mind.

This isn't about politics. It's not about ideology. It's about language and the way that definitions and words create and shape realities. And I don't share this to tell you what to think. I sat down with Brandon on the podcast because conversations like this stretch the boundaries of what we assume is true. And I want to have conversations that disrupt autopilot. So take what resonates, obviously leave what doesn't. But above all, I hope you will listen with your discernment turned all the way up because reclaiming sovereignty starts with asking better questions, not with memorizing answers—the right answers. I also—I don't believe in trigger warnings, but it might be a hard listen for people who have trauma around state violence, racism, uh, manipulation, like religious manipulation. But part of my mission with this podcast is to explore the spaces that most people avoid—the contradictions, the paradoxes, the perspectives that might stretch or confront our worldview. Cuz I don't need to offer another perfectly curated echo chamber of spiritual nicities and mainstream talking points. There are plenty of those out there. The point of this podcast is to explore paradox, to press on all of the programming we receive, and to sit in the tension between worldviews. Cuz I believe that if we can stay in the room with our discomfort, with all of our questions, with our triggers, we can start to see things that we've never seen before.

Because look, like our minds and the systems that we live inside, they're obsessed with clarity, with order, because it perceives that as safety. But that is not true safety. It's it's perceived safety. And that's why we will often box people in, or we feel safer putting people into categories like black, white, left, right, um, woke, dangerous, hero, villain. You know, it's ancient. This is tribal. But in a fragmented world, it becomes—it's like a psychic survival strategy, and it's hurting us because what we call knowing someone or othering them is often just preemptive judgment. It's disguised as discernment, but there's a deeper wound. And it isn't just social conditioning. It's it's existential terror. Meaning, if I can't define you, then I can't control you. And if I can't control you, what's protecting me? You see what I mean? That perceived safety. Because sovereignty—sovereignty has been hijacked. It's like a dirty word these days. It'll often—it'll make us think of what pops in your head, right? Extremists, spiritual bypassers, people trying to escape accountability. You'll think of like unhinged white guys waving militia flags or anti-vaxxers, YouTubers yelling about straw man identities. Like you get the picture. And yet the essence of sovereignty isn't any of that. Sovereignty is the radical knowing that I own my mind. I own my choices. Reclaiming ourselves, all of ourselves. It's when we no longer project power outside of ourselves to the external. It's spiritual adulthood. And I think we desperately need a return to it because the alternative is a global psyche—a human family's mind that's addicted to offense, defense, codependence, and unconscious enslavement. Sovereignty isn't a buzzword. It's the exit route for the actual matrix, which is actually created in our mind. That's the root of what Brandon and I are really talking about here.

And it's clear to me that Brandon loves the United States, and I think he has a deep reverence for it and the people who are here. So part of the reason I'm sharing all this is because I felt nervous during this conversation, and I probably performed a little bit, and you'll see that. So I'm just owning it. Brandon, he made a few assumptions about me. Like at one point he'll call—he called me a spiritual white girl, and I turned so red and I laughed. But that's exactly my point. We're all projecting all of the time. But what if we stopped trying to figure each other out? What if we listened not to agree or disagree, but just to understand one another? Because sovereignty says, I can be in the room with someone that I don't fully understand, and I can stay rooted in myself. So that's the invitation. Can we stretch our tolerance for paradox? Can we stay with the discomfort long enough to hear something new? So you might love this episode, and you might hate it. You might feel everything in between, but I really just hope that it opens something in you.

Hi again, Brandon.

Hello.

Uh, today we're going to talk about becoming a real American. Um, and undoing the fraudulent contracts that we've unknowingly entered into.

I think—I think that's what we'll talk about.

Yeah.

Um, I wanted to say first, before I tell you how I just found you like two weeks ago, I really—I like your knowledge obviously, but I also really like your honesty. You say what you mean. My point is just in a world full of like a lot of posturing and control and manipulation. It creates a lot of safety for people, especially women. So, yeah, my background—I come from a lot of control—like control manipulation systems, and then it literally became my job. I worked in a government agency where I was considered property essentially, and so yeah, this stuff is super exciting and—in just very well—real quick on that, I'd like to say one thing on that before you move on—the um—I look at it as the total opposite after being—having a successful career for like 10, 12 years in marketing and sales. I eventually realized that reputation—like what you mentioned before—posturing and reputation—it is a prison in itself literally because then from that point forward, now you're protecting it, and it—it—it's—it—and people can smear you in the media; they can do a PR stunt. People don't realize how frail a reputation really is typically, right? Especially when it's—especially when it's kind of uh, pumped up, you know? Like Dan Pious is pumping up the hog—especially when it's a pumped-up hog. Because the thing is is that I could go out for anybody who, you know, you told me a little bit about your audience, so I'll try to think within that perspective. There's a book by a guy named Ryan Holiday called um, uh, *Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator*. And what he would do is he would go out and he would create hate groups on purpose; the people who were in the hate group didn't know, but it was—it was either a book or a movie. And he would—he would—he would spray—he would buy advertising on billboards, and then he would spray paint hate messages to try to—to try to infuriate specific demographics of like feminists and stuff like that. And then he would go on Craigslist and he would actually organize uh, pickets and—and—and riots, not riots, but like uh, uh, protests.

Protests.

Yeah. Underneath the signs when he put together the protest, he bought the advertising, and he spray painted the sign, and it's his client's book that they're protesting.

Brilliant.

And it created this gigantic humongous like nationalized media coverage—being this massively explosive powerful thing. So, the thing is is that to try to—let's say—let's say you bring me a reputation—bring me a reputation such as—I'm the best whatever real estate agent, whatever. I could—I could crush 20 years of reputation using PR stunts in probably like three or four months with not a lot of money—very little money. I could—I could—So, when you start to understand that, you start to realize that that you're—you're living this—you're working so hard—you work 20 or 30 years to build up something that someone like me can shatter like a—like a—like in an instant. So that it just—and then you're worried about it, and you're—you're—you're concerned about it, and you're crying about it, and you're losing sleep over it, and—and it's just the whole thing is just—it's—it's ridiculous. And that's why after 10 or 12 years of being in the industry, I decided what I was going to do was I was going to create a self-deprecating brand that was already shattered, and it's already glass all over the ground, and it starts there, and that's why I created the one stupid [ __ ] brand.

That's incredible.

Yeah. Well, I was going to ask some more questions about that.

Yeah.

I say King Pickle [ __ ] his excellency is in your bio.

Yeah, it was really nice.

I—Well, you know what that reminds me of? My first polygraph I ever took was a really terrible experience. I had never smoked a cigarette. I was like 22 years old. I expected to be in and out—like thought it was going to be no big deal. They kept me in there for like the legal amount of time that you can question someone. And I didn't know anything about it. And I went to go talk to some like army friends afterwards, and they were like—they don't give a [ __ ] as long as you're shameless. Like you just have to tell them everything. Like just give them everything you've got. And that's kind of how I operate these days. It's like—it's between me and the creator. That's how I move through the world, and that's who I answer to in all of the senses of the word. But also if I just am honest, then what other people say is on them—kind of thing.

Oh yeah.

Yeah. So I—I appreciate that that tactic, you know, starting with from broken glass, I guess, too. Um, and it's funny cuz that's actually like how I found you. I was sitting in a coffee shop in this like town of 2,000 people in Colorado. It's a really small town. And the day before, I don't remember what happened. I walked past like this guy had his computer up, and I said, "Oh, Ian." Cuz I had just met Ian Carol a couple of weeks before—I had sat down with him while he was eating to talk about my background and—and how I want to go about maybe talking about it a little more publicly.

Were you in Confluence?

Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, that's how you know Ian Carol. Okay, good. I was a speaker at Confluence last year. I heard—because I asked a couple of people in my membership, and they knew you. I said, "Oh, I'm gonna interview this guy this week. Does anyone know him?"

Yeah, we had a nice little—and Carol—a lot of the people who are on his stuff—I mean, they love my stuff, and I've tried to connect with him, but—but it just—he's just blown up so big, and he got on Rogan, and then that was kind of just game over. So, I think at some point hopefully we'll connect.

Yeah, I hope so, too. I—I—I met his girlfriend. I would message her, but she deactivated her Instagram profile. I can't—I think after all the hoopla with the Candace show, it got a little bit hairy. I don't know what that's about.

The Candace show.

Oh, you mean the—the arbitration—the arbitration episode, or is there a bunch of other episodes, too? He was—when he was filling in for Candace Owens, he was wearing a red bracelet, I think. And then he got a lot of heat about what his red bracelet meant.

Yeah. What did—I'm so glad that these things don't even get on my radar anymore. I just—I live such a fantastic life here in Southern California. I just get the sunshine. If I had somebody—I'd probably block somebody if they messaged me about a [ __ ] red armband. You know what I mean?

They were like coming for him and his girlfriend.

Yeah. I mean, honestly, who's to say? But yeah, the whole thing. But that's kind of what we're talking about. It's like anybody—like what can you control—it? People are going to talk [ __ ] and all that kind of stuff.

Well, not only—not only can you control it, you can use it. And that's the thing that there's very few peeps—See, I am trained in PR warfare. No one's ever seen me use it. No one's ever seen me use it cuz I haven't had to yet. Yeah. But I am trained in like full-blown like PR warfare. Come after me and like I will—I will stir the pot a thousand times harder and faster than you could ever hope to stir the pot—a higher media empire's combined strength. I swear to God.

Yeah.

Who would ever do that? It's one of those things where the—the—the one of the secrets of the universe—I'm sure you guys have probably talked about this cuz you know, you explained your demographic is—when you're totally trained and you're totally ready for something and you have no qualms about it whatsoever, it just doesn't happen, right? The—the charge when you're not afraid, it's just never going to happen. Like—like no one's ever going to come after me because I am a thousand percent ready for war.

Yeah, I get it.

Anyway, yeah, there's this guy, and I said, "Oh, Ian." And then we got to talking a few days later cuz we bumped into each other again—my new friend Joshua Everett. He—He was like, "How do you know Ian? Do you watch Ian Carol?" And I was like, "Yeah, duh." Um, who does it these days, right? Like—like—And then we were chatting, and he pulls out his ID, and it's this um—Amnesty Coalition. He's like, "Have you ever seen this before?" And I said, "No, I have not seen that thing before." But I had heard of people creating nations on their own. Like that—that wasn't new to me. And I was like, "Oh my heavens, like you got to tell me more about this. Like what's going on?" Um, yeah. And we just went down the rabbit hole—want to continue to extract myself from anything where I like unknowingly consent or that kind of thing—he sent me—because he's so kind—um—like a podcast that you had done, and he told me to sign up for the course, and I was like holy [ __ ]—I don't think that people understand—at least not in the circles that I was running in—um—these unconscious contracts and what happens when we stop agreeing to them, and like—do people even know what the difference between citizen—I have a whole list of words that I was like—maybe we could talk about all these words because it's much deeper than maritime law—right? Like this is different—people say [ __ ] like maritime admiral te, and then you say like—what does that mean? Why are you saying that? And they don't know. Like it's just—it's like—it's like—quit with the buzzwords, quit with the [ __ ], and let's just like actually figure out what is going on and what has been going—and then—and then what is the linear timeline historically as to—as to how we got here. I think that's it. That's all I'm doing really. If you were to boil what I'm doing down into a nutshell.

Yeah.

It's just maritime admiral t uh blah blah blah blah. Okay, stop. Shut the [ __ ] up. That doesn't mean anything. You can't do anything with that. [ __ ] you. What does that mean? And if it's true, how did we get here? Uh, maritime admiral t law. That's—that's the answer to the—to the request of the question, right? So, so—so there's a lot of that, and—and the reason why is—now—now at the same time everyone knows—and when I say everyone, I mean literally everyone knows that this is an extremely large, ultra complicated cluster [ __ ] beyond any chaos and confusion that anyone has ever seen in their entire life. It's like—that's how chaotic and confusing and—and messed up and convoluted all this information is. So for me to go and tear into someone because they're saying maritime admiral G law wouldn't be fair either because at least they're—at least they're at the doorway. At least they're saying, "Hey, there's a door over here. I don't know what the—what's in it. I don't even know how to open it. I don't even know what color. I never looked at it. I just know it's over here." That's basically what they're doing. So it—at least we have that much. So—so—so I don't hate everybody. I'm not a hater. I'm not—I'm not trying to create or stir the pot in terms of my own people and my own—my own world. But on the flip end of it, people look at it and they get overwhelmed, and they have a negative perception or reaction to how confusing and how terrible and how horrifying it is. Me on the other hand, I have a positive reaction. People do crossword puzzles. People do puzzles where you have all the little pieces, and it's a 5,000 pieces, and you got to figure out which piece goes where. We've got video games. We've got board games. Who done it? I mean, the—the—the whole—the whole documentary world on Netflix—serial murderers. And then they make all these—I actually really love these, by the way. Maybe I'm a white girl myself, but they always say, "Oh, it's the white girls." They—they—they—they—after—after all day of—of being white girls, they go home, and they have wine and their in their sweatpants, and they watch serial murder documentaries. That's the big joke, you know. Um—I'm like, well, [ __ ]—I drink whiskey and watch serial murder documentaries, so maybe—maybe I'm just a one—one shade away from a white girl, you know what I mean? But um—it's like a trauma response, but it's—I think they're fascinating. Like why do people think this way? And like—the—obviously I'm in the legal world, so I'm also very curious about the legal functionalities and how did they do it? And then they go into the courtroom, and then they have the court information, and then they have, you know, I watch court documentaries and OJ documentaries, and anyway, so I just—I'm just in this world. So, it's a whole different thing for me. But yeah, my point is—um—it's—it's just kind of like—how do you—I totally forgot what my point was. Where was I going with that? I totally spaced out. Uh—the words maritime law—maritime law. So, so it's one of those things where it's—let's just get together and—and—and figure—Oh, that's what I wanted to say. It's like—it's so fascinating. It's so interesting—you—you play puzzles and you play video games and you do the who done it and you watch the murder mysteries and the mysteries and the Black Mirror, and it's like—people like to read a book or to watch a movie or to play a video game or to hear about—more in the female world—gossip, you know, like especially in places like LA and stuff like that. Probably not in your circles as much, right?

No, but—but in the who done it—oh my god, what happened next? We like that. It's like—that's—it's like human nature.

Yeah.

It's like human nature, right? So why is it that the biggest who done it on the whole planet sitting right in the middle of everything that everyone's doing and—and nobody's interested in it and nobody's—nobody's like, "Wow, this is the biggest—this is the biggest murder mystery uh—that's ever existed." It's—it's TV is boring. Most video games are boring. It kind of ruins your life a little bit because this—this—this is so fascinating. And as you dig farther and farther and farther, it's so unbelievable that it's literally crazier, stranger, and wilder than—than anything you're going to find even in a video game or a movie. You're living it, and it's like the craziest [ __ ]—It's like a Black Mirror episode.

That's funny because one of my shticks is that life is a video game, and you can play it that way. Like that's kind of what I realized like with this whole thing. You start withdrawing. You know, you uh—like you stop forcing yourself into unnatural rhythms. You stop agreeing to these unconscious contracts, and then a suddenly—abundance starts flowing to you in ways that the matrix can't really explain. You know, it's like a very different—right? And—and it's like a mirror. Reality is literally a mirror. It's constantly mirroring to you truth about yourself where you're not free yet. Basically, it's like this is a story of freedom.

Yeah.

I mean, the matrix—the matrix is essentially in its most basic essence just a delusion.

Yeah.

It's you. It's your mental cage. Like you—it's delusion. It's delusion that is attached to shame and guilt, you know, because the thing is that you don't pay taxes, and you feel shame or guilt, or you're scared.

About the authorities coming because you're not paying taxes. Um, right. These big, these boogeymen. You said that you, you said that we live in a delusional nightmare that's made up of incorrect definitions. Did you say—I think you said—that that's in my mind 100%?

Yeah. 100%. Yeah. You're quoting me yet. Really though, like I've been binging you. I'm not kidding. I've been binging your stuff, and it sticks in my head. No, I literally, not to be egotistical, I literally don't understand how someone could not be obsessed with this information. Like, I literally wake up and go to sleep, every moment of the day, and this is all I think about. And like, it just gets in the way. Everything just gets in the way. Friendships get in the way. Everything at this point in my life. It's just like, no, that's five minutes I could be spending thinking about this stuff. And I just don't understand, in my mind, how and why people wouldn't think that way.

Yeah. I'm not like mean about it. I don't like judge people, but I just, in the back of my head, I just laugh because I'm just like, I just don't get it. Like how like having a part-time job was just way too much time to be spending not doing this.

A man who's found his mission is what it sounds like. That's beautiful.

I well, speaking of what you're saying though, like I just got back to the United States because after 2023 and like the COVID nonsense, it—I needed a break and I left, and I thought I—I became a nomad in 2020. And it's interesting because I was kind of trying to do this without—it was intuitive. Like I use my body as a lie detector. Like that's the truth teller for me. And I had like a PO box in South Dakota for a while because I was like, how can I avoid income tax and like playing the Florida game and doing all that kind of stuff because I didn't know. I also didn't have the capacity to do like what you're doing. That's just incredible. But um, like I'm back now, uh, and I want to stay—like I really hope I'm going to stay in Texas for a while. And so I was like, maybe I should buy a car. I should probably do that. I should probably do that the right way this time.

Like that's the most like spiritual white girl thing I've ever heard in my life. I came back to the US and I'm like, "Oh my god, maybe I should buy a car. Here we go."

Yeah, it is. Look how cute. Should I buy a car? I don't have a—I'm a nomad. That's what I call myself. But really, I just like go where God tells me. Like it's this is like—it's not up to me kind of thing. That's like the way I operate. But I really, really want to stay here. And I thought, I'm not going to leave until I buy a car. But then someone introduced me to Brandon Joe Williams' work and I thought, [ __ ] I can't just buy this car now. Like, there's all this [ __ ] I have to learn first. I got to get it for free. I have to get it for free. I got to figure out—I got to get paid to buy the damn thing. I can't buy it myself. Am I a resident or a driver or am I traveling? Like there's a lot here that is like—I'm—what am I doing? Do I want to—like what is this driver's license thing? What am I doing? So maybe should we start there?

I—I really wanted you to talk about the 14th amendment. Did you see my presentation, the live presentation, my day two live presentation from Austin?

Yeah. Yeah, I did. Where I'm talking about Roger Tanny and—Okay, that was okay. That's—that's some of the best I've ever done, in my opinion. Um, that's like the best thing I've ever done. Um, because I'm screaming and going [ __ ] nuts. You know what I mean? It's kind of pretty wild, right?

You were passionate.

Yeah, it really was. I was driving from Colorado to Texas and I was listening—10 hours of you—essentially—what I—it was really a lot. It was a lot. But I will link that too because that's kind of my intention with this conversation. I really just want to point the people who will get something out of your courses to them—to dive into the work and that sort of thing too.

The best place to start, I know.

Yeah. The 14th amendment would definitely be a much better choice because person—persons.

Yeah. Because the—the driver's license requires—it's more of like a level two talk. Yeah. And it requires a lot of the 14th amendment type stuff to be understood in order to really understand it, right?

Yeah. Yeah. And it's also less impactful objectively. Meaning, understanding driver's licenses and all that kind of stuff is cool. It'll help you some, but understanding the 14th amendment and the definition of the word person, I mean, it's going to—it's going to radically shift every millimeter of your entire existence forever and everyone you will ever talk to till the day you die. It's a totally different conversation, right?

Totally. So, that's kind of why—Go ahead.

Well, before we dive into that, can I ask you a question? This is like a personal question. You might not even have an answer for it, but like do you think—cuz you talk about the founding fathers and how you like respect them, right? Like I don't know them. So I—I like—I'm like—I don't either. I never met them, so—

Yeah. But you've probably read a lot more than me. And there's a lot of speculation that like Washington was a mason and they're all masons. And I think they were masons, but I'm like—were they actually like laying bricks? Like maybe they were a different type of mason than like the modern Mason that we maybe has—

Well, just to let you know, Joey Kimbro, my right-hand man, is a 32nd-degree Freemason. They're the nicest guys.

I get it. That's what I'm saying. Like Freemasonry, according to him. So, so I'm a Scientologist, right?

Right. So, there's a—there's a big huge monster difference between Scientology and Freemasonry. I'm like one of the highest trained Scientologists in the world, and he's one of the highest degree Freemasons in the world. I don't know a [ __ ] thing about Freemasonry before I met him. Not—not literally a word, and he didn't know literally a word about Scientology when—when he met me. So we—we—we did a show together where we talked about the differences because a lot of people had a lot of questions and they had concerns, and so we just did a show on it.

Right? [ __ ] it. I'm not going to answer all these questions and waste my time and do a show. And then at—in the show—I'm like—there you go. There's all your questions. If you have more questions, go [ __ ] yourself. You're not paying me to be here. So, if you don't like it or if the fact that I'm a Scientologist and he's a Freemason uh annoys you or concerns you, unsubscribe and go [ __ ] yourself. It's real simple. There's nothing to talk about. You know what I mean? But, but in that show, um, we talked about it for quite some time. So, basically, Freemasonry is, and I'm no—I'm no expert. Let me tell you, I'm no expert, but in a nutshell, in its basic simplicity, it's—it's a men's group that's very, very old that has to do with—it has to do with mentorship. It's sort of like—it's sort of like a college—like when I was in college, I didn't enter—made it into a fraternity because I always got kicked out. I got kicked out of everything. Every school, every fraternity, everything. I've been kicked out of everything my whole life. But I rushed a couple fraternities, and we had big brother night during rush, and the big brother is supposed to help us get through the rush and become a member.

Right. Right. It—it—when—when Joey describes Freemasonry to me, it reminds me so much of that because it really is. It's an older man. It's all men. They have a—a female—So—So people think they're racist, too, because the—it's all whites, right? You have to—blacks literally have a whole separate thing and it's called something different. And then women have a whole separate thing that's called like the—I'm going to butcher it—The shooting stars. I forget. Star Lodge. Again, I know I'm no—I'm no expert. Don't take—you know—I'm trying my best here. I—I know very little about it. But basically it's like—so—so you go in Freemasonry, right? and—and—and everyone interviews the [ __ ] out of you, asks you questions, they do like background checks, social media checks, like it's very difficult to get in because they don't want just your typical [ __ ] off the street to get in there. So, you got to be white and you can't be a [ __ ]—You can't be uh disrespectful. It's a bunch of older gentlemen. These older gentlemen are successful to some degree. They're not like—they're not like working at [ __ ] flipping burgers, let me tell you. They're like—they might not be like lawyers either. A lot of them from—from what I've looked at and what Joey's told me, a lot of them are like entrepreneurs, they have small businesses, whatever.

Right. Um, a lot of the guys I used to work with are Masons.

Yeah. So, so, so you go in and it's like a mentorship type situation where there are some texts, but—but it 90% of it is you and your mentor, and you talk about the text, but it's like—it's mainly like you and your big brother essentially. A lot of what's going on, right? Scientology is the complete opposite. You have the text, and if you have questions and you ask somebody about it, they go, "Oh, look at the text. Don't ask me. Look at the text." So, it's—so yeah, we actually have a—a policy or—or law, internal law in Scientology that you can't even explain technology. It's called verbal tech. And it's actually a—it's actually a punishable crime in the religion. And the reason why—And the reason why—the reason why is because it—it—it—it dilutes and destroys the technology basically, right? So, so, so you ask me, "Hey, Brandon, how do I uh—uh clear up a word that I don't fully understand using study technology in Scientology?" Fantastic question. Let me show you. I pull out the original material and I point to the original point when he talks about that, and then we read it together, and then if you have questions or whatever, be like, okay, is there any word here that you may not fully understand? Well, I don't understand what—what is a word—what is the actual definition of the word word? Okay, great. Pull out a dictionary, let's look at the word word. Now reread that sentence. Oh yeah, okay. Now it makes more sense. It's like this. Okay, good. See, I'm never answering anything directly, including—because I'm not—I'm not injecting my own delusion into the communication. Now, I'm not saying every—the religion is not like everyone's [ __ ] delusional. It's just typically speaking—it speaks to—it's like—it's like the uh—what do you call that?—ABC—the telephone and the Chinese telephone. Then by the end, you know, zebras become, you know, a 1964 uh—uh maverick with a missing bumper. You know, you're what the [ __ ]—You know what I mean? So, so that—that is the mentality behind—right—why we act the way we do in Scientology. So, it's—it's all word-based, and we have—we have word clearing technology. We even have a type of word clearing technology where you'll hold the e-meter cans and you'll read, and there'll be an electrical charge when there's a misunderstood word, and we can actually pinpoint and locate misunderstood words based off of electrical charge reactions. So we have all sorts of—

Yeah.

So we have all sorts of technological ways to locate and clear up misunderstood words. And then we go into the dictionary, and—and depending on what we're trying to get done, we might go to a kind of a simpler dictionary. We're going to clear up all the individual definitions. We're going to give sentences, examples. Then we're going to go to an etymology dictionary, and we're going to clean up the entire historical timeline of the word. And you'll see the person's uh electrical charge, they're starting to build electrical charge. And then as you clear the word, as you clear the word, the electrical charge will come back down on the E-meter. And then when it—when it's fully done, it'll actually float, which the needle kind of goes back and forth softly just like this.

Yeah. And that—that means that there's no more electrical charge either direction, and the electrical charge is completely disconnected from the line. And you can actually register it on the E-meter. And then at that point, typically there's a couple other things that have to happen. And I'm not going to explain that because that would violate literally what I just explained. But the thing is is that the—the basic idea of that is—is what we call in Scientology word clearing technology.

Yeah. Okay. I remember you talking about that in another show now.

Yeah. You don't have to use the meter. We have a bunch of unmetered and we have a bunch of metered. Uh, we have—they're called methods. Method one, method two, method three, method four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. I believe there's nine or eight methods.

Yeah. And some of them are—are unmetered, some of them are metered, some of them are for illiterate people. So like method seven's for illiterate people. Uh, method one is the most fascinating type of word clearing. There's a list of every single subject the person has ever uh studied, and you—you—you—you explore every single one and you find every single misunderstood word that has electrical charge associated with it in every single field the person has ever studied. So that can take like—that can take like days and days and days of work. But you're literally—you're literally clearing the person's entire education of that lifetime. It's called method one word clearing.

Whoa.

It's a—it's a whole separate type of word clearing, but it's—it's really fascinating.

That's so interesting.

Yeah, man. I spent some time in Clearwater, Florida, and I just—um—that was a really interesting interaction because I was always very curious about—like I would—it would surprise me when someone would be like, "Oh, I'm a Scientologist." Like, well, you're very normal. Like that's not the way that people paint Scientologists.

Well, when you're in Clearwater, the—the senior members, which is like the monk order of Scientology, they all—they all wear Navy uniforms. And that's because it's—because Mr. Hubbard—over in Hubbard—he was a naval commander and he was uh—he was actually given a special kind of license and he was able to uh command any ship in any ocean, which is a very, very prestigious, and he actually was in two wars. One of which he was actually shot to pieces and almost died, and he ended up doing a lot of his research for Dianetics in—in the hospital where he was recovering after being blasted to smithereens.

No kidding. He was in—he was in a hospital with all of his—all of his fellow soldiers, and he had already kind of knew some of this technology and he was all [ __ ] up and he had to stay there, and he's like, well [ __ ] it. He's like, this is going to be my new testing ground. So he turned—it was like Oak—Oak Knoll Hospital or something. He turned the whole hospital into a testing ground for Dianetics. That's where a lot of the original research came from. And that was in—like—kidding. I don't know when that was—maybe 34, 1934, something like that. The Navy hasn't really had a war since then. So it must have been—

Yeah. Like they haven't really had like a—

Yeah, it's really Operation Praying Mantis. Okay. Whoa. So, so when you're in Clearwater and you're just driving around, you're going to be like, "This is weird." Because the thing is is that the people that you're going to see, most of them, and when I say most of them, I mean thousands of them, like a lot are—are these people that are in these naval type uniforms and they're walking around and they have their own buses. And I understand that they can be weird, but if you think about it like this, it's just the monk order. It's like—it's like going to a monastery and seeing people in like an orange—orange sashes—robes. It's the same [ __ ]—We—the reason why I—it's—it's like that is because Mr. Hubbard was just so military. He was a military child. He was a child of a career military man, and then he became a—a—a humongous naval commander from the day he was born pretty much till the day he died. Military was a huge thing. And then it's mainly to—to sort of really visualize and stabilize that idea that comes with military which is things like discipline—order—and there's a lot of that in the Sea Organization materials. There's a lot of disciplinary type—uh—focus—Organization is—I mean, organization is crazy. We—we have like—like for example, cleaning isn't called cleaning. It's called white glove. And basically there's actually a supervisor that comes around with a literal white—white glove—glove.

No [ __ ]

And on top of the door—doorways—everything. And if—if he goes like this with the glove and there's anything on it, it's a flunk. So it's like—but that's how the Navy is. Do you see?

Yeah. Totally. So it's very—it's—it's that same idea of—of that naval type, and basically the whole—the whole—the whole—the whole basis of the Sea Organization in like a sentence is—when you leave the dock and you're on a ship, you don't have any—you can't have like a [ __ ] up engine or a leaky gasket, cuz if anything happens you are totally [ __ ]—You are completely [ __ ]

Right. Right. So the whole point of it is is like everything has to be checked. Everything has to be perfect. There's checklists for everything. People have checklists for everything, right? It's that same focus on, you know, like a well-oiled ship.

The well-oiled ship. That—that's the whole mantra of the whole thing. That's the basis of the entire group. But outside of the monk order of Scientology, it's not like that. You're not going to see people in military uniform. I mean, a lot of the military uniforms, they even have the bars for the various ranks. They even have pins that look just like police—sergeant. They have sergeant. Yeah. They have the—It's the whole military thing. And it turns people off because it's—they've never seen military and religion combined into one thing before. And it's super weird, and they've never seen it, right? But that's like the background as to why it's like that.

Oh, interesting. Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, I mean, it is. It's off-putting, and—and it's hard to find information really about it like—it—when you—

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I understand. It's—it's—you know—I—for whatever reason—there should be more information available. Um, there—there is a—a Scientology TV channel now that you can see on Direct TV. It's a whole 24-hour TV channel—stuff. So there is more and more information available on this stuff. But yeah, it's—it's—it's slow because the—the trust is low and it's strange, and I get it. So, it's just one of those things that—

Well, that's kind of how it goes. Just taking a while, but you know, we're—we're—we're a new religion, too. So, it can be kind of weird, you know.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. Religion in general doesn't have like a great rap, you know.

A lot of that's by design, though. I think that's—that's one of the pillars of destroying a society is to destroy the family, destroy religion, invert all of it.

Yeah. We have the lowest ever birth rates. We have the lowest ever religious—whatever—we have, you know, so—

Highest divorce rates.

Highest divorce rates. So it's—it's—you wonder where these things come from. They don't just—they don't just, you know, they don't just come out of the ether. You know what I mean?

Exactly. Yeah. No, truly. And it's quick how we forget—like it's just one generation to the next that it's like, oh, this is like a very different ballgame now.

Yeah. Yeah. Truly. Um, do you wanna—do you want to tell me why we should all be in prison?

Um, I guess like—I don't know. Oh, wow. You really, really turned—So, yeah, let me uh—uh let me—Yeah, I—I will—Let's get into it. I'll do a screen share if you want.

Yeah. Yeah. I actually do my own shows on Riverside, so I'm pretty familiar with the—He's got it—the whole thing, right? Okay. Well, yeah. and—and whatever you feel comfortable—like we can skim—we—

Can go over things however whatever feels good. Yeah.

So, so I have this page called a treatise on the word person, and it is probably the best thing I've ever done. Uh, it is the best thing I've ever done. It's the—I call it—it's it's like going up the elevator, four years' worth of elevator in about three hours. Um, in fact, the biggest issue that people have is it's just they feel like they're they're going up the elevator so fast their skin's ripping off the bone. That's the only real issue with this is that it can be a lot for for someone, but but it is consumable. It's not that it's not consumable; it's that it's so much uh mind [ __ ] your your whole head's going to shatter like glass. So, it's it's a bit—it could be a bit much emotionally. Um, but as long as you're you're okay with that, it's it's it's like crack, basically, right? Yeah.

So, if we get into, you know, the definition of the word person is something that I've been trying to figure out for a long long long time. Uh, the legal definition, right? So, if we go to Title 8, which is all about nationality, aliens, passport systems, all that kind of good stuff, I'm going to look up the definition of the word person. It's in 8 U.S.C. 1101, subsection B3, which might be a bit difficult to find. There we go. Um, the term person means an individual or an organization. And this word here is a word that I've been trying to figure out for three and a half years. Um, I definitely am feeling pretty good about it. I definitely feel like I've figured it out mostly. Um, but what's really fascinating is this term organization is part of the definition of the word person. And this term person, this one here that we're looking at is the one that applies to the passport system. All right.

So if we go to uh organization, we can look it up in 8 U.S.C. 1101, subsection A28. The term organization means but is not limited to an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation or fund and includes a group of persons whether or not incorporated permanently or temporarily associated together with joint action on any subject or subjects. So, so if we take that and plug it in here, it's a really fascinating first place to start, and it just kind of gets everybody's heads smoking right out the gate because if we take that and we plug that into the word person and we and instead of reading the term organization, I'm going to read the definition of organization. The term person means an individual or an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation or fund. A group of persons whether or not incorporated permanently or temporarily associated together with any joint action on any subject or subjects. This is what can get a passport.

And then and then the word individual, people think that typically means you as a man or a woman or whatever. But the thing is is that typically when you have a definition, the the all the all the listed items in the definition have to be of the same class, right? Yeah. So it took me years and years and years and years to figure it out. But the the term individual essentially in in a nutshell is basically just if if we go to Facebook, I just posted this. Um, I'll show it to you. Uh, let me see here. So here is Baron's law dictionary. Baron's banking dictionary. Uh-huh. Sole proprietor, unincorporated business owned and controlled by one person ordinarily under a business name, doing business as other than the owner's. Sole owners are treated as individual accounts and may open interest-bearing checking accounts unlike corporations, and then you look under individual proprietor and see sole proprietorship. So, I haven't necessarily found the exact court case or the exact body of law where they took the term individual proprietor and just left off the second word and just—it's just individual now. But as of right now, after three and a half years of research, I am like 99% sure this is what the term individual is referring to. And I even have evidence to show you on that. We can go to uh 26 C.F.R. 301.7701-11 and we will co-reference that with the SS-4 form. This is a form to get an employer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service. And this is information from the Internal Revenue Service as to what a social security number is. For purposes of this chapter, the term social security number means the taxpayer identifying number of an individual or estate. Okay. So, a social security number is attached to only two types of anything entities. We don't know yet what it could be. We're pretty sure, but we're not totally positive. An individual or an estate. Now, let's cross-reference that with the EIN request form, the SS-4 type of entity in section 9A. You'll see SSN here, estate, and then SSN is only in one other area, sole proprietor. Yikes. The term individual. And this is the closest I've ever gotten to evidence. What I'm showing you right here, I want to find the actual like like like legal bill or or or case law or Supreme Court case or whatever. I haven't been able to find it yet. Been looking for a long time. I'll find it eventually where the term, you know, sole proprietorship, individual, individual proprietorship, and and how it just became shortened to just be individual, right? But the thing is is that individual and sole proprietorship is the same word.

Then we're going to go to uh sole proprietorship. We're going to look up what the IRS says about what a sole proprietorship is. And it's a sole proprietor means somebody who owns an unincorporated business by themselves. So the the first questions that I started asking when I started going down this rabbit hole is, okay, so I have a business. I didn't open the business. So where in the [ __ ] did this business come from? Right? I haven't figured that out yet. A lot of people, including myself, we believe the theory behind it, which has a lot of circumstantial evidence, is the birth certificate, right? So, but that's a whole another rabbit hole. We're not going to get into that right now. But you have a business. That business has the exact same name as you, and you have no idea where it came from. Those are facts. Absolute. It the what I just said right there. I'm trying to be very clear. There are certain things that I that I have theories. There's certain things that I have circumstantial evidence. And then there's certain things that are hard, tethered down, done deal, taken into a court. Fact. Yeah. Fact number one, you have a business of your name. Fact number two, that business is called a sole proprietorship. Fact number three. At some point in the past, the term sole proprietorship and the term individual proprietorship was the same term or is still the same term. Fact number four is that a social security number can only be attached to an individual or a state. And when reference to types of entities, the term individual is replaced by sole proprietor. So then you got to think, is it really your social security number or is it the social security number of a business? And then there's certain cases that have occurred in the past where they say that the the owner and the sole proprietorship operate as the same person in law, but it's based off of like weird RICO criminal type stuff. So it's it's really not the most established idea.

The way that this entire idea operates in a nutshell and and the the idea of how almost everything in law operates in a nutshell comes from the the rule of evidence rule number 301. In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of proving evidence to rebut the presumption. The presumption is that you and the sole proprietorship are the same person. The presumption is the social security number applies to you. Even though it really doesn't, it only applies at the sole proprietorship. But because you are considered the same person as the sole proprietorship, they can attach the social security number to you. The problem with that situation is that that's how taxation occurs. Taxation is an excise tax. An excise tax is is a privilege. It's it's a tax imposed on specific goods or services or activities. It's it's an indirect tax. And the reason why it's indirect because they aren't taxing you. They're taxing a business called a sole proprietorship which they have the presumption is the same as you. You don't rebut that presumption, but it isn't technically legally a direct tax. Do you see how do you see how delicate that is? Crazy. If you say, "I am not the sole proprietorship. I'm not a [ __ ] business." It's a [ __ ] business. It says right in the goddamn definition, I am not a business. No one's ever done that. It's like literally never happened. And that is the lynchpin. That is the presumption that creates the indirect tax system. The entire taxing system is based off the presumption that you as the owner of this business and you don't even know where the [ __ ] this thing came from and the business are the same person. So all taxation is tied to that single presumption. If you break that presumption, you break all taxation.

So, I forgot that we're on the 14th Amendment. So, we're gonna get into that in just a moment. That's a little little little—going a little farther than I typically do on that. And the reason why is because taxation is an area that people are obviously very interested in very rapidly, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, so we're going to go—we've already gone over all that. Moving on. The Naturalization Act. So naturalization—the definition of naturalization is going to another country where you are not a citizen and then and then going through the process to become a citizen in that country. That's it. That's the that's the definition of the term naturalization. Okay. So when we started our country in 1776 or whatever it was, the first Naturalization Act that was ever released was from 1790. And there was some particular rules and and particular things that someone had to do to naturalize that. They went through some adjustments. There was some adjustments in 1795. There was some adjustments in I think 1798. And then the final set of adjustments were 1802. The 1802 version of the Naturalization Act is still active to this day. And the 1802 version of the Naturalization Act has five things that you have to have, be, or do in order to naturalize into a state. We're not talking about the U.S. citizen category. We're talking about a state citizen category. So, we're going to get into what that means here in a moment as well. Just bear with me.

So, first and foremost, it's pretty obvious. You have to be an alien. The definition of alien, let's keep it really simple. Just just skip over this part. Just somebody who's not a citizen. There's more to it, but you've got 80 90% of it by just saying not a citizen. Alien, not a citizen. That simple. Let's just keep it simple. Right now, this is the big shocker here. You have to be what's called a free white person. Now, you start digging into this and what this means and everything else. And they had—this is all based off of essentially eugenics. And they had they had people coming into the courtroom testifying about people's bloodline, testifying about people's grandmas. Oh yeah, I knew his grandma. His grandma was a released African slave. And then they would just like tick the box of like direct slave lineage and they would like measure people's skulls and like figure out because the ba the basis of the measuring of the skulls they're from. uh, they wouldn't fit free white person because uh the the African bloodline has a particular type of skull diameter and the person who was being examined had similar skull diameter so it could be presumed that they're of African descent, thus they wouldn't be a free white person. It's insane. It's all eugenics. Isn't that why they created biology? A bunch of white guys. That's what I've heard that it's like kind of made up pro. It was at that time for sure. It was all just goofiness. I mean, they had they had people coming in and just testifying over nothing. I didn't realize that. That was part of that. Oh, that's insane. Okay. Yeah. So, so the term free white person, it it is color-based in terms of skin, but that's not really the whole conversation. There's a much deeper conversation. For example, you start studying the court cases of what this term means, free white person. It mainly meant European whites. So, we'll probably get into this a little bit as we go forward on this, but you could—free the term free white person in a nutshell, the simple definition of it is a a a man of white skin from the European countries and and everything else is a maybe kind of, you know, wishy-washy, but the one that's for sure not is a colored person of African descent. The amount of African descent, uh, you know, 1/8 or more African blood, which they had no way to test that. They would basically base it off of your parents, your grandparents. They would just look up—they they would find your family line and they would just say, "Oh, you know, in the past six generations, you know, five of them were of African descent, so you're fucked." Basically, that's kind of how they do it, right? Wow. Okay. Yeah, that's the definition essentially. We're going to get into that more as we go through this. So has resided—meaning they are not a citizen yet. Now people see this term everywhere. If you have an apartment, it's a residence. You have to be a resident of your state to get a driver's license. Uh, where do you reside? Residence. Are you a resident of—in the media, in the news? Uh, local residents. You're going to—you hear this word all the time. This word is a a word of hypnotism. Almost no one is residing or has a residence or—most people, if you're white and you were born in any of the 50 states. You have never once ever in your entire life resided anywhere in the United States. The term reside means you are not a citizen and you're working on naturalizing into that zone to become a citizen. Right? When you get a driver's license, the two choices are U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The term permanent resident doesn't even really exist, right? There is no such thing as a permanent resident. A resident is somebody who's working on naturalizing. That is the definition of the word resident. If if I have an apartment and I'm going through a naturalization process to become a citizen of California, that's a residence until I complete my naturalization process and then the residence converts into a domicile. Right? But the thing is, if you're born in one of the 50 states, you're not naturalizing. You never were naturalizing. You're not working on naturalizing. You're not going through a naturalization process. Naturalization has nothing to do with you because you have to be an alien to naturalize. Duh. A a a citizen of France is not going to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen of France. Right? When you say you reside or have a residence, in that same sentence, you're saying, "I'm not a citizen of California. I'm working on it." Right? And that's why you have to read the original text—has resided in the U.S. for five years as an immigrant. Yeah. Once you complete this process, you are now domiciled. It's called a domiciliary, I believe, is the technical legal term as to what your home becomes. But if you're born in one of the 50 states, you're all—everywhere you are is a domiciliary. You can't have a residence. It's impossible.

Demonstrates good moral character and swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Relinquishes all other allegiances or citizenships worldwide. So on the—on the—you're going to see in a minute there's this big difference between a U.S. citizen and a state citizen. A state citizen can't hold any other passports or anything. Okay.

So getting into the definition of free white person, you can see all these various—these are court cases. You can see all these various uh—they go very specific into each individual culture that would fall under the term free white person and then they go under the cultures that specifically would not fall under the definition of free white person, which we're not going to get into. It's a lot, but you can just kind of see it on the screen. The first definition is more generic, meaning all persons belonging to the European races then counted then commonly counted as white and their descendants including such descendants in other countries to which they have immigrated. That's like the more vague definition. And then the second definition is getting into extreme specifics of every single nationality and subclass of culture. So, um, getting into—now, now we're going to get into the difference between the term person, persons, and people because you you look at the definition, you look at the the Constitution and it says we the people, but then you look at the law and you'll never see the word people anywhere. It's never used. Only the word persons is used, right? And for some reason, no one's ever questioned that. You think you have a right to the Constitution when it says we the people and then everything you're talking about says we the persons and no one's ever said well [ __ ] is people and persons talking about two different classes, and the answer is—does it say we the persons—some—that's like the phrase we the persons—no, it's we the people—I've never ever once ever seen the word people used in the entire United States Code ever—crazy—never. Right. But we've all seen persons. Yeah. Or person. Yeah. You'll even see missing person's report. It's not a missing person's. If anybody told me you want to file a missing person's report, I'd be absolutely not. I want to file a missing people report. Two totally different things.

So, so I'll I'll show you kind of where this comes from. It comes from the Constitution, obviously, but it also comes from one of the most infamous cases we've ever had in our entire history of our entire country. It's called Dred Scott versus Sanford, and it's a case from 1857 that that was the case that kind of really accelerated us into the Civil War. Um, I'm going to read a couple of these now before I read this uh a couple important things to know. Roger Taney, who was the chief justice in the Supreme Court and the guy who's giving this uh this this thing, I think it was five out of the nine justices in the Supreme Court were slave owners. And Roger Taney had already released all of these slaves that he inherited from his lineage. So when I read this, you're going to think Roger Taney is the biggest piece of [ __ ] on the planet for a lot of people who are new to this. But really, what's happening is is that he's just explaining the overwhelming amount of historical evidence that he found, and he probably put himself at risk by even saying any of this because the majority of people in the Supreme Court were slave owners and he had already gotten—he had already proven through his actions by releasing his inherited slaves. So, so this becomes more impactful when you realize that's the guy who's saying this. Okay. Now, with that said, here's some quotes from this case by Roger Taney. The words people of the United States and citizens are synonymous terms referring to we the people. We the people of the United States of America, and the word citizens mean the same thing, right? They both describe the political body who, according to a republican institutions, form the sovereignty. M—now this is based off of the the the basis of American law is based off of the English culture because that we broke off from England. So this is basically just like a a breakoff of England. We—everything that was England was here because we were colonies of England. Right. Right. England goes back to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta from 1215, and you'll see the Magna Carta talked about a lot by the Supreme Court in the 1800s. I mean, my god, I—the reason why I started looking up the Magna Carta is because I started seeing it mentioned by Supreme Court justices like Mr. Miller and Mr. Chaney so often that I was like, "Well, [ __ ] this must be really important." So, I started digging into the Magna Carta because they're talking about it all the time. Whoa. So, the Magna Carta essentially what it is is it it it took the powers of the king and expanded those powers out into the kingdom. So, so the kingdom formed the sovereignty, and then that same idea went down the line 800 years and then each individual state of the union like California for example operates under the same basic operation of what what what was going on with the Magna Carta—right—it's basically like little micro-Englands—all the 50 states of the union are like micro little Englands essentially. And that's really important to understand, right? Like each—this is a nation of nations. A nation

Of nations, right? Yeah. Okay. So the way that works is that's why you have the grand jury indictment system. So, so, so you have a sovereign individual who who's who's sovereign because of the group sovereignty via that whole idea of the Magna Carta. And then, in the in a in a grand jury indictment, you have 23 other members of that same sovereignty exercising justice upon the other sovereign. So, it's 23 sovereign members of that same sovereignty exercising justice upon one of their own sovereign members, and and that that kind of got lost after like 1873, which we're going to talk about in a moment, right? Yeah.

But when he says form the sovereignty, he's talking about that state sovereignty that basically it's it's it's still to this day the same thing as the Magna Carta. So, it's basically the everyone is a king inside of a giant group of kings. And if one king does some stupid [ __ ] 23 other kings stomp all over them. And that is the the grand jury indictment slash jury system. That's the basis of the entire American and and English systems. Okay? And who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people. And every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. And we see this term, this hit piece term that's floating around the society very heavily today called sovereign citizen. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, the thing is is that Roger Taney, Roger B. Taney was was the I believe the fifth chief justice, um the fifth chief justice of the United States. Um, he is one of the most prolific uh litigator type individuals. He writes in his opinions books worth of information. He was a historian. He was a philosopher. He was a brilliant genius. And and he had some health issues and stuff, but he still he was he was how many cases did Roger B. Taney sit on as the chief justice of the Supreme Court? 285 cases. He served for 28 years, from 1836 to 1864. Well, yeah, but if you go to um uh US Supreme Court uh FAQs, yeah, this I was just about to check like what is like you'll see. I just found this the other day. Um, this is kind of shocking actually. Watch this. How many cases are appealed to the court each year and how many cases does the court hear? Now, mind you, we're we're on supremecourt.gov. This is the official website. I'm going to click on this. Yeah. The court receives approximately 7 to 8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari. The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases. And that's today, like that's current. This is right now. We're live on the Supreme Court of the United States website.

Now, when you start to get into this more and more and you start to read these things, if you knew the amount of work they put into I mean, for for they only take on cases that are like [ __ ] up or or or causing a lot of disruption throughout like the whole [ __ ] country or at least between two different circuits, meaning like sectors, right? Right. If there's not chaos or craziness between multiple sectors or really if the whole country is on edge about something, that's the kind of [ __ ] that's going to get picked up by this court. So, right, they're very picky because it's it's it's not like, you know, a $1,200 [ __ ] MX payment is not going to be anywhere near anything like this, right? Yeah. So it it sounds crazy, but it when you start to dig into it more and more and more and more, it's really not so crazy, right? That if you read anything, what's crazy is that he had 300 in 20 years. Yeah. Yeah. But you read if you read some of his stuff, watch this. If we go to uh Google Scholar, we're going to we're going to pull up Dred Scott versus Sanford and we're going to read just the final opinion that was written by Taney. Not and that doesn't include the whole docket, all the arguments, uh you know, everything else that happened, the oral arguments. This is just and only the final opinion by Taney. I'm going to hit the page down button over and over and over again. I'm going to show you how long this thing is. I can already see the scroll is so teeny. Yeah. Now I'm going to start to hold the button. Wow. Yeah, we're still going. We're like halfway. Okay. Oh my gosh. Wow.

So, imagine the amount of work, effort, oral arguments, witness testimonies, uh, uh, docket items, etc. that had to go into finally building out enough information for Mr. Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to issue this size of opinion. Wow. And that's basically what we're looking at in just one single case, you know, 285 of these and all the work that had to go into building it, right? It's a lot. Yeah. So, with that said, you know, keep in mind this is not some some, you know, this is this is the chief justice of the Supreme Court saying what we're about ready to read, what we're reading right now, right? This isn't some po, you know, Montana guy living in a log cabin. This is the the fifth chief justice of the Supreme Court. He's not saying sovereign citizen, but but damn is he damn is he close. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people and every citizen is one of this people. I mean that that is like practically he's basically saying sovereign citizen almost right super close and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

Now now in this case Dred Scott versus Sanford it's about a emancipated slave named Dred Scott trying to get citizenship because he was getting abused every which way he had no rights. He couldn't sue anyone. Everyone's just treating him like [ __ ] because there's nothing that he couldn't. It's like it's like getting bullied everywhere you go because you can't you can't do anything about it. You can't fight. So what did he do? He sued and then he got all the way to the Supreme Court and that's how we got here. Right. So So Taney is saying here the question before us is whether the class of persons described in the in abatement compose a portion of this people. So, we already said what a people is up here and then now we're talking about a different class he's referring to as a persons, right? If we go into Grock and I type into Grock something like um in Dred Scott v Sanford, Mr. Taney mentions and we'll get into this in a moment that there are two sections in the constitution which directly show that negroes and their descendants were not members of the sovereignty people but were actually a separate class of persons. What two sections in the constitution was he referring to? The slave importation clause and the three-fifths compromise. Oh [ __ ]

So in the original constitution we have the the slave importation clause which we can look up right migration or importation. the migration or importation of such persons. Right? In the constitution, the constitution begins we the people. We start getting into slave migration or importation. They refer to the slaves as persons in the constitution. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding $10 for each person. They're referring to taxes on property that property is slaves. That's the first section. The second section section is the 3-fifth compromise. Um talking about um representatives, free persons excluding those bound to service for a term of years and excluding Indians not taxed. Three-fifths of all other persons. This is for I think voting purposes, right? Uh representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned based upon. So so you're going to see it in a moment. This is what Roger Taney's talking about. Yeah. Right.

So if we go back to uh the treatise, the question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people and are constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not and that they are not included and were not intended to be included under the word citizens in the constitution and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race and whether emancipated or not yet remained subject to their authority and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them. Now again, I'm going to say it again. He had already released his own slaves that he had inherited and five out of the nine justices in the Supreme Court were slave owners. So he's going up against everything. He's going up against majority. The majority. Yeah. So keep in mind he's not saying this from his own opinion necessarily. He's saying this based off of the tremendous amount of research that went into the length of that final opinion that I just showed you.

Here's the next part. In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times and the language used in the Declaration of Independence show that neither the class of persons who had been who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open for dispute. And men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits as well as in matters of public concern without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English government and the English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. And then this is the part where we just talked about but there are two clauses in the constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government then formed referring to article 1 section 9 clause one and referring to article 1 section two clause three right the three fifths and of the government then formed. They're talking about the f that's the United States. Yeah. That's the the United States of America, the original that people think we're still inside of, but we're not. But we're not. Right. And that's what we're going to get into in a moment here. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

So then we go into the Civil War. All hell breaks loose. It was already breaking loose, but this was made it 10 times worse. We come out of the Civil War. Now there's a new case called the slaughterhouse cases. There was a series of of cases, a whole bunch of them that were all involving slaughterhouses and this whole nightmare erupted. The 14th Amendment had just been supposedly ratified in 1868. All hell broke loose and then by 1873 we have this case called the slaughterhouse cases. This case is considered by far the most controversial case that has ever happened in the entire history of America. By far. The the term the term US Supreme Court opinion and the term controversy. When you start to read the cases, it's almost impossible for those two words to coincide, the two terms, because they're so extensive and they're so detailed and they're so wild and there's so much work that goes into them that the the idea of it being conspiratorial is laughable. Right? This is the pretty much the only case that is considered to be to this day highly controversial and and strange and odd and weird and yeah it's it's the strangest weirdest thing ever and I don't know why anyone's talking why why no one's talking about it. U and it's kind of become the center point of my entire platform because it is it's it's it's absolutely the craziest freaking thing ever to ever happen.

So what happened was in this case is when they created the US citizen category. So prior to this point that category didn't even exist. The term US citizen and he's going to he's going to talk about it in the case here in a moment on these quotes. The term US citizen just meant it didn't mean anything. It just meant I'm a citizen of one of the states that the legal answer to citizenship would be Californian, New Yorker, Vermontian, uh Idahoan, Hoosier for Indiana. Those were the legal terms that you would say for citizenship. US citizen was like a colloquialism. It wasn't it wasn't a legal classification. This case, the slaughterhouse cases is when the US citizen category was born as a separate legal classification. So now we're going to read some quotes from this case. The first section of the 14th article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship. Not well let's let's just so what he's talking about here is 14th amendment first clause. This is the clause that every one of their mothers has been arguing about since 1868 since it was written. Since it was written, all persons, we we already already in this conversation, we haven't even barely cracked the surface of the ice. Already people should be asking questions. Whoa, hold on a second. It doesn't use the word people. We the people. It uses the word persons. Yeah, exactly. And we're going to get into that in a minute. born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That first sentence without going any farther has been the endless conversations literally since 1868. Pure chaos since 1868. What they were trying to do in the slaughterhouse cases was they were trying to interpret this because the legislative branch wrote all this and then the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting it. So 1868 the legislative branch wrote all this [ __ ] All hell broke loose. And then here we are in in 1873 and now we're trying to figure out what it all means, especially in relation to all these issues with all these released negro slaves. They don't have any [ __ ] citizenship. They're getting taken advantage of. Hell, they were probably better off being [ __ ] enslaved at this point. That's probably what they were thinking because it's true. So it's like we have this huge [ __ ] mess all over the country. Everything's gone to hell. We're coming out of a [ __ ] civil war that was based upon all this.

Scott, do we know? I don't know. But you also got to think, another thing you got to think about this case that we're about ready to read is Yeah. We're coming out of a four-year Civil War. I think it was the bloodiest war ever in the entire history of America at that time. Right. Sure. Yeah. Do you think they were worried when they were talking about this stuff and giving the opinion about saying something that could reinflame the war? The answer is yes. It was at the the very number one concern of every single Supreme Court justice was, "Fuck, if we [ __ ] this up, the country is going to explode into the war again. We just came out of it. We have to figure out some way to navigate this thing to where we can come to an agreement, everyone can be happy, and we don't fly back into the Civil War and open that nightmare back up again and and the flames have died down. We don't want to throw gasoline on the fire." So there it's an extremely delicate situation they're trying to figure out and and the the the basis of the issue is the Dred Scott versus Sanford situation because not only do you have a a a case that says that these people are not people, they're persons, but it's a case that is so extensively clear and provides such an extensive amount of historical evidence to prove as to why it is that it's a very difficult situation to try to navigate. So they've got Dred Scott versus Sanford with Mr. Taney. They've got the war. They've got all this stuff going on. And now they're like, "Fuck, we have to figure out how do we it's almost impossible to navigate the situation." So the fact that this is going to be so convoluted, confusing, difficult, and and and and it's going to be so strange. You have to place yourself there and you have to place yourself under the under the pressure and difficulties that these people were dealing with. And then to understand this, we also have to go we're going to go back in time just a little bit and we're going to talk about a guy named Samuel Freeman Miller. He's the guy who is the associate Supreme Court judge at this time period who's giving the opinion in the slaughterhouse cases. Now he's not the chief justice. Everyone else who's not the chief is considered an associate uh justice. You can see that term here associate justice, right? Yeah. Um is a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the chief justice. So in in Dred Scott, it was the chief justice. Roger Taney was the one giving that opinion. Now, you got to ask yourself, why in the slaughterhouse cases is the is is there an associate justice giving the final opinion? That must mean something, right? And oh, it does.

So, Samuel Freeman Miller basically he he he has farming background. He got a medical degree in 1838 from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky. While practicing medicine for a decade in Barberville, Kentucky, he taught himself the law and was admitted to the bar in 1847, favoring the abolition of slavery, which was prevalent in Kentucky, he supported the Whigs in Kentucky. So, so he be because he wants to help free the slaves. I mean, it is kind of funny. His middle name is Freeman. It's Freeman. I always thought that was so funny. So, so he he he he's practicing law and and somewhere along there he decides, you know what, I feel really strongly about this slavery thing. I want to do something about it. So, he teaches himself law while practicing medicine. In 1850, Miller moves to Keokuk, Iowa, uh which is a state more amendable to his views on slavery. So, he moves, which in 1850 is not the easiest thing in the world to move. It's probably by horseback and whatever else. Yeah. To Iowa. He moves because uh his opinions on slavery are so strong. He moves from Kentucky to Iowa and he immediately freed the few slaves who had come with his family from Kentucky. Active in Iowa politics, he supported Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Lincoln nominated Miller to the Supreme Court on July 16th, 1862, and he was confirmed the same day and then sworn into office on July 21st. The guy taught himself [ __ ] law and then and then there wasn't very there wasn't a lot of like uh uh law uh colleges back then. So that might sound crazy to today's standard, but it was actually really common back then. I think Roger Taney was the same thing. But for someone to teach themselves law and then make it all the way to the Supreme Court, that's a pretty impressive feat. His opinions strongly favored Lincoln's positions and he upheld his wartime suspension. Okay. So, so that's the background of Samuel Freeman Miller. He had been working towards his goal of freeing the slaves for like he moved in 1850. He started studying self the law the law probably somewhere around you know 1845 1844. He was admitted to the bar in 1847. He was he was nominated to the Supreme Court in '62 and then 11 years later. So, you know, six years before the outbreak of the Civil War, all through the Civil War and then after the Civil

War, he's there. Now, here we are in 1873, and he's been chosen by the nine people that are there. I don't think Tanny was there at that time. He's been chosen by the nine people who were there to give this because he—this is his baby. He had been working toward this for like over two decades. Okay.

So, with that said, this is what he has to say about the situation. The first section of the 14th article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with the definition of citizenship, which is the one we just read. All persons born or naturalized. Right. Mhm. So no such definition was previously found in the Constitution. Nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. So in English, he's saying, boy, this thing has has caused quite a lot of noise and ruckus. Okay. Yeah.

It has been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the union; aka, there is no US citizen category. There's only a state citizen category. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia, which is not a state, or in the territories, which are not states, though within the United States, were not citizens. They couldn't get citizenship. There was no citizenship for those zones. Right? Then all the negro race who had been recently made free men by the 13th Amendment, which abolished involuntary servitude and slavery, were still not only not citizens but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, here's the killer. To remove this difficulty primarily and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a state, the first clause of the first section was framed. The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts to rest—puts at rest—both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular state. And it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons—Dred Scott never talked about white people. He never talked about “we the people.” He never talked about citizens. He was talking about this other class called “persons” the whole time—born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. He gets into what “subject to its jurisdiction” means, but we're not going to get into that right now. It's a bit—a bit much. We're going to skip that part. Yeah, that's good.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of council in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter—converting a United States citizen into a state citizen. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it. But it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the union. This is complicated. What he's saying is, before, just a minute ago, I said that if someone was born in the District of Columbia or one of the US territories, he wouldn't have been a citizen. Now, we're—we're opening up the US citizen category. And if anyone is born in the District of Columbia or one of the US territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands—now, there is this special new class of citizenship which those people will get. And if they want to become a state citizen, which is an actual real American, all they have to do is just reside within the state just like anybody else and go through the same naturalization process as anyone else would do through the naturalization act of 1802.

It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error—so, so, so back in the day, plaintiffs in error, that term, it meant that the plaintiff in the original lower court case was the one who pushed the case into an appeals court or into the Supreme Court—plaintiffs in error. You don't see that term anymore. Now, the term is uh appellant and appellee. That's how—that's the terms they use in today's world. But back then it was plaintiff in error and then defendant. Or if the defendant was the one who moved the case into—into an upper court, it would be defendants in error. Or if it was just one defendant, defendant in error. That was the terminology at this time period in 1873, which is the—which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, meaning the—the people who—who brought this up into our court, which—which happen to be the plaintiffs in the lower case—speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states—of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States and the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state and what they respectively are, we will presently consider, but we wish to state here that it is only the former—meaning US citizens—that are placed by this clause, the 14th Amendment, under the protection of the federal Constitution and that the latter—meaning state citizens, whatever they may be—are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

If then there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such and those belonging to a citizen of the state as such—the latter—meaning state citizens—rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested, for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment. Persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. All negroes born or naturalized, all released negroes of African descent, born or naturalized into the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. That's what this is saying. So everyone is going around saying that they are US citizens. White people can't be US citizens. We're—this is the terminology behind negro blah blah blah. But if we go—there's legal definitions of the word negro. There's expansion of the 14th Amendment definition of the word negro to start to include corporations. We have that happening in 1886 in a case called Santa Clara County versus Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Uh, but what I want to show you what's really important is—um—well, can this case—look at this—this is a California Supreme Court case from 1872. No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the federal Constitution. Recent amendments. What year was the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments ratified? 1868 and 1870. So this judge, this justice, chief justice, by the way, this is the chief justice, William T. Wallace. So it's the chief justice of the California Supreme Court is saying no white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws owes the status of citizenship to the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments of the federal Constitution.

The history and aim of the 14th Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were in the main persons of African descent who had been held in slavery in this country or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was settled that neither slaves nor those who had been such nor the descendants of these, though native and freeborn, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States, referring to duh Dred Scott versus Sanford. The 13th Amendment, though conferring the boon—which means benefit—of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable—meaning impossible to overcome—bar as to citizenship. And it was mainly to remedy this condition that the 14th Amendment was adopted.

This is why they never tell you you're a US citizen. They can only ask you, and you just say yes. It's that simple. W-9 tax form. Right. Goodness. Part two certification. I am a US citizen or other US person. Signature of US person. That you just claimed. Yeah. To get a driver's license, you have to swear under penalty of perjury that you're either a US citizen or what's called a resident alien. Resident alien means somebody who's here that—that's not a state citizen. So, so a US citizen—when you start going down that rabbit hole, the citizenship itself is attached to the District of Columbia. It's a whole other thing. So, when you say you're a US citizen, you're saying you are a District of Columbia citizen. That's what you're saying. And that's because the United States is geo-located. Like the location of the United States is Washington, DC. Well, the federal government, when referring to United States in law, especially when it comes to foreign—so, so the District of Columbia is a—a—an administrative governmental body, and its main interest, even all the way back since the Constitution, is—is um—uh foreign affairs. So the states were designed to be domestically independent as sovereign nations, and then foreign affairs—meaning like China coming into California or Russia coming into Utah—that was supposed to be a federal concern. And then another federal concern is commerce between the states. So commerce between California and Arizona would be a federal concern. And you can see all of that in the commerce clause. The commerce clause is the area in the Constitution that defines and delineates the only three areas that the federal government has powers: regulating commerce with foreign nations, among the states—meaning interstate commerce—and commerce with Indian tribes. That's why, over the last 150 years, you've seen everything under the sun, moon, and stars getting converted into some sort of commercial-related activity or having to do with foreign nations or—or whatever. A US citizen in a state is actually a foreigner. And that's why if we go on to something like California voter registration, you'll see here, what do you—what do you have to be to vote? Look at the first section of every single choice. Have to be a released negro slave that was given citizenship by the 14th Amendment and a resident, which means you're not a citizen of California, a foreigner, an immigrant of California, a negro and immigrant of California. That's what that's saying. And the reason why is this is based off of the 15th Amendment, denying a citizen the right to vote. But what did—what did—William Wallace already say about—about the 15th Amendment? No white person has anything to do with the 15th Amendment. Heavens, the 15th Amendment has nothing to do with white people. So, so, so, so when you register to vote, you're registering to vote under the 15th Amendment. When you register to vote under the 15th Amendment, you are—you are abandoning being an American. When you click this button and you click this button, you have—you have officially—you are no longer an American. You have—you have relinquished being an American. You have literally thrown it in the trash can. There's gasoline in the trash can. You were smoking a cigarette and you tossed your cigarette butt, still lit, in the trash can, and it is now on fire by—by their own words. Like that's correct. What is—Yeah.

So all taxation, all driver's licenses, all business licenses, concealed carry permits, everything under the sun, moon, and stars falls under these various classifications. You have to be a US citizen or permanent resident. A state citizen can't even get a driver's license. It's impossible for a state citizen to get a driver's license. That's exactly why it says that section at the bottom. You have to be a US citizen or permanent resident to get one. State citizen can't have one. And the problem is no one even knows that there is state citizenship at all, even in the government. I—I think even in the courts, so that's why the Slaughterhouse Cases is considered one of the most—uh—controversial, or not one of the most—the most, by far, because people are—have been arguing about this. There's not been very many people, but there's been a few people who have argued about this.

Now, Mr. Miller, who gave the—the Slaughterhouse case, I just found this like yesterday. This is so cool. So, I decided what I was going to do is I was going to go after the—the Slaughterhouse Cases and I was going to find another opinion where Mr. Miller talks in a way where he's applying what he was talking about in the Slaughterhouse Cases, and I found Bradwell versus Illinois, which is just later that year, 1873. Right, so again, Mr. Miller is giving the opinion, and now you're going to see the application of what he was talking about in the Slaughterhouse Cases. The record for this case is not very perfect, but it may be fairly taken that the plaintiff asserted her right to a license. This is—she—it was a woman, which is very, very taboo at this time period. She was trying to get a license to practice law. She was trying to get admitted to the bar. Okay, that's what she was trying to do. That was a big issue. Women are not supposed to be doing that. So that was part of the issue, right? But then we have this other issue of state versus US citizenship which you're going to see pop up here in a moment—on the grounds, among others, that she was a citizen of the United—So she is saying that she's a citizen of the United States, and that having been a citizen of Vermont at one time, she was in the state of Illinois entitled to any right granted to citizens of the latter state. So you can see how confusing this is. We have two states and federal citizenship all in the same situation here. As regards to the provision of the Constitution that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, the plaintiff in her affidavit has stated very clearly a case to which it is inapplicable. So what is he saying? He's saying she's trying to say that the 14th Amendment applies to her situation. It doesn't because she's a citizen of Vermont, Vermont only, and she's white. That's what he's saying. The protection designed by that clause, as has been repeatedly held, has no application to a citizen of the state whose laws are complained of. If the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Illinois, that provision of the Constitution gave her no protection against its courts or its legislation. This is evidence. This is—this is 100% evidence that there are two totally separate classes. Yeah.

The original American class is the state citizen. The US citizen is not really an American. A US citizen is not really an American. A Californian is an actual American. A Texan, a Floridian, a New Yorker is an actual American. That's what was here before 1873. The US citizen classification is not—it's like—it's not really an—it's not the American people think. And that's why they go—you—you have all these things on the internet and all the—they go into the courts and—and they—they bring up the 1776 Constitution, and the court says that has nothing to do with anything here and is inadmissible because they're saying they're US citizens on the documents. When you say you're a US citizen and you—and you take the Constitution, you place it on the table, and the court says that has nothing to do with anything about you. That's entirely true. The Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with US citizens. They—they—they later on—I get into it later in the treatise—they incorporated some of the stuff into the US citizen category, but it's not really a right. And that's why we start getting into driving as a privilege versus driving as a right. It's not that simple. Driving and traveling are both privileges for US citizens. Traveling is a right for state citizens, and even driving—which is a commercial term—is also a right for state citizens unless it's commerce between—among the states or with Indian tribes. So if you—if you are commercially—if you're a state citizen and you are commercially transporting people or goods across state lines from one state to another and you're being paid to do it, that's no longer a right. That's now a privilege. If you are transporting goods or people from a location in the state onto an Indian tribe which happens to be federally registered, that would also fall under the commerce clause. Now that's no longer a right. That's now a privilege. Anything outside of that, even driving is a right. Everyone is wrong. Everyone is wrong. The—the—the traveler right people are wrong. The driver right people are wrong. The—oh, you need a—a license and registration and insurance people, they're all wrong. Everyone is wrong on both sides of the spectrum because no one's talking about the difference between a state citizen and a federal US citizen. That's the most important part of the conversation. Once that conversation has been had, now we can start talking about commercial versus non-commercial traveling versus driving. US citizens do not have the right to travel or the right to drive at all. They have neither. State citizens have the right to do pretty much both except under specific circumstances.

So, for example, I would need a driver's license and insurance if I was transporting people or property for some sort of fee, rate, charge, or other consideration over state lines or to Indian tribes. If I am transporting people or property within the confines of California and I'm never going into any Indian tribes or leaving the state, I still don't need a driver's license or insurance or registration. And that is the act. That's why I told you the driving versus traveling thing—once we finish this conversation of persons, 14th Amendment, and citizenship, the driving versus traveling thing—it becomes very simple. Very, very, very simple. If you're a state citizen, you—you have two things to watch out for. If someone said, "Hey, you want to—you want to—I'll pay you $20,000 to take this box somewhere," and as long as it's not over state lines, sure. Is it an Indian tribe? Are you trying to get me to go to an Indian tribe? No, it's not an Indian tribe. Great. Yeah, I'll do it. No problem. Because if it was an Indian tribe, I would need a driver's license. I don't have a driver's license. You see, you totally—So, is it accurate to say that if I—if I were a US citizen, I would also then be an alien in a state? That's correct. You'd be a resident. Yeah. Okay. The presumption—the reason why everything is resident—residents and residence—meaning like on the media—local residence or—or, you know, when you get an apartment, it's your residence, or even when you get a house, it's residence. Yeah. Residence means immigrant, right? Right. Like we talked about at the beginning. And if you're an immigrant, you fall under section one of the commerce clause, commerce with foreign nations. And that's why doing business as in the foreign—that's becomes a very interesting conversation, right? That's why you have to have a driver's—a US citizen or resident alien, they have to have a driver's license for everything because everything they do falls under the commerce clause. A—for—they're coming from a foreign nation. The—Washington, DC citizens, when they're inside of California, are—are—are immigrants in a foreign country because this is a nation of nations. Because it's a nation of nations. Yes. Prior to 1873, there was no citizenship class for the District of Columbia. So this internal confusion of these two different worlds, one being the District of Columbia and the US territories and insular possessions and federal zones and each individual of the 50 states, which operate the same as England circa 1215 with Magna Carta. It's two entirely separate systems, the way that they work. And

Each individual of the 50 states, they all operate the same, but each individual of the 50 states is also considered a separate nation.

And we started to see that in that case we were looking at um this one here uh where he's talking about how born in Vermont, but they're in Illinois, but they're saying they're a US citizen. Three entirely separate nations. Born born in Vermont, but at that time was in the country called Illinois, but also was saying to the court that she's actually a citizen of Washington D.C. So you can see that like like there was already tons of confusion about this.

Right. Right. And and really truthfully, the only guy who really knew how all this works was Mr. Miller. So when he died in 1890, it to me to me literally this idea that there's a state citizen and a US citizen by by like the 1900 it was gone. I mean, he died in 1890, and to be honest with you, from all the research I've done so far, this whole idea of state versus US citizenship kind of died with him.

So so so here's the next part of this. We really should read the rest of these. The plaintiff seems to have se seen this difficulty and attempts to avoid it by stating that she was born in Vermont. So, she's just like basically just saying [ __ ] basically, right? While she remained in Vermont, well, well, she was confused. Everyone else was confused, right? Well, while she remained in Vermont, that circumstance made her a citizen of that state. But she states at that time that she is a citizen of the United States and that she is now and has been for many years past a resident of Chicago in the state of Illinois. So, so, so he he's basically saying this [ __ ] does not know what the [ __ ] she's talking about. It's a total cluster.

Yeah, we do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence in one state with intent to return to another, which will not create citizenship in the former, but the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out of the definition of citizenship of a state as defined by the first section of the 14th amendment. In regard to that amendment, council for the plaintiff in this court truly says there are certain privileges and immunities which belong to a citizen of the United States as such. Otherwise, it would be nonsense for the 14th amendment to prohibit a state from abridging them. And he proceeds to argue that admission to the bar of a state of a person who possesses the requisite learning and character is one of those which a state may not deny. So, so, so they're confused as [ __ ] They're saying, "Oh, no. The state can't stop us from this." And he's saying, 'Bro, you're telling us you're a citizen of the United States, and then five minutes later, you're saying that you're a citizen of Vermont, and then five minutes later, you're saying that you're a resident in Illinois in Chicago, right? But this gives you this gives you the the factual practice. And I just found this like literally [ __ ] like yesterday. I've not talked about this at all.

Okay, so this is 1873. Brandon, I'm so sorry. I don't want to sound stupid, but I'm so confused. Why did she do this? I don't get why she would even be confused.

Do you mean because the slaughterhouse cases just happened like like months before this? She's just saying whatever she needs to say to try to get her bar license. She doesn't Well, maybe she was like hedging her bet saying she whatever. Well, how about this? She She's just throwing [ __ ] at the wall and seeing what sticks, trying to get that bar license. She wants to practice law. She wants to practice law and she she's running into a tremendous amount. You got to remember this is a Supreme Court case. This [ __ ] has been fighting to get her [ __ ] bar license for god knows how long. She started in the district court, right? She she went all the way up to the appeals courts and then she wrote a writ for such a tur or whatever the [ __ ] you pronounce it. Somehow it got approved because there's so many different areas and is so confusing and it involves citizenship. Then she goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Now she's fighting it in the Supreme Court. And then this is the final opinion after all the dust settles. This is what Mr. Miller is saying about everything that's going on. And during that, God knows how many months or whatever it was. And for hell, she might have been fighting this even she might have started fighting this before the slaughterhouse cases was even [ __ ] released.

Yeah. I don't know. So So weird. So it's it's just you can see the point of this the point of showing this is that you can see now it it's evidence upon evidence. So you have slaughterhouse cases. It's like okay yeah this seems pretty clear and then now you have this one and you're like wow okay yeah this is crystal clear. Crystal clear. You go to a court of law um and they say oh you were speeding. I wasn't speeding. I'm a state citizen. The entire California vehicle code is based off of the presumption that you are a US citizen or resident alien. I am not a US citizen or resident alien. So you would file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted because the thing is is that the the there there is no jurisdiction. It's impossible to to get jurisdiction. You can't get jurisdiction because the California Vehicle Code has absolutely nothing to do with me. It's a physical impossibility that it would If I registered my car, I'd be going to prison. I can't register my car. If I registered my car, I'd go to prison.

Okay. Does the fact that we like can't really define negro then like or does that play into it?

Well, the term negro, if you go into it, if we go back to um the treatise and we go down to the section on that, let's see. So, the definition of negro, first definition, the term negro, the word negro means a black man. One descended from the African race and does not commonly include a mulatto. Next definition, but the laws of the different states are not uniform in this respect. Some including in the description negro, one who has 1/8 or more African blood. And the way they would do that mean the way they would quote unquote figure that out is just [ __ ] It's all eugenics genealogy. And they would be like, "Oh, your grandma was African, so [ __ ] you. You're fucked." Like that kind of [ __ ]

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, no. But next definition, term negro means necessarily person of color, but not every person of color is negro. The reason why is because you can be dark, right? But if you're not of the African race, you wouldn't legally be a negro. Okay. Someone from like Spain, like that's a great example because Moroccans can be really dark skinned, right?

North Africa. North Africa. That's correct. North Africa. Actually, it's funny. North Africans are actually classified as free white person.

That's correct. Yep. No way. So, here's mulatto. Here's mulatto. A person that is the offspring of a [ __ ] by a white man or of a white woman by a negro. In a more general sense, a person of mixed caucasian and negro blood or Indian and negro blood. For heaven's sake. Properly, a Milano is a person of which parents is holy black. Uh, one of which parents is holy black and the other holy white. But the word does not always though, though perhaps it just does generally require so exactly even a mixture of blood. Nor is its signification alike in all the states. Now mind you, all these cases are from the mid-1 1800s probably. I I don't know. I would need to double check some of these, but they're all from like early mid 1800s, something like that, right?

Grandma Grandma is African, so that's enough for us. The gavl hit. That's that's it. That's how they did it. I'm telling you. Or they would do skull checks. They would do they would have some they had a they had a literal doctor. I forget the name of it. Uh what is the science? What is the name of the science uh associated with the eugenics practice of measuring someone's skull in order to determine nationality?

Cran cranometry. Yeah. Yeah. Like so you had so so at that time you had a craniologist that would come into the court and they were like expert witnesses and they would do they would literally measure people's skulls on the witness stand and [ __ ]

Yeah. The and the scientific racism like that's what biology is rife with it. It's it's and it's gender and all of the things like they were saying the size of the muscles or oh my heavens. Okay. So when the liberals talk about systemic racism, they're right. Right. And they have no idea how right they are. They are they are so they're so right that I think that if they knew how right they were, it would absolutely terrify them. Because the Liberal Party was the modern day one was built on the backs of minorities.

Like Yeah. But I'm saying all the liberals now are running around talking about uh uh uh systemic racism. Yeah. This I in this show I am explaining to you the entire US citizen category is the absolute heart, soul, mind, spinal cord and nervous system of systemic racism. For a white woman who's a liberal to call herself a US citizen is the most [ __ ] racist thing you can possibly do. It's disgusting. Easy. liberals. If a liberal said, "Oh, since I'm a racist, you have no idea."

Are you a US citizen? Yeah, I am. Yeah. Fantastic. You're the racist. You are the racist.

Does anybody like I learned about the slaughterhouse cases in school? We learn about the three-fifth compromise. We learned about all this kind of stuff. Like I guess spiritual white girl question, but it's like how I just don't I really can't wrap my mind around how it got money.

Reason why I started talking about Mr. Miller on these shows. I'm going to keep doing that. It's a new It's a new thing I'm doing on this show is because we live in this conspiracy world where everybody thinks everyone's a piece of [ __ ] Everyone thinks everybody out to get them. The other and I and I get it like like we do live in a pretty [ __ ] up world where like you can't even date, you can't do anything without probably getting [ __ ] over. I get it. There is some there is some real truth to that too, right? But when you go back in time and you and you look at the history of Mr. Miller and you look at what he was trying to do and what he cared about and what he was doing and why he was there and how hard he worked to get there and then what he was doing and why he was chosen to give the final opinion in the slaughterhouse cases, you realize he wasn't an evil man. He wasn't a piece of [ __ ] He was just trying to free the Negroes. That's all he was trying to do. Seriously, I swear to [ __ ] God. All he was trying to do was release the Negroes. That's it. And and he he he he was trying to figure it out with the war over here. And if he says the wrong thing, we go into another [ __ ] war again. We're going to kill everybody's going to be killing each other in the streets again. He says one word, boom, everybody's killing each other. So, he's got to be careful about that, right? So he has this opportunity to like finally pull off what he's been working on for over two decades, but he's got to do it in this real surgical way. And it just wound up being very complicated and convoluted and just created all this chaos kind of sort of. It cleaned up the the problem with the with the negro slaves, but at the same time, it created this whole confusion as to who who's a citizen and US citizen and what does it mean and all this. And then by the time he died in 1890, everyone just kind of forgot like the bureaucracy. There's just one type of citizenship. It's the US citizen. And that is that is so there are 51 I apologize. There are 52 types of citizenship in America. 52 types. There are 5 Well, the one is is is a weird class. So, there's 51 plus another one. It's a little bit weird. There's 52 types of citizenship.

Do you know what they are? Each of the 50 states is it citizenship. Oh, well, duh. Okay, that's 50. Yeah. Then you have US citizenship, right? Which is the 51st. And then and then you have a noncitizen national of the United States, which is the 52nd. And I'll show you that one now.

Noncitizen national. So, we we we've already covered in this show the 50 51 of the types of citizenship. We've already figured out 51 of them. Right now, we've only got one left that we have to figure out. 8 USC 11101. Oh, we're going to go down to um well, actually, yeah, we'll start here. Uh and then we'll and then we'll move over to another section here. So, we're going to go to um 21. Oh, and you can see this here. You can even see this. Look at 20. The term lawfully admitted for permanent residence means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant. When you get your driver's license, you are signing under penalty of perjury that you are either a US citizen or this permanent resident, negro or immigrant. You have to be a negro. There's more to it. I'm I'm oversimplifying it. Um, right. You have to be nonwhite. And and you to keep it simple, let's just say negro. It's really it's it's a little more than that, but we're just going to keep it simple. So So to get a driver's license, you got to be a negro or an immigrant. That's it. Those the only types of people that can get a driver's license. And if you're here naturalizing for five years as a resident and you finish your five years and you become a citizen of California and you're now doiciled, you have to get rid of the driver's license. You can't have it anymore. So if you if you if you natural if you're coming from France and you're becoming a California citizen, not US, [ __ ] US citizenship. I want to be a California citizen. I'm a white person. I'm going to California. I'm going to be Californian. You start off. You do your five years. You you you you display good character. You swear an oath to support the US Constitution. You swear off. You have to swear off your French citizenship. That's part of it, too. So, you get rid of your French passport. And then, bang, now you're a citizen of California. You're no longer a resident. You now have a doicile. Your apartment converts into a doicile. And then bang, at that point you're you're a felon. If you keep that driver's license, you have to the the the [ __ ] day before your five years. You got to go to the DMV and turn in that driver's license for destruction. You can't have it on that the five years. So it's 365 times times five. The clock starts when you start. So 365* 5 when you're in America on the on the 1,824th day of being in America, you got to go turn that [ __ ] thing in because if you have it the next day you're now a felon. You can't have a driver's license. You can't have a concealed carrier permit because you have to sign on a penalty of perjury that you are either a US citizen or one of these to get it. You can't be a state citizen. So once you finish your naturalization process, you are now a state citizen. So you can't have those things. You can't have a business license. You can't have a driver's license. You can't have a concealed carry permit. You can't have any of these things. The way it should go down is if a state citizen goes down and tries to get a business license, they should be arrested. They should be arrested for perjury. If I was the president, I' i'd start rounding up. I I said this on a show the other day. I would have buses. I'd have ICE, but it'd be it'd be picking up all the white people that call themselves US citizen. I'd be picking them up by the truckloads. And what would happen is in like two weeks, the whole country would be like, "Oh my god, what the [ __ ] is this guy doing?" And then everyone would be talking about the slaughterhouse cases and the US citizen category and everything else, but like I'd be going on on national television talking about, "Oh, I'm picking up every white [ __ ] calling themselves a United States citizen. you're all getting [ __ ] charged of perjury. And then all of a sudden, no no white person's calling themselves a US citizen anymore. And then I would give all the [ __ ] people who I had picked up like a $100,000. Shake their hand, say, "Sorry, man. I just had to do it because I had to clean up the country." Release all of them. And then bang, the US citizen category would be gone in like two weeks.

I was going to ask you what your vision was. I was going to ask you pie in the sky. Like I would arrest every white [ __ ] ever. I'd go on national television being like, "You sick [ __ ] You're lying to the government. You're lying on form. You should feel [ __ ] disgusted. You racist nasty piece of [ __ ] Calling yourself a [ __ ] US citizen. You have no respect for the black race." I'd be going [ __ ] nuts, right? And then everybody everybody would be going [ __ ] crazy. The whole world would explode. And then two weeks later, I'd be like, "It's all good, bro. Here's a bunch of money. Sorry. I had to do it. I had to [ __ ] with it because I had to [ __ ] this thing had to end. This nightmare has to end. We're all good. You good? You good? You good? We'd have like a big party and everybody'd be there and we'd have a big party and then it'd all be over and there would be the US citizen category would be dead forever. That's how I would do it.

Yeah. Well, I mean, I think you'd have people lining up like ready to go. So, the term national, so 8 USD101 subsection 821, the term national means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. And I usually get into this more. The term national of the United States 22 means a citizen of the United States or B a person who though not a citizen of the United States owes permanent allegiance to the United States. You can see that echoed in 22 USC 212 persons entitled to a passport. This is always shocking to people. You you talk to all the [ __ ] normal people on the street. Who can get passports? Oh, US citizens. No, you [ __ ] [ __ ] No. No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States. Citizenship is irrelevant. It's completely irrelevant. And this is one of the things that like if people want to go get a passport, you make it really easy. Pledge allegiance that right. Yeah. And and remember remember what's the definition of the word person? It says here persons what is the definition that they are using here? Do you remember an individual or an organization? Trusts everything passports. That's why the term naturalization is so [ __ ] weird. If you read uh uh 8 USC 11101 subsection 823, the term naturalization means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. Why is that? Why is the definition so weird? Why is it so vague? And the reason why is because upon a person means an individual or an organization, a trust. You can anyone can confer nationality of a state upon a trust by any means whatsoever. And they just legally naturalized the trust. A trust can get a passport. A corporation can get a passport. An unincorporated corporation can get a passport. If you and your buddy sell t-shirts and you never even went down and got a business or anything, it's an unincorporated organization. If we go back to A28 and look up the definition of the word organization, it includes unincorporated, which you don't typically see. Organization means but is not limited to organizations, companies, corporations, partnerships, associations, trusts, foundations, or funds, and includes a group of persons whether or not incorporated. You and your buddies on Call of Duty can call yourselves the [ __ ] Mad Killer Squad. And then the Mad Killer Squad is an organization, which is a person mad killer squad can go and get a

passport. [ __ ] crazy.

Then you got to start asking yourself, well, hold on a second there, Brandon. If a sole proprietorship is a business, and the business has the same name as me, and a business can get a passport, who is on my passport? Oh, that's a good question. Is it you, or is it the sole proprietorship that got the passport? Those are attached. See, see. Yeah. I think um, you don't have a passport. I'm just going to tell you, you don't have a passport. It it's it's the sole proprietor. You're the agent on behalf of the business. The business that has the same name as you has the passport. And you're authorized, you're authorized to use that business. So, it's authorization. It's a travel authorization document that authorizes a business of which you are authorized to operate to travel, right? That's what it is, man.

You wonder why you have to go through a [ __ ] scanner and and get facial recognition and all this goofiness at the airport. This is why. Yeah. I don't do any of that. I've been telling them I'm pregnant for years. And yeah, I just opt out. I say, "Fuck you. No [ __ ] way." Yeah. I'm like, opt out right now. And then I always pretend to like getting felt up by the dudes. I'm like, "Oh yeah, give it to me. Give it to me, Randy. Give it to me." So [ __ ] funny. Some of them really seem to enjoy doing it. It's really disgusting. I know. Yeah. Trust me about it, man. Brandon. Okay. Thank you. I I really like—We could sit here for hours and hours and hours, but I respect you. I respect your time and I really appreciate this. I want to like—

It's very simple. White people are state citizens. Yes. Uh, everything else is up for grabs. But but but that that's the simple, the simple, the simple sentence that we can get from from everything Brandon said today: white people are state citizens. State citizens can't have driver's licenses. They can't have business permits. They can't have sellers permits. They can't even have uh a license to be a surgeon. Surgeons that are white that have uh licenses to be surgeons should go to prison. A license to practice medicine. If you're white, you should go to prison. If you have one of those, you should go to prison. Doctors who have licenses to practice medicine, if they're white, they should be going to prison because they're operating without a license. They're not a US citizen. They're not a US citizen or resident alien. So, they they're they're a felon under perjury charges. They should be picked up and taken to the nearest prison cell. They should be in an iron cage.

Um, do you talk to lawyers about this? Like do you have other like—are there lawyers that will have this conversation? Like what is the consensus? Oh god, no. I I am I am the intern. I am I am sent from God to make lawyers want to kill themselves. How does it not occur to them though? I feel like at some point all of this like—does it not occur? I'm sure they say they're like, "Oh, person, people—I'll just move on and have to pass the test." Like is that how it goes? They just skip it. Oh my god. If the bar called me and said, "You know what? Your research is so fantastic. We want to give you an honorary bar membership," I'd sue them for harassment and and defamation instantly. To hear that you're in integrity. Yeah. Okay. My heavens. I wouldn't have anything to do with any of that for all the money in the world. If I was offered $10 million to be given a free bar membership, I'd say, "Don't ever call me again. Ever. Cease and desist." I'd send them a cease and desist letter, registered mail, or a certified mail, and make them sign for it so I have evidence they got it.

So, the US citizens were separated from the state citizen class. White people are not US citizens. We talked about the—we talked a lot of stuff, I mean, generally speaking, that you you talk about, right? Um, I'm going to work on trademarking my name. That sounded like a fun adventure. Mhm. Um, and yeah, I guess I just wanted to touch on some other things if other people, if you're interested in diving more into your work, the courses, right? Just a special litigation video that would be very good for new people interested in litigation. Uh, yesterday. Wow. Oh, I saw that email. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm on I'm on shows, you know, two or three days a week typically. So, it's a lot of [ __ ] I mean, every week on Tuesday, you get the email typically on the morning. That's when I send out my my weekly email, and it's got one or two or three shows in it every single time, pretty much most of the time. Nice. Okay. Yeah, this is amazing. This is excellent. Thank you so so much for your time. Yeah, this is really blowing up the past, you know, through through 2023 and 2024, you know, like uh, two or 300,000 people to like all the websites and all the social medias all combined per month is probably pretty common. Maybe 400,000. In the last 30 or 40 days, we're at like many many many many millions. Wow. Like I want to say probably just Instagram alone is like 2.1 million. So, you know, I think things are finally starting to get a lot of traction.

That's literally the whole thing. Are you a US citizen? It there's there's two bubbles, yes or no. When you get a driver's license anywhere else, they don't tell you. They don't make you prove it. It's just, "Are you a US citizen?" Yes or no? And then everyone just checks yes typically. And that's what creates the presumption. They're not even presuming anything. It's so it's so tactical. They're they're getting you to create the presumption. Yeah. The consent. Well, they say, "Are you a US citizen?" You say, "Yeah," I mean, that's that's consent. It's just it's just their idea of what that means versus your idea of what that means is probably totally different. Exactly. Yeah. It's all definition. I don't even have in in my mind, I don't have the physical or legal capacity to be a US citizen. And I never did since the day I was born. It is a physical and legal impossibility for me to be a US citizen. It it's it's completely impossible. It's hilarious to even think that it could—I mean, calling me a US citizen nowadays it just makes me laugh. It's like that's that's that's like calling me, you know, a purple people eater or a flying pig or Miss Piggy or I don't know, something goofy. It's just like goofiness. Absolutely goofy.

Lots to think about and lots to chew on. I'm really excited to finish out the rest of the course. I'll have to report back and recruit some others. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Get Our Mobile App

metaphysical gravity: undoing the citizenship illusion with brandon joe williams

Transcription