Published June 3, 2025, 9 a.m.
9am John Tatar - Lawful Defense Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar. Studying the Constitution. Know the law and use the law - using the law to defend yourself. All things Constitution and Lawful Process. Tatar Tuesday with John Tatar 10am Mike Bambas - Mike Bambas will be talking about the citizen's rights and process of holding to the law. We will be taking the Trading with the Enemy Act, as well as, other lawful practices not followed by our government including a lawful path to convict political criminals of concrete violations of acts leading to treason. X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OdKrDprvynJX Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/697117349722149 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6u8wlr-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-632025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html https://rumble.com/v6u8wof-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-632025-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2025-06-03-lawful-defense-and-pro-se-mike-bambas:1 https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar, Mike Bambas
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It's the third day of June, twenty twenty five and welcome to our show today. Today we have John Tater on at nine o'clock and we're going to be talking about lawful defense. And at ten o'clock, it's Mike Bambus and we're going to be talking again. about pro se pro se case kind of all goes together on our tuesday show which I really like I like learning the the law the lawful way to defend yourself and what's really wrong with our system because there there's there's a lot wrong with it so we've got a lot to work on first of all we're going to start out and bring john on and let's talk about the day and fear how you doing john I'm good always yeah well we had a we had a great meeting this weekend at the Constitution Party in Michigan, which is the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It was a fun meeting. I enjoyed seeing everyone and uplifting, lots of great ideas and good friends, and it was fun. I think the next weekend is going to be over on this side of the state, so we'll be hosting it, so that'll be fun, so you'll have to come to that. Yeah. So anyhow, we were talking a little bit before we got online this morning about fear. Excuse me, my chest is a little full. We did hay yesterday and I've got a couple more wagons to do today. But anyhow, if I'm a little coffee, that's why. So I did a couple of posts today on Telegram and Axe. I don't think I got an ax yet, but it's not a telegraph. On being a conqueror and facing the fears that have been manipulating us for a very long time. So the term conquerors means overcome or to be victorious. It refers to in the Bible, believers who remain faithful to Christ. despite trials, temptations, or persecution. It's not about physical, but spiritual. So when we look at some of those things, we can talk about false teachers and how they mislead us and such. Spiritual apathy and to conquer means to stay loyal to Christ and reject idolatry and compromise, persevere through suffering without abandoning faith, repenting and pursuing holiness, even when surrounded by sin or apathy. It's kind of overcoming all of the curveballs that we get thrown on an everyday basis and refusing to stop or let the fear control us. And I think something that's important is that leaders may or may not feel fear, but what they do is they know how to overcome it or use that fear as a motivator or not even feel fear, see the threat, address it, and move on and not be paralyzed by it. Here are a couple of verses for it. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is the paradise of God. And the last one here, The one who conquers will have this heritage and I will be as God and he will be my son. We are conquerors and overcomers. So let's go take the day on. What say you? What say me? Yeah. Well, anybody that's grown up in this world, in America, over their lifetime, and especially my lifetime, I can speak for me. has been faced with all kinds of boogeymen in our lifetime and these boogeymen didn't come out of my thought process or my immediate family. They came out of the world. They came out of the public functionaries that were out there that were trying to keep us in fear all along. Remember the ice age that, you know, when I was growing up, we're going to have an ice age in ten years. We're going to be in the middle of an ice age and many of us won't survive. Then it became global warming. The global warming is going to cause all kinds of problems. The ice caps are going to melt. The oceans are going to rise. We're going to have water and we're going to have instead of Florida, it's going to be a smaller and they made all these elaborate maps of how Florida was now no longer going to be there and it was going to be the ocean. Oh, the great earthquake. California is going to drop off into the ocean anytime now because of the San Andreas Fault. This was going on constantly. They talked about acid rain. Remember the acid rain that we were supposed to have? Your cars were going to rust and fall apart because of this acid rain. Then we had gasoline crisis. Remember that? Remember the long lines for gasoline? Fossil fuel was going to run out in ten years. Which it isn't fossil fuel, just so everybody can be clear. but I gotta go with their narrative so everybody understands this. We're gonna lose all of this coal and oil. We're not gonna have anymore. And your cars are gonna end up stopped. And I mean, they have videos and movies of all of these crisis that were going to happen. that were out there. Then in the fifties, we had the nuclear war process with the Russians. Any day now, the Russians are going to fire a nuke at us. And so you got to build your bomb shelter and stock it with food and stuff so you could protect yourself from this Holocaust that was going to happen. You know, and as a kid, I was saying, dad, let's build a bomb shelter. You know, my dad was already acclimated to this nonsense. So he was kind of saying, you know, that's silly, silly, silly. But I was a kid. I didn't know any better. I'm listening to the news, and this is what they're telling us. They're keeping us in fear. These public functionaries who were not officials, not leaders, not anything else we call them. They're public functionaries. They have a function in government. Public servants is another terminology that they use. I mean, I grew up with them, that's public servants, but they're really public functionaries. They have no power in government. They only have a function to provide. Just like when you are a tool and die maker, you have a function to build a tool for a particular company using a lathe or using a mill or whatever. But you are not... Actually, that you are not the tool itself. You were just producing it. Well, that's what the public functionaries are. They're producing that part of government that they were required or they were hired in office or voted in office to perform. And nothing more. But we've allowed them over time because of our fear. Oh, my God. Now World War III is being pressed to us. Any day now, Ukraine and Russia are going to get into it. Now England just, I heard, is gearing up for war. You know, this is the idiocy. They've got to have a war in order to fund their criminal enterprises because that's one of the best ways to get away from the mistakes that they've made, which aren't mistakes, the intentional subversion of the entire earth. Do you remember being a kid in school and having to do the nuclear drills where you had to go under your desk? I want to think about how ridiculous this was. I remember this, okay? You're an old guy. I'm kind of an old guy. I'm sixty years old. But we both remember this sort of thing. And I remember... Duck and Cover. What's that? It was called Duck and Cover. Remember? Yeah, yeah. So you're sitting at your little steel desk with the little surface in front of you where you opened up the top of the desk and you had all of your books and your pencils and such in there. What other crap you picked up off the playground like rocks? I always had rocks in mine. And so... And then you were supposed to get underneath this desk that was approximately two feet wide by about eighteen inches deep. And that was going to protect you from a nuclear attack. And you're a kid, you know, you can't reason that out. It's like, okay, I'll get underneath the desk. And you think you're doing what the teacher tells you. But all it was is this programming. And we're still in the midst of just incredible programming that's going on. But now that we've got the rightful president of the United States, President Donald J. Trump in place, and we're seeing some go in different directions, and people are waking up and asking questions like fossil fuel, it isn't. that sort of thing I mean how many dinosaurs and fo and stuff would have had to die to have the deposits that we're claiming that that we have underground it is so absurd it's like getting underneath a desk to avoid a nuclear attack that's right that's absurd the problem that we we have now is now we have the internet and they have a bunch of so-called and I'm going to use the word small P patriots that are not patriots. You don't know where that information is coming from. They're talking about doing all kinds of crazy things that sound good, good scenario. But number one, who is behind that video that's being produced or that USAID, maybe USAID or CIA or FBI? And what would be the purpose of a public or the CIA, the FBI putting this information out. It's called a distraction. Our salvation rests with the Republic. Nothing else, nothing else, nothing else, nothing else. Go ahead, I'm sorry. And if we don't focus on the Republic, They want us to lose that process. They want us to believe we're a democracy. Every time even I hear Trump say it, it kind of makes me cringe. It's cringeworthy, isn't it? You're like, oh, well, they do have a democracy, but it's their democracy, which they all vote to screw us. That's their democracy. That's their mob rule of these pretended public functionaries. That's what they're doing. That's right. And as Pacific states, one of the Supreme Court cases says, if you ever see the word democracy annihilated, And so we have to focus on getting rid of that thought process and focusing on the Republic. And with the fear out there, and there's a lot of fear, it's constantly going on. If you listen to the news, it's all about fear. It's all about crisis. Somebody's did this. Somebody did that. Somebody got shot. Somebody. It's all about crisis. And if you buy into that, then you are being distracted from the true intent of America and the Constitution and our republic. And so that's what they're doing. That's what they've been trying to do for years. There are no easy fixes to this. There are no notice of liability. If you file a notice of liability to the public functionary, they're going to roll over and do what you ask them to do. No, they're not. And if you get a default judgment against them, so what is that going to do? Absolutely nothing. because you can't operate or you can't press a default judgment unless the courts give you the go ahead through a order that you can press a default judgment. Otherwise, you just got a nice little sheet of paper that says you've got a default judgment. What does that do? Does that fix the public functionary? No. Does that change their attitude and thinking process? No, it doesn't do anything. So there's a lot of processes out there that if you follow those processes and you believe in the birth certificate and you believe you can cash in on the birth certificate and make all these billions of dollars, who's done that? And I've been through this process over thirty, forty years. None of that stuff works. That's all BS. And it's a distraction from the real direction of our country, which is the Republic. Well, it's like selling hopium. People want to hope that there's an easy path out. Usually the path out is not generally easy. It's tedious. It takes work. It takes time. It takes knowledge. It takes planning and studying and such. But there's rarely an easy path out of anything that's a real battle. If something's too easy, I sit there and I go, all right, what's coming next? I feel like it's intentionally leading us astray. Which brings me back to something that I was going to say a little bit earlier. I know somebody who has done some intelligence work and such, and they made a statement that the Republican and Democrat parties are, in fact, a function of the CIA at this point in time. I don't doubt it. I would have to say that I kind of believe that, and I kind of believe that both of the parties need to be sued because they've taken foreign money. They've broken the law, and I think this should be abolished. Yeah, but who do you sue? You can't sue the Republican Party. You've got to sue the individual that's taking the money. So that's a job for the FBI to figure out who's been wrong. And they're not going to do it because it's the FBI. No, they're doing it. You think so? I suspect that Kash Patel and Bongino are out there and they're getting the numbers together. okay numbers together also that's not our process our process is is what's affecting us in our particular lives those are the and we can't concentrate on what's going on in washington If we wouldn't have had Trump in office to take care of those processes, we'd have a problem. But he's taking care of Washington. He's taking care of the criminals over there. We have to take care of the criminals locally. That's the local judges that are criminals. That's the local public functionaries that are criminals. The police department, if they're criminals, and some of them are. And so on and so forth. That's where we have to focus our efforts individually. Yes, Washington is bad, and McConnell is bad, and you can name a whole ton of public functionaries. Warren is bad. I mean, we could go down the list, but we can't do anything about it. because we're not at that level. I'm going to play devil's advocate here, okay? So what if this plan or where we're at right now has been going on for many, many years, and there's actually good guys playing bad guys in order to uncover it? Because I think we need to explore all scenarios, right? So what if they already won the war before we started it here, and now they're kind of like crashing the cleanup, so that we wake up and we know the process so that we can take control or take the government back there there was when president trump said they were returning the government to we the people well that's going to require we the people to know what the heck's going on yeah number one yep And number two, it's going to require we the people to stop being so apathetic and selfish and give our time to something that really matters, like how are we going to come together as a nation? and fight together the evils that are out there. Not fighting individual people based on, oh, we don't agree with everything. So I got to tell you what I did this yesterday or the day before. I reached out to the Green Party leader. The chair of the Green Party leader as chairman of the Constitution Party. I reached out to him yesterday and it was a really interesting conversation. I think that he and I could we talked about doing working together on some things. I think that's an incredible step in the right direction. We need to get over this go sports team mentality and win at all costs and pummel the bad guys. Who's the bad guys? The bad guys aren't Americans. The bad guys are the ones that are trying to keep us divided to fight. So kind of an interesting change that I think we have to embrace going forward. And I know what's going to happen. The same thing happened that I posted the picture of. of Adam Schiff when I sprinted across the Senate building because I'm like, I'm not going to miss an opportunity to get a picture with this guy. Throw it out there and see which of the village idiots start going, oh no, Brandenburg has changed. She's in with the bad guys. That was absolutely hilarious because when that started happening, I'm like, okay, and you and you and you and you are probably establishment. And trying to keep people, you know, the ones that said stuff like that, that was my first thought. It's like, well, I'll give a few people a little bit of credit for maybe being a little bit on the, they've drawn the short straw on intelligence a little bit. But the ones that are the loudest when they're faced with something like that, you can, I can guarantee you, they're probably part of the problem. And people we know, people we know could very well either be used as captured assets or actually involved in some manner or another. So we got to ask those questions, right? So I don't know. It's interesting to me. There are so many things going on out there right now. It's the civil action jurisdiction that we've been brought into under the Supreme Court back in nineteen thirty three, which is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the Republic. Remember, going back to the Constitution, Article four, Section four says we are guaranteed a Republican form of government and all this other stuff that's out there. is a distraction from that premise of Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution. We have a republic. We don't have a civil action jurisdiction. And yet the court systems operate on a civil action jurisdiction. The members of the bar only deal in the civil action jurisdiction because they really don't know the republic or they've not been taught the republic. And as we all believe that... how we're brought up and what we're taught in the educational system is what it is. And it's not. The educational system was a lie when they preached democracy, because we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. We don't have a democracy. We don't have a civil action jurisdiction. We don't have the communists. I mean, there are communists in our country. And we don't have the Nazis in our country. Oh, yes, there are Nazis in our But our system of government is the republic. And anything that distracts us from that, anything that distracts us from that is a violation of the Constitution. But more important is a mental distraction from you and I. We think we have a democracy, and therefore we respond to every time they say it. Remember, if you understand the language that they use against us when they talk democracy being one that we have this democracy we don't have a democracy we have a republic if you don't understand the proper language you don't understand the real narrative of where we are and who we are and what we are and none of the other forms of government out there forms of uh leadership or dictatorship or whatever out there is close to what the republic is. The republic gives the people the power. And once again, the reason we have a republic is we don't have the ability to vote for things like tax increases. That's not our job. Our job is to hire somebody to do it for us and then to watch them. And then if they go for a tax increase and we don't want it, we get rid of them. That's the process. So the republic is our salvation to our freedom if we choose to go in that direction. A democracy is not. You voted for the tax. What are you complaining about? How do you do that? And I think because our election systems are so corrupt right now, we don't have an election. We have selection. We've got to fix that problem at a base level. The election systems, getting rid of these absentee ballots is, and ways that they're cheating there there's there's so many ways they're cheating it's not just one I mean this was a full-on very strategic military type not that it's the military but you know what I mean it was a very planned out attack to subvert the united states through corrupted elections They took away our First Amendment right. They took away our voice, and they just install who they want. Until we fix that, we will not have a country the way that it was intended to be. That's right. And the Second Amendment, which they've been doing anything and everything in their power to control in every possible way that they can, is a violation of the Second Amendment. Second Amendment says no power or no rules or regulations could ever be used to combat our ability to carry arms. That means carry. That means carrying it on your person. That means no CPL, no license, no registration, none of that. It's a very clear amendment. There's no ifs, ands, or buts in that. It's very clear as to what it says. Same thing with the First Amendment, the freedom of religion. Do you remember how many rights the First Amendment protects? I always ask this question. Five. Well, let's look at them. You'll find that you're wrong, but that's okay. Then, then, uh, freedom of freedom of religion. Um, and it's actually, uh, freedom of religion, the press assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of speech. What else? Um, redress grievances, redress the grievance. One that's not mentioned. Okay. Right. To travel. Right to travel. Okay. How can you assemble? How can you go to church or wherever you want to go if you don't have the right to travel? You're an attorney. You got me into technicality. Even though it's not mentioned, it's there. Okay. Well, my point, how many people actually realize that or understand that? And I'm wondering how many people said five or how many people didn't know, absolutely had no idea what their freedoms are in the first amendment. What's the right to redress the grievance mean. To petition your public functionaries and tell them, instruct them on what they're to do. Remedy to have, if they don't do what we tell them to do, then we've got recourse to, to remove them and, or have the remedy done anyway. Okay, that's good. But one more important, if you ask them a question, they've got to answer that question. They can't say, thank you for your letter, as we do when we write public functionaries, especially congressmen and senators, we write them a question as to what are you doing to fix the election? And they'll say, well, thank you very much for your letter. We're gonna look into it. That's not an answer. That's not an answer. That's the violation of the First Amendment. And what happens when you violate the First Amendment? When you violate your right to redress a grievance, you violate your oath of office. When you violate your oath of office, what happens? You have no immunity. because you violated the principles of that particular office that got you or gave you the right to rule, to govern our country. I didn't mean rule. That's not the right word. To govern, to make... to fill that function of government. If you violate your oath of office, if you violate the right to redress the grievance, then you are stripped of your powers and you are facing a lawsuit and you have to suffer the consequences. How many people out there know that, understand that, that if you violate your oath of office, you're done. But people like that idiot Gershowitz, Dershowitz, attorney says, oh, they violate their oath of office all the time. It's no big deal. It is a big deal. It is a big deal. That's what got you into that position that allowed you to govern. That's your oath of office. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. So any one of those principles that you violate in the Constitution is a reason to be sued. And not for just, you know, a couple of hundred dollars, but millions. Go after them for everything and their firstborn and their first dog. Everything. Because they have violated their oath of office and their right to be in that office. And people don't understand that. Well, because we're all in fear. Oh, they wear a big black robe. They wave their hands like, what was his name? Salamone did and Taylor. And he's trying to scare me, waving his big robe at me, making himself look like Batman. You know, you're three steps down from him, Saul, and you feel, oh, my God, he's big, and he's really going to put me in jail. He'll do this, he'll do that. He's got so much power. He doesn't have any power. He's a bum. And so that's the way we, the people, have to look at it. You're put in that position, Mr. Judge, to rule according to the rule of law, not according to your own personal... desires and feelings. And you don't have any immunity when you step outside your judicial duties, your job description, you violate your oath of office. You don't have any immunity. You're just a Joe Schmo on the street, Joe Lunchbucket, if you want to call him. You don't have any power. And that's the way we, the people, have to get get attuned to what's going on. Too many people live in fear. Too many people don't want to stand because it's difficult. It's difficult for your first day in court in front of one of those guys in a big black robe. They have all of the abilities to scare the heck out of you if they want to. And if you go in there and your knees are shaking to begin with, And if you don't pull it out, pull yourself out of the fire, you're in the middle of it. So you've got to start getting power to yourself because you are the strong. You have the power. They don't have any power. You've just given them that power by being afraid of them. Right. And if you don't, you know, it starts with education and painstakingly going through things until it's so ingrained in your thought process, in your ability to defend yourself, you really probably should take a little more time to do that. Or write everything out. Write out your points. Have like an outline or something like that. But you've got to prepare yourself. If you're going into battle, you don't go into battle, you know, let's just say you're going into any kind of battle that's a physical battle. You're not going to walk in there, you know, living off of donuts for three months and sitting on the sofa and watching, you know, fake TV and such. You're going to get out there and you're going to train for it. Well, if you have decided that this is a path you want to take and get into the battle this way, you've got to train for it. And that means every day do a little bit of something. Do something. You should see the files that I have on research that I've done on different issues. Some of them are just like beastly long. Nobody probably would ever read the entire file because it's They are long enough, but when you start doing stuff like that, like I do, and I compiled all this information, you start connecting the dots and seeing, first of all, who's who in the zoo? what's wrong with this entire situation and the solutions to get out of it and what you have to do. I'm gonna stick with what I've been saying is that you do not fix problems by adding legislation. You nullify, you get rid of the bad stuff and start simplifying it. The propensity of and the bent for people to complicate matters by continuing to further complicate it is the problem. If somebody's writing code out there as programmers and they've got like spaghetti code and it's going all over the place, instead of writing stuff to deal with a spaghetti code, which slows your computer down, you pull it back and you clean up your code. Clean the code up and go in a better direction. That's what we got going on in our government. Best thing we could do is nullification. If I don't hear nullification or getting rid of the pretended laws that just complicate everything and confuse the hell out of everybody, we can't fix it. We are coming up on another election pretty soon, the midterms. And we have candidates running around acting like, you know, I'm going to run for this particular office. And what is the question that anybody should ask these public functionaries that are running around in office? Probably, are you going to be running de jure or de facto? Well, that's a good question. Will you be a de jure officer occupying a de jure office? Are you going to uphold the Constitution? Are you going to defend the rights of the people? Or are you going to continue to give favor to the corporatocracy? Well, here's the way you do it. That's my question. You go up to a public functionary and say, are you going to be a de jure officer occupying a de jure office? And if he says, I don't know what that means. And I say, well, then you ought to resign your position and go learn and then come back. Don't be running an office if you don't know what you're talking about. And if he answers that question right, then ask him, do we have a democracy or a republic? And if he says a republic, then ask him, what does that mean? Or if he says a democracy, you need to tell him what the difference is between a democracy and a republic. Of course, you ought to know what the difference is yourself. But that's the other second question. What's a republic? And how are you going to support the republic? And so those couple of questions you really need to ask. You know, it's been said from our founding fathers, and I believe it was Hamilton, that said that the Republic will fall and be led by the judiciary, that the judiciary will lead the fall of the Republic. Now, I think it's Hamilton, but it could be Jefferson. I don't remember. But that question comes up to what do you mean the fall of the republic is going to be led by the judiciary? Well, the judiciary, especially the local judiciary, and we're talking about state-run judges, but a lot of the federal judges are the same. They don't have a clue what a republic is or a democracy is. They don't have a clue what their duties are in their office. They are very, very ignorant based on what they've been taught with the bar, based on becoming a member of the bar. And therefore, because you're a member of the bar, you can become a judge. How ridiculous. How ridiculous. Because you got a sheepskin in a particular field, you are a professional in that field. That's ridiculous. If you don't study and work in that field, then you don't know any more than you did when you left the university. Well, let's talk about the ridiculous of it. It's not a license to practice law. It's a private membership association to protect itself. It's a cartel. The Bar Association is a cartel. And let's talk about a couple of different scenarios that I find absurd. The DNR has got people that are experts in fisheries assessing dams. Does that not seem absolutely ignorant to you? It does to me. You've got somebody who is in fisheries, but they're managing dams with no engineering background, making statements of, oh, this thing is no good. We got to tear all of these dams out. by what you haven't done any evaluation there's like one sort of kind of evaluation that was that was done but it was internally audited there was no second evaluation that they did and that's the basis of tearing all the all the dams out they're destroying the land and destroying the fisheries and our ability to have recreation on the land dams provide uh money to the local economies this is an intentional destruction of property now here's another one What would you think if there was somebody running for governor, such as Anthony Hudson, and he decided, and I want you to answer this, that he's going to introduce legislation for... For what? He's got a couple of things out there that he said he's going to introduce as a governor candidate legislation. Well, first of all, he can't. I know the answer to that, but I'm going to let you beat this one up. Who introduces legislation? I mean, he can say, I think this would be a good piece of legislation for the legislature to introduce. But he has no power to give legislation. He's the executive, and the executive carries out what the legislature tells him to carry out. He's got it bass-ackwards. Seriously, backwards, not knowing the job. Okay, so there's another thing I'm going to bring up real quick that I want you to, I'm going to do a Donna's done with it segment here. Donna's done with it, okay? And then bring a few things up. What would you think if someone decided to support an initiative for an amendment and said, well, they scratched my back. I'm going to scratch theirs, but there's no way that acts my tax is going to end up on the ballot. But I'm going to support this person because they supported me at one point in time. Well, first of all, we can't have initiatives in a republic. That's a democracy. We can't vote on amendments. We the people can't vote on amendments. We can only hire our people. representatives to vote on that amendment. They're going to vote on that amendment for us. That way we can hold their feet to the fire if it's a bad amendment. If we the people vote on it, then it's for fifty one percent over forty nine percent. Fifty one percent say yes. Forty nine percent say no. But the forty nine percent have to suffer. That's a democracy. We don't have a democracy. We have a republic. And therefore, we have to have representatives that we hold to. accountability when they violate our rights in the Republic. So base level, if somebody – Yes, base level that I have a problem with this is that if somebody in their hearts knows that it's not going to make it on – it's not going to make it through the process, but supports it anyway, knowing that it's not going to make it based on a relationship, not based on whether it's lawful, constitutional, or that it's going to be helpful. To me, it's just a waste. It's somebody that's just – Well, of course it is. wasting signatures is the way that the democracy has set it up so we fail in our attempts to make things happen that's right because it wastes everybody's time doing nothing getting nothing done and these people are sitting in these offices the the pretended the pretended public functionaries who none of them thank you had to get a pen here because my pen ran out I ink um That that are sitting sitting there refusing to do their jobs and such, and they're wasting the time of people giving them a promise that it's going to do something. And that way, that's how they keep us busy and nothing gets done. Well, that's part of the process of the democracy. The democracies have always failed across the world, across history, because the people, for number one, the people are not involved in the government activity throughout the year. They're only involved at election time. And then they realize that it's a good, based on whatever they read, which might be a paragraph. And based on that paragraph, they make a decision to vote. I'm gonna take it back to John Engler and his nonsense about let's raise the sales tax to six percent instead of four, and then we will reduce the property tax. I was a kid at that time. Well, a kid, a young adult at that time. And I knew better at that time. I already knew that if they raise the sales tax, everybody's going to pay it. Anybody that comes to Michigan is going to pay it. Yes, that's true. But. what about the property tax we were in the middle of an inflationary period where the properties were jumping higher and higher so the fact that he reduced the property tax to a certain level made everybody feel well oh yeah we're gonna for one year or two years we're going to we're win this battle. But from that point on, as inflation takes the property higher and higher in value, so will your property tax go up. So now we're way above where we were back in Engler's time. And I don't remember the dates on those exactly where we had a four percent sales tax. Now we've got a six percent sales tax and the property taxes are through the roof. And so we know. Now we have an Ask My Tax out there that thinks they're going to fix this problem. By what? Shifting the taxes onto the people and away from property taxes, but they're not getting rid of the taxes. They're just shifting them. And if anybody thinks that that's going to stick and hold, I got a lot of news for you that it's not going to reduce taxes. It's just going to shift them and give people a chance to cheat in a different direction and of those that are holding office. So big problem, think it through, it's a headline thing. We did the same thing with the bringing gambling to Michigan, remember? Same process. All this gambling money is going to go to education, which sounded like a really good thing. Yeah, we're going to get all this extra money to education. but it wasn't the extra money because the general fund that they used to fund education, they took away and pushed that money in a different direction and just allowed us to have the money that was coming off the gambling. So did we get ahead of the game? No. no furthermore those all the casinos are on are on native land which is its own nation so you can't go in and audit what's happening there and see what see see how if there's a bunch of money laundering and I've known people that have worked in casinos and they're like it's constant money laundering people walk in there with bags of cash and somebody said in those bags of cash go right to the right to the gambling masters in in las vegas but I'm sure they're going in a lot of different directions we just don't know where they're going because you can't audit the thing so here's okay here's another don and done with it then I want to get to judges okay actually we should get to judges and maybe I'll save it but yeah university money laundering universities are money laundering stations big Donna's done with it. So here's another thing. All of these students who were promised an education and things like, oh, I don't know, gender studies, which probably pays less than anything out there in the world. And there's no guarantee with what they were kind of promised from the colleges. Whose fault is it? Is it the students or the colleges or both? Donna's done with it. I say both. It's both. It's both. It's deception and advertising from the universities besides money laundering to stick students with a debt that they can never get out of and students who maybe aren't educated in exactly how the world works because they've gone through our indoctrination system and they don't question everything. So it's kind of both sides. But anyhow, let's go to the judges and how we fight the judges, the cases. Well, that's where we've got to focus because judges are the problem. Got my pen. They are the problem of our republic because they are part of the bar. They are part of the system. And, of course, they are getting their money laundering process through this system. Where they get it specifically, I don't know, and I really don't care. But they are required by law, by the Constitution. First of all, let's go back to Article IV, Section IV. We have a republic form of government, not anything else. And you've got to know that. Second of all, we've got to know that the judges swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold the Constitution. So when they don't uphold the Constitution, they think we are in a civil action jurisdiction. They're violating their oath of office. are violating their whole premise of why they're there in that office there's there's no wiggle room there when they step on on one of the amendments the first amendment your freedom of speech or they don't redress a grievance then they are violating their oath of office and when they violate their oath of office according to uh several of the court cases and I'm going to name the court cases to you and uh one in particular is sure versus rhodes uh and I'll spell sure for you s c h e u e r versus rhodes r-h-o-d-e-s and that their site is four one six u.s two thirty two and I'm citing on page two fifty And this was a nineteen seventy four case. This is regarding whenever you go to court and they try to summary judge you or they try to dismiss your case without giving you an ability to be heard. Scher versus Rose on this page says further proceedings, either by way of summary judgment or by trial on the merits are required. And it doesn't say should happen. It says are required. The complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than possible on a motion to dismiss a complaint. So they can't just dismiss your complaint, although they do. And if you don't know this, they will dismiss your complaint based on some stupidity. And that's why I'm suing three judges right now, because they dismiss my complaint on stupidity. So I'm suing three judges based on that. And that's the leading argument that I use right then and there. Then, of course, there's Norton versus Shelby County, which we've spoke about a hundred thousand times, U.S., and on page , I'm giving all this information to you. So when you pull the case up, you can go to page and find this. This is an case, and it says, this is a very powerful paragraph, an unconstitutional act. is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." So is violating the First Amendment an unconstitutional act? Absolutely. is violating your right to be heard on unconstitutional act. Yes. Absolutely. So any of those are, so now you've got two things that you can go after a judge for. Number one, dismissing your case without you having an opportunity to be heard and not just form, but substance. I want to hear what the substance of the case is. And they always use form to dismiss your case. oh, it's a matter of form, which means we're going to give you an appearance of due process, but we're not going to give you the substance of due process. We're going to make it look like you've got due process, but you didn't. So that's a violation of their oath of office also. And Norton further states on page four forty nine, The right to discharge the duties of justice, and I interjected here, judges of the US District Court, and then the original phrase says, the right to discharge the duties of justice of the peace was never recognized by the scenario of the plaintiff. The ability to fabricate the scenario of the plaintiff is my little phrase, and I do add a little bit of this and that to it as I can to bring it to my particular case. judges but from the onset the uh resisted by the legal proceedings which terminate in its adjudication that there were usurpers closed with no authority or official function so I did a little adjusting of the language there but to show the most important part of this that there they are usurpers closed with no authority or official function that was the most important part of that paragraph for me um then there's this one is this one is uh this one is the explosion ex parte young uh and it's two oh nine u.s one twenty three and that's on page one twenty four this is you asked what what was it u.s what U.S. on page in this case said an attempt of a state official officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of and does not affect the state in its sovereignty or governmental capacity and is an illegal act and the officer is stripped of his office character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to its officers immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States Constitution. That is a dynamite case. That is a dynamite Supreme Court decision. And all my case law here is Supreme Court decision, are Supreme Court decisions. And then they come up and they say, well, you know, we have all of this sovereign immunity and, of course, Downs versus Bidwell, which is the descending opinion, and that Downs versus Bidwell is U.S. . And it's a case. And Justice Matthews says, when we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which are supposed to rest, and review the history of the development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power, which is what the what the local judges use. Sovereignty itself, of course, is not subject to law, for it is the author and the source of law. But in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all governments exist and act. And the law is the defining and limitation of power of the public functionaries. So they're the ones that are being limited by the law, not us, not us. We are the sovereign and we are the source and the authors of the law. That's Downs versus Bidwell. By the way, none of these cases have been overturned and none of these statements have been overturned. These are still good law. And so that's how we have to look at it. Now, while we were going through our group, one of our group members, and it was Mr. Mike Bombas who brought this one up. Let me bring Mike on so you're going to give him credit here. Let's do this. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Hi, guys. How you doing? Good. Really good. Doing good, Mike. Remember Pearson versus Ray. Yes. Spell it. P-I-E-R-S-O-N versus Ray at three eighty six U.S. five forty seven on page five sixty seven. This is a nineteen sixty seven case. Mike said one of the judges, I don't remember who was Baines. It was the federal judge in my federal case against Bain, the federal district court in Detroit. The clerk. The clerk said this? Yeah. The clerk's given you legal advice? Not the clerk. The judge's name is the clerk. Oh, the clerk. The clerk. The clerk. It was another idiot. The clerk says that judges have absolute immunity. Well, he obviously didn't read Pearson versus Ray. So this is the last paragraph of that case. The judge is liable for injuries caused by the Ministerial Act to have immunity. The judge must be performing a judicial function The presence, the persistence of malice, the presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgment. He acts no longer as a judge, but as a minister of his own prejudice. So here's the case that this judge is using. Oh, they got absolute immunity. Obviously didn't read the case. It further states on page five, sixty six on that same Pearson case. And I'm just going to read the dark print that I got here, not the whole thing. On sound principles, the author of such wrong ought to be responsible to the party's wrong. And then it goes on to further state that this is not to say that a judge who makes a honest mistake should be subject to civil liability. But what's an honest mistake when you're a judge and you read a Supreme Court case and you say that the Supreme Court case gives absolute immunity when it does not? because you didn't read the case. You only read the little paraphrase that's given to you by the law school where you go to law school or by your law book, and you don't go on to read the rest of the case to understand what the rest of the case says. And then further on that same page, it says, Evil of allowing unintentional knowingly deprivation of civil rights to the unredressed far outweighs the spectacular inhibiting effect which might attend an injury into a judicial deprivation of civil rights. this is that same case that supposedly gives judges absolute immunity so this judge is an idiot as most of them are um if we go on to marbury versus madison marbury versus madison says the government of the united can you spell it for everybody please marbury m-a-r-b-u-r-y versus madison m-a-d-i-s-o-n which is five US, one-thirty-seven on page one-sixty-three. This is an one case. Oh, it's an old case. Oh, Norton versus Shelby County is such an old case. It doesn't apply. Well, does the constitution still apply? That's older than both of them. What's that all about? So this nonsense about it being an old case has no ability and no fight in the judicial system. We're based on history of case law. And so in Marbury versus Madison, the government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It certainly ceases to deserve its high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of vested legal rights. So if you have a legal right to redress a grievance and they don't redress the grievance, that's a violation of vested legal rights. And they can be sued for it, and they should be sued for it. And then there's Diehl versus Danulov. Spell it, please. This is, yeah, D-I-E-L. versus d-a-n-u-l-o-f-f and since this is a uh appellate case the it's a and I only have a docket number two zero nine seven three seven docketed in two thousand and this was another case that was brought out that's saying judges have absolutely an absolute immunity So, and I'm going to just read my little, there's a fairly lengthy paragraph and I don't want to read the whole thing. And we're running out of time. So actually we're out of time. So this case says basically, gross negligence means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern. for the injury results. And this is the judges that. What page is that on? That's on page. I don't have a page number. Uh, maybe I do. Uh, I don't see it. Okay. Yeah. For, I think it's no, I don't have a page number on that. Sorry. That one does not have a page number. You know, we're running out of time, so maybe we can pick this up next week. How many other cases do you have to go? I'm only on page eight and I have quite a few more pages to go. Okay, next one. I've got – let's see. Let me go back. Scher versus Rhodes. Norton versus Shelby County. Axe-Parte Young. Downs-Bidwell. Pearson versus Ray. Marbury versus Madison. Deal versus Danoff. Is that the ones that you went through? Yeah, we'll stop at Danoff, and we'll pick up a few next week. We'll cover a few more. Okay. Because I basically – This is an answer to an attorney general, US Attorney General in Michigan, who said that they have absolute immunity. And I just bombarded her with Supreme Court cases that say, you are an idiot. And what's her name? Just so everybody knows who this is. Her name is actually, there's two because she's the so-called acting person. Let's see if I can find her name is Julie A. Beck. She's the assistant acting attorney general. And then there's, uh, Lou Luttrell versus living or D Livingston. That is the, uh, actual attorney general, assistant attorney general. And I said, the assistant attorney general, Julie a Beck and Luke Luttrell D Livingston are fake. They do not exist in our liars at worse or ignorant of at best. And that's how I, that was my first paragraph for them. And then I blasted them. Okay. So let me get the tools here. I have skills. So hang on a minute. Let me put this in and then people can figure out how to get ahold of you, Mr. Tater. So I'm waiting for a response from them to see how they're going to deal with this one. I want to go to court. I told them that since this is a dispositive motion and they're trying to dismiss my case based on absolute immunity and no jurisdiction, I want to be in court and I want to be heard. So we'll see. We'll see if they let me get there. Well, there you go. All right, so tell people how to get a hold of you. Well, magnificentrepublic.com will give you the insight to get involved in our group on Wednesday nights. And you can use my jtaterto at yahoo.com and ask me for an invite, and I'll send you an invite. to our group, so you can just click on it and sign in. There is no fee. We do not take roll. You can come and go as you please. You can come early or leave early, whatever you want to do. Just get involved with us. The more you know, the more power you have and the less power the public functionaries have. And you can always come on Brandenburg News Network on Tuesdays and see John or go back into the archives and watch the videos and Mike and such. And we're just going to continue to beat this up. So fantastic. Well, thanks for coming on today, John. I'm going to run our little ticker here and take a real quick break. And I'll be back with Mr. Mike Vance. See y'all. Bye-bye. Bye. See you guys. Good morning and welcome to the second hour of Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It is the third day of June, twenty twenty five. And welcome to our show today. And I am going to bring back Mike Bambus and we're going to talk. Hey, Mike, how you doing? Morning. How you doing? Doing great. Doing great. Let me hide this banner here a minute. And lots to talk about. I actually I love our Tuesday mornings where we're talking about everything that is lawful. And I you know, and to, uh, uh, I don't know, bring, bring things to people's attention that they may not know. So it looks like there's a guest there. Do you want me to add our guest? Sure. The, uh, it says the devices are not connected. So we've got to see if we can get his camera on. So I don't know Vaughn. Yeah. Vaughn's, uh, someone, he got me, uh, he was a part of a group, uh, and, uh, we just happened to connect and we've been going strong for, I don't know, I think it was almost about five years now. So, um, yeah, he and I have been working on a lot of different things and, uh, he's very knowledgeable and, uh, I asked him to come on today to help, uh, help educate the masses and, uh, bring more information to, to everyone. So, awesome well he just is his uh he's having a little trouble connecting here let's try it again right morning morning von how are you can you hear us yeah I can hear you good morning how are you I'm doing great doing great do you have a camera they can turn on or are we gonna do just voice today every time that I hit the camera that says that you have that only you can allow it oh uh well uh You're there, so if we can get it to connect, you actually have the ability to add your camera there, and I do not. So we can go by voice unless we can figure it out here. Now we're having a problem with the connection somehow. Technology, wonderful thing. Makes our lives easier. It's great as long as it works. If it doesn't, you know, like today. Let's see. You know, technology, Vaughn, is great as long as it works. So we'll just continue on with voice. And then maybe come on again with camera. So what are we talking about today, guys? Well, first I'd like to introduce Vaughn. Again, he and I connected, I don't know, what, five years ago? And we've been going strong ever since, trying to educate the masses. And I asked him here today to... You know, kind of help educate everyone and go over different things. And one of the things I was going to start off with in connection with what John was talking about earlier in the first hour. Attorneys, when you hire an attorney, you become, number one, a guardian. Or actually, they're your guardian. You become a ward to them. And under Corpus Juris Circumdum, volume seven, section four, I'm going to read this so everybody understands what happens and why these attorneys do what they do and the control that the Bar Association has over everyone and everything. It states that his first duty, and this is in reference to the attorney, his first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client. And whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes to an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. So an attorney's first obligation is to the court, not to the client. I don't care how much you pay your attorney, His first obligation is to the court and what's best for the court. So that's why you see a lot of things going on right now. That's why we believe that Trump's legal staff will not come blatantly out with Norton v. Shelby County and its contents. They're skirting around it. And I think the Bar Association is... controlling uh the courts the legislative branch is When I talk to a township some blatant pointed quest need to go talk to our att they have to go go ask th they do it. So the Bar As become so bloated with po have and this needs to be got the FBI instructing t deal with us. We the peopl on their part because the government, influencing t that if you speak up agai to be labeled something. something bad. FBI has no They're a de facto depart And yet they're still doing this and they're instructing. And that's why this bit with Burris, David Burris, the attorney that represents Genoa Township and the Livingston County Board of Commissioners. That's why we're taking the action we're doing against him right now and all those other entities, because they're promoting domestic terrorism using tax dollars funded through the Board of Commissioners. They're the ones who set the budgets for the courts. So. They're using our tax dollars against us. They're using and weaponizing the judicial system against us. So that's what everybody has to understand is that the attorneys are not your friend. They are not there to help you. They're your enemy. They're there to control you. And that's another reason why right now they're changing the codes and statutes regarding trusts. The Michigan Trust Code has been changed to the point where the judge now has the authority to remove your trustees, control your trustees, control the beneficiaries, and control all the assets in your trust. Wow, I didn't know that. Because the bar attorneys, they convince you, oh, you need an attorney to write a trust. No, you do not. And the attorneys will write the trust in a context that allows the judges to pierce the veil of the trust and take control of everything that's in the trust and control the entities of the trust, being the trustees, grantors, and beneficiaries. And this is not how it's supposed to work, but this is what they're doing. Vaughn, you have anything to add to that? I could go on for days. Well, I'll let you guys do that. I'm just going to get another cup of coffee or something because this is really interesting. So if you go back to Corpus Juris Secundum, it'll tell you in the chapter before, chapter three, that an attorney can only represent property. So you have to get down as to what they're really representing and what they're going after and what they're doing behind the curtain. Black's Law Dictionary the definition of a court is a bank and they're doing banking. So we found the, through the GSA bonds, how they're actually banking in hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in stealing your sweat equity. I mean, it's absolutely crazy. It's insane what they're doing, the amount of money that they're playing with. And it's all perpetual slavery. It just doesn't see any color anymore. Yeah, I think the whole thing is fairly interesting. We'll continue on explaining this to everyone, please, because I'm sure that most people have never even heard or questioned any of this. Well, the first thing they should do is start with, oh gosh, it comes down to word etymology, the spelling of words. For instance, you know, everybody starts generally with the all caps name. The name in all capital letters is not a proper noun. It's not a person, place, or thing. Everybody, oh, geez, where do you start? Everybody place, follow the leader. Well, because she's doing it, I'm going to do it. You know, you can start with the United States citizen. Are you a United States citizen? You know, you got ninety, I would say probably ninety nine percent, ninety nine point six percent. of people across America believe that they're United States citizen. If you go to fifteen United States code subsection forty seven twenty four, it stipulates under E that a United States business means and then A is a United States citizen. So you have the United States, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Federation of Russia, the United Nations. All of these are corporations. So the question lies is how can you be a citizen of a corporation? So what they do is have you underneath the assumption of presumption, which is legal, not lawful, but it is legal. And that's the legal system. They get you to identify because even today we can, you know, our kids can identify as cats and they got to put a litter box in the school. So they get you identifying as a corporation and people, you know, wonder, well, wait a minute. I don't make income. I make wages. And that's what the Supreme Court says. Well, yes, but you're identifying as a corporation and since you're identifying as a corporation you're putting it on your paperwork then you're going to pay income taxes because that's what you identify as so you get all the rights and titles and responsibilities of that hat that you're wearing thank you real news for real people buy real people at the kitchen table Sort of. Can you expand on what he's talking about, Mike, before he comes back? Yeah, basically, you know, we have to change how we identify. And one of the things is a lot of people say we can change your status. I identify as a man. I'm a man first. So we're either men or women. I mean, we can't be any more, can't be any less. We're created by God. That's it. And so there's where the first thing starts. And as a man, I'm living. I'm not a dead corporate entity. I'm not a corporate fiction. And by doing that, when you go into court and you say, you know, the judge says, well, you know, identify yourself. Well, I'm a man. I start off, I'm a man. And now there's a problem because they can't deal with the living. They can only deal with the dead. Corporate fictions. Corporate, you know, property. They're only going to deal with property. So when you identify that way and you identify a certain way in the courts, the judges come unglued. All of a sudden there's a conflict. And if you stand your ground, they'll get to the point where they'll start threatening. You say that one more time, you're going to be held in contempt. So they're trying to force under threat, duress, and coercion you to become the other jurisdictions so they can administrate you. And you have to stand your ground. And judge, is it your intent? Always ask questions. Judge, is it your intent to deprive I of my core inherent rights of due process? Now, what does that mean? It means that we all have the inherent rights, the inalienable rights created by God, protected by the Constitution. So when you put it in that way, only living men and women can inherit something. By using those words, core inherent rights, that means I'm identifying as a living man. And they can't deal with that. They have a hard problem with that. And so now judge, now is it your intent to destroy my inherent core rights? So because that's what they're doing when they're trying to deprive you, they're destroying your rights. And that's why a lot of times you'll hear a judge say, well, the Constitution doesn't exist in this courtroom. I've heard judges say that. Yes, we have transcripts where judges have said that. You're kidding me. No. What is your response when they say that? Now you're going to get sued next? Well, I've come close a couple of times. Michael Hattie was one that came very close. I mean, he's probably the closest one I've done this to. And I actually requested that the at the time the state police have officers in the courtroom and they asked why. I said, because if Judge Hattie does X, Y and Z, I'm going to place him under arrest. And they're like, by what authority? I said, well, under state law, Michigan law, MCL seven six four point one six. Anyone who commits a felony in your presence, you now have the authority to place them under arrest. So when I got to the courthouse, I've never, I mean, it was like a military zone. I mean, there were officers everywhere, deputies, state police, I mean, you name it. And they were literally following me around the courthouse. And I thought, well, I'm going to have a little fun with this. So I walked over here, looked out the window, and I went down another hallway, read a bulletin board, went to the bathroom, you know, just all over the place. And then when I finally entered the courtroom itself, I was surrounded, literally surrounded by deputies and officers waiting for me to try and place Judge Hattie under arrest. And he did the only thing he could do to avoid it, and it was to dismiss the hearing. to dismiss the action. Otherwise, yeah, I was gonna place them under arrest and they were going to basically pounce on me and arrest me for arresting the judge who's violating, committing these felonies. So that tells you right there, these puppets dressed up in these uniforms, wearing badges and guns are just that, they're puppets. And they're being controlled. Tell everybody about the fact that the state police threatened you with the situation with Whitmer police. Because I think that's really amazing. Yeah, that was back during COVID, and she was putting elderly people in the nursing homes, and people were dying, and I thought, this is stupid. This is ridiculous. So I drafted an arrest complaint and sent it over to the Michigan State Police and asked them to review it. And then I talked to a lieutenant, and he stated that, yeah, they had reviewed it. It was accurate. There was no problems with it. Asked how I wanted to pursue this. And I said, well, if you agree with it and understand it and it's all proper, go and arrest her. And they're like, no, we're not going to do that. I said, all right, I'll tell you what, I'll let you off the hook. I said, pursuant to MCL, seven, six, four point one six. I'll place her under citizen's arrest. He goes, how do you want to proceed? I said, I'll go to one of her press conferences, wait for her to get done, then step up. I'll be unarmed. That's all I need. One or two of your officers because I'm coming unarmed and I will verbally place her under arrest and then turn custody over to you guys to take her into custody. He goes, yep, you can absolutely do that. He goes, however, if you do that, we're going to have to shoot you. And I went, say what? And so basically trying to arrest her, the state police will take arms against the people, even though she's committing a felony, committing crimes, they will protect her first. Well, we now know that the Michigan State Police are de facto pursuant to Norton v. Shelby County. They've admitted that by their own admission through a FOIA and response, certified response. So what authority do they have? None. So if they're acting as her personal bodyguards, which appears that that's what's going on, they're acting as her bodyguards on the taxpayer dime, we got a real problem here. That's domestic terrorism by definition of Congress. That's not my opinion. That's according to Congress. Well, we know that they don't follow Congress anyway. True. You go into the definition of the – statutes at large the public law made third nineteen forty and congress says that every man and woman that reaches the age of twenty one in the united states of america has is self-governing and has a duty as a sovereign citizen so congress I don't call myself a sovereign citizen congress calls me that congress calls everybody that but now they're demonizing it why because Congress said that everybody is self governing. So Congress is telling us that we're supposed to govern ourselves, not have another authority over top of us, which is why they're called public servants. But now they're trying to flip the script to take complete control. Yeah. That's where we have a big issue is they're going against Congress. Well, continue to elaborate. I'm just going to let you guys talk a little bit and see where this is going to go because I'm so intrigued by the state police threatening to shoot you. Well, they're not the only ones. Okay, Mike, that's kind of almost funny, right? After that had happened, I'm thinking, okay, where do I go with this? Well, I can't go to the attorney general, state attorney general, because I've also got a warrant for her arrest. And so I'm thinking, OK, so I went to my local politician, my state representative. The response I get there is not their jurisdiction. And so I'm thinking, okay, so let's go to the DOJ. So I filed something with the DOJ. Next thing I know, I get a call from the FBI and the FBI wants to know what's going on. And I told them what was going on. They said, if you continue this, then you need to cease and desist. And I'm like, what is going on here? Why all this? Why am I being threatened by the FBI, by the state police for trying to follow the law? And so there's a real problem here. So that led me to purposely get a I got a five hundred dollar ticket for refusal to wear a mask. This is again during covid. And I thought, there's more than one way to skin a cat here. So I got the ticket and pursued it in court. I sent interrogatories to the governor, to the AG, and whoever the woman was that was our state medical expert at the time, and subpoenaed them to court to testify. The first day that we're supposed to be in court, I get there, and again, I'm surrounded by deputies, and they're telling me to wait in the hallway. I'm like, what the hell is going on now? So with that, another deputy comes running out, hands me these papers, and he goes, your case has been dismissed. I'm like, what are you talking about? He goes, your case is dismissed. You're done. You have to leave. I said, I don't want my case dismissed. I didn't ask for it to be dismissed. I want to pursue this. Nope, you're out of here. And they escorted me out of the courthouse. They didn't want to. So basically, they're like cockroaches. You turn on the light, they scurry away. So by asking them to testify to their claims They act like cockroaches with the lights on. They scurry away. They don't want to come out of the darkness. So that's one of the reasons why I've been pursuing things in the manner in which I have is to shed the light on them. Because once you do that, who they are and what they really are suddenly becomes very apparent. Well, one of my cases is I sued Jonathan Brader, the director of the Bureau of Elections. And the very first step they took was Dana Nessel sicked five attorneys on me from the attorney general's office to defend him. Now, my question is, is that why did the state go right to defense and why didn't they ask a question? First of all, the attorney general's office does not and should not be defending a person who was acting outside of his duties of his office, but they were too because they're defending him. My question is, is why didn't they look into this and say, maybe we got a problem here? No, they went right to defense. They shouldn't have been defending him. He should have been hiring his own attorney. He is an attorney. And he should have been doing his own defense or hiring another attorney instead of using taxpayer money to try to get him out of what he did wrong. Yeah, the Bar Association is controlling this whole matter. They're telling them what they can say, what they can't say, what they can do, what they can't do. And that FBI bulletin where it's in Burris stipulated that they are being instructed by the FBI regarding this counterterrorism vision on how to deal with sovereign citizens and to demonize us, to threaten us, to keep us silent and use the acts of threat, duress and coercion to stop anyone from challenging their delegated authority. And that's got to stop. That's got to stop. And that's why we're pursuing those notice of liability after all of them. And we're going to do an administrative process on them. And we're going to come after them financially and force them out of office by attacking their bonds or whatever else we have to do to bring them in line with how they're supposed to act. Because they're supposed to act as jury at all times, and they're not even close. Yeah. The threat, the threat and the coercion gets deeper than that. If you can go for anybody, you can go through and pull anybody's oath of office. And then you compare their alt of office with a five USC, thirty one, eleven. You'll see that none of them have a valid oath of office on record, which is one of the easiest way to get out of tickets. You call a cop up as your witness and take it straight to trial. And you go through and have him read out his, uh, his oath of office, go get a copy from the clerk. Is this your signature? Yup. Okay, great. Can you read this for, and on the record, he'll do that and say, okay, I want to place that as evidence. Then you go through and you, you hand them a certified copy of five USC, thirty one, eleven, which is the proper oath of office and have him read that, place that on it for the official record and have that placed in his evidence. They don't have proper oaths of office. They're all foreign agents working outside of D.C. underneath. What was it? Victor Raven, what's versus John Kennedy? Nineteen sixty four stipulates that anybody that works outside of D.C. that has an oath of office has to register with FARA, which is the Foreign Agent Registration Act of nineteen thirty eight. They're all foreign agents. So their citizenship. Can you repeat that, Katie? It's a Victor Rabinowitz versus John Kennedy. Nineteen sixty four. I don't have the numbers with me right in front of me. But you can you can Google that case. It'll pop right up. OK. If you go to Google. OK. Your. Your audio is going bad, Vaughn. oh no yeah try it try again so google scholar a lot of people don't even know that that exists but you can go in there and it pulls up all the cases and then if you're looking up stuff too if you go to incognito google will take a lot of stuff off the regular tab the regular browser so you need to go to incognito or scholar to actually get deeper into it Good to know. Good to know. So where else are you guys going to go from here? Do you have anything you want to bring up, Vaughn? no I was just kind of tagging along you asked me if I wanted to jump on this morning so okay so I'm really sure if you had something uh um I did receive I did receive another letter from the michigan bar association on response to my inquiries and I'll just read it real quick it's short uh regarding inquiry concerning the fbi bulletin related to sovereign citizens The State Bar of Michigan is in receipt of your April, twenty-eighth, twenty-twenty-five letter seeking information related to the document, a Federal Bureau investigation bulletin titled Sovereign Citizens, a Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement. Please be aware that the SVM is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. moreover the sbm does not have any information or documents that correspond to the inquiries outlined in your letter of april twenty eight twenty twenty five well here's something that someone brought to my attention if paul if attorneys are public functionaries how are they exempt from foia and if they are exempt from foia that means they're not licensed Kind of got a problem there. We have a problem there, don't we? We already know the Supreme Court's already ruled that they're not licensed. There is no such thing as a license to practice law. So any attorney who says, oh, I have a license to practice law, really? We say that on and for the record under oath? We write an affidavit to that effect? And if you're advertising that, isn't that false advertising? Just a thought. But anyway, this letter from this Bar Association, now what I'm going to do is a follow-up to this. is, okay, if you don't have any information to this, you don't have no knowledge of this, you're not instructing the judges, you're not instructing the bar membership to enforce this FBI bulletin, then are you willing to sanction or disbar any judge, any attorney that does? Let's see how they react to that one. Be interested to see if they're going to protect them or throw them under the bus. So, yeah, that's, you know, that's, again, another continuing to follow up on what that case in Genoa Township was all about. And what everybody has to realize is this affects everybody. This isn't an isolated situation, just me or the gal whose lawsuit it is. This affects everybody because in Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution, they are supposed to guarantee a Republican form of government. They're not doing it. So right there is you're standing for a federal claim. I don't care if the municipality does it, if they're violating it, then I guarantee, hence the word guarantee. The guarantee has been violated. Their fiduciary responsibilities, they're in violation of it. So they have to be held accountable for their violations. And this is where everybody needs to start stepping up and getting involved on this. Well, even a traffic ticket's a violation of your rights when a cop pulls you over. So if you look up the elements of a crime, there's three elements within a crime. which is a corpus delicti to cause a man or a woman harm, to cause injury to a man or woman, which is personal loss, or to violate one's rights. So if we go to Rodriguez versus Ray Donovan, in the Supreme Court ruling, it stipulates that codes and statutes are ambiguous in definition. They look like law, they sound like law, but they are not law. Therefore, they lack due process. So when a cop pulls you over, And goes through and cites you with a code or statute for speeding, running a stop sign, and you've caused no crime, no harm, no injury, none of that. then he is violating your rights to bring you into a contract. So these cops unknowingly are creating crimes, committing crimes to go through and force you into, again, it's slavery, but it's into a tacit agreement to steal your sweat equity. And it's these people that are above them. The courts are, I call them banks. So it's a court and black laws dictionary is a bank. Um, and they have securities in the background, but that's, they are the biggest money laundering, uh, mob that's out there. And it's again, our rights are getting violated every single day. So yes, it affects every single one of us. People need to stand up and start reading and studying and talking with one another again. What was that court name? Rodriguez versus Ray Donovan, there's a few other ones, too, which stipulate that codes and statutes are ambiguous in definition. I don't have them right here in front of me. I'm out and about running around. But that is the... the most relevant one, the closest to our time, um, but again, where's the due process. Nobody gets due process. We don't, um, you know, if you get a late payment, um, for your car or for your house and you get billed extra you can go back after them because they failed to give you the due process of correct mailing they're supposed to hit you with either certified registered or process server they don't they're using a federal jurisdiction to enforce their uh their agreement that you signed into So there's, you can get late payments taken off your credit report and everything just because of that. But you can actually turn the tables. We do not, everybody has lost sense of what due process is, what rights they have. And equity for he that does not know his rights is afforded none. So the more people get into all your sports, you know, what did Caesar do? He brought in the Coliseum, gave them bread so they would stop revolting. Well, you got all these football games, baseball games, and people know more about those people than they can do their own rights, which is absolutely sad. Yeah, I would agree with that. And taking the time every day to just do a little bit, I think, is how we really build our knowledge base and such and understand these things. So let's go on to another subject. What's next on the list there, Mike? Well, I brought up something I sent over to you. It's called the right to choose to contract. Did you send it this morning? I'm sorry? Send it this morning? Yeah. All right. Yeah, I sent it to you, I believe, your email. I've got the DNR authority and more. Yep. That one. All right. I knew that would get your attention. Yeah. That's, that's my, that's a biggie for me. I'm so, I'm so done with the DNR. Okay. So go ahead. I'll, I'll save these and pull them up. Okay, what is, this is, I posted, I gave you a section on a case, an old case of mine, where I had raised all these issues. And in there, it states that in Gonzales v. Reich, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fed had commerce clause authority due to the aggregate effect on non-commerce activity. i.e. growing marijuana at home for personal medical use upon potential interstate commerce, meaning if individuals are allowed to grow marijuana at home for personal medical purposes, this opens a Pandora's box for increased illegal interstate sale of marijuana. Nevertheless, the High Court has never held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services and to depart from this two hundred year history permitting national government to require citizens to buy goods and services will deprive the Commerce Clause of any effect of limits. Contrary to limits set in Lopez v. Morrison, authorizing the Fed to force citizens to buy health insurance under penalty of law would create police powers indistinguishable from those reserved to the states by the Bill of Rights, and thwart the constitutional scheme of few and enumerated powers assigned to the federal government. So what we're looking at here is the Supreme Court rule that you cannot be forced into buying a product or service that the government offers. So how many people have been charged with not registering their car, not getting a driver's license? So do they have the authority to force you into commerce? No, they do not. So when you, if you only by your consent going to the secretary of state and getting a driver's license or registering your car is the only way that they can enforce it upon you. Technically under by this ruling, you are not contractually bound to enter into commerce with them to do those things. And you cannot be penalized for it. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to travel. And we don't have to register our personal automobiles for personal household purposes. So for them to turn it into a crime and say, well, you didn't register your car or you didn't get a driver's license. Well, I'm not a driver. I'm a traveler. I'm not required to do so. And this clearly states that you cannot penalize me for failing to do commerce with your corporate entity. so which document was that out of the ones you sent me I'm sorry which document was that the out of the five you sent me uh it was right to choose to contract okay I don't remember which one I think I sent you four or five different things five of them hang on I'll get it up here just a second got it And to continue here, concurring with the majority opinion, and Gonzales be right, Justice Scalia ruled that regulation of non-economic under the Commerce Clause is possible only through the necessary proper clause. But the clause establishes that the means by which laws are instituted must be appropriate, plainly adapted to that end, and are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Plainly stated, Congress cannot use unconstitutional means to execute the laws they pass. So are we, do we have to have a driver's license as a traveler? No. Only if you're doing commerce. If you're a truck driver, taxi driver, Uber driver, where you're doing commerce over the roads, yeah, now you need a driver's license. You're in commerce. But if you're not in commerce, you're just going to and from work, to and from the grocery store, over to a friend's house. That's traveling. You're not bound to have all this under contract law. On seventeen ninety eight, Justice Chase wrote that these words in one of the first Supreme Court decisions, an act of legislation, for I cannot call it a law contrary to the great first principles of the Constitution, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. Law that takes property from A and gives it to B is against all reason and justice. For a people to entrust a legislator with such powers, this analysis applies equally to citizen-to-citizen subsidy that occurs through the Obamacare mandate. This, what I'm quoting here, came out of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Obamacare, to give you a date and timeline as to when this came out. So I actually presented this in a case before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Judge Borrello, yeah, Judge Borrello of the Michigan Court of Appeals stopped me while I was going through this and said, hold on a second. I said, what's the problem? He goes, we don't talk about that century. Come again? We don't go back that far. We only go back to, I think he said sometime around the nineteen forties, nineteen fifty. Who made that decision? I'm sorry? Who made that decision for him to even say that? Exactly. Because by virtue of what he said, he literally negated the Constitution. Yes. Yes. And they would not allow me to bring that information forward on the record and actually stop me from doing so in that case. And they end up ruling against me. And I'm like, wait a minute, something's wrong here. Something's definitely wrong when you're not willing to consider and abide by the high court's rulings in cases that are older than nineteen forty. So this is why they don't like Norton. They don't like Marbury v. Madison. That's why they don't like a lot of these things, because it doesn't go with their narrative. And their narrative is complete control and power over everybody. And that's what they want. And that's what they're doing and trying to control everything that we do and everything we even say. So they're using threats to resident coercion in any way they can against us. So the Bar Association, as far as I'm concerned, is a domestic terrorist organization being funded by and through The tax dollars by way of the county commissioner's office. And because they're the ones who set the budgets for the courts. And I think it was last year or a year before, the Livingston County court system sued the Livingston County Board of Commissioners because they wanted more money in their budget. And they won. For real? Yeah. So your tax dollars are funding a terrorist organization. As far as I'm concerned, they should enforce the Patriot Act and confiscate or freeze all their assets pending a full investigation as to what they're doing. Okay. Wow, that's kind of shocking. Okay. So, yeah, this is why everybody's got to start paying attention to what's going on, because this is a system that is designed to make you a slave flat out. It's organized crime. I'm sorry? It's organized crime. It's worse than organized crime. At least the mob had a code that they followed. They just didn't go out after any Tom, Dick, and Harry. They pretty much kept within their own networks as far as those types of enforcements. The mob had a code. These guys don't have a code. They're just ruthless. They don't care who we are. They don't care about your family. They don't care about your kids. nothing they're trafficking your kids they're they're doing the family unit a harm by destroying it and you know they're doing everything they can to make you a slave in every aspect and to seize and control all of your assets even after death so um yeah the the only way they're going to be able to continue this is if you give consent we have to stop consenting And as far as going into a court, I mean, if the courts are being instructed by the FBI to treat us as domestic terrorists or extremists, why would I go into a courtroom? What would stop the judge from shooting me dead in that courtroom and declare it a judicial act? Therefore, he has absolute immunity. Nothing. And I confirmed that with someone from the federal courts. I asked them that pointed question. Does a judge have absolute immunity if he shoots me dead in the courtroom and declared a judicial act? And they said, yes. What's wrong with this picture? Like everything? Yes. Enough is enough. How did you respond to him when he said this? You know what? I don't say anything. I let them talk. I let them talk and let them say these things. Because the more I allow them to do that, the more they put their foot in their mouth. And then I can come back after them after the fact. I don't have to argue with them right then and there. I get them to say and do things they're not supposed to do. And then I'll come back after the fact. But the point of the matter is that this is their mentality. This is their mindset. This is their game plan. They don't care about us. They could care less about us because we're chattel to them. We're like a stockyard full of cattle. And if we lose one or two out of the herd, no big deal. We'll get some more. Hence why they open the borders. Yeah, I talked to a mom. One of the mom came to our meeting this past weekend to the Constitution Party meeting, and she talked about family court. and what they did to destroy her family and her daughter. Her daughter was four years old when she was taken into custody. She was sexually abused. She started talking about it when she was younger and she said, there's things that I won't even say in front of a public meeting because she said, it's so shocking and horrifying what happened to my daughter is what she said. And she has seen her for the past four years almost the the amount of time she's seen her is just it's incredible I think she's got two hours a week of supervised care when it wasn't her that did the abuse it was someone else that were clearly clearly identified and the family court system took this child away from the entire entire group of them took him deprived this mom the right to her daughter and took her away under CPS. And then we had another group of speakers that came up and said, we're working with CPS to, if you have any problems, call them. And I'm like, are you out of your mind? CPS is the, when you start looking at these government agencies to solve problems, they're part of the problem. They're taking money. They're taking the federal money. So therefore, they're a party to this organized crime that's going on, these terrorist organizations, which is really the majority of what's in our government. And I can say right now, I'm so thankful for what President Trump and a lot of the good guys that are out there that are fighting for to try to write this stuff. I don't know what we would have done had it not been for good people stepping up. And going forward, I don't know what shape we're going to be in if people don't start stepping up to fill these local offices and county offices to write it. Because it's not just at the top. It's not the top offices, which should be the other way around. The local offices should be the top offices. And as we go up to the larger and larger jurisdictions, they should be less and less relevant. Yeah, we need to learn how to self-govern again. People don't know how to self-govern. They don't know how to take care of their own affairs. And they are too reliant upon public functionaries to do it for them. And they provide that service. I don't have to worry about that. It's one less thing I got to worry about if they're doing it. Well, the problem is you're consenting to their authority, and now you've consented to the point now they control your life. They can have taken your freedom from you by your own consent. And that's what everybody has to stop doing. I mean, you hear about villages. Villages are unconstitutional. But they hoodwink the people and think, well, we're going to give you the ability to vote on this. We're going to let you decide. Well, yeah, they're letting you decide to tax yourself so you can't blame them. So you're your own worst enemy. And the only one that can do revenue raising is the legislative branch, not the executive branch. When cops give out tickets, those security instruments, i.e. tickets, they're revenue raising through the executive branch. They're not allowed to do that. It's a violation of separation of powers. So we have to stop consenting to this. We have to shut this down. The Administrative Procedures Act, you look at a lot of these codes and statutes in that, that they create these departments and agencies, create their rules, proclimate their rules. It's through the APA process. It's completely unconstitutional. It's all administrative, has nothing to do with the Constitution. And as a corporation, what's their first obligation? To their corporation, not to the people. You wonder why these public functionaries don't return phone calls, why they kind of like half listen to you and, okay, yeah, we'll look into it for you. We'll get back to you eventually because they don't care because their concern is their corporate body that they're attached to, whether it be at the state, local level, federal. It doesn't matter if they're uncorporated. They're worried about their corporate position, their corporate status. Just like any CEO is a head of a corporation, he's worried about what's in the best interest of the company and the stockholders. So why would I care about anybody else outside of that parameter? I wouldn't. And that's what they're doing. Where in our constitutions is it permissible for them to unionize? Can you imagine if Congress were to unionize? We want more money, and if we don't get it, we're going to go on strike. Okay, come on. Yeah. Police department, you know, police, they're claiming they're public functionaries. Where do they have the authority to unionize? Only because they're a corporate body can they do that. If they're truly representatives of the people, they cannot unionize. Teachers union, police union, right on down the line. How do we write that? What's the way to get redress of grievance there for that? If you were to give people a, this is what needs to be done starter kit. And I mean, simplify it. What are the best ways of doing this? And I mean, to me, protesting is not it. They're looking out the windows at you wasting time on issues that they've probably created to keep everybody mad and busy. But there's nothing that's ever gotten accomplished by these ridiculous issue protests where people drive around. I mean, yeah, they see you and they're laughing at this point in time. They're not they're not taking it seriously. Let's do a hypothetical. OK, if I were governor. Number one, state police, you're gone. You can be in an advisory position only, meaning that you can investigate homicides, you can investigate fatal car crashes, and give your recommendation as to your findings. But as far as being able to stop, detain, arrest, and issue security instruments, that's done and gone. uh local city and township police departments you have to either convert to being uh uh incorporated into the sheriff's uh uh department that county's sheriff's department as sheriff deputies or you're done you're shut down and uh that that's where I would start right there as far as the courts and and the bar association bar association you're done You are not going to anymore control, intimidate, and manipulate the legislative branch or any other branch of government through your nonsense. It's done. And you're either going to act, and the rest of the public, you're either going to act as jury or we're going to bring an action against you. the attorney ag's office the public functionaries that represent us through the the legislative branch uh the house and the senate why are they operating through a dun and brad street number each and one of them personally through their office operating a business through their office for personal gain uh uh sorry all those corporate statuses gone charter townships gone you convert back to an uncharted uh status so that you're representing the people under the republic All this corporate stuff, gone. It has to go back to the way it was. Will it be a shock to the system? Yes. Are there going to be issues? Yes. But you know what? Look at the issues we're having right now. No kidding. It's like there's so many issues that we've never addressed or didn't even know was an issue until the past probably ten years, most people. Yeah, I mean, all these departments and agencies that exist, you want to get the budget under control? Gone. They're gone. I mean, anything that isn't necessary, truly necessary, is gone. And as far as property taxes, we're going to go back to the Northwest Ordinance and enforce that. There are no property taxes. Not the way, you know, the whole system needs a complete overhaul. Yeah, not adding legislation. That's the point is we've got two thousand bills a year that go in front of our legislature in Michigan. I can't come to terms with that. This is so ridiculous. So absolutely ridiculous. They're not reading them. They have no idea what's in them. They've got assistants and students that are helping them out. And somebody tells them, a corporate entity says, tell them to vote this way. Okay, that's how I get reelected. And that's all. They're not reading this. They don't understand it. They're full-time campaigning to get reelected again to keep the power intact. Now, as far as the red flag law, that's gone. That's completely unconstitutional. I know a couple right now are tagged as sovereign citizens, extremist terrorists by this FBI bulletin for posting a no trespass sign on their property. Really? Yeah, seriously. So it's like this is way out of control. It's, you know, it's, you know, narc on your on your fellow man to keep in the good graces of the government so you don't become targeted. That's what we're a bunch of snitches upon each other and still self-governing. We've turned they turned us in. We're trying to turn everybody into a bunch of snitches. And snitching about what? Oh, my garbage cans are in the wrong spot, so it's a violation of the HOA. Oh, I put a no trespass sign on my property, so therefore I'm an extremist and terrorist. I'm a threat to the community. Come on, give me a break. Right, right. It's amazing. These are important discussions to have, and I hope you can come back on. Can you come back on again next week, Tuesday? I will try. I'll let you know, see what my work schedule is, and I'll let you know. We'll see if we can get Vaughn to come back on again because he's interesting to talk to and maybe he can get in a place that has a little better connectivity. But this is really fun. So let's say a prayer and then we'll go to last words and move about our day. This was a wonderful show. I really appreciate you taking the time and sharing all that you know and the actions that you've actually taken so you know how this works. So anyhow, dear Heavenly Father, thank you so very much for Mike and John and Vaughn. for coming on today. I ask your favor to rest upon them mightily that you would protect and defend them on their quest and what they're doing right here to hold the government accountable. So thankful, so thankful for all the wonderful people that you have brought forward at this time. to fight for this nation, to restore our Constitutional Republic, going back to the Constitution, the law, which our founding fathers gave us. And once again, another group of people that was appointed for this time who went under tremendous, tremendous persecution. And they figured out how to write the ways to fight it. going back to Judges and Kings, which you gave us. The precedent has always been there. You've always given us everything that we need to live in peace in our land with our neighbors, to uphold the rights that you've given us, and we're just very thankful for that. I ask that you would bless every single person out there and know that they're very, very loved, that they would know that they're very, very loved by you, their Father, the Creator, and that they would turn to you in all those situations which may be difficult, or caused him heartache, any health issues, issues with family, bad relationships and such, that they would bring that to you because we know that you are abundantly able to fix and restore all of these problems into a good situation. Thank you for everything you've done for us. You're a wonderful friend to us. We want to be a friend to you. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. So any last words here, Mike, before we go on to our day? I got some more hay to move today. Just get out there, get active, get engaged, and stop consenting to their nonsense. I mean, that's the only way we're going to start getting back to a republic is stop consenting, stop contracting with them. And, you know, these laws, these Supreme Court rulings, they're out there. They're in our favor. They support what we're doing. So, I mean, I've yet to hear a Supreme Court case that I've come across, that John has come across, or anyone else that says we're not supposed to be doing this. I don't see it. I've never heard of one. What we are seeing is that these Supreme Court rulings are stating that they're not supposed to be doing this. So we're obviously doing something right. We're obviously following what we're doing, what we're supposed to be doing. They're the ones that are not following the protocols. So we're on the right track. Just keep engaged, keep moving forward. And, yeah, that's what we got to do. And never give up. Stand your ground with no fear, trusting that God's going to make the way for you when there seems no way. You have to go back to that. I believe everybody has to go back to that because we are, in fact, in a spiritual war right now. It looks like it's different than what it is. But truly, if you break it down to the core, it's a spiritual war that we're in. Mm-hmm. So go to God and he will make the path straight for you and give you the strength to walk whatever path it is that he lays before you. Well, thank you for being on today, Mike. I really appreciate it. that time that you put into this. It's just so gracious of you. And I really appreciate that so much. And everybody out there, thanks for joining us today. God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love and God bless America. Make it a great day. Go out and smile at everybody. Wave. Do some positive things around here. Hug your animals. Make sure that everybody knows that they're loved and that somebody cares. That starts with an individual choice of each and every one of us. Tomorrow I will be on again with Liberty Essentials with Bill Moore, Karen Riveter, and Ralph the IT guy, and Greg Martini going through the law once again. We're going to continue to go through this until it's so ingrained in us that the government right now is not necessarily our friend. Now, historically, I think we've got some really good people in there that are trying to do the right thing, people that are around President Trump. The strategy there, the good people there. I'm so thankful for each and every one of you. And you all know who you are. We know who you are, too, even though you haven't gotten a lot of thanks for what you're doing. But thank you to every single person that has fought in this war that we're in, this information war, as well as a spiritual war we're in. Thank you for each and every one of you. We'll see you tomorrow. Have a great day. Stay on the line, Mike.