Learn Your Constitutional Rights with Carl Miller.

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

The whole purpose of this is that you understand that these, these rights come from God, okay? That they are God-inspired. God is the one who, who endowed us with these rights, and that this Constitution merely, uh, offers a legitimate program to protect that all of us can have the rights equally. And, and as long as we respect our neighbor and allow them also to have the rights equally, the, the protections are, are going to last forever.

As and the reality is that we are going to get thoroughly into your Constitution. We want you to find a Constitution wherever you can, and we are going to basically take you step by step through some of the most important parts of this Constitution so that you can better exercise your rights in a timely fashion.

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

Now, we've come a long way to put this program on to help you. By the way, my name is Carl Miller. I want to thank you again for inviting me into your home. We're going to proceed with vigor. I should tell you a few things about me that I'm a prior service Soldier. I served three combat tours, Republic of Vietnam. I should tell you that I was a participant in the top-secret project called Blue Book, where the officers in the jungle smelled a rat in a woodpile, and they decided to pull their, their top soldiers aside. And they said, "Come on over here. Let's come on over here. We want to talk to you." And they took their top soldiers in the corner and they started teaching them things like duty, honor, country, pride, and the core. They taught us history. They taught us all kind of a programming as far as what's going on in our government. They taught us the Constitution. We had to be able to rattle the Constitution off just like we would any manual of arms. And this all took place totally top secret so that we wouldn't offend any chains of command or any, uh, presidential problems.

Similar to what, uh, happened between General MacArthur. The bottom line is, uh, this was taken totally upon their own, shall we say, careers to pull this thing off. And they, this happened all throughout a lot of the military services in Vietnam. Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, we all, they all pulled aside their best people and they started putting everything on and teaching us our Constitution.

So, I'm going to try and instill in you that flame that was instilled in me over 25 years ago, and in which I have been, I have been transferring ever since. I have been fighting tooth and nail to defend the Constitution. I have helped thousands and thousands and thousands of other people do the same. I teach people how to be their own counsel, to stand up in courts of law and be able to exercise their constitutional rights in a timely and effective manner. And the good Lord willing, I'll be able to keep doing that.

So, why don't we, uh, right now try and get into some parts of the Constitution? The most important thing that I can teach you about this Constitution is the importance of reading it. You must read the Constitution and understand what physically is involved. You must know your rights and timely assert them. That is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called "laches" incurs. Laches is a legal term which is defined as an, as laches as a specie of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law and having failed to timely do so, loses our right to proceed.

So, what is actually happening out there, folks, is that laches is incurring because most people don't read their Constitution and know what's involved. So then you are left to being told, "Well, that's what it means." Okay? So you just got to do what you got to do. And you're told, and they're going to tell you in favor of them. They're not going to tell you in favor of you. So it's better for you to read the book and understand what's in it. It's not a very big book. I, I highly recommend the book. You can get several versions. Uh, a lot of times you contact your Congressman. My Congressman, Dominic Vincentini, State Senator, supplied this one for me. John Kuhn, a Libertarian candidate, has supplied several also. Some of these folks, just check with your local, uh, Congressman or State Rep. A lot of times you can, they'll just give you one. If you cannot find one, go down to your United States, uh, government building here in the Detroit vicinity. It's called the McNamara Building on the first floor. And, uh, what we do then is we go into the Government Printing Office. I'm usually there about a buck, but I highly recommend you go get one. I, I don't leave home without mine. I usually have three or four of them someplace and I hand them out also myself. I give them out to whoever I, I think one of the most kindest things I can do to a person is give them this book and show them how it works.

This book is kind of like a genie in a bottle. If you know how to stroke this book, I'm telling you, the genie comes out and it usually with a force that, that you, it will be clearly recognized in any court in the land. Now, that doesn't mean it'll be easy. You might have to work a little bit. But basically, there's an argument and it comes like this: If I violate your rights, you may or may not know about it. If you know about it, you may or may not be able to do something about it. If you do have an ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to go to a finished program. If you do have the financial wherewithal, you may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to a finished program. So, most of the time, your governments and your, your abusive personalities in government or your corporations, uh, pretty much have carte blanche to to injure you because in 99.9 percent of the cases, nobody, most people will not proceed.

But every now and then, you run into that one hard nut, and he doesn't quit, or she doesn't quit till the cows come home. And what happens is that person will prevail. And those are the people that are actually generating better protections and better constitutional rights for you. Those are the ones that are going to the Supreme Courts and the courts of appeals and what have you, that are pushing, that are spending their life funds to allow you to have the benefit. But if you aren't there to catch the benefit, then you, the benefit is lost.

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

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

Now, there's a unique situation here. It's very rare when you find the Friday of the first part, which is the congressmen, officers of the government, who are also parties of the second part as representatives of "We the People," the Republic. And when they signed the document, they signed the document as officers of government agreeing to the Constitution, and simultaneously as officers of representatives of the people in the Republican form of government. And when they signed that document, that constituted an ironclad contract in writing, enforceable in a court of law, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Here in the state of Michigan, that's 566.132 Michigan Compiled Laws Act, which basically states anything in writing is enforceable in a court of law pursuant to the Statute of Frauds.

Now, all we're asking is that they enforce the contract. We want them to enforce the contract. In other words, if we read something in here and we got a good reason for why we believe it's the way it is, then they should honor that. And they should honor it in favor of you, the query intended and expressly designated beneficiary. But I'll get into that a little later.

Article 6, paragraph two of the Constitution. This is called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It's located at Article 6. Anybody see that? Paragraph two, which is going to start right here, and I'm going to read it to you, okay? And basically, what it says is this: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

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

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

Now, let me give you an example in today's timing as to how effective this is. This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady Bill. It nullifies the crime bill. It takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn into 159 weapons. It stops this 666 bill that just went through that they're trying to take away the Fourth Amendment. You see, because they have no power to pass a law that's in conflict with the United States Constitution, and it's automatically null and void of law from its inception, not from the date you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional.

Now, I want to get that real clear. A lot of people think that they got to go to court and brand it unconstitutional. I'm here to tell you, if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time he will win. Every now and then, you run into a hard nose, but I'll show you how to deal with him too, okay? But for now, I want everybody that's got a chance to go out to learn your Constitution. Your Article 6, paragraph two of your Constitution. I want you to pay attention to what's going on here. Learn to read about this Marbury versus Madison case.

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

Now, this is nine pages. Each one, this is two pages each. There's nine pages of this. This represents, if I was to to try and teach you what this represents, if I was building a wall from here to the moon out of bricks, that's what that would mean in legal terms, because that's how solid this case is. So, it's very important that you understand your Constitution is an ironclad contract in writing, enforceable in court law. It's very important that you understand Article 6, paragraph two, the Supremacy Clause, which says the Constitution and the laws in pursuance thereof and the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in conflict or repugnancy is null and void of law. It bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. In unconstitutionality dates from the enactment. No courts are bound to uphold it. No citizens are bound to obey it.

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

So, I want you to pay attention. A lot of brave soldiers have died to pay for this book so that you could have the right. And the least you could do for your own self's sake is to learn what's in this book and be able to argue effectively what's in this book. You would be amazed how many times you can win if you just have this book and know what's in it. We're going to go into some other arguments here. We're going to try and show you how to really effectively use this book, okay?

Now that everybody's got that in hand, the next thing we're going to start teaching you is things like about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is one of the biggies that everybody talks about today, and the one that gets railroaded probably the most. The next is the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, okay? But the Second Amendment is one of the most vital amendments here because our forefathers had such an important understanding of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That was the first amendment. That they turned around and realized that without the right to protect that first right, they didn't have that right. So the Second Amendment, they, they instituted the right of the people to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Now, they started out by seeing a well-regulated militia being necessary for the maintenance of a free state. Okay? Isn't that a true statement, folks? A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. That's just a true statement. So is oranges are orange. That's why they call them oranges, okay? But that doesn't have any legal precedence in theory. The most important part about that Second Amendment is it says "the right of the people." And the Supreme Court has ruled in hundreds of cases that whenever it says "the right of the people," it means the right of each and every single citizen to possess the right equally.

Now, a lot of guys like to hand out this manila that, "Well, that's a collective right. You got to be a member of the militia." That's all who done. You don't have to be a member of a militia. You all you have to do is be an American. You have the right. The right to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Now, you will know it after "infringed." There is no sub-paragraph A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which would stipulate as to what would be an acceptable infringement. So, all infringement is forbidden. Now, who says so? You say so. Do you see that? Does everybody see that? You say so. Who are you? I'm an American, and I'm telling you, you're infringing my rights. You're stealing my rights. I, I claim infringement. I claim encroachment. I claim impingement. I claim usurpation. I claim you're stealing my right because that's what they're doing. And I ask them, "What is it you don't understand about the word 'infringed'?" Because that's exactly what it says.

When you look in Black's Law Dictionary, that's another thing I want to bring up. You want to talk to these people in court, you want to get a hold of one of these books right here. It's called Black's Law Dictionary. You would be absolutely amazed what's in Black's Law Dictionary. This is the exact words that you need to be able to definitively define the word game problem that we are having with these people today. They like to keep changing the words. But guess what? The words in this book are the words that were written when we were in the Constitution, when it was signed. And the definitions that are in this book are enforceable in accord law. You can bring this book into court and pull it open and say, "This is the one, judge," and they've got to listen. And that's the way it is. So, for sure, if you're going to be in this, go down to one of your bookstores, uh, whichever you may have in your area, Barnes & Noble, or any one of the dozens of decent bookstores, and get a copy of Black's Law Dictionary. You need that to be in this because this is kind of like, uh, defining the map of how to get from A to B. You have to have this book to be able to pull it out so that you can turn around and tell them, "Hey, don't trample my rights." I take a real dim view of that book.

You can pick up on the Constitution is this, this American Constitution put out by West Publishing Company. This goes into a whole lot of widened arguments as to your Constitution. Now, after I'm finished talking to you, you're going to have a new concept of Constitution and how it works. You're going to understand that it's what you say it is, if you got an honest trait. And I'll give you a perfect example. Now, the First Amendment basically talks about the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, right? That isn't the right to work part of right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Got a right to work, right? Contract your labor, your skill, and your time of life as you see fit, right? So that makes sense to you? That's the First Amendment right. Another First Amendment right would be the right to travel freely, unencumbered. See, no state can require you to have a license to travel freely and unencumbered. And we'll go into that and show you how that is is taken care of, okay?

The bottom line is, you need to learn as much as you absolutely possibly can in the shortest possible time about your Constitution because I'm telling you right now, as we speak, they are trying to curtail that Constitution and take away rights that you have that have been given to you from your forefathers. There's only one thing that's going to stop that. Well, maybe two. There's two things. The first thing that's going to stop that is if all of us get together, get a hold of one of these books, and start shaking and say, "Whoa, I see we're not letting you take away that Constitution. This is America. We got an American flag on a pole out front last time I checked. This is the United States of America. We got a Constitution here, and you ain't touching that Constitution."

So, you call up that Bill McCollum in Washington, and you tell him he's the guy that sponsored that 666 Bill to take away the Fourth Amendment right to have a search warrant. You get a hold of him, and I'll give you his number later on in the speech here, and you call that joker up and you say, "Sir, what is it you don't understand about your oath of office? We kind of like you to leave the Constitution alone. Matter of fact, we'd like you to make it stronger than it is, not take nothing away from it, period. And we resent the hell out of you taking an oath of office to protect the Constitution, and we put you in office, and the first thing you do when you get in there is try and scuttle the Constitution and flush it down the toilet. We're not going to put up with that stuff." We want you to understand that real clearly.

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

Now, let's get into some other things in the Constitution. The bottom line here is you have to know to be able to exercise your Constitution. The most important parts about your Constitution are in your first 10 amendments, okay? Obviously, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed, and that right shall not be infringed. You must claim your right if you want to have it. You have to be willing to do that. And if they are going to take your right, then you have to be willing to challenge them, whatever it costs.

Now, the bottom line is, any law that comes in conflict with that, what do we talk about in Article 6, paragraph two? If any law shall come in conflict with this, the supreme law, what happens? It's null and void. It bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. In unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law, not from any date so branded in an open court of law. So, what happened to the Brady Bill, folks? Canceled due to lack of interest. What happened to the crime bill with the gun infringements? If any portion of the bill be unconstitutional, the whole bill is unconstitutional because why? Repugnancy. It's repugnant to the United States Constitution. It's null and void of law. It bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. Which case said so? Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. That's how important that case is. That's why you got to go down to your law library and read.

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

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

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

Now, do you see how wise our forefathers were? They knew. They knew history, and they knew that history repeats itself if people forget. So, what they did is they set a standard. Very importantly, toward the end of the contract, they clearly stipulated exactly what limits would be there. You see? And it clearly stipulated that no power has existed to take away rights that were previously guaranteed. So, how therefore is this being done? I'll tell you how it's being done. Because they want to, and they're not doing it by law. Now, why are they getting away with it? Because most of the people don't know any matter. And if you don't know your rights and you don't timely assert them, laches incurs. Blanche, as being a specie of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law and having failed to timely do so, loses our right to proceed.

So, by you acquiescing, by not jumping up and saying, "Hey, hold the line, Chester. You ain't touching that Fourth Amendment. You aren't touching that Second Amendment. We're not putting up with that stuff. You took an oath of office. We're going to hold you to it. You violate that oath of office, we're going to charge you with capital felony treason under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2381." What difference does it make if they're in open rebellion against the United States or if they're breaking down the laws, creating the rebellion? Isn't that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country? It most certainly is, and it's called sedition, treason by sedition, okay?

Now, we got to start coloring these guys and telling them, "Hey, what is it you don't understand about the Constitution in your Oval Office? We're going to clearly correct that. In the short interim, if you don't want to fix it, we will remove you." And that's our duty and our responsibility. Now, when Benjamin Franklin walked out of all of the hearings to set up this Constitution, a lady reporter walked up to him and asked him, "What is it we have now?" And he turned to her and told her, "We have a republic, if we can keep it." Obviously, the burden is on us to make sure we keep it. So, I'm asking you to get a hold of one of these Constitutions and let's plan on keeping it.

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

Now, the other part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." You know how many times do you hear about that today? I mean, it's incredible.

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

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

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

Now, it's also important that you understand this Constitution is a very unique document, okay? And that this Constitution is supposed to be enforced. And I'm going to teach you some things here right now. This right here is a representation. I know it's kind of hard to see here, but basically, what we're talking about here is this comes from the books that tell the judge how. Right here, and over here, this comes and tells the judge how the Constitution is to be interpreted. This is from the Am Jur Prudence volumes, and this is volume 16. You want the Constitutional Law section, right here. Constitutional Law, and you want section 97. And when you start reading it, the most important part about it, and I'll read it, is that a constitution should really should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen. Is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property. Can you see that? Can you all see that? Is that coming up right here? Over more? Okay. All right. To safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property. See note 31. Rise versus United States, 273 U.S. 28. And all of these 40 Supreme Court cases hold that actually, in other words, it's supposed to be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protection of rights and property. Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. 32. But on 32, DeJammer versus Hospital Authority of Albany. And all of these cases, okay, I'm just trying to tell you, you can go look this up and you can better see it. Let's do that over again. "In a constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit, should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." Similarly, "a provision intended to afford a remedy to those who have just claims should receive a beneficial construction for the purpose of extending the remedy to all who might fairly come within the meaning of the terms." And that's Rider versus Fitchie of Ohio, a Supreme Court case, okay? That's note number 33, okay?

Now, this comes out of 16 Am Jur Prudence. In other words, I have this Constitution. This Constitution is a contract in writing, enforceable in the court of law, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. I'm asking for specific performance, your honor, in favor of me. I am the beneficiary of the contract. There's also a basic premise in contract law, basic contract law 101 of any first-year law student, that says the contract shall be enforced most favorably in favor of the non-preparer, and that's you. You didn't prepare it. Now, if you believe honestly that you have a right, and you can timely bring that right before a proper adjudicated authority, and you can clearly stipulate as to what your right was, guess what? They got to listen. That's the way it is. That's the way it's supposed to be. And I'm telling you, if you know your rights and you timely assert your rights, you have those rights. But if you sit on your haunches and you cry about, "That's terrible, somebody ought to do something about that," hey, be a somebody. Do something about that. Don't sit there telling me there's somebody ought to do something about that. Be with somebody. You do something about it. You honestly got an honest, you go out there and you take care of it because that's what it takes to be an American. That's what all, that's what it's all about. That's what being an American is all about. That's what separates you from the rest of the whole world because Americans, you don't trample on their rights because they're going to come get you. You do not trample on their rights. They won't put up with it. So, be an American and don't put up with it. Stand up there and be counted.

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

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

did not repudiate but cherish the established common law. This fact has been taken into consideration by the courts in construing certain clauses in a state constitution, such as the provisions securing their right to a jury trial. Also, provisions in regard to crimes have been interpreted with reference to the common law rule that one charged with a crime may be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged. In such cases, the courts of the state always regard the language in the common law sense.

So the common law prevails. Don't let anybody tell you that admiralty law prevails because it only prevails if you get sucked into it. We're not going to let you do that. We're going to teach you how to beat it. The common law also permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings. Traffic tickets, folks, that's what a traffic ticket does. It is a writ of assistance, a bill of attainder. It's unlawful in the United States of America.

And it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle. And although there is no common law of the United States in the sense, who said so? Erie Railroad versus Tompkins, okay? All right. Of a national customary law, as distinguished from the common law of England adopted into several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the common law of England. It has been said that without reference to this common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.

So the common law applies, folks, and we're going to get into that common law heavily in the advanced section. All right, okay. Now let's get back into this. In interpreting the Federal Constitution adopted by the several states, all right, recourse may still be had to the aid of the common law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the United States Constitution would not be understood. This is due to the fact that this instrument and the plan of government of the United States were founded on the common law as established in England at the time of the Revolution. Okay.

Therefore, it is the general rule that the phrases in the Bill of Rights taken from the common law must be construed in reference to the letter. Specifically, the United States Supreme Court has taken the common law into consideration in construing the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment provisions relating. All right, so the common law is extremely important that we get in, and we will cover that thoroughly. It's important to understand that most of you out there aren't citizens at the common law. That only only those that understand the differences in admiralty and maritime law, those that are corporations, officers of corporations, as officers of government residing in the District of Columbia, the 14th Amendment duality of citizenship, which is talked about in the case of Erie Railroad versus Tompkins, which is a rather heavy argument, and I will cover that thoroughly with you so that you understand where the traps and the differences are.

But for right now, I'm trying to demonstrate to you construction and programming so that you can understand that this Constitution right here is the supreme law of the land. It is a contract in writing. It is enforceable in favor of you in an open court of law. You are the beneficiary. Okay. I want to give you some basic more points on this Am. Jurisprudence argument. This is section 114 of the 16th volume of Am. Jurisprudence. Period. In a second, I'm going to give you a couple more of these sites so that you can understand how powerful a document this is. Okay. By the way, I highly recommend you go down to the law library, grab that 16-volume Am. Jurisprudence, start at section one, and start paging through to section 300. You will absolutely be astounded.

We are now in 16th Am. Jurisprudence, second, section 117. And I will read it to you. Basically, various facts and circumstances extrinsic to the Constitution are often resorted to by the courts to aid them in determining its meaning. As previously noted, however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in question is clear and unambiguous. In such a case, the courts must apply the terms of the Constitution as written, and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.

Which that militia argument and that collective law theory of the Second Amendment is they're reaching. They're reaching far. All right. Clearly, it says in the plain English, "The right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed." Now, what is it you don't understand about the word infringed? Aaron Franklin, the Brady goats, infringement, 1968 gun control act, it's infringement. All of these, uh, the CCW acts of these states, they're infringing. Who says so? You do. How shall a document be enforced in favor of who? You. When are you going to enforce it? You're the one that is the the citizen. All power is inherent in the people. You're the one with the power. Enforce your power. All right.

Does everybody understand that argument? That's the magnificence. I'm bringing the genie out. We're stroking the bottle here, and I'm going to bring the genie out here in a second. You're going to understand the magnificence of the power of this book. You see, once you understand this is an ironclad contract, once you understand that this is enforceable in the court of law pursuant to the statute of frauds, once you understand you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract, "Your Honor, I'm demanding my right to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. I want specific performance. I am the holder of the contract. It's supposed to be enforced in favor of me. I am the clearly intended any special designated beneficiary, the citizen. I want the thing protected in favor of my right." Does that make logical sense to you? Now you start to understand the power of this document. Okay. See, before, you just thought it was a bunch of writing in some in some textbook that you had to take when you took a civics class in high school in the 11th grade. See, I want you to understand that you don't leave home without this. This is more important than your credit card.

Okay. Next, let's get into the next section. I'm going to cover some more of these Am. Jurisprudence sections so that you can understand. I want to get into, uh, section 155. 16th Am. Jurisprudence, second, section 155. Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the Judiciary as well as other departments of government, and the judges are sworn to prove to support its provisions, guide me, sworn as an oval of a sworn. The courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or countenance evasions thereof. It is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences. Thus, it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise.

In accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another and a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment. Does everybody understand that? He's they're telling the judge, you gotta rule in favor of the Constitution. And if you know your Constitution, whose favor are they going to rule in? Yours. But you have to have enough hair on your tail feather to walk in there and say, "Hey, I'm an American, and I have a constitutional right. That right shall not be infringed, and you're infringing. And I'm asking you not to do that because it's not nice. And I'm asking the judge to do his duty under his sworn oath of office and uphold the United States Constitution as he swore he would under Article 11, paragraph one, in this state, which says that he shall swear to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and evil performance of duties to the best of his ability, so help him God." No, let's get closer to "so help him God."

Foreign. Let's get into another one of these. We got a load of them, folks. So let's bear with me here. 16th Am. Jurisprudence, second, section 177. Declaratory judgments. Declaratory judgment actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act makes specific provisions for the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinances by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statutes and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of assessing the constitutionality of congressional legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the federal or state statute by a single federal judge, so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. You can enjoin a constitutional right. A court may grant declaratory relief unless there is a case of controversy before the court. That is, the dispute must consist of specific adverse claims based upon present rather than future or speculative facts on which to base the adjudication.

All right. I'm trying to tell you, folks, here, you have a right to demand a declaratory judgment, which we are going to do in several of our cases here. And they got to declare: Is it constitutional or isn't it constitutional? If it's constitutional, it has to be judged in favor of who? You, the citizen. Why? Because you're the beneficiary. It's supposed to be enforced and paid to you, the beneficiary, the citizen, for the protection of rights and property. See Briar's, first United States, 273 U.S. 28, and the 40 Supreme Court cases that support that mandate. Okay. Now, let's get. There's just a couple more here. Bear with me. I know you're probably bored to tears right now, but I don't want you to do that. I want you to pay attention.

[Music]

Okay, we're at section 255. 16th Am. Jurisprudence, section 255. In all instances where the court exercises its power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute with the Constitution must be irreconcilable. The Brady Bill, irreconcilable? Huh? In other words, the court is without authority to declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is in positive or direct conflict with the statute or with the Constitution. Thus, a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the Constitution it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof, because that would be violating the Constitution. We can't have that. What happened in Marbury versus Madison? 5 U.S. 137. Same thing. A clear incompatibility between law and the Constitution must exist before the Judiciary is justified in holding a law unconstitutional. This principle is, of course, in line with the rule that doubts as to constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary, you, the citizen, for the protection of your rights and property. Okay.

Does everybody pick up on that? Now, let's let's shift to 256. 256, right here. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment and not merely from the date of the decision. So, granting it, wouldn't it be interesting if 34, 34, or 34, there's 35, or right here's 34. State X Rail versus Nuyan V. Greer. But I'll tell you what, Marbury versus Madison comes higher than that. Okay. All right. 34. Let's cover that again. Ineffective for any purpose. Since the unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment and not merely from the date of the decision. So, granting it, an unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. The Brady Bill, the crime bill, the 1968 gun control bill, all these bills. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principle follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract. Did everybody pick up on that keyword, contract? A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one, and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, to the Constitution, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, a statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. And where a CL. Well, what did I say there? I mean, remains in full force and effect is the Second Amendment in full force and effect? You better believe it. Okay.

Now, what is it they don't understand about infringed? And where a statute which it attempts to repeal remains a full force and effect, and where a clause repealing a prior law is insurgent in the act, which act is unconstitutional, void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. In other words, the law stands. Always the real law, the Constitution. The general principle stated above applies to the Constitutions as well as to the laws of several states, and so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And let's see if 54 will confer human versus Barry. But I can tell you, Marbury versus Madison is higher than that. But I'd be willing to bet I'd cite Murray Berry in that. Moreover, a constitution of a statute, a construction of a statute which brings in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectively as if it had in its expressed term has been enacted in conflict therewith. So anything passed in conflict with the United States Constitution is clearly unconstitutional. It doesn't take a college professor graduating Magnum Cum Laude from Harvard to figure these things out. All you have to do is read. That's why God gave you eyes.

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

Now, let's get a few more, and we're out of here. Section 258. I'm just going to read the important section here. On the other hand, it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or Constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. It would be what? A nominee. Why? Because it's in conflict or repugnancy. It'd be in violation of Marbury versus Madison. All right. So, are you starting to see the gist of what's going on here? There's just one more, I think, and we're out of here. All right. Section 260 of the same, 16th Am. Jurisprudence. Now, folks, head down to the law library. The books are usually green or red in color. They're kind of thick. Ask the librarian where Am. Jurisprudence, second, is stored. One over there. Grab the 16-volume, start at section one, and just start paging through to say, it's section 300. I'm telling you, you won't believe it. We're going to look at section 260.

Although it is manifest that an unconstitutional provision in a statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions, and that there are no degrees of constitutionality. In other words, it's either constitutional or it's unconstitutional. There's nothing like kind of like half pregnant. There's no such thing. All right. So that an act is either constitutional or it is unconstitutional. Okay. So if you got a statute here, and most of it's constitutional, and a part of it's unconstitutional, guess what? It's all unconstitutional. So what we got here is a crime bill, and we got part of it as constitutional, and part of it is unconstitutional. Obviously, they had no authority under the Second Amendment to fool around with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They couldn't demand that the people not possess certain firearms. So this directly applies to this crime bill. Obviously, part of the bill was constitutional, and the other part is not constitutional. So what is the end result? The whole bill is unconstitutional. Does everybody see that? Now, I want you to start looking at these things, and I want you to start hammering these guys, and don't let these guys pull this kind of stuff. Hook them over there in column. Say, uh, "Hey, Charlie, let's step over here for a minute. I'm gonna check out something here."

[Applause]

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

Okay. Now, we're going to get into a real special argument. Now, this argument has taken almost 18 and a half years to develop. So I want you to pay attention. This argument is a unique concept that has been honed like a razor to a very meticulous edge so that you can understand what's going on. Obviously, we have established clearly that you have a constitutional right, and obviously, we have established that you are the beneficiary of the contract, and we have established that the Constitution is a contract in writing, enforceable in the court of law, and we have established that you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract, and we have established that it's supposed to be interpreted in your favor. So if you've got an honest constitutional belief, they have to listen. Now, let's take that to the next step. The next step is, can a state arbitrarily and ironically convert your right into a provision, issue a license and a fee for it? Let's start, start with here. We're going to start walking down his sheet. Okay. Murdoch versus Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court. Now, when you want to go into the law library and you want to look up something, what you want to do is understand that Supreme Court is trump. Okay? That's the clearest way I can explain it to you. If you've got a Supreme Court case that trumps a a district court, that trumps a court of appeals, that trumps the state court, that trumps everything. So you want to deal with Supreme Court cases as best you can.

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

Now, a lot of people come back to me and say, "Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so that case doesn't apply to me." I want you to reach. I want you to understand. We're not talking about whether you're a Jehovah's Witness here. What we're talking about here is, are you an American? And do you have rights? What they are talking about here is that these Jehovah's Witnesses people exercised their rights timely. That they had a right to worship and exercise and and worship their God and evangelize as they chose, and that the state came in and arbitrarily converted that right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That is totally unconstitutional. Now, we took that case as a pioneering case, and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that you are an American and you have constitutional rights. Number one. Number two, you have to keep in mind what right can you pull the right out of the Constitution? If you can pull it right out of the Constitution, and I'll give you an example. How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to Shrey over versus Thompson? And we'll get into that. How about the right to keep and bear arms? Right? Does the state have a right to require a license and a fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do, can you ignore the license and the fee? We'll get into that. Now, obviously, in this case, it's clearly established, and this is the premise of this case. No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege, issue a license and a fee for it, and require you to have that, otherwise you committed a crime. That's totally 100% unconstitutional. I want that to get across real clear.

Now, let's jump to the next case. By the way, Murdoch is recorded at 319. That's the 319 volume, U.S. Reports, page 105. Will start the case. All right. Go read the case, though. Make sure you read the case. I don't want anybody to come up and tell me they didn't read the case because I'm gonna get on you. You're not following. That's failure to follow instructions. Okay. Now, we're going to walk down the next step of this case. We we took care of Murdoch here. Let's go to Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama, which is recorded at volume 373. The same U.S. Reports. You go to volume 373, turn to page 262. When we go to Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama, this is another unique religious case. Okay? In this case, six ministers were accused of inciting to riot and otherwise create a disturbance and disturb the peace. Okay? They had a sit-down. This case came down in 1962. And what happened was they said they needed to have a license to to have a public, uh, gathering. And what happened was it went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court says, "No, no, no. You don't need to have a license for the exercise of a First Amendment right to freely assemble." Right? Basically, the gist of the case is, uh, the Negro ministers were convicted in Alabama State Court of aiding and abetting in violation of a criminal trespass ordinance in Birmingham, Alabama. The only evidence against them was to the effect that they had incited 10 Negro students to engage in a sit-down demonstration at a white lunch counter. Actually, there were six ministers, but only two got charged as a protest against the racial segregation. And they cite other cases. A lot of times you can find other cases in these cases. And Goldberg versus City of Birmingham, Alabama. This court today holds, on the authority of Peterson versus City of Greenville, that the convictions of those 10 students for criminal trespass were constitutionally invalid. Since those convictions have been set aside, it follows that these petitioners did not incite or aid and abet any crime, and that therefore the convictions of these petitioners must be set aside.

Now, basically, what they were claiming is their constitutional right to freely and assemble. The cities were claiming that they had to have a license to put on a demonstration, which they didn't have, and they were charging them with a criminal trespass for not having a valid license to freely assemble and or protest. Okay? Now, the gist of this case, I want you to see the significance of this case. In view of the second K of the neck of the case we gave you before, that Murdoch versus Pennsylvania clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty and a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Because everybody got that? Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama, said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license. And if you engage in the right with impunity, that means they can't punish you. They got to let you go. All right. Does everybody see that? It's very important that you understand. First, your Constitution is a supreme law of the land. It means you have that right, and that that right shall not be infringed. And it's supposed to be enforced in favor of you, the query intended and expressly designated beneficiary. It's very important that you understand that no state may convert that right into a privilege, an issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama, says you can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can't punish you.

Now, the next case is very important, and it's very important that you see the argument. Okay? That's United States versus Bishop. That's 412, I am 412 United States Reports. This is page 346. We come down here. United States versus Bishop is a very unique case.

[Applause]

Basically, what Bishop does is it sets a standard for what constitutes a criminal violation in terms of willful intent. Okay? Willfulness is is one of the major elements that is required to be proven in any criminal element. You have to prove one, that you're the party. Two, that you had a method or an opportunity to do the thing. And third, that you did so with a willful intent. Now, when we get to willful intent, willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task, on it, allow with a moral certainty. Obviously, in the previous two cases, you have decided that you have relied on the United States Constitution, and you have relied on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. So could you have willfully done any deed or crime? Obviously not. So guess what? This case stipulates that you have a perfect defense to the element of willfulness. All right. Since the burden on the prosecution is to prove that you did willfully, knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, a moral certainty, he cannot perform that task any because it's obviously you have a constitutional immunity to that. The previous case, Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama, so they couldn't even punish it. The case before that said you didn't need a license for the exercise of a right. And the case before that said your constitutional right is supreme over any state law. So if they pass a law in violation of your Constitution, the Constitution overwhelms the state law. So the law doesn't even exist. A lot. Does everybody see that? Now, since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which only can be granted, your enemy, and please the court, counsel is specifically precluded from performing his major task. Therefore, Your Honor, may please record at this time, I would motion most graciously for a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted by this honorable court, and I'd kind of like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this patently frivolous and spurious complaint, sir. May it please the court.

Laughter will usually break out thereafter, at which point the judge will usually turn to the prosecutor and say, "Well, Mr. Pearl, so I think we ought to do about this young fella." And he'll say, "I'd go for the motion to dismiss, Your Honor." And the judge will turn to him and say, "That's a good answer because I don't think you're ready for this kid today." And 40 attorneys will break out laughing. Okay? That's actually happened to me, folks. I'm telling you, this argument is a killer argument. It's good for every single constitutional right you've got. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. What constitutional right? Prove that you have the constitutional right. Tell them the state doesn't have a right to convert that right into a privilege. Tell them that they can't even punish you if they do. And then claim that the prosecutor can't prove willfulness. So you obviously didn't do no crime. And then flip around and demand for your dismissal, which is your right, and get your costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. May please the court. And I promise you, you will be amazed. 40 attorneys will jump up and say, "Yeah, they'll come up and shake your hand and tell you that's one of the most magnificent arguments they've ever heard." They'll tell you, "You got something like King Kong for taking on the bar association or whatever."

Now, I'm telling you, these things that personally happened to me. I can relate the exact cases that goes for practice of law without a license. Obviously, you got a right to work. You got a right to contract. You're you're right to work as you see fit. Now, there's some arbitrary, capricious fire association sees fit, right? Does that make sense to you? You don't want to belong to the union. That's your right. This is a this is a right to work state, right? The bottom line is this: they cannot compel you to have a license or pay a fee for the exercise of your right. And if they do, you can ignore the license. And if you engage in the right with impunity, that means they can't punish him. Since you got a perfect defense to the element of willfulness, they cannot punish you. They have to dismiss. They do not have a cause of action. Now, this argument, I'm telling you, is taking us over 18 years to develop in the courts and in law libraries over the years, just kind of compiling and arguing cases and doing this. This argument is a killer argument. There have yet, have they ever won against us on this argument? Uh, nor could they in the United States of America, as long as the Constitution stands. I'm asking if you pay attention to this argument and start utilizing it. We'll show you some of the techniques later in the second half. All right. Now, the word "willfully" has the same meaning. All right. In controlling the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. And the distinction between the statute is found in the additional misconduct that is essential to the violation of the felony provision. If they can't prove willfulness, they can't prove nada. Okay? Because everybody got that?

Now, let's go to the next one.

[Applause]

Now that you've won and your rights have been violated, the next thing they will claim, "Well, we're acting in good faith." Or "What we acted in good faith, we had good faith reliance that you broke the law." Okay? And that means you can't sue us. That's a lie. You see, since these two cases, Owen versus City of Independence, which is recorded at 100 volume, and you want to look at Supreme Court reports. Now, that's a different reporter. Supreme Court reports will actually say on the back of the reporters, Supreme Court reports. It won't say U.S. It'll say Supreme Court reports. So, so that's a different volume. It's a newer, a newer reporter. So you want the 100th volume, and you want to look up Supreme Court reports, and you want to turn to page 1398. There is a, a also a counterpart case to this Owen case, which is, remember, which is, uh, Maine versus Thibodeaux. I'll give you the site for those, okay? I gave you Owen versus City of Independence. So I'll give you Maine versus Thibodeaux. Maine versus Thibodeaux is recorded at 100 Supreme Court, that's 100th volume, Supreme Court Reports, page 2502.

Now, basically, the summation of what these, what these basic arguments say, where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute. Right? Now, what these are both civil rights cases. The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law of state law of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States encompasses claims which are based solely on statutory violations of federal law and apply to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity to which they were entitled. Now, whenever this happens, folks, you must understand something. And that goes for both Maine versus Thibodeaux and Owen versus City of Independence. And I'll tell you the brief synopsis on both these cases. Owen was a police chief in the town of Independence, Missouri, and he got in a gripe with the city council and they indiscriminately fired him without just cause. Owen turned around and sued. They claimed that they acted in good faith. The Supreme Court said, "Sir, you are deemed to be officers of the law. You are to advise us as to the law. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for a willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can't claim ignorance of the law because a citizen out here in a street can't claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court, some officer of government, doesn't know the law, and then they go ahead and abuse somebody's constitutional right." So in matters of constitutional rights, both these cases uphold one point, and the point they uphold is that whenever they violate your constitutional rights, they do so at their own peril. And it even says that entitled 18 United States Code section 241 and 242. It says that upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000 fine, 10 years in jail, or both. And if death results, life in prison. They're telling you, "Don't violate somebody's rights." Please. I'll do that. Title 42 United States Code sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 clearly established your right to sue anybody that does that.

Now, they're going to claim you can't sue them because they have judicial immunity. Well, guess what? These two cases remove judicial immunity. There is no judicial immunity for violating somebody's constitutional rights. Judge, you are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can't plead ignorance of the law for that and make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of the law when a citizen on a street can't claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity. I want to get that across. I don't know how many attorneys come up to me all the time tell me, "Well, they're immune because they acted in good faith." They're just not reading their court. They're not reading their court reports because if they had read their court reports, they would have known this case has been on the book since 1982. Both, both these cases came down in 1982. So I want you to pay attention to these cases. When somebody tells you they can violate your rights with impunity, you just kind of smile and say, "Make my day."

Okay. Now, the next case we want to talk about is Briar's versus United States. We mentioned it previously earlier. Briar's is recorded at 273, volume 273 U.S. Reports, page 28. Okay. Now, Briar's versus United States is in a unique case. It's a search and seizure case, but basically it sets constitutional standards which we had talked about in the Am. Jurisprudence sections. In the Am. Jurisprudence sections, okay? I especially want to pay attention to note number three here. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachment therein. All right. When a federal officer participates officially with a state official in a search so that in substance and effect it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use and evidence of the things seized is to be tested in federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were exclusively the federal agent. All right. The reality here is what they are setting is the standards must be liberally construed in favor of the citizen. It's the duty of the court to make sure that happens. So now you have a right to be wrong. You have a right to, uh, enter your viable defenses that you honestly think. No state can convert that right into a privilege and issue your license and a fee. If they do, you can ignore the license and the fee. They have must per. They must prove the burden of proof of willfulness, which they cannot do. If they do violate your rights, you do have a right to sue them, and Owens versus City of Independence, Maine versus Thibodeaux, they have to give every consideration to you. All right. And that's the way it is in 1900 yesterday.

All right. The next case we want to talk about is Boyd versus United States. 116 U.S. page 616. The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty. All right. Now, it is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers to make the non-production of them a confession of the allegations which is is pretended they will prove. And a lot of times that happens in federal cases. They'll claim something, they won't prove it. This happened to me, believe me. And then the fact that they've claimed it makes it true, and then of course, you have to prove a negative, which is impossible. All right. Now, the seizure, compulsory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. And in a prosecution for a crime, penalty, or forfeiture is equally within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment. See that? Now, the bottom line here is

[Applause]

Boyd protects against encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties. Let's argue the Fifth Amendment here, but it's basically arguing against encroachment. Right? So that's when you want to pay attention to when you're coming, especially to things on search and seizure. Natures, another good case that you should know is your Miranda versus Arizona. And folks, I'm going to tell you something. And even I can learn something. Not that I'm not much above you. I want to come to you humbly, in humility. I'm, I'm telling you, I've read and I know, and there's a lot of things about the law, and I've been my own attorney for over 25 years, and I've kicked tail. I'll be honest with you. But I always can learn something, and I'm not stupid enough ever not to realize that the next thing I'm going to tell you is probably one of the most important things we're going to tell you today. This is the Miranda versus Arizona decision. It's recorded at 384, volume 384 U.S., that's U.S. Reports, page 436. Now, this is a heavy duty case. Every American should know this case backward and forward, upside down, another. All right. Miranda versus Arizona. This is the one that says you got a right to remain silent. You got a right to an attorney. You got a right to have your attorney present in questioning. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you by the court. You wish to make any statement on your behalf. You understand the rights that I have spoken to you. As soon as they stop talking to you, as soon as they start talking to you, they are required to say that. If they don't say that, they screwed up. If they haul you into jail and they don't tell you this, read it to you, and then they want to make you sign a little, uh, statement, and you know your rights, and you knowingly waive them. Please, folks, don't sign that statement. Use your head for some mother in a hat rack. You're not signing that statement ever. You're knowingly waiving your constitutional rights. Don't ever do that. I mean it. It'll make, they don't make it that hard. As soon as you hear those people start talking, it, you tell them right effectively, "I want to talk to an attorney, and I'm not saying nothing until I talk to an attorney." Especially if you're talking to federal people, BATF, these people will lie, cheat, steal. They will do anything they can to hammer you. Their whole purpose in life is to hammer you. I don't want you to think, "Well, what nice guys, so maybe we can just work this out." "Why don't we just talk?" "Or maybe we can get things worked out." You don't talk to these people, folks. And if you're talking to somebody, you learn the hard way. You do not talk to these people ever. I don't care if you think you're a nice guy and you want to be courteous. I don't think you think if you're going to work it out. I don't think you think if you're going to, you're smarter than they are and you can beat them. I'm telling you, you don't talk to them. Period. You button that hatch. An old, uh, wise, uh, legal defense counsel told me one time, he said, "The first rule is keep."

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

All right, now let's look at this Miranda decision. In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and he to have a lawyer with him during interrogation. Do that, please. And that if he is in a general, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. All right. If the individual indicates prior to enduring questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional counsel right. I don't test that theory, but I'm telling you it works. I did it. What if the individual answers some questions during interrogation or custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waiver needed are in the absence of a fully effective equivalent prerequisite to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with the proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination.

Now, this is the big one, folks. This is the one they're talking about. Did you properly Mirandize him? Was he Mirandized? Was she demandized? Athena Mirandized? You, they got to throw the case out. Almost always, it's very hard to go forward with the case if they're witnesses are excludable from the presentation of the case. Now, I personally got lucky on this one, folks, and I thought I was really, really good, and I am really, really good. But you want to know something? I have a different standard of equity and a lot, and I treat everybody kindly, and I basically give them courtesy, and I basically try and be a regular Joe, and I basically uh try to uh basically just find out what the heck was going on with this case. I promise you, I would never do that again. I would dummy up like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't say nothing. Not that I'd do anything wrong, but here's the thing. These people lied so bad, they put so much trash in, in the record. I was in shock. I couldn't believe that anybody would deliberately do such a thing, but they will. So I'm telling you as a friend, do not talk to these people, especially BATF people. They are not honorable people. They don't hold, they do not recognize the honor you serve. They are not honorable people. Their whole purpose is to hammer you into a position of ridiculousness. So I'm telling you, if they come in to talk to you for whatever reason, I don't care what, you dummy up. You don't say nothing. You got me? You hire an attorney. You get an attorney there, and you don't talk to the attorney tells you to. That's what I'm telling you as a friend.

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

Now, the next case we're going to talk about is Norton versus Shelby County, recorded at 118 volume United States Reports, page 425. Basically, that says an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Okay, that's what this, this case holds. All right. Now, I'm telling you, you go read the case. Don't screw around. The judge asks you questions about the case, you better know about what it says, right? Because if he thinks you didn't read it, he's going to throw your case out. Court files the decision of the highest court of the state in construing the Constitution and the laws of the state, unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the federal statutes or a rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state courts on questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and the eligibility and election or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon federal courts.

All right. Now, the most important, some of the most important thing is, while acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. That's a very important point. Public policy. You want to watch out for the terms public policy. It's often confused with the state's right of eminent domain of police powers. Police powers and public policy are almost the same thing. Set ones done without law because we want to, and the other is done because they're claiming a police authority to do so. All right. But when they're talking about public policy, the acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist can have no validity whatever in law. Okay. An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protection, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Okay. Because everybody got that? Now, this basic first portion of this program is designed clearly to help you. And if you take these basic cases on this one page, you will have gone a long way in getting your constitutional rights back. Okay. Now, we're asking you, pay attention. Learn your Constitution. We're going to go into some heavier stuff through the second portion of it, but we want you to learn your Constitution. This book here is a citizen's rule book. It also has jury instructions in it, and also has a lot of important arguments in it. Some of the important arguments in it go along with what we've been talking about, right? All laws for jury, pregnant Constitution, and Nolan Boyd, Marbury versus Madison, 5 B.S. 137. I already argued that when we're right secured by the Constitution, our involved, there can be no ruler lawmaking or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them. That's again, Miranda versus Arizona. An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights and imposes no duties, affords no protection, it creates no office. All right, that's Norton versus Shelby County, which we just talked about. The general rule is an unconstitutional statute of having the former name of laws, in reality, no law, but it's wholly void. All right. 16th Amendment, Rule 2, Section 177, and also 256. Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional rights from liability. That's on the first, City of Independence, Maine versus Thibodeau. No state shall converge secured liberties and their privileges and issue licenses and fees. Foreign versus Pennsylvania. If the state does convert liberty or privilege into a privilege, a citizen can engage in Arabic impunity. That shuttles records of Birmingham, Alabama. The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties. That's Boyd versus United States. Constitutional rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. That's barriers versus the United States. We have covered all of these cases thoroughly so that you can see clearly. All right. We're trying to teach you how to better effectively use your Constitution. Okay. We're trying to get it down to a serious program, and this, this book here also brings out all these court cases, right? Notice this got Norton versus Shelby County in here. It's got Miranda versus Arizona. It's got Madison, fire, Burberry versus Madison. It's got uh, the jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact. John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. The jury has a right to determine both the law and effect. Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796. Singer, you know. All right. The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided. Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. That's the United States versus Doherty, 473 Fed. Second, 113.

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

All right, now that we've gone over the Constitution and we talked about some of the ways that you can use it, now we're going to go into some of the ways that you can apply it. Okay. The things to do first of all is when you pull over, try not to demonstrate any rapid movements or any, like you're reaching under the seat or you're reaching in the glove box. Keep your hands where you can be seen. Do not overreact. Try and be calm. Talk to the officer in a mellow voice. Don't yell or holler. Use profanity whatsoever. Basically, it's, "Yes, sir. You know, what can I do for you, sir?" They will usually ask you to produce your documentation. You have license, proof of insurance, and the registration of the vehicle. Okay. I do a lot of issues on those programming to cover that to show you some of the things that you can do and what you can opt to do. Also, I recommend that you treat the officer as I told the other gentleman there, very courteously, because that is going to get you a lot farther ahead than giving them a lot of negative hype for trying to shout out, shout them, or give them a lot of static. So my honest counsel is, let me show you how we proceed. Most of the time, you will be able to leave the scene without any serious injury. You might have a ticket or this or that, but we'll show you how to deal with that. Okay. But you need to be understanding that this party is an armed party, and you don't want to do any movements that's going to cause him to overreact to an injury of you. Yeah, and you'll find it. This is the most dangerous thing a police officer does, to stop people all day, because he never knows when somebody might do some really serious traumatic thing, you know. So they're very nervous about this, and the quicker you can relieve their nervousness and just be a regular person and let them realize you're just going to talk in a plain and common voice, the sooner you're going to be in a communicative situation. Now, obviously, you're going to find out real quick if you've got a cooperative officer or not. If you don't have a cooperative officer, fine. Then you're going to be in court anyway. So the best thing I can tell you is be patient. Just let us follow along with our program, and we'll be happy to demonstrate. And again, we would like to let you know that your best defenses are in your Constitution. That that Constitution is a viable contract, that it is enforced from the court of law under the statute of frauds, that you have a right to claim those rights, that the burden is on you to claim them timely, and a key word here is timely, or you lose the right. So you want to be cognizant of your rights and be able to timely speak up.

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

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

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

Okay, to our normal procedure here, we have our court cases here. We are going to start giving you examples of court cases as we go, and we're going to show you how you can exercise rights. Now, one of the first cases that we are going to bring is basically the right to travel. All right. Now, there's a lot of people that are interested in this particular issue and license plates and driver's licenses and all this, and you have a lot of programming that's, that's, uh, problematic from this, and you have a lot of people that are looking to argue. So we want to share some basic arguments with you. We're going to claim a First Amendment right to travel, and we're going to claim also a Fifth Amendment, it's guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of due process and equal protection under the law. All right. Now, we come down, we looked up in our state constitution, and this is, uh, our constitution, and basically, we have protected a right to travel. Okay. The freedom to travel is a fundamental right that should be unlimited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict movement. Okay. Now, then a law which substantially affects or penalizes the exercise of the right to travel may be justified only by a compelling state interest and must be tailored carefully to avoid unnecessary infringement on the right. Okay. Now, when we come down here, we start reading some of these arguments, you'll notice these little letters here that say, "Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Federal Constitution." See note 54. Everybody see this little note 54 here? Again, we're going to take this note 54. We're going to come down here, and the very first case that we have is Shapiro versus Thompson. This has recorded it at 394. That's volume 394 U.S. page 618. And I just happened to copy the case here. They're talking about the purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons into a state is constitutionally impermissible. All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. All right. If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertions of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional. All right. Does everybody pick up on the gist of the argument here? Equal protection clause prohibits apportionment of state services according to part tax contributions of its citizens. Any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of a right of interstate travel, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional. Okay. Now, that's clearly established.

Now, we go into the case and we come to find out it says that the right, the right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. This is what I was trying to tell you. You got to use a little bit of, uh, wisdom. You read between the lines. In other words, what is your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? What does it mean to you? Think about it. You know, you can look at the exact words, the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Duck, what's that mean? I have no idea. Well, I'm telling you to start having an idea, because when you have an idea, they got to listen. So you have an idea and you say, "I have a right to travel freely and uncovered." Right? Now, that a right was so elementary, was conceived from the beginning to be necessary concomitant of the stronger union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a, a basic right under the Constitution. We've established that the right is clearly there. So you were right. You had a feeling that you had a right to travel, and you were right. There is such a right there. Okay. One of the ways you could find arguments on that would be to go into the Federal Digest at the local library. Go down by your Supreme Court cases. There'll be a set of red books called the Federal Digest, right next to the Shepard citations. You look up the book called Words and Phrases, and in the book Words and Phrases, you ask for the right to travel. It'll give you every Supreme Court case that has anything to do with the right to travel. Okay. One of the leading cases is this case, Shapiro versus Thompson, and it's such a basic right, it doesn't even need to be mentioned. Okay. It is important that you be able to back your arguments up. In other words, it's one thing to pick the argument up. Yeah, here we go. In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they were exercising their constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of the right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional. Right. Now, the reality was, they exercised their right to timely travel, right? And the state didn't want to allow that.

Now, let's flip back here. First of all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, right? We established that. Who said so? Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of land. Any law conflicts, and all void of law. Now, we know that the Constitution is supreme. We know that the right is clearly established in Shapiro versus Thompson. Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert a secured liberty, in this case, the right to travel freely and uncovered, into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it? Obviously, we have decided that in Murdock versus Pennsylvania. Clearly, no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege. Now, does everybody see how we plug that in? Just like on your computer, you, you fill in the blanks. You have the court case. It says, "No state can convert the liberty and your privilege, initial license fee for it." What right are we talking about? The right to travel. So you plug that in. So does the state have a right to require you to have a license for the exercise of their right? No. Does everybody see that? Now, what is Birmingham, Alabama? What happens if they pull you over? They give you the ticket. Well, you're going to go to court, and you're going to fight it. You're going to file a brief. We're going to show you how to do that in a later time, exactly what to put down there, but these are the cases you're going to be putting down on your, on your memorandum of law as to why you have a reason to feel that you're right. First, it's your constitutional right is superior to any law that they would put down. You have that right, and they can't pass a law that takes away that right. Secondly, if they do, it's unconstitutional. Thirdly, no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama says I may ignore the license and the fee and engage in their right with impunity. That means you can't punish me. And U.S. versus Bishop, Court 12 U.S. 346, defines willfulness as an evil motive, intent to avoid a known duty to your task under the law with a moral certainty. Obviously, you didn't do that, did you? Because you have a perfect defense. You relied on previous decisions of the Supreme Court, Shuttlesworth and Murdock, and Marbury. You relied on your constitutional right to travel freely and uncovered, pursuant to Shapiro versus Thompson. So you have a perfect defense.

So now, where are we at? Your Honor, may please record, I motion for dismissal with prejudice. Failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. And I would like the motion to dismiss, and I like my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. Now, you have a right to collect your time for going to court. All right. You submit your bill. You submit your proposed order. You fill out your own proposed order. That makes the case go faster, and the judge is kind of like that, and it intimidates the hell out of the prosecutor when you do your own order. Now, let's say, "Well, that's how you interpret that, sir." "That's right, sir. That is how I interpret it." And 16th Amendment, Rule 2, Section 97, says that it shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the query intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Decision for the production rates and property. See Briars versus United States, 273 U.S. 28. Unlawful, unless that deals with an unlawful search and seizure, but it also deals that it's supposed to be interpreted in favor of the nuclear intent and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of your rights and property. So they got to enforce it and pay review. Right. Now, Boyd versus United States comes next. The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally, uh, secured liberty. It's their duty. They have no choice. They have to do it. Okay. All right. And Norton versus Shelby County, an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative though it had never been passed. Now, after you write all of this stuff down, you casually say, "Wherefore, you're entered, I pray before the center of the court for your just and lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief to me granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this badly frivolous and spurious case. Now, my costs are whatever they are. You submit that on your order. I have an order. I have a proposed order. Your Honor, it's in my brief. At that point, they will turn to the prosecutor and say, "Well, I'm press here. What do you think you'd like to do about this?" And most of the time, they're so overwhelmed at this point, they just go, "I'll go for the dismissal." Urinary. And the judge will give them some slack. Well, never before as a young man, not an attorney, so literally overwhelmed when accounts for the prosecution, he lacens the attorneys. Now, it's not my goal to make attorneys look bad. My goal is to make you look good. My goal is to make you understand your Constitution. Now, if you happen to do it, and you do it better than the attorney, God bless you, and God bless America. And if the attorney doesn't do his homework and prepare his case, I have no sympathy for him because he shouldn't have done what he was doing anyway. Pulled you aside, needed done what other attorneys have done to me and said, "You know, I hate going against the pros a litigant attorney. Almost always, they're really, really good." And you know, I never get to find out if they're really, really good or they're really, really bad until I show up, and then it's too late. So I'm already on the diving board, and either the pool has water in it or it doesn't. And usually, it doesn't. It hurts when you hit the bottom. So they don't like going against you people. They will not like going against you if you happily know what the hell you're talking about. They're going to be intimidated. And I, I can tell you many, many, many tales. I, I had this one gentleman, he didn't have any plates on his car, and he called him into the court, and he was standing in the hallway, and the prosecution said, "Would you come over here, sir?" "But I'd like to talk to you." He came in the office and he sat down, and this party said to the prosecutor, "What can I do for you, Rick?" Prosecutor said, "Sir, hey, so what can I do for you?" He said, "Well, it's not what you can do for me. I'm the prosecutor. What do you want to do in this case?" "Well, I assumed there was something I could do for you. Called me in here." "Well, what do you want to do? How do you want to plead on your case?" "Well, I don't intend to plead, sir. I intend to answer in a form with a mirror such that I do not acquiesce to quasi jurisdiction because that's an issue to be brought up my pleadings and briefs to file of the court." The guy's mouth was on the ground. He said, "Are you an attorney, sir?" He says, "No, I'm a truck driver." The guy absolutely was in a panic. I had the same gentleman, the same gentleman later, he was working as a bricklayer, and he did the same thing. Told the prosecutor he was a bricklayer, and he got his child was on the ground. See, they don't anticipate the people that that are in other jobs other than theirs that have any brains. And it blows their doors off when all of a sudden this bricklayer or this truck driver can come in and argue law, and all of a sudden it's like, "Shoot, this guy is good. I have to treat him like he's an attorney." So what did this guy do? The first thing he does out of the shoot, he walks up to the judge and he tells the judge, he says, "Judge, I'm going to dismiss this case." Because he realized he was going to get hammered. And the guy, my guy says, "He can't do that. I took day off work to come over here and battle." I told him, I said, "Shut up, sit down, and relax. You won. I'll say nothing." "You won?" And the judge broke out laughing because this guy didn't want to quit. The judge turned to me, so, "Well, evidently the prosecutor doesn't want to proceed, sir. I'm going to have to dismiss the case." "He is the complainant. Can he do that, judge?" "He can't do that. I want to go. Let's do it." And the judge laughed again. He says, "Well, apparently, sir, I cannot sustain a complaint that is not properly before the court. Counsel for prosecution has entered a motion to dismiss, and I have no other option but to dismiss." "Now, if you want to countersue him, that's another case. I'll do that. In the meantime, I told him, will you be quiet and submit your bill? Submit your bill. You won. Submit your bill for your damages." So he did. He said, "Well, I'll submit my bill, in your honor, for my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case." And the judge smiled because people don't usually do that. But if you win, they are required to pay you. That's the rules. If you lose, you pay. So the bottom line is this, when you file your papers and they turn around and you, you get a win, make sure you got your little bill in there for for your lost time from work, or any copies that you had to make, or any visits to the law library, or any what is called real and personal damages. And don't pad the account. Put down exactly what you got, because if they force you to prove it, you can get busted for perjury. So I don't, I don't recommend you, you know, shall we say, stretch the pad. I recommend you put down exactly what your costs are. Believe me, the fact that they got beat is plenty enough of a sting, and the fact they got to pay a couple hundred dollars for your last day at work will be more of a sting. And you will not, you will get a code on your license, and the next time you get pulled over, they will just hand your license back and tell you, "Think about slowing down and have a nice day." Because they don't like people like you because you're an American, and Americans don't give up. They never surrender, and they fight. One judge told me one time, he said, "You got any kind of idea how much money you've crossed this court today?" And I said, "I hope it was a bunch, your Honor, because I hope you got to go write a whole bunch more tickets to break even." I, uh, way I figure, the more tickets you got to write, the sooner the public's going to wake up to this, uh, theft, and maybe they'll start, uh, doing something positive to stop this kind of stuff. Because it's my, my belief, they should be having masks on out there because I mean, if they wasn't out of script, they'd be having a mask on there when they robbed the people. Okay. Well, he didn't, he didn't like that answer too good. But the bottom line is, he, he knew I was right. And after a while, they realize what your goals are, and they know, hey, this is more fun than Edgewater Park, and I want to go on all the rides twice. You know what I mean? I want to hit the wild mouse and a whole bunch of them other rides. Let's do it. And see, when they see that, they realize there's no point. You're not going to learn anything. You're going to cost some time, money, materials. Now, the, the system is not profitable. Okay. So they back off. They put a code on your license. They won't bother you anymore. And everybody see, we take that line down. We take the line from the Constitution. We take the line from the right. Now, let's think up on the other right. How about the right to work, contract, your labor, and your skill, and your time of life as you see fit? Now, your right to work is protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment again. You have a right to work and contract your labor, your skill, and your time of life as you see fit. I get hauled into court before, uh, the chief judge of this big court here in Oakland County. I won't give you the judge's name because he was a fair judge and a good judge, and I'm going to let him slide. But the bottom line is this, he looked just like Abe Lincoln, I mean, exactly. He was the spitting image. And he leans over the chair and he says, "Well," he says, "it's been reported to me, son, that you don't have a license to practice law. Is that correct?" And I looked up at him and I said, "Judge, I'm not practicing. I know what the hell I'm doing." And the whole court broke out laughing. He said, "That's pretty good. That's pretty good. I like somebody with a sense of humor." He said, "But that doesn't change anything, son. You have to have a license to practice law." And I said, "Your Honor, I'm an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law. I am not a participant in any of these schemes, a limited liability and a joint venture for private with an insurable interest required me to participate in these illegal corporate Ponzi schemes. I am just Joe Blow from Kokomo down on the street. I just live at the common law, and I have a right to work and contract my labor, my skill, and my time of life as I see fit, not some third-party arbitrary and capricious Bar Association sees fit." And they had loaded the court with all these attorneys, and they were hear that guy. I said, "Your Honor, the state of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right to work into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That's unconstitutional, your Honor. Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. Anything in conflict or repugnancy is null and void of law. Can you see that? Murray versus Madison. And since the state converted my right into privilege and issued a license and a fee for it, we're not Christmas, Pennsylvania. No state may convert a secured liberty and their privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama says I may ignore the license and the fee and engage in their right with impunity. That means you can't punish me. And U.S. versus Bishop, Court 12 U.S. 346, defines willfulness as an evil motive of intent to avoid a known duty to your task under the law with a moral certainty. I submit, your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil test because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit the prosecution council's burden to prove that I did willfully, knowingly avoid a known duty to your task under the law, and namely to get the license. And I would submit a specifically precluded. He cannot perform his task, and therefore, I had motion for dismissal with prejudice. Failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. And I'd kind of like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous, spurious complaint." The judge rolls back in his chair with a great big smile, and he turns to counsel for the prosecution. He says, "Well, I'm missiles, what do you think we ought to do about this young gentleman?" The prosecution mounts back, "He honored a motion to dismiss, your Honor." The judge says, "Good answer, because I don't think you're ready for this kid today." And the whole court broke out laughing. An old gentleman walked up to me and he said, "Son, I just want to shake your hand and tell you, you gotta have like King Kong because you just slammed the bar association right into the ground." On top of that, I've been an attorney for 57 years, and I just want to shake your answer and tell you that was one of the most magnificent arguments that I've ever had the privilege to hear in a court of law." Now, he was an asked attorney, and he realized what kind of a chain was around his ankle with this bar association, and these lawyers, they resent that. They really do. They're people just like you. They don't like to have any chains on them, but they had had anybody quite show them how to get those chains off. And when they saw somebody do it in their own skill, with their own, you know, with their own cards on their own playing field, it actually impressed the hell out of them. I had several gentlemen come up and shake my hand that day. Needless to say, the case was dismissed, and I've been helping little people getting jammed for years. Every time I see some little person you jammed, I'm out there flipping that wrench, zingy, zingy, zingy, and I flipped that wrench at him so good, and usually they just back off. Dr. Kaworkin was a perfect example. The poor man was just trying to help these poor people. They were jamming him every which way but loose. So what we did is we taught him a thing called Coram Nobis. I got a hold of his attorney and submitted all of the arguments.

All right, now we're going to bring up several arguments right here. We're going to bring up police powers and we're going to bring up Coram Nobis. What we're onto is a basic right that goes back to English law, ancient English law. Okay, here it is right here. All right. For Coram Nobis. Let's read it. For Coram Nobis. An old English practice, a writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or assured any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right. It lay also in the case of a non-user or long neglected, no long neglect of a franchise, franchises, corporation, or misuser or abuser of a franchise, being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a corporate franchise, having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. A common law writ designed to test whether a person exercising power is legally entitled to do so. An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson versus Manhattan Railroad Company, New York, recorded at volume 289 United States page 479. Now, it is intended to prevent exercise of powers that are not conferred by law, and is not ordinarily available to regulate the manner of exercising such power. Now, what we did. See, police powers are defined as the right, amount of domain of a state or political subdivision to enact laws for the common good, welfare. Let's pull that out. Police powers. Everybody got there? Police power, right? Police power. It's right here. Police power. This is out of Black's Law Dictionary, folks. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, upon the individual states and in turn delegated to the local governments through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police, right? Such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and or crime and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of its citizens by preserving the public order and preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens and ensuring to each and uninterrupted enjoyment. Yeah, everybody will get that word enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws, the Constitution. The power of the state to place restraints on personal freedoms and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals, or to promotion of the public convenience in general propriety. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions. That everybody catch that? And especially to the requirements of due.

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

All right. Now, police powers are the right amendment domain of state or political submission to an AG laws for the common gun welfare and to curb crime within constitutional limitations. And the key words in that whole thing are "within constitutional limitation." And then it tells you to see the Tenth Amendment. When you see the Tenth Amendment, believe it or not, you can go look up the books, and it divides the Tenth Amendment real from here.

Pull over here. All right. The burdens placed on the national government as a result of state's regulation, okay, regulation of their internal affairs, save as Congress may act to remove them, constitute normal incidents of operation within the same territory of a dual system of government. And no immunity of the national government from such burdens is to be implied from the Constitution. All right.

All right. Pen Diaries versus Milk Control Commission. All right. The Pennsylvania case, recorded at United's, uh, volume 318 U.S. 261. The people of the United States residing within any state are subject to two governments: one state and the other national. But there need be no conflict between the two, because the powers which one possesses, the other does not. That's United States versus Crookshank, a very famous Supreme Court case.

Excuse me. No, let me come over here. Within the area of delegated powers, expressed or implied, this amendment does not reduce the powers of the United States. That's U.S. versus Manning, recorded at 215 Federal Supplement, that's another reporter, page 272. The Federal Union has only those powers expressly conferred on it and those reasonably implied from powers granted, while each state has all governmental powers except such as the people, by the Constitution, have conferred on the United States, denied to the state, are reserved to the people themselves. Anderson versus Gladden, recorded at volume 188 Federal Supplement 666.

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

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

Now, a lot of people, they don't understand the power of this argument. So I want to really push this one home. I want you to understand whenever these little townships and these little cities and what have you, they start acting like King Farouk and that you're, you don't matter, and they don't got to listen to you. This is what I want you to do. You ask them a pointed question and ask them, "Are you violating my constitutionally secured civil rights by however you claim they are?" Because if you are, you have just waived your right to be the city of. And I'll laugh at you for a little bit. Okay? And you explain to him Public Act 230 of Public Acts, which states the rights and power sections of the Constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan, you have rights and powers. The antithesis to that argument is, if you're not going to be within the Constitution of the United States or the general laws of the state of Michigan, and you're going to violate my constitutional rights and trample my rights, what we're going to do here is we're going to go for a writ of mandamus, in quo warranto. That's the legal term. Fancy legal term, but it is an ancient law that goes way back to England in the ancient times.

And basically, here is a judgment in a capias action for it. You put down here the case. The case came on regularly for trial before the Honorable, and you put the judge's name in there, whatever it is, on a jury trial or non-jury trial, dated such and such. The name appeared as for your counsel, in the name of period, for opposing counsel. Right. The court heard the testimony and examined the proofs offered by the parties. The court considered itself fully advised in the premise, filed in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and directed the judgments be entered in accordance with such findings. Right. Which means they figured out that they violated your constitutional rights. They didn't have a right to violate your constitutional rights. And in the hearing, you showed they violated your constitutional rights. And the judge figured out they violated your constitutional rights. So now, for your relief, we're going to get this coram nobis. And this is exactly what happened to the Honorable Doctor Kevorkian. You'll notice that he was in jail, and they were hammering the tail at him. The next thing you know, everything got real quiet. Nobody said nothing. And then the next thing you know, they were letting him go, and they were minding their business.

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

Now. Defendant corporation, you name them, therefore, is dissolved. And the corporate rights, privileges, and franchise of defendants are declared forfeited to the people. Defendant corporation, you name them, as trustees, directors, managers, and other official officers, attorneys, and agents are forever restrained and enjoined from exercising any of the corporate franchise powers, rights, and or privileges previously exercised by defendant said city, and from collecting or receiving any debts and or demands belonging to or held by defendant city, whatever, and from paying out or in any manner interfering with, transferring, or delivering to any person any of the deposits, money, securities, property, and effects of the defendant city or held by it. You name a trustee, which the state would do, probably the Attorney General, after your complaint is filed, is appointed receiver of all of the property, real and personal, things in action, and effects of defendant city corporation, held by, invested in defendants, or in or to which defendant may be in any wise interested or entitled thereto. Plaintiff, the people of the state of, whatever, that's U.S. State of Michigan, shall recover of defendant corporation, whatever city of, the sum of damages, real and personal. Got me? They don't like that when you start talking out, because they can go 100 million, three times that amount of punitive damages. They get a little upset. As costs and disbursements of this action, and the receiver is directed to pay the sum out of their pocket to whoever the Attorney General, but you can have a person stipulated on there as an injured party.

Now, you put down there the Honorable Judge so-and-so presiding, the date entered, and use he, he signs it. And that city is no longer a city. You see, when they violate your Constitution, this is one of the most powerful tools that you can use. And when you jam this on, you better wear a bulletproof vest. That you're probably gonna get shot at by the time you get home. But it's nice to threaten. You know, you just thread, just drop one of them in the mail and say, "If I don't get reasonable cause for my action in the near future, you're gonna get one of these in the mail for real."

Here is a summons for quo warranto. This is for the start of the thing right here. Summons form 41, by the way. You can get this in 21 Am Jur Forms and Practice, your practical and practical forms and practice. All right. You name the party. You put down there who you are. The People of the State of Michigan versus, you are summoned to appear before what's in which court on such and such a date to show by what authority you claim to have, you send or enjoy the rights and liberties and franchise, namely the corporation city of, set out and complained of in such and such a time. Summons and further to do and receive all things which the court shall then order concerning you. This is kind of like pulling their driver's license for drunk driving. Now, that's an oversimplification, but sometimes these city, uh, halls operate like a drunken sailor, and they just think they can abuse citizens' rights and trash them. You know, "Who I am? Oh, and I don't care. You know who I am? I'm your boss. I'm the people. You're elected to work for me. And I'm trying to be nice. So I'd appreciate it if you just, we can sit down and work this out. But if we can't work this out, I'm gonna sack it to you, baby. You got me?" That's basically how I feel about it.

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

You get back in here to police powers generally. This is something you gotta understand. Generally, the police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, and health, and morals, and the general welfare of the society within constitutional limits. Within constitutional limits, that everybody at. Within constitutional limits. Generally, the police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, health, and moral, and general welfare of society within the constitutional limits. As otherwise stated, the police power of the state is a power or organization of a system of regulations to foster the health, order, and comfort of the people, and to prevent and or punish injuries and offenses to the public. Right. But it has to be within constitutional limitations. And it embraces all rules for the protection of life, liberty, and property. I mean, that's a contradiction of logic today, folks. That doesn't happen. You and I both know it. I mean, who are they kidding? Ain't kidding me. Okay. So it's up to you, and it's up to me, and we got to get a hold of this book right here. You can hold this Constitution, and you start learning that Constitution, and you quote a chapter and verse. And guess what you'll notice? A unique, different change. One after a while, they start to listen, and you actually affect what is called positive change. And every time they see you in that goofy hat you wear, they go, "Huh. For God's sake, don't give that guy no ticket." I've actually been pulled over listening to the program. Didn't have no plates on my car. Policeman called. He says, "You got a positive ID in a guy." And a friend of mine was taping an office police radio. He said, "Yeah, it's him. He's so..." "Well, for God's sake, don't give that guy no ticket." And the guy says, "Sarge, you ain't got no plates on his car." So, "Don't give a damn money ain't got on his car. Don't give that guy no ticket." He said, "But Sarge, he told me he's just been waiting to fight it and beat it all the way to the Supreme Court." And I wrote that on the ticket. He says, "You give that guy a ticket." I said, "I just told you not to give that guy a ticket." "What do you def? You got some problem with your hearing?" "Said, I told you not to give that guy a ticket." "Now, why did you give that guy a ticket?" "He's searching and no plates on his car." "I said, I told you. I don't care what he ain't got on his car." This is all recorded. Oh, broadcast. So the everybody was laughing. The police were laughing. Everybody was laughing. His buddies were laughing. They were ripping him over the radio. The sergeant told him, "All right, knock it off. Clear the net." "This is serious." He said, "Uh, fine." He said, "You give him a ticket." He says, "Fine." He said, "Tomorrow morning, nine o'clock, I want you to be in here when the city attorney comes in here, and he says, you're gonna personally deliver the ticket to him. And he ain't gonna be real happy with you because he hates that guy. Every time he goes to court, that guy blows his doors off. He looks like a fool. You give the guy a ticket." Now he's got to go to court. So, sure enough, we go to court. Come up before the court. Judge starts operating like a prosecutor. He starts asking me all kind of discovery questions. I call it. As soon as they call the case. Now, this is something important. You gotta understand. You're going to be your own attorney. And you got to know all the programming. When you hear him call your case, you get off your tail feather and you run right up there as quick and as speedingly as possible without knocking anybody down. And you say, "Ready, Your Honor. Who? State your appearance. I'm so-and-so. Hearing before this honorable court. I am standing as my own counsel in my state at Senator Article 1, Section 13. I've appointed myself my own attorney, and I'm ready to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters. And at this time, Your Honor, may please record, I motion for dismissal of prejudice, failure state of cause of action." Virtually granted. Bingo. I apologize if I'm talking too fast. I'm gonna try and slow down a little bit. But when you, when you're in court as much as I am, you just learn you need to talk faster, you lose. So I apologize if I'm going a little too fast. I'm gonna slow down. I'm trying to make it easier for you folks, okay? But the judge gets off right away. "Well, you got a ticket untouched." I said, "Oh, Your Honor, I said, are you the judge, the disinterested third party, this training, this case, the trier of fact?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Okay. I said, is this the prosecutor over here to my right?" He said, "Yeah, that's him." I said, "Okay. I said, are you gonna prosecute this case, Your Honor?" He said, "No, no, I'm the judge." I said, "Why are you asking discovery questions?" "Well, I just want to find out what's going on." I says, "Isn't that his job over there? That's what he's supposed to do. He's supposed to present his case as the prosecutor. Trier of the case, you're the trier of fact. He's the trier of the case." I said, "If you're going to operate as the judge and the prosecutor, I'm going to object on the record as a mistrial." He said, "Okay, I'll let you enter that on the record. Go ahead." I said, "Okay, let it be entered on the record as an appealable issue." He said, "Okay." He said, "Now, it's on the refugee." So let me ask you this. "You get a ticket on September the 30th?" I said, "Yes, sir." He said, "Well, let me ask you this. You have any plates on your car?" He says, "No, sir. And I don't intend to get any." And of course, all the people on the card, oh, this guy's going to do. Watch this. This is going to be good. He says to me, he says, "I assume you have a very good reason for that." And I said, "Yes, sir." And I shut up. I waited. He said, "Can I hear it?" I said, "Well, Your Honor, I said, I'm an unfranchised common law freeman. I'm not a participant in any tag team schemes, unlimited liability, and a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest. Require me to participate in these corporate Ponzi schemes. I'm just a little Joe from Kokomo. I live on the block. I travel at the common law, and I have a right to travel free. The uncommon pursuant to Shapiro versus Thompson, and that right is so basic, it doesn't even need to be mentioned. The state of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a privilege and issued a license plate and a fee for it. Murdock versus Pennsylvania says no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue license and a fee for it. And if they do, Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham, Alabama says I can ignore the license and engage in a ride with impunity." That means you can't punish me. Since I relied on previous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and on constitutional defenses, I have a perfect defense for willfulness. I am immune to the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution counsel does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted. That motion for dismissal with prejudice for various data cause of action for what you leave for me. Granted. Kind of like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. The judge starts reading the ticket. Told officer he'd just been waiting to get this ticket so he could fight it and beat it all the way to the Supreme Court. He laughed. He says, "Motion granted." And he ran off the bench before I could get my damages. So I went out in the hall. He went to the can. I waited for him. He came out of the can. I served him with my papers. He says, "You didn't have to do that. I swear. I didn't want you to be inconvenienced." Judge. He said, "Okay." He signed. I went back into court as a casual thing, just to see what kind of reaction would happen. And I sat down. About two cases later, this eligible gentleman gets up, and he stands up there, and he says, "Your Honor, I'm not quite as knowledgeable as that young gentleman that was here just two cases ago, and I don't presume to understand all of the issues that he raised, but it really sounded good to me, and I kind of like to ditto everything he said on top of my case." Everybody broke out laughing. The Jed says, "All right. I'm going to." "How many guys here didn't have no plates on their car?" About five guys raised their hand. He says, "Okay, everybody dismissed. Get the hell out of here." And everybody broke out laughing. It was like, you know, at the carnival on Christmas or something. You know, it was a carnival atmosphere. So I'm telling you, you can affect change. And see, they had all figured, they said, "Watch this. This guy's going to jail." And then all of a sudden, boom. I'll jump. And I mean, I'm telling you, it's this little book right here. This book. You know what's in this book? You have power. Knowledge is power. You know what's in this book, and you know how to exercise your rights in a timely fashion. You have constitutional rights, and if you exercise them, and you utilize good judgment, and be courteous, and just treat people the way you like to be treated with a little dignity, most of the time, 99% of the time, I win.

Now, I will tell you, I've been to jail. I mean, I'm not going to lie to you. I've been. But when I go to jail, they really hate it because I usually get, oh, the last time I got five guys' cases retried, and I got another four guys out like within 24 hours. And then I got 11 guys off of their case because they signed up for drug rehab. And one bank robber come up to me and said to me, "I think you know, I'm a hard case." Yeah, I kind of get it there. And he says, "I want you to know, you changed my life." I said, "I really appreciate you helping me with my paperwork." He says, "They're gonna give me a new chance. They're gonna let me out on probation. I'm gonna marry my girlfriend." And he started crying. And he basically said, "I'll never forget you, Pops." He says, "You're some kind of guy." He says, "God bless you." And he says, "I want you to know, I, I really appreciate what you did. And I found God too." And between you and Crazy Charlie. See, Crazy Charlie is a minister that goes around to all the jails. He used to ride for the outlaw motorcycle gang. Crazy Charlie is clearly crazy. Last time I saw Crazy Charlie was riding down Eight Mile Road at 85 miles an hour, standing on his seat against another guy. Just standing on his seat. And see who was going to wimp out first. Crazy Charlie did about five years in the slam because he got charged with murdering some guy. Crazy Charlie went to jail and he found God. And God spirited Crazy Charlie from a life sentence in jail. And Crazy Charlie owes it to God. And he goes through all of the jails and he preaches the gospel. And he basically is quite a gentleman. And he's nobody to screw with. And when we went to chapel, the kids were all joking around. "Perhaps you going to chapel?" "I said, Oh, hell yeah." "He says, Perhaps you're a badass. What you want to go to chapel for?" "Us." "Let me tell you something, my man. You can always learn something. And I'll tell you, one of the best places to learn it is our chapel. So why don't you come on down, and you might learn something." We go down there, and who do I see? Crazy Charlie. I hadn't seen Crazy Charlie for years. He would give me Alexander. "So what the hell are you doing here?" "So I don't want to talk about it." Crazy Charlie. He comes to me and says, "Pops, is there anybody in this joint you don't know?" "I says, I'll tell you what. This guy, this guy would listen to because he's serious. A man is serious. And he found God. And he's going to try and help you find God. And then you will have peace." Well, with this gentleman, this one bank robber found this gentleman. Between myself and Crazy Charlie, he found God. And I wish you could see the peace on his face. He was in a lot of trouble. And, uh, we did his paperwork for him. We helped him. Basically, they, they redid his whole program. And because he found God, they, they decided to put him out on a lifetime parole. He made restitution. He gave the money back. He changed his whole life. His whole life was changed just from that instance. So I'm telling you, you go. When I go into jail, it's hilarious because it's like the jailers don't even know how to act. And it's like I. And then when the other told me when I left, he shook my hand. He says, "I'm gonna miss you, Pops." He said, "They call me Pops because I'm older." I was a little teed off when they called me Pops the first time. So I told this kid. He said, "I said, what's with the Pops?" I said, "I bet you can't even do 25 push-ups." He said, "You proudly right, Pops. Can you?" "Boom." Down. I went 25. Out. "And here's how." "Raise your 25." "Here's another 25." "Pops, you in good shape?" "I said, I'm going to show you how good shape." "I mean, you keep calling me Pops." "He said, No, no, no, no. You don't understand, Pops. He said, If you're an older gentleman in the joint, they treat you with courtesy. They call you Pops. That's just out of courtesy." "I said, Oh, I guess you can call me Pops. And that's cool. Don't you ever think that I'm getting old myself for you." So they laughed. When I left, they lined up to shake my hand. And, uh, even the jailer said he was going to be sorry to see me go because I was helping so many people and people were getting their lives together. And so when I go to jail, it's kind of unique. I actually get a vacation. I got the top bunk, and I laid on the window and let God sunshine in my face, and I got a suntan. And guys would say, "Pops, why do you climb up on that top bunk?" "I says, Man, I'm out on a beach getting sun." "And raised." "What you doing?" "He said, You know, Pops, you something else. You gonna make you in jail and you gonna me." "I said, I'm laying out here on the beach. What you talking about? I'm laying on my bed right next to the window, and the sun comes right through, and I'm on the beach. What are you talking about getting the suntan?" So you got to make the best of where you're at, no matter what. It keeps your spirits up. And the bottom line is this: I wouldn't have been in jail if I could have more effectively argued my Constitution. I ended up having to do a brief from the jail, 28 pages. I sharpened the pencil on the phone on the wall. There it is. This is a 28-page motion. Edition. This is.

This right here. This right here. I mean, this is all from hand. Longhand. And when we got to court, the judge looked at it. He goes, "Sir, are you an attorney?" I says, "No." He says, "Uh, he says, uh, you've been to law school?" I says, "No, sir." He says, "You did this from jail?" Says, "Yes, sir." He says, "You did this from jail from memory?" I says, "Yes, sir." "That's rather extensive. It's huge." Meanwhile, the prosecutor kicks in. She says, "Joshua, I gotta answer this." He goes, "Oh, hell. This guy is kind of like this guy on Night Court on TV on channel two. Kind of flip it." And he says, "Oh, hell yeah, counselor. He says, "What's this? A new hobby you just took up?" He says, "Uh, this guy even did his own proposed order. I don't even have to fill out an order." He says, "Not only, I want it done by 8 o'clock Monday morning." So all weekend she had to go to the law library and answer all this stuff. She was not a happy camper. So then she, uh, proposed that I have to have a shrink check my bolts out to see if my batteries are charged. Because if you defend your Constitution, you gotta be a crazy, uh, turkey. And she found out I'm pretty well squared away. I just argue my Constitution. I asked the judges, "This is a God in this bad yet, judge? To where they got tossed in a nut house because you defend your Constitution?" He says, "Not in my court." And I've heard of judges speaking out and saying, "Well, the Constitution has no place in my courtroom." How can they even think about that? Wait. That is a that is a very serious statement because what that judge just did in an open court of law under Title 18 United States Code Section 2381 is he just committed an act of treason. See, the judge is sworn under Article II in this state, paragraph 1, then he will uphold the Constitution of the United States and move as most immediately as is practicable. Defendant constitution in a violation of that act would be capital felony treason under the people and government of the United States of America, and he would be subject, and upon conviction, to be hung by the neck. That's how serious.

If the defendant had a driver's license, and they were trying to argue a traffic matter, and they were kind of in the system already, and raised the constitutional objection, that the judge might say it doesn't apply. Well, here's, here's how we start a lot of these traffic cases, and I'll get right into that. The issue when you first walk before a traffic court. See, when they merged these courts together in 1963, they screwed up. They, they wanted to lay off half the judges, see, and they only wanted to have one building. So what they did is they merged the traffic court, per se, or the, or that docket into the criminal court docket. When they did that, they didn't check the rules, you see. And when they didn't check the rules, they didn't allow for jurisdictional challenges between the two courts. So what happens now is you come before the court, and there's several ways you can come before the court. Now, this gentleman here is correct when he's talking about you. You have a driver's license. You have entered into a contractual relationship with the state. In other words, it's not a lawful contract because you cannot enter into an unlawful contract, you understand? It is a contract, though, because it's recognized as a contract because you have voluntarily entered into this contract. You agreed to all of the rules in their law book for that contract. Now, this is what we call admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, or artificial jurisdiction. And it's a rather heavy argument going into Area Railroad versus Tompkins and McCulloch versus Maryland. And we'll go into that in depth at the end of this program. But I wanted to share with you briefly. When you sign your driver's license, and especially today, and your voter's registration card, you will notice a little note right under your signature where you agree to the acceptance of the duality of citizenship of not only at the common law, but you accept the national jurisdiction under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which allows you to be sucked into all these Uniform Commercial Code requirements. And this is a very serious thing. You're saying here, you don't understand it, but you just sold all your constitutional rights down the sewer when you signed that document. So when you sign it, my honest advice, and this is a firm experience, you sign the thing, and right at the end of your name, you write U.D. U. period D. period at the end of your name. And underneath your name, you write 1-207 without prejudice. Now, what that does, it says, "I'll be glad to accept your, uh, your ridiculous privilege. I don't really need to, but I will just to keep myself from being in trouble with the cops. And I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll, uh, we'll exercise our Uniform Commercial Code caveat that allows us to keep all of our constitutional rights. In other words, my signature is not really a signature of contract. It's a signature of convenience that allows me to get a piece of paper to put in my pocket for identification purposes that allows me to sign my checks and do whatever I got to do. But it doesn't in any way make any admissions or confessions or require me to participate in any of your rulebook schemes under your admiralty or maritime taunting scheme."

Now, to tell you how crazy it was, I just asked by an attorney how he would defend, how he would defend a program where a gentleman that he was defending was accused of hijacking a car, and that they were claiming that because the car is made all over the world and all over the United States, that the parts, even though they're assembled at one point, they are in what is called the, the interstate jurisdiction. And that because of that, this current, this crime was now a federal crime. Do you understand? This is how far reaching this thing has gotten. And when this gentleman signed his driver's license, he had no idea that he was entering into this thing and waving all of his God-given constitutional rights, and that he was no longer a common law citizen, that he was actually under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

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

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

When people come up to you, "Well, we want you to take a drug test as part of your job, huh?" "Go fish." "Are you taking a drug test?" "I'm not required to prove a negative. You're required to prove a positive. If you think I'm doing something negligent, fine. And you go file papers and you take necessary precautions and what have you, and we'll go to court." I says, "But I'm not, I'm not going to be convicted before the fact, and then I got to provide evidence that I'm not guilty. That's the cart before the horse. That's back ass words. We're not going to do that." Not only that, the Fifth Amendment says I got a right not to be a participant in a compulsory process that's going to make an incriminating situation to be. Now, I'm not, nothing to hide, and I'm not even arguing from what I got to hide. I'm arguing from the fact that the right stands, and I'm exercising it. And then I usually ask some simple questions. "Well, if they find anything, when I get fired?" "Hell yeah, you're going to be penalized." So there are penalties. "And if they find anything, would I be criminally prosecuted?" "Could be." Huh? "So why would you want to do some damn stupid thing like that? Give him a piss test." This guy comes up to me at the last convention we had, and they want to take a test as to whether or not he's, uh, he's got any drugs in his system. I said, "First of all, what's in my system is between me and my doctor. None of your damn business." I says, "I don't take drugs, but I got nothing to hide, but I'm not going to voluntarily enter into anything. What if your guy screws up and now you say I got drugs? Now I can't get a job ever. What are you kidding me? There's some new hobby you just took up? I'm not going to play that game." It is not my burden to prove a negative. It is your burden to prove a positive. If you have a just claim for which relief can be granted, you go file your papers, and we'll sit down and talk. But until such time, you go fish, because I'm not gonna play. I'm not required to play, and I'm not gonna play. And if you fire me for the exercise of my constitutional right, I'm going to tell you about United States versus Miller, which says, "The claim and exercise of the constitutional rights shall not be converted into a crime." And you're doing that, and you're punishing me. And if you fire me for it, I will sue your socks off and attach everything you own, bank, business, and home. Now, make my day. That's how I feel about it. So you find another turkey to jerk with, because I'm not gonna play.

Okay. Now, we want to get into some serious things. I want to get into this, uh, this argument about traffic cases. This is the most practical way to deal with traffic cases. When you are pulled over, what is happening now? You got a policeman. He's conducting discovery. Anything you say can and will be held against you. And if you don't think so, just keep rattling, and it'll all get written down on the ticket. I found that out. Told us we've just been waiting to get this ticket so he can fight it, beat it, always be in court. Ruled that word for word right on the ticket. So when these people are with you, you keep your hatch button. And I mean, I'm guilty. I admit that. Sometimes I rattle on. It's been known to happen. So I'm telling you not to do it. You button your hatch. If you say anything, it's "Yes, sir," and "No, sir." "What can I do for you?" And they always like to say, "Going a little fast, weren't you?" They say, "I need to admit or deny." And I leave you to your proofs. "Oh, a lawyer?" "Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut because I realize anything I say is going to be putting down on your paper. And so you got to charge. Make it, and I'll see you in court." "Oh, you want to go to court?" "Oh, yeah. I always go to court. I fight everything. Murder one. It's kind of like a hobby of mine. I know. Well, let's see what we get." And they walk back to the car. And they start right. Or they usually come back and they say, "Well, you're going a little fast. Think about slowing down. We're gonna let you go with a warning." "You gotta have a good day." "Thank you, officer. You have a good day too. God bless you and keep you safe." Okay. Courtesy. I can blow their doors off anytime I want. Still, "Yes, sir. No, sir." Courtesy. Courtesy. Pace. You treat people the way you like to be treated. Nine times out of ten, you will benefit. You treat people like a yahoo, and you're gonna get treated like a yahoo yourself. So I highly recommend courtesy as an effective way. I had a policeman one time tell me, "You ever eat a flashlight the hard way?" And I looked at him and I said, "Quite frankly, officer, most of the officers I have run into are extremely professional, and I treat them with a great deal of courtesy and professionalism because I respect what they're doing and that they risk their life every day. And at no time when I give an officer enough static that he would want to make need a flashlight. I mean, I treat them very cordially, and I respect what they're trying to do. I don't agree with everything they're trying to do because some of the stuff is kind of unlawful. I said, but I will give them the courtesy they have coming." He turned to me and he said, "I'm sorry. I got a big mouth. I didn't mean it. You're right. I was out of line." See, you treat people with courtesy, and nine times out of ten, you can even back down some guy that's talking a lot of manure. But the louder you talk, and the more belligerent you talk, the more louder and the more belligerent he has to talk. It's kind of like Newton's third law of physics. Every action has an opposite, opposing reaction. Utah crap. Then he's got to.

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

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

Do you have to sign the ticket? When the police officer pulls you over in that situation, don't they make you sign the tickets? Sometimes they do. If you sign it, put "UD 1-207 without prejudice." That's saying that's saying that you you received the complaint. That's all that's saying. All right, so I'll do that. Yeah, let's put "UD 1-207." It's not an admission of guilt. It just means that you received the complaint. Okay. If you don't sign it, he's going to take you to jail. That's, I mean, I realize that it's unconstitutional unless you like geofood. You know, I wouldn't do it. I'd sign the thing, "UD 1-207 without prejudice." The signature doesn't do anything besides you want a copy of the complaint anyway because you want to file a brief. Are you going to file a brief if you don't know what the complaint is?

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

Now, you want a formal hearing. Okay. Now, five days before that hearing, you are required to serve your papers on opposing counsel. If you don't do it in a timely fashion, Michigan General Court Rule will sock it to you, and you will not be able to enter your briefs. Now, sometimes you can get away with at the last minute handing it to him, and they won't say nothing. But if they want to hammer you, they can use the five-day court rule. I have used it effectively several times. You gotta, you look at what it says on the complaint, whatever it says, MCOA, whatever you violated, and you go down and you, you go to the law library, you look up missionary miles laws act, you look up exactly what they say, and then you enter a defend. I need her admitting her tonight. I leave you to strictest proofs, and I'm kind of an accord original jurisdiction.

But before we go that, depending on how you want to play, there's several ways you can go. If you want to be the hardest nosed that you can be, you walk into court and don't send no paper. [Music] And as soon as they call a case, you, as expediently as possible, you move to the far to the to the forum up there in the front, and you say, in a loud and clear voice, ready to run it, "You state your full name. I'm giving my appearance before the court in appropriate persona," which means in your own proper person. In this state, it's pursuant to Article 1, Section 13. I've appointed myself my own attorney, and I'm ready to proceed with my administrative procedural matters. And at this time, your enemy pleases, corride motion for dismissal with prejudice, fair state and cause of action for which relief can be granted.

And all of a sudden, the cop will go, especially if you wear an army jacket and you look like you're three sheets to the wind. The cop'll lean back and go, "Oh crap, we're going to get sued. I didn't know the guy was a lawyer." And then he'll start talking to the prosecution. "Rodney, you brought me one of them kind of. I'm gonna get killed, and you're gonna sit here and pay for it. I promise you." And and then what happens is, out of your mouth, you tell a judge, in the most clearest and expedient language, "Your Honor, me to please the court, is this the court of law or is this a court of equity?" He will immediately sound off with "Personal equity here," just like he got hit in the knee with a hammer, and his leg jump, and just that fast, it'll happen. That fast, because he thinks there's no lawsuit here, therefore there's no equity. See, the judges don't even understand what happened with this ship from 1963 where they moved these courts together. So you got to find out what hat the judge is wearing. Is he wearing a criminal hat or is he wearing the civil hat? So you have a right to ask. Say, "Justice Court of Large Escort, equity goes there's no equity here."

Now, we just did this in a beautiful case. This little gal, she couldn't have been 80 pounds soaking wet, and this cap is about six foot two, about 320, big heavy-duty state trooper. She walks in, "Your Honor, I am representing myself as my own counsel. I would like to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters. But before we go, I have a declaratory ruling. Sir, could I ask you a question?" "Chica?" "Oh, sure, honey, go ahead." He says, "But you understand, only a fool stands as his own attorney." She says, "That may be, sir, but I'm the best person that knows the facts in my case, and I think I I have a chance. I like to try. Is that okay?" "No problem." "Yeah, right. Is this a court of law or is this a court of equity?" "To judge me?" "There's no equity here." She said, "Thank you, sir." She rolled up her hand, and in the hand was a ticket that said "Civil Infraction" right across the top. And she said, "How may we hear this civil infraction, sir?" The judge did a Homer Simpson. He goes, "So that's where you're going with this, huh?" The whole court broke out laughing. This little gal, I'm telling you, she uses tiny little thing, she's just a sweetheart. The whole court realized the judge did a Homer Simpson, and then the judge realized he did a Homer Simpson. And then he must he goes, "Oh, honey, you're not gonna pull that here today, are you?" She got a little flushed. She wasn't sure. She this was her first time. She was a little scared. She looked over at an associate of mine. She said, looked at him, and he go, he gave her the nod, and she turned, and said, "Yes, I am, sir." And everybody broke out laughing again.

The cop goes, "No, no, you got what's on the ticket. That's what's on the complaint. You're not changing the complaint after the fact. That's perjury. You want me to put you in a..." "No, you can't change a complaint. The complaint is the complaint. You signed it, and it's true. Got me? If it was 50 over, you should have wrote 1500." He said, "Well, I just don't want to screw around. This is just getting out of hand. I mean, she was guilty." Let's see. She goes, "Here on." "All right, we haven't even gotten to that yet. There's no jurisdiction. This is where we're at. We're at no jurisdiction." It says, "We're right." He said, "Are we going to go through with this?" "Come on, tell me true." She says, "Yes, I am, sir. I'm going through all the way, all the way to the Supreme Court," she said. And uh, Natasha goes, "Okay, now we're gonna have to set a hearing." "She says, 'A night like a formal hearing, too, sir.'" He said, "Okay." "And I like a trial by jury, sir, because the valiant controversy is in excess of twenty dollars pursuant to the Seventh Amendment, I have a right to trial by jury." He says, "Yeah, okay, okay. We'll send you notice."

It's been three and a half weeks. We got no notice. We call them every day. They don't even want to talk about this case. The only reason they said that was so all of the poor little people in the back of the room didn't get the idea that they could get up to up there and do the same thing this little gal did. They're not gonna call her back because they got no jurisdiction. They're not gonna try that case because she's gonna blow their doors up. Okay, now that's one of the most beautiful texts and the fastest. And the last time I did it, it was before a particularly obnoxious judge, and he basically said to me, "How many times have you pulled this?" And I said, "You know, your honor, this would be, I think this is the 12th time." He said, "Ah, going for lucky 13, eh?" He said, "This is very clever. He says, but I'm gonna give you some advice, young man. Don't ever get caught doing nothing in my town." "Got me, sir." "I never do anything. I'm trying to be a regular gentleman." He said, "Well, you better not get caught doing nothing because I will hammer your tail." And I said, "Does that mean the case is dismissed, your honor?" He says, "It's dismissed. You're out of here." Now, it works, and it works real good.

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

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

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

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

What if they have a card? If they say it's a court of equity? All right, that's a good question. Very, very, you're paying attention here. If they say they have a court of equity, come and say, "Thank you, your honor. I appreciate your time. I would like to know who is the injured party and where the contract is. Can you show me the contract?" There is no contract unless you didn't sign your license on UD 1-207 without prejudice. Where is the contract? It's when you sign for that license. So don't sign for that license unless you put "UD 1-207 without prejudice." UCC 1-207. Now, the contract, not to give up your constitutional rights to travel freely, unencumbered, right? And let me ask you this, can you enter into an unconstitutional contract? Lawfully, the contract is voidable for not lawful performance. It has to be a lawful contract for you. All right.

Now, the next thing, who's the injured party? Who got injured? Show me, judge. The parking meter out there. Another neat trick that I like to do, especially in speeding tickets, is I like to confront my accuser. I always like to call a black box that accused me of speeding to the stand. And the judge always gets upset. And I tell him, "Why, your honor? I said, I've been asking this policeman here for three hours, how does the black box that he's been playing with work?" And he can't tell me. And we've been through the whole stationary mobile radar manual from Macomb County Community College Law Enforcement Academy. And I've asked him every question. And I don't know how he passed the second class radio operator's license because he doesn't know how the damn thing works. Period. He doesn't even know how to set up the test to properly test the thing in all environments. I sit on top of that. I said, "He is not the witness. He is nothing but a hearsay witness, and his testimony is inadmissible in any court in the land because you can't hearsay." He says, "What the hell are you talking about?" I said, "He did not actually accuse me. That black box with flashing lights on it, little beepers, accused me." I said, "Now, if I had a black box in here with little lights on and making noises and accusing and saying he didn't speed, he didn't speed, he didn't speed, we know how far that'd go? Right through their window, judge. You throw it right out through that window. But you let this guy bring his idiot box into a flash and lights and be present, and his thing is exactly by the book and admissible in court. He can't tell me how the thing works. We've been trying for three and a half hours to test him to see if he knows how it worked. He couldn't pass that test to save his life. And the bottom line is, I still don't think the damn thing works. And personally, I want to call it to the stand and confront my accuser. In erratic one, section 13, paragraph five, I got a right to imprint my accuser, and I'd like to confront my accuser. And I'm serving a subpoena, a subpoena deuces tecum, which means bring your books and records too." He goes, "That's pretty clever." I says, "Not only that, your honor, he's arguing. See, I got a speedometer in my car, and it might cluster. Mine is 12 miles an hour on a factory-made one. A handmade one is plus or minus six miles an hour. I said, and mine's got a little needle on it. It works off a little cable that goes in the transmission. It runs off a little gear. I says, it doesn't have four decimal places, and it doesn't do that space logic and all this other stuff and shoot out a mile ahead and tell me how fast the telephone poles are flying by. I said, he's got this handy-dandy gadget in his car that's measuring speed one way, and I got this one that's measuring speed my way. So how could I be guilty to the extent that his is talking about because I don't have one in my car? You see the apples and the oranges here, judge? It's not really a fair test, is it?" He goes, "That's a pretty good argument you got there." He says, "I'll tell you what we're gonna do. You've crossed my card enough for the day. I'm gonna dismiss the case." "What do you think of that?" "Fine by me." "Around. But before we do, I have one more here on her." He says, "What's that?" I said, "You see that police officer there? I have a great deal of respect for that police officer, and I don't like to see that police officer get injured in any capacity. I personally feel that police officer sitting in their vehicle all day for eight hours a day, getting bombarded by high energy microwave energy, is an insult to that police officer's life, to his family. I personally feel for that police officer. I wonder why these guys are so irritable and why they don't want to eat no food, and they don't want to jump the old lady when they go home. And I says, I understand why. It's because they're being bombarded by this high energy microwave. And I said, some of them are getting cancer. I says, I think that if this is an atrocity, and I said, I don't think that that officer should be required to sit in that car all day and be bombarded by that high energy microwave energy, which could cause him to get testicular cancer and all kind of other problems with his life. And and just so that the city can make bucks off of these tickets. I possess this is an atrocity." "He's, you don't worry about that, please, man. That's my job." "I worry about that, boy." "I said, sir, I said, I worry about him. He works for me. I worry about him." "I says, no, I personally run tests on this thing. Or we took a microwave leak detector right from Radio Shack, which used to detect the microwave leaks on your radar range at home. And I said, we went over by the radar car. He flipped the switch out, and that thing went in the red. So I know them guys are being bombarded by high energy microwave energy. And I know that if I had a microwave energy uh oven at home that was leaking that bad, I'd go in the trash, you understand? Because of the dangerous hazardous energy that is being given off by the thing. I says, now, you asked my police officer here, my my friend in in in in the in the community that's going to protect me, to put a risk of cancer or something like that on his body. I said, I think that's absolutely un-American. And I'm Protestant." He said, "Well, I'll take it under consideration." "I said, and I thank you for your concern for our police officers." "Said, that's all right. Your honor, trying to be a good citizen." So we walked out of the courtroom. That cop came alongside of me and he says, "I ain't never turning that damn thing on again." Everywhere. Now, that cyclone, that's how it works. He's trying to help him, but he told me he ain't never turning that damn thing on again. Now, this happened about 19, 1985. Now, they've been publishing in the news just in the last year, you're hearing about all these cops that are coming up with cancer from all kind of various things. Well, this is why, folks, because they're being bombarded by these high energy radar guns. If I was a policeman, I wouldn't turn that thing on for nothing. I'd cut the wire or anything. I'm not turning it on. What do you think of that? All right, take it out. Looking at a speedometer and I'll see how fast the guy is going. If he's going fast, I'll give him a ticket. But I'm not turning that thing up just so I can have my hair fall out, get a get a chemotherapy treatment. I don't need that kind of stuff, you understand? I told the judge, I says, "You've got any kind of idea what kind of power is coming off the end of the antenna on that gun?" I said, "For every inch that it goes past the windshield, the power curve is squaring itself. Now it's reaching out a quarter of a mile. You got any kind of idea how much power is coming off the end of that antenna?" I said, "That poor guy is being bombarded with high energy microwave energy. I don't think it's right." So anyway, it got dismissed. In uh, psychological warfare worked. And most of the cops in my area don't even have that thing on anymore because I notice when you go by them, my radar detector doesn't even go off. So I know that it's effective. Now, that's psychological warfare. It's a combination of honesty and basically, I do care about the police officers. I don't want them to be in danger. They're good police officers out there. They have a right to work and have a safe job, just like anybody else. Anymore. And I was upset with them when they dumped Agent Orange on us when we were in Vietnam. I mean, it's so logical. Okay, now the bottom line is, a lot of things are going on out here, and you have to be cognizant of what's going on, and you have to be cognizant of your rights, and you have to be willing to take the necessary and appropriate action. And you can have some fun at it. I I like, uh, an elder gentleman who's one of my mentors used to smullins. He says, uh, "If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." He says, "I'll submit a brief," and then he'll send it back to me, and he'll tell me all the things that are wrong with it, and I'll fix it, and I'll send it right back to him, and I'll add a few more things in there, and he'll get, "Oh man, that I fixed it." And then I'll, then he'll send me back a thing telling me he doesn't agree with it, and I'll send him back an answer telling him, "That's too bad, because that's the law." Now, you can have a lot of fun doing this.

Another neat thing you can do is go down and sit in courts. I highly recommend, ladies or gentlemen, that don't have anything to do for an afternoon, retirees especially. Get your best gal or your best uh girlfriend or boyfriend, whatever it is. Take two of you, two safety in numbers. Take two of you, dress in your best suit and what have you, tired, best of the skirt and what have you. Go down and sit in the court and take a legal pad. Is to you? And sit there for the day. And the left, you want to sit in the left rear side, the last few in the left rear side. And just sit there and do not smile. They'll think you're from the Judicial Tenure Commission. You ought to see what happens. It's great. Everybody gets read their rights. Everybody gets treated like a human creature. It's absolutely uh, the judge will stop what he's doing and ask you, "We're not here for anything serious today, are we?" And I'll say, "No, sir. You're right. I'm just, just casually observing." [Music] "Why are we here today?" "All right, sir. We were just in the area. We heard that you were a real good judge and we wanted to see you in action. My associate was driving in the area and we stopped by to see." He says, "That fish smells awful, loosely wrapped to me." "Now, you tell me why you're here right now." "Honest to God, sir, we're just casually observing." "Okay." "All lawyers in my chambers, shut the court down." Goes in his chambers. Now, look, they start trying cases in the chambers, and they started trying them in the hallway, and they ran other side of the clerk's opposite the other in the hallway. Then they come back. And then the little girl from the prosecutor goes on. She says, "What's with the nerd patrol?" The judge gives her a look that would kill. "Don't you do it today, honey. You keep that mouth zipped. These guys are from the tenure commission. We don't want no problems with the state. You button that hitch." I mean, you can have a lot of fun. My associate was just absolutely almost in tears. He could keep her stay-faced in the water. So I said, "Sorry, we're leaving." Hey, we got out all the way down to the car, left all the way down Rochester Road to the expressway. So that's the most fun I had in my life, just sitting there in that day. And everybody was getting off. Guys were getting sentences canceled. Guys are getting out of jail. One guy, $2500 worth of fines, and they got reduced to $124 and five days served. It was 240 and it was going to be 10 days in jail. But the judge turned to me and went, he says, "I can't throw them in jail for a silverware infraction." I knew that. So this is the last offer I'm gonna give, young man. It's gonna be $124 and five days served. Does that sound good to you?" The lawyer turns to me, says, "You better take this. This is the best deal you're ever gonna get." So I'm telling you, you can be effective as citizens. You sound off. Tell them, "Hey, this is America. Last time I heard, we got an American flag on a pole out there. Last time I heard, we got a Constitution. And my God, we're gonna keep it forever. Forever. Anybody got a problem with that?" Okay, now there's a bunch of other things. We're gonna take just a little break here, and we're gonna come back, and we're gonna finish off with some really hard stuff for the advanced student.

I always take all my lucky charms with me. And I was one of the fellows that served with the infamous Apache Troop, First Squadron, Ninth Cavalry. Uh, we were the fellas that were in the movie Apocalypse Now, where they told you, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." And that gentleman was exactly, was exactly like that. Uh, this book is done about the Apache Headhunters by a Cobra gunship pilot by the name of Jerome Boyle, who we used to call, uh, Dirty Harry, because he looked just like, uh, Dirty Harry. "Make my day." We used to have that painted on the side of his aircraft along with Pinball Wizard and a few other things. This is a phenomenal book about a story of, uh, serious Americans. This is a Cobra pilot, Jerry Boyle's own story. A former policeman arrived in Vietnam in March of '70. He went from being an FNG, which I can't tell you what that is in church, but it's bad, to a combat vet in just two months. Whether rescuing downed crews, flying fiery combat missions during the invasion of Cambodia, or being shot down himself. While war quickly turned from a scary game of bullets, rockets, and grenades to a terrifying race against death, where just split seconds could turn a scene of breathtaking beauty into one of stark, absolute terror. He witnessed men risk their lives daily to save others, and he heard the dreaded call, "Taking fire, taking fire," that were too often a fellow pilot's very last words before his chapter became an inferno. Well, I learned real fast that there weren't a lot of going home parties for Apache Troop pilots. And when you, you listen to some of the stuff, this is a Cobra pilot's life and death experiences in Vietnam's legendary Apache Troop, First of the Ninth Air Cavalry. This pilot was the recipient of, uh, he was a California native and former police in Ventura, California. Among the medals and decorations awarded him for his service, and this was kind of typical of most of the people in this outfit: Silver Star, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, five Bronze Stars, two Army Commendation Medals, surveillance. He now works as a pilot who flies in the sport of offshore operations. He lives in Andrea, he lives in Ohio, California, with his wife Andrea of 20 years. And to read some of the stuff about this is absolutely phenomenal. Some of the things that get involved. I'll just read you the a closing part of this thing to give you an idea. The Apache Troop I served in wasn't part of the Army. The Army was part of Apache Troop. We were Mavericks, but the kind of team that any commander would air on his tailpipe would want his unit to be like. If you couldn't get what you needed to accomplish the mission through normal channels, we'd big, borrow, or steal it, usually the latter. With few exceptions, I'd follow the men of Apache Troop into hell and on full. Well, sooner or later, someone from the blues, the whites, the Reds, to lift the tune of the Miss section would emerge from a smoking hole, dragging a dead, smoldering ass of the devil. Now, he kind of exaggerates a little bit, but I can tell you that these men were phenomenal, phenomenal fighters. And it was my great privilege to serve with them. And when I go to court, I take all of my battle stuff, my my Ranger stuff, my first year cab. This is from the Apache Troop logo. There's my flight wing, the actual ones I wore. This is the First of the Ninth logo that was put on the nose of all the aircraft. There's the First, there's First 75th Infantry Rangers. I have my Duty, Honor, Country, uh, coin from the, uh, MacArthur group of people. It's a special group of people that defend the Constitution. It's a silver coin that's given as a serious defender group. Mento, this is MacArthur, and it's solid silver. Then I got all my Ranger jump stuff. They put that on there. I take my "Strike Like Lightning, Sound Like Thunder." All my Ranger stuff that when I was in the Rangers. And I take my First Air Cavalry when I was in Cambodia because I was with these boys on Cambodian lock in my Apache Troop. That's right off of our shoulder patches from the Apache Troop, the original one. I was with the, take my Detroit Judo Club. This is a patch they give you for running 50 miles to save your life. You got a certain time to do it in. They give you a boot lace and a pocket knife. And if you get caught, they put you in a POW camp and treat you like a prisoner. So it's like you got 12 hours to run 50 miles, or here you go to the POW compound and they treat you like a POW. They hung my buddy up in a pit full of poisonous snakes upside down for about a day or two. And then this is my other patches that I wear from from Vietnam and Special Operations Group. I flew in support of both rights and Cambodia. We used to deliver their supplies. I got my my Ranger belt buckle. All these are momentos of it. Program, my Bronze Star Medal, my, I have 33 of these Air Medals. I got five of these Bronze Stars. I got a Distinguished Flying Cross, Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, 33 Air Medals. Shot down four times, left for dead twice. Walked out of Cambodia with two regiments on my tail feathers. This is the SOG Special Operations Group MAGV that we flew in support of, uh, Vogue rights and Cambodia, and the Cambodian operation. I was one of the special air crews that was selected personally to fly the infamous marine sniper and allow us to shoot that general at 800 yards. I was one of the guys that flew him in. And we wear the wings of eagles. We support the National Rifle Association totally. You know, we ain't fooling around. We want our Constitution. We want our Second Amendment. I am a member of Vietnam Veterans. And basically, when I go to court, I put all my lucky charms in my pocket. It kind of drives them nuts down at the courthouse. I also have my flag. I always take my flag with me. And I have my Vietnam Veterans belt buckles and my the oppresso libre, which means the liberator of an oppression from the special forces. That was given to me by the boys over there for helping them, you know. So all this goes in my my pockets when I go to court. My lucky charm, I call them. And it, it's a little heavy. And I, you know, it's like when I go, I go for memory of those fine soldiers and some of the things. Yeah, I'd rather be killing Communists. That's one of the models of the paratroopers from the charity company Ranger company, Charlie Company Rangers versus the boys that supported that character, that that marine sniper that shot him with shot that general at 800 yards. So I'm a soldier, soldier. I've been a soldier, soldier. I believe in the things that the soldiers have done. I've seen a lot of good soldiers pay the maximum price. Um, I personally killed him in my arms and I listened to their last words, tell my mother, tell my wife, tell my family I love them. And to me, the Constitution is a very serious factor. And we defend it to the deaths and do not fool around when it comes to the Constitution. I've been doing it for 25 years. I am a graduate of Project Blue Book, the special project. I also take my harmonica. I am harmonica. Project Blue Book is where they pull their soldiers aside and taught you the Constitution. And I always take my harmonica and I give them hell. We give it to him. Tell your son enough your transport story. Yeah, well, we, uh, we were flying interdiction along the Cambodian border. And we come up on the door, these, uh, V-model Huey. It was a smaller Huey, and it was, uh, painted blue and silver. And all along the side of the tail boom was white powder. And now I informed the aircraft commander, and he told me he was hailing them on the hailing frequency, and he called him up and told him to land. We wanted to inspect their cargo. And they told us basically to blink off and die, you know, who we are. My pilot told him he didn't care if he was a man from Glad. He was going to land an aircraft. We were going to inspect his cargo. Basically, he told us, "We're not landing." My pilot ordered me to roll my guns up, and he shot him down. And we, uh, went down there and we blew his landing gear off, shot it below his fuel cell, and he got the idea we weren't fooling around. He went down and landed in the in the rice paddy, and we inspected his cargo. And sure enough, he was carrying heroin. So the pilot gave him a choice. He could go to Long Binh jail with us for contraband trafficking, or he could, uh, hitchhike home, baby. So he chose to hitchhike home, figured he had a chance. Of course, we knew that was going to be rather difficult in Cambodia, him being three foot tall or anything they were walking, and a white man on top of that. But, uh, we gave him a chance. And the bottom line is, he didn't want to go to jail. So we torched his aircraft, and, uh, we got back in the CEO. "Are you crazy? And those people are CIA. They're gonna kill you." I told him, "Make my day." I said, "They were trafficking that dope, tying GIS, and God knows who else. And as far as I'm concerned, we stuck a tomb for about 15 million, and I'm just tickled if I could do it again tomorrow, I'd do it again." And that's a true story. We actually did it. So anyway, to make a long story short, I'm a serious soldier. I love my country and its Constitution, and I do not compromise when it comes to the Constitution. I defend to the death. Anybody who knows about Great C's, the most decorated soldier in the history of the United States. He's a very congenial gentleman. He, uh, when we worked for them in Cambodia, he was all business, all business. And, uh, we flew his Fifth Special Forces people all over for whatever recon missions they had. And, um, they they got to work with us and they know we were pretty serious folks. And, uh, I personally think, uh, Bob Wright is going to be painted as some desperado, no matter what he does, only because he is, uh, is, uh, associated with the avant-garde type, uh, constitutional defense. He was the guy that got the Ruby Ridge Manor resolved peacefully. Clearly, he went into to save Randy Weaver because Randy Weaver used to be one of his boys on the team. And it took, I mean, he was risking his own life. They could have just as easily dispatched him too. So he's a man of great courage. I respect, uh, what he's doing. I appreciate that he's trying to make things happen. But I also know that he's going to be held in some type of villainous to no matter what he does. People are going to not understand, and they're going to be afraid. And of course, the newspapers will continue to paint him as whatever boogeyman in a closet they can. All right, we're gonna go on with our programming here, and we just got a little off the track there, just a little bit, just to kind of let you give an idea where we're coming from. We, uh, we take a pretty serious on the Constitution, and we want to get into some other issues. We want to get into, uh, things like, things like money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money. And one of the best tips you can get is from a gentleman, we call him Ernie. He basically is known throughout the movement around here. He delivers all the tapes and what have you. And he has a tape called "Wake Up America." And basically, it starts telling you how money works, and why it works, and what they're doing with our money. And when you're done, you really understand what's going on. But we want to share some things with you about the money. We got a good story to tell you too. But basically, we want to share with you right now in Michigan, the Michigan Compiled Laws 21.153. Michigan Compiled Laws, Act Obligations Due State or Municipality, and Date Operative When Paid by Check or Legal Tender. Whenever a check or bank draft shall be tendered for the payment of any debt, taxes, or other obligation due the state or to any municipality therein, such check draft shall operate as a payment made on the date the check or draft was received and accepted by the receiving officer, if it shall be paid on the presentation without deduction for exchange or cost of collection. All agencies of the state of Michigan shall request that checks tendered in payment of an obligation due the state shall be made payable to the state of Michigan. No receiving officer shall be required to receive in payment of any debt, taxes, or other obligation collectible or receivable by him any tender other than gold or silver coin of the United States, the United States Treasury notes, which you can't get today, gold certificates, which you can't get today, silver certificates, which you can't get today, or other Federal Reserve Bank notes. And there's no bank notes in circulation. There's Federal Reserve notes, but there's no Federal Reserve banknotes. Now, the reality is, by this fact, you are specifically precluded from tendering lawfully without being a party to a felony, that of the basement of the coin of the realm against the 1792 Coinage Act. The Sherman Coinage Act. So Roger Sherman wrote a book about this, and it tells you all about coinage and the debasement of the coin of the realm. And that's why he is affiliated with the 1792 Coinage Act. Now, the reality to this is what has been going on over a period of time is they've been playing games with the money. As we can see right here, we have right here a silver certificate. This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States one dollar, right of silver. All right, one dollar in silver, payable to the bearer on demand. Now, we had a little time. We got together. We had some of these notes. We had some gold certificate notes also. We got one here that says, uh, [Music] we got one here that says, uh, "United States Note." The United States of America. Now, notice the difference here, folks. This one just says, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." But we know that that's a lie because Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says nothing but gold and silver coins shall be made a tender in payment of debt. Now, this is going to bring up a real interesting case that we got here. Now, we went down to the Federal Reserve Bank and we took 500 worth of these are silver certificates here. But we took gold certificates, 20 gold pieces. We had 500 Rick. When we went in this Federal Reserve banking, I walked up to the window and I said, "I'm the bearer on demand and lawful money of a county United States Government Center." I said, I said, "I want my gold." I handed her the notes. She looked at me and she said, "Sir, we don't have any gold." I said, "Are you trying to tell me this bank is overextended?" "Everybody looks, you can't come in here and do that, sir. You're gonna get a run on a bank." "Guys, some, I'm asking you for my gold. I'm the bearer. I'm hearing before you demanding it." "Says painted the bearer. I'm demanding a lot of money in the county United States government, twenty dollars gold. I got 500 worth of these and I'll take 20 gold pieces." "We don't have any gold. Are you trying to tell me this bank is overextended?" "Team." This lieutenant comes around up, and all these guys got rifles in here, all the port arms. And the lieutenant walks up to me, says, "All right, what the hell is going on here?" So I explained to him, I said, "Sir, I am the bearer. I'm demanding lawful money of the county United States government. I'm here and before this bank, this is a waffle bank of the government, and I'm asking you, I'm asking them to pay me the bearer on demand my twenty dollars and gold for every one of these twenty gold demand deposit the notes that I have, and I have up to 500 worth, and I just asked you for the gold." She told me she doesn't have any gold. I tried to tell her, "You tell me the banks overextended." She told me, "You can't come in here and do that." And the next thing you know, you show up. But Lieutenant, look at me. So once you get the guys gold, come on guys, we're out of here. So they left. They

couldn't give me my gold because they ain't got any gold. But there is a contract down here that says pay to the bear on demand. Now, on this one, it's a dollar silver in theory. The contract is there, and you could, in theory, go collect it. But if I'm trying to collect it, there is no gold. There is no silver. They don't have any.

Now, over a period, a long period of time, in barter, we have slowly been pushed into a position of of impossibility to perform. Now, if you walk in and check your hat and get a hat check, and then when you come back to get your hat back, they hand you another hand check. Can you wear the hat check? Obviously not. So obviously, the note is not the dollar. All it is is the promise to pay a dollar. Does everybody understand that? And what has happened over a long period of time in customer uses is the people have been hoodwinked into thinking that they have money dollars. There are no dollars. Dollars, you need a measurement.

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

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

Now, at that instant, the Montgomery Wards attorney came to a half rise and he went, "Your Honor, your Honor!" There was 40 of us plus in the court. We sat here and all we could do was go. So we realized instantly what this judge had just did. He had made a determination of the substance of the money account of the United States government pursuant to coffee beans. With great courage, the honorable Judge James P. C. had made a determination if the substance of the money of account in the United States government was coffee beans. That's what we told the Wall Street Journal and all the newspapers and television stations that would listen. He was most upset about that. Instantly, the judge looked across the room. We're all sitting with our jaw on the ground, and he'll lean back in his chair, flipped his pencil in the air, and he said, "Ah, S with a hit on the record." He realized that a landmark Michigan court decision had occurred. He realized that Montgomery Wards wasn't going to say nothing because they won. They ain't gonna appeal. They won. They were, they gonna appeal? You won. You won. You won. It's not a new appeal. We weren't gonna appeal because we won too. We got the judge to make a determination of the substance of the money of the county United States government was coffee beans.

You can see in the back of this book here, Mr. Glacier took the judgment ring here, and this was for 1098.97. He did it in 100 bean bags, certified one bean to the dollar and 97/100. So we cut the tip of the bean off, painted a white line on it. He sent it to Montgomery Wards. We got it on here. "Please find enclosed in this package 1100 and 48 coffee beans, which is payment in full pursuant to judge of the 52nd District Court, October 8, 1982, before dishonorable Judge James P. C. I think it served your time travel concerning this matter most graciously. Yours truly, Eugene Glacier." And a certified mail sent to him. They never said nothing, nor would they, nor could they. He honored the stipulation of the judge.

Okay. Now, to this date, this gentleman comes to court with a big red bag, marble bag. Well, the coffee beans, and he's got stenciled on the side, "Gene's Beans." I'll read you the last statement. This is kind of hilarious. You, it's pretty good. He's asking for a determination of the substance of the money of account. I read you about the last three pages. He goes, "All right, therefore, really out of his own testimony, it seems to me that judgment really is unavoidable in that amount. Thank you. You're out of the court. Anything else, sir? You have the right to a closing argument." Mr. Glacier, only that I don't think I received a fair and incredible trial here today. The court, this is a closing argument regarding this trial. Okay. As to the subject matter, Mr. Glacier, subject matter, I have nothing to add to the subject matter here. The court, the court makes the following finding of facts: That the court finds and pursuant to plan this exhibit number one, and Mr. Glacier, Eugene Glacier, entered into a contract with Montgomery Wards and the company, which it is a monthly account. Two, pursuant to planets exhibit number two, that the account was used by probably 95, 99% of the time of the purchases by his wife while they were married. Number three, that for Testimony of Mr. Davis is honored about a testimony, Mr. Davis, in the balance owing on the account is 1098.97. And the court also finds that Mr. Grossman, Mr. Grossman's excuse me, for Mr. Glacier's testimony that he just recently got divorced, recently August 24, 1981, and that divorce proceeding, he accepted the liability too on this account as between he and his wife. Based upon the information, the court makes a conclusion of law that Mr. Eugene Glacier, to kind of this matter, owes Montgomery Wards 1988.97. Court finds a judgment in favor plaintiff and the amount of plus costs. Mr. Glacier, you have a right to appeal this, and that appeal, I think, is in 15 or 20 days. Mr. Gross, Mr. Grossman, 20 year under 21, actually, at accounting, 23. I think it's 20. All over now, you're under the court. I think it is. It used to be 15 in some cases and 20 on others, and I could never keep it straight, but I think it's 20. You have a right to appeal in 20 days. If you appeal, let me explain to you how you do that. You have to file with the court, the circuit claim of appeal. Are those the ones that are marked, by the way? Those exhibits, Mr. Grossman? Oh, yes, sir. You're in it. That's right. The court, we better keep those. You can give him a copy of the other ones, by the by the way. You, you can file a claim of appeal with the circuit court in this court. You also make a request to the court clerk for a copy of the record. A copy of the record must be filed within a certain amount of time that you can tell you. You must file, as I say, a claim of appeal, and then you have a certain number of days after that to file your bill. Okay. Claim of appeal is nothing more than a little form. I hereby claim appeal. Okay. So, but some, but the court clerks can give you more information. But if you don't file an appeal within 20 days, you lost your right for an appeal. Any other questions before your court recesses? I'd still like to have a motion for a more definite statement. Dollars of what? Am I, do I own accord dollars of what? The court, the court has made it. Now, this is, this is after he had already told him dollars of what before, and the judge told him frankincense and myrrh. And then he kept hammering away at this, dollars of what. And the court lost its school. The court has made a judgment of 1098.97. And however you interpret that, sir, if you want that in coffee beans, that's okay with me. Really. Okay. Thank you much. And at that point, we all went, "Oh." And he went, "Oh, S with a hit." He realized he threw his pencil up in here. Now, this is a magnificent case and an example. And to this day, this gentleman still pays court judgments with coffee beans. And if the viable case, you can use the case as a reference. Uh, it's a landmark Michigan court decision. We use it thoroughly.

Okay. Now, to make a long story short, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution is clear and specific. Says nothing but gold and silver coin shall be made a tender in payment of debt. We got Article 1, Section 10 right here. For those of you who are looking for no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. That's traffic tickets, folks. A bill of attainder is a traffic ticket. Can you see that right here? No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless by the rule of apportionment or census. To you, we'll talk about that later. That's another heavy one. All right. But Article 1, Section 10, I think we know. State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt. All right. Here we go. Here we go. Right here. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant letters of mark and reprisal. The letter of mark and reprisal is like your brother messed with the king, so the king is going to attack your family and put a letter of mark out on them. Coin money, emit bills of credit. What is a Federal Reserve Note? Make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. Why? Because it creates inflation. You got to understand that paper money. If you can't redeem every piece of paper in a society, the amount that you can't redeem is inflation or credit. Credit is inflation, right? Pass any bill of attainder. Huh? What is a bill of attainder again? A traffic ticket. Ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. When they give these guys these gun permits because they got $3,000 in their pocket and they're a rich businessman, isn't that a title of nobility? Because they get more rights, they're more politically correct than you, they have rights. You see, I mean, they violate so many things. That's not funny. It's never funny. But I'm just saying, I, I mean, you start reading this book, folks. I mean, I read it all the time, and I always find something new. This is kind of a book like the Bible. It's one of these books you can read and find something out of it all the time.

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

All right. Here we go. You want to talk about Title 20, 22 United States Code, Section 20286A. Basically, the part that we want to talk about is the, the governors and executive directors' term of office. But basically, when we get over here, we really want to talk about the compensation for services. And this is Title 22 United States Code, Section 286-A. Right. Okay. Okay. Compensation for services. No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States. Did everybody get that? From the United States Forest Services as a governor, executive director, counselor, alternator, associate, the United States executive director of the fund. What are we talking about here? The International Monetary Fund shall not be compensated by the fund at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying positions at level four of the executive schedule under Section 5315 of Title V, United States Code. The United States alternative executive director to the fund. What fund? The International Monetary Fund shall not be compensated by the fund at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying a position of level five of the executive schedule under Section 5316 of Title V, United States Code. Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director of the fund to present to the fund's executive board a comprehensive set of proposals consistent with the maintaining high levels of competence of the fund personnel and consistent with the Articles of Agreement with the objective of assuring that the salaries and or other compensations accorded fund employees, who, who fund, International Monetary Fund, do not exceed those received by persons filling similar levels of responsibility within the national government. You got me? Service or private industry. The secretary shall report these proposals, right, together with any measures adopted by the fund's executive board to the Congress prior to February 1, 1979.

Now, folks, when they're talking about the fund, they're talking about the International Monetary Fund. And when they're talking about being paid, people like Janet Reno, who is the governor of the fund, is paid by the IMF. And who are they talking about? The Secretary of Treasury shall instruct who? Now, these people are paid by another government to our people. That is a violation of our laws. You understand? I mean, if they catch a congressman on the tank, what happens? He's out of there. Why? Because it's considered to be unethical activity. Yet this foreign operating operating program, this International Monetary Fund, is paying our officers as executive officers. Whose interest do they serve? Do they serve the United States or do they serve the fund? Does that make sense to you? Okay. To me, this is an act of sedition or treason. The bottom line is, they are not operating in the best interest of the United States of America. They are operating in their interest, and they are paid by a foreign power. And how can they sit in an office of government in the United States of America, paid by a foreign power? It's inconceivable that this is going on. No. You want to find out. Oh, also, we want to show them this. These concurrent resolutions here expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for the president to seek the Senator's advice and consent to ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. John Conyers is in on us. He's one of our guys too. Okay.

Now, the bottom line is, they're setting standards. All right. And on these standards, whereas it is estimated that every night in the United States, at least 100,000 children go to sleep homeless. Whereas, I mean, they make all these allegations. Where in the United States has the world's largest gross national product? Get American children ranked below the top 15 nations in regard to health and well-being. Whereas in 1989, infant mortality rate for the United States ranked 19th in the world, being Singapore or Spain. I mean, they make all these allegations about the United States. And the National Commission on Children has declared that every child in America needs an excellent education. Yet approximately 40% of the nation's children are at risk of school failure. I mean, they go on and on. Whereas the United States, 2,600,000 children were reported to be abused and are neglected in '91. I mean, this is ridiculous. Whereas it's estimated that 1,800,000 teenagers were victims of violent crime. Whereas the Supreme Court has never fully articulated the range of rights to be accorded to children under the United States Constitution, or fully articulated the manner and the Constitution is applicable to minors. It is whereas the positive futures of our families, communities, nations are dependent. Now, you keep reading all these whereas, whereas, 29 other nations have signed the convention indicating their intention to ratify the convention in the future. And then you get down, whereas it is essential that the United States ratify the convention and rights of the child and begin to implement a convention legal standards in order to improve and protect the lives of children. Believe me, they're not trying to protect the lives of children. They're trying to create some new federal bureaucracy. Whereas at the World Summit of Children in September, such and such, to sign the World Declaration to Survival, Protection, Development of Child, which would include commitment to work and promote earliest possible ratification, implementation under the United Nations and Conventions of the Right of the Child. Whereas the House of Representatives passed through resolution in 101st Congress, written president to seek consent of the Senate ratification of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, but such action having not occurred, it is necessary to the Congress employer the President should take action on the convention now. And now they want to push it. All right. So you gotta understand, folks, you're not doing this for the children. Believe me, they're doing it because they want to create some new kind of problem children.

Tomorrow, I apologize to you on behalf of those in my time for the things we didn't do. We didn't stop the tyrants so your fate could be prevented. We watched them steal our freedom, but our silence, we consented. We didn't choose to circumvent the doom. You've not escaped. Well, the Bill of Rights was murdered and the Constitution raped. Some of us were lazy and too busy, others too afraid to think about our children, the ones we have betrayed. We say we were too busy to be concerned or care, to try to ease the burden of the chains we've made you wear. A debt of 17 trillion, more money than exists, because we failed to heed God's call of usury resists. We could have been good shepherds when the wolf got in the fold, yet watched the flame of freedom die, which leaves you in the cold. We changed our great Republic, which was forged in blood for liberty, through a socialist welfare state, which we call democracy. I'm sorry we were so timid, betrayed by a selfish generation. We left yet our remnant of a free and prosperous nation. I'm sorry for our action. Like sheep, we have behaved. We could have left you freedom. Instead, you are enslaved. Children of tomorrow, descendants of our land, I am sorry we allowed this fate. You now must understand. Children of tomorrow, educate yourself. If by reading the Bible, the Bible to break the chains we left you with, maintain God's Ten Commandments, use reason, logic, and common sense. Suffer little children to come to me, for such is the kingdom of God. Dennis Myron, let's come off of the amateur radio Freeman's bulletin board artist, September 1992. End of transmission.

So I think you can see here, at one time they pretended to do all this, and yet on the other, they do all that. So I thought this was very important thing to put out on the air and try and hammer across. Okay. Now, we want to cover some other things. We want to cover the Brentwood's Agreement Act. We want to cover about the 1-207. Remember I told you, sign your name 1-207 UCC 1-207 without prejudice. Here, folks, this is, uh, the 1-207 Uniform Commercial Code. This section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract. What contract? The bankruptcy contract, despite that's 1933, depending. All right. Pending dispute by adopting the mercantile device of going ahead with delivery, acceptable acceptance, or payment without prejudice, under the protest, under reserve, with reservation of all our rights and the like. All of those, all of these phrases completely reserve all rights within the meaning of this section. This section therefore contemplates that limited as well as general reservations and acceptance by party may be made subject to satisfaction of our purchaser, subject to acceptance by our customer, or the like. This section does not add any new requirement of language of reservation we're not already required by law, but merely provides a specific measure on which a party can rely as he makes or concurs in any interim adjustment in the course of performance. When they say performance, they're talking about contractual performance. It does not affect or impair the provisions of this act, such as those under which the buyer's right remedies for defect survive acceptance without being expressly claimed if notice of the defect is given within a reasonable time, nor does it disturb the policy of those cases which restrict the effect of a waiver of a defect to reasonable limits under the circumstances, even though no such reservation is expressed. This is all what they're talking about when you write down "without prejudice." They're telling you you have a right to reserve your rights. So I'm telling you to use it. Don't screw around.

Any expression indicating an intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice," "under protest," "under reservation," "with reservation of all our rights." "Under duress" is another one. The code states an explicit reservation must be made. Explicit, undoubtedly, is used in place of express to indicate that the reservation must not only be expressed, but it must also be clear under duress that such a reservation was intended in advance. Right. The term explicit, as used in UCC 1-207, means that which is so clearly stated or distinctly set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning. Okay. Now, that is the reservation I want you to claim. I want you to screw around. I want you to use your head for something other than a hat rack because I'm telling you, just do it. Yeah, just do it. Yeah. You don't tell them nothing. You sign it and you walk out. When they ask you what that is, you say, "That's something I put down on my signature every time so I know it's me." Okay. You're not, you didn't learn all this stuff overnight, and you're not going to give somebody these classes overnight. Believe me, if you think you're going to teach somebody this stuff all night, you're dreaming. It takes a long time of serious study to get to the level of where you're at, and you're not going to deliver that to anybody overnight. So my sincere advice is, don't try and do it because it ain't going to happen in your lifetime. You sign it. What you're supposed to do. If people want to listen, then you let them listen. If they don't want to listen, then you say, "Oh, well."

We want to show off some of these things under executive order of the president. All persons required to deliver honor before May 1st, 1933. Try and blow that up. That's all your gold and silver. I want to make sure we get into all kind of arguments here real quick. Question: We have some gold and silver? Yes. I think you should set aside some serious money. I think people shouldn't have everything in gold and silver, though. I think you should have, I think you should buy toilet paper, and I think you should buy food, and I think you should buy cough medicine, and I think you should buy laundry soap, and I think you should buy, you know, have some stuff around like you would keep your normal business. And put a little bit of gold and silver. I think you should have a pump shotgun in your closet to defend your house. Something. Yeah, something to defend your house. Not that you may need it, but if you do, you got it.

Now, here we go, folks. This is the Brentwood's Agreement Act, and this is the agreement act that created this problem with this Title 22 United States Code, Section 286. Okay. This is heavy duty, folks. So, and I remember I showed you about treason. Okay. No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States for services as a government executive director, counselor, alternator, or associate. Right. Congress by law authorizes such action. Neither the president nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the United States request or consent to any change in the quota of the United States under Article 3, Section 2. The Articles of Agreement of the Fund. The Fund. The International Monetary Fund. All right. Let's pull it up here. All right. They're talking about dollar under paragraph six. Okay. That's not what I want. I want, let's see. Make any loan to the fund or bank. Approve the establishment of any additional trust fund for the special benefit of the single member or of a particular segment of membership of the fund. All right. Let's see. In order to carry out the purposes of the decisions of January 1962 of the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make loans not to exceed, to looks like billion, yeah, outstanding at any one time to the fund. If it sounds like I'm hammering on that fund, that's because I am. Under Article 7, Section 1, subparagraph I of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund. I mean, they set this thing up. The Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the president, directly or through such agencies as he may designate, is authorized for the account of the fund established in this section to deal in gold and foreign exchange in such other instruments of credit and securities as he may be necessary to the constituent, you know, consistent and consistent with the United States obligations in the International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually make a report on the operation of the fund to the president and to the Congress. That makes the Secretary of Treasury what? An officer of the fund. Okay. The Secretary of Treasury. Yeah, he is guilty. The Secretary of Treasury is authorized to issue gold certificates in such form and in such denominations as he may determine against any gold held by the United States Treasury. The amount of gold certificates issued and or outstanding shall at no time exceed the value at the legal standard provided in section 2 of our value modification act, 31 United States Code 449, on the date of enactment of this amendment of the gold so held against gold certificates. They're in the gold certificates. All right. The amendment made by sections two, three, four, five, six, and seven of this act shall become effective upon entry into force of the amendments approved in the resolution number 31-4 of the Board of Governors of the fund. Now, this is called the Brentwood's Agreement Act. This is what set up Title 22 United States Code, Section 286A, which says that these officers are paid out of the fund. They're not paid as United States employees. The peach. Is there any doubt in your mind now who gets paid where they don't? We don't pay them. They're paid by somebody else. The fund. Who is the fund? All those rich guys that are sitting over in here, they're trying to control our country. All right. Wow. Okay. Let's move on here. We got things to do. I want to show you something else too. Let's look at the very first book of title of the United States Codes Annotated. And I don't care which section you grab. Grab either a lawyer's edition. This title has been enacted as positive law. Okay. Notice a little asterisk. When you come down here, and all these titles, I got the little answers. They're all part of the law. Title 11, Bankruptcy. Title 13, Census. Title 14, Coast Guard. You know, Copyrights. You got Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Title 18. Right now, I want you to notice something as we come over to Title 26 here. Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code. It's never been enacted in July. It's a regulation. You get it? Can you get it? See that? Look closely. Title 26 and Title 27. Do you see an asterisk there? You don't see one, do you? No, sir. That's because there ain't one. Now, let's look at the other version. The other version is exactly the same. And this is the one out of the official US Reports for titles. This title has been enacted as law. Look at all the titles. They got an asterisk. You'll notice again, Title 26 and Title 27. Zippo. No asterisks. Everybody see that real clear? Pull it over. No asterisks. Obviously, it's never been enacted as law. How could it be? I'll tell you how. We got a case over here called Erie Railroad versus Tompkins. And I'm going to bring it to your attention. Very railroad versus Tompkins is a magnificent court case. Basically, what this court case did. This court case is recorded at volume 304 United States Reports, option or page 64. This is the start of the case. That's 304 volume 304 United States Reports, section 604. Now, what this case does is it sets up a duality of citizenship where the citizens that live with the common law, and there are the citizens that live at the national law, or what is called admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Now, the way they get away with putting this Title 26 in this Title 27 out, the way they do it is they create this admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. And if you volunteer into it, you are in it. If you step in it, it's on you. Okay. So I'm telling you, don't do that. You know what the doctor says? Every time you go to the doctor, you say, "Doc, every time I do this, it hurts." You know the doctor tells you, "It's, don't do that no more." You don't do that no more. It won't hurt, right? I'm telling you, the same thing applies with this. Don't volunteer. How do you volunteer? You enter and you watch what you sign. Number one, any evidences of contracts where you are an annual tier maritime jurisdiction says that you are a party to the contract. So you avoid that. When you sign that bank draft to get into that bank, and that section 9 form you fill out, guess what? Look at the bottom. You signed to get into an admiralty maritime jurisdiction. What the hell would you want to do that for? It's illogical. When you signed up for that Social Security check. So how are we going to remedy this situation? On Nash 207, without prejudice. Are you saying anything? He has to do anything with those guys. Take the rights if they'll give them to you. Take the benefits. But make sure when you sign it, you sign it UD 1-207 without prejudice. That makes you a common law citizen. And when they pull you into these courts and they claim they have jurisdiction over you, you say, "The first thing out of your mouth is, 'Your Honor, me, please the court, before this matter goes forward, I wish to state and I am here on a special appearance from a general appearance, and I am answering in the form of a demurrer.' And a demurrer is an old way of pleading. It's an old-fashioned, old country barrister English way of pleading without granting jurisdiction. In other words, I'll answer out of courtesy, and I'll give you an answer out of courtesy. But at no time in migrating jurisdiction. Now, I put on my breeze. I state my name. I state the defendant in appropriate persona on a special appearance, as distinguished from a general appearance for jurisdictional challenges. Now, I've raised the issue of jurisdictional challenges. I'm putting on the record. It's clearly cognizant. Once jurisdiction is raised, the burden is on a plaintiff to prove jurisdiction pursuant to McNutt versus General Motors Acceptance Corporation, recorded at 56 Supreme Court 502. Jurisdiction may never be assumed, but must be substantively proven by the plaintiff claimant. You know, prove it in a timely fashion. Laches and curves. Laches, as a specie of action or in a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law and having failed to timely do so, loses our right to proceed. So if they don't prove it timely, motion to dismiss. Your honor, affairs, state a cause of action for which a leave can be granted, and I'd kind of like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case." Does that make sense to you? All right.

Now, let's get into this area. Railroad case. What it's about. Two guys walking down the track, and the board was hanging off the end of the train and whacked them upside the head. He tried to sue in the state courts. The state courts, uh, hammered him. So what happened was Erie Railroad flipped around and they tried to sue him in the federal courts to get back at him, and they thought they were pulling a fast one. And what happened was the case bounced back on him. And guess what? When it bounced back, it created a very, very dangerous thing. Now, before this, I want you to understand that for a hundred years, the law, this case was the one that was the leading case before this, and this was called McCulloch versus Maryland. The state of Maryland. This is a very leading case. This is the most heavy case. It comes in two sections. That's the touch thickness. You're going to be reading for a while. This case upheld for 100 plus years, practically almost 100 years. This case is recorded at, it's a 1819 case. It is an old case. And it upheld for years the, uh, single citizenship relationship. And it deals with the corporations. The power of establishing corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution of the government of the Union, it may be exercised by that government. Now, basically, it sets up relationships. The Bank of the United States has Constitution generally. I write to establish its branches or other offices in this discount and dispose of within any state. All right. The state within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch. Right. Now, it goes into some heavy arguments on taxes and some other arguments on on programming. But I'm telling you here, this was the law of the land. I want to get a site on this, uh, for a, this book was sold when we got it from. It should say what volume is. [Applause] Normally, they put it in the case, and then I'll cite it one time, then they'll say everything after that, supra, stated it at the beginning. Volume four. You're right. That's not really good. That's probably, you see these reporters in the early, this is 1819, folks. That's when this case came down. So this was going to be, you know, shortly after the Constitution was signed. 1791 is when the Constitution was signed. So it's going to be an early case. All right. William McCullough, defendant, blue in a ranch. Normally, they state the case one place and they state it. But anyway, to make a long story short, McCulloch versus Maryland is a very heavy case. It was the law of the land, and it was replaced by Erie Railroad versus Tompkins. There is no federal. Can you see that? There's no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state, whether they be local in their nature or general, whether they be commercial law or in part of the law of torts. No clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts, except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress. The law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. Got me? And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision, not a matter of federal concern. Now, in disapproving the doctrine of Swift versus Tyson, the court does not hold unconstitutional section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, or any other act of Congress. It merely, Title 26. It merely declares that by applying the doctrine of that case, rights which are reserved by the Constitution to the several states have been invaded. Invaded. That's why they didn't get away with having Title 26 without having no asterisk. They don't have to have it in law. They're claiming that's an act of Congress. And if you voluntarily enter into it, guess what? You bought the whole firm. A federal court exercising jurisdiction over such a case on the ground of diversity of citizenship. What am I talking about? Diversity of citizenship. I'm talking about dual citizenship, right? Is not free to treat this question as one of so-called general law, but must apply the state law as declared by the highest state court. Swift versus Tennyson overruled. The liability of the railroad company for the injury caused by negligent operation of its train to its pedestrian on a much used beaten path on its right-of-way, interstate right along and near the rails, depends, in the absence of a federal or state statute, upon the unwritten law of the state where the accident occurred. Now, what they're trying to do here is they're trying to justify the existence of this duality of citizenship between common law citizen, which you are, most of you, and this natural national citizen, which would fall under Title 26 United States Code. But I'm telling you to look up section 6331A of Title 26, and you will see that the treasurer, the Secretary of Treasury has jurisdiction only over corporations, officers or corporations and officers of government residing in the District of Columbia, and artificial corporations who are contractors of the fund. Fish. All right. Now, this is an important case. If you guys are going to be in this seriously battling and want to argue jurisdiction, which is a very good defense on almost anything they can pull on you, you're gonna have to read these cases. Erie Railroad versus Tompkins, recorded at 304. That's volume 304 U.S. page 64 is where it starts. It's vital that you understand these arguments. I just finished battling a United States Attorney, and we were arguing. He's talking about, "This is all gibberish." And I told him, I said, "Sir, I don't think you're well-read on the law. All you got to do is read several of these cases, and they'll tell you one, there is a duality of citizenship. Two, it has to be clearly defined. And three, I have defined it. And now I'm asking you to prove that I'm not a party or prove that I am a party. You tell me it's your burden. You're the one making the complaint. You make the complaint, you get the burden to prove. Who says so? McNutt vs. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 56 Supreme Court, Section 5 or page 502. You made it, you prove it. Okay. You don't prove it timely, I motion to dismiss. Very stated cause of action for which relief can be granted. And I will beat your little tail. So I would highly recommend you get the busy and Improvement. Yeah, yeah. If you think the stuff don't work, let me tell you something. Here, right here, right today, government came told me motion to dismiss. Right. United States of America hereby moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for leave to dismiss the indictment in the case for the statutes. Okay. [Applause] How are you making a certificate of service order dismissing indictment, which the judge will sign? The government having moved to dismiss the indictment in the case, this court being fully advised in the premises, it is ordered and the indictment of B and the hereby is dismissed with prejudice, and that the defense mind is canceled. It is so ordered and judged. Wherefore, the United States requests that this court enter the attached order dismissing the indictment without prejudice. But we'll figure that out. We'll fix that. See, I don't care if we go to court because I know who's going to win, and I pray to God that he'll help me do that. So if they want to go to court, I tell them, "Make my day." When I'm in the court, the guy says to me, "Whoa, we could get you for an income tax evasion, and you might win one, but you won't win them all." I looked at him most commonly and I said to him, in the clearest and gracious language, I said, "Sir, I'm gonna advise you to go look in the law books real carefully because I'm a taster air. I have had occasionally look in them law books, and I'm telling you, sir, if you bring that complaint against me, I'm going to tell you to make my day because I'm a pretty serious fellow, and I'm not gonna fool with you. I'll sue your sacks up and attach everything out and make business and home. So the best thing I can tell you is, before you make a complaint, sir, I would highly recommend that you seriously consider the merits of your facts before you go writing a bunch of dribble." And when we got him today, he's talking about, "Well, your briefs are nothing but gibberish." So we asked him, he said, "Well, on our proposed order to have it dismissed, you want us to put it down there for a good gibberish shown or just generally good car show?" So he got a little red in her face and stormed out. But the bottom line is, if you know your facts and you got your stuff together, I'm telling you people out there in TV land, you can do this stuff. I, as God is my judge, I, I'm a truck driver. I'm an engineer for a while. I, uh, I'm a fisherman, a hunter, and a guide. I'm a regular person. I just read a lot. Okay. I know people like to add stuff in the game, but I'm a regular citizen of the United States. I love my country and its Constitution. You know, I'm not fooling around. Now, when I'm done, or my Constitution, and I don't think that's too much to ask. I think a lot of fine soldiers paid for it. Maybe we had a lot of patriots. Some of the finest people I've ever known have paid for it. I especially, uh, tout, uh, Donald Costume, who was the editor of the Constitutionalist newspaper and, uh, these, the initiator and starter of the Justice Prose movement in this area. Uh, he was a great man. He was a courageous man. He was found shot to death in his home with a bullet in his nose because obviously he stuck his nose in places it shouldn't have not have.

Been he was a tireless defender of the people and the Constitution. Many a time we, uh, cruised the countryside doing meetings hither Indiana. He wore a white cowboy hat, which we used to joke about. Good guys wear white hats. He was an exceptional personality. He lost everything he owned fighting to the death, you know. And, uh, I, I especially offer my, my serious prayers for his soul and for the soul of all Patriots who have suffered tremendous things to put on this Constitution and to keep us going.

The people with the WWCR radio there, uh, God bless you. Uh, Radio Free America, Tom Valentine, Mill Cooper, the infamous, uh, Jack McLamb from Vampire Killer 2000. The, uh, there's serious, serious battlers out here, folks. Myself included. There's quite a few Patriots all around. Um, I can't tell you the names of the people that I feel absolutely privileged to know because the list would be so long here, it would take another two hours just for the tape. But I can tell you some exceptional people, and some of them are on Vine and they can't be doing that. So, so I, I'm respecting their, you know, some of the things. The infamous Eugene May, EJ May. Uh, there's just so many. The infamous No Tax Jim, James Gordon Line. Uh, I mean, the names are endless. Um, so I'm telling you, folks, out here, there's a lot of good people out here that are pulling for you, that have risked a whole lot, gone to jail, have stood out in rain protesting.

[Music]

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

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

No, you're gonna go to court and you're gonna be your own attorney. You got to be sure. You got to keep records. You go to court, you write it down. You get anything in paperwork, you write it down. You send them anything in paperwork, you write it down. You got me? Don't be screwing around on me because I'm going to tell you some of these things got dates and times and things that you got to do. And if you don't take care of business, guess what? They ain't gonna take care of it for you. You're your own attorney if you want. If you want to be your own attorney, you got to have records. You got to keep on top of things. So every time you do something, you write it down. You make sure you can go back and say, yeah, I remember on such and such a date, at such and such time, this happened, and this happened, and this happened. You can construct a chronological order of events. Okay? Now, also write down all important numbers to anybody that has anything that's got to be done. Okay?

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

Now, does everybody understand about admiralty and maritime jurisdiction? I know you don't, but not not a little bit. They have created a duality of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. They're claiming there is common law rights, which everybody gets their constitution, and there's national rights where you waive all your constitution. Now, which did you want? Does that sound like a good deal? Sounds like you're being ripped to me. Here we got the 1-207. Remember 1-207, right? Now, okay. Where are we in here? We want to show Jack McLamb's magnificent books too, Vampire Killer 2000, and the Aid in the BET newsletter. We need to get these out to every police officer in the United States of America. They need to understand what the heck's going on here. You get a hold of Jack McLamb and his people at Vampire Killer 2000, and they will be happy to put this book out. This explains to your police officers exactly what the heck's going on. And they have an Aid in a BET newsletter that you can get. That's Aid in the BET, Aid in Nevada Police Newsletter, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona, 85066. Right? And he has a phone number you can call him too, I think. Now, they have these Vampire Killers out now. Tell us the police everything they need to know.

[Music]

Also, they publish a newsletter, Aid in a BET newsletter. We're gonna make sure Aid in the BET, okay? And get that to your police officers. I have what I'd like to do is when a police officer busts me for something, what I like to do is I like to enroll I'm going to increase subscription. And you know what? He hands it out to everybody. Plus, I'm doing him a service. Now, if you folks don't think this is serious, I'm telling you right now, they're building these work camps, these multi-jurisdictional forces, and these work camps all over. Notice that most of them are coordinated between Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. And then they got a bunch more out here in the Wyoming, Idaho, Great Watson, the Great Western. They got them in California. Then they got these detention facilities. Everybody paid attention to these detention facilities. Notice where most of them are. And what they call them is regional prisons. Look at all the ones here in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, or Illinois. Yeah, there is. I know, I know, I know. Crap up. And they call themselves foreign groups, United Nations battle groups. I mean, we've had reports of Russian troops being in Michigan all summer. And we got positive sightings by people that are retired military colonels and above. And we know they were at Camp Grayling this summer. So I'm telling you, is it time to wake up? Is now? Wake up, America. Too late. Open rights to some foreign potentate.

[Music]

You, uh, you look like a sucker. That card because I know.