Published Jan. 13, 2026, 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 X/Twitter: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1kvJpMoqkRQxE Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/636616148890812/videos/1836655386983635 Rumble: https://rumble.com/v749owy-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1132026-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html https://rumble.com/v749otw-bnn-brandenburg-news-network-1132026-lawful-defense-john-tatar.html Odysee: https://odysee.com/@BrandenburgNewsNetwork:d/bnn-2026-01-13-lawful-defense-john-tatar:0 BNN Live: https://Live.BrandenburgNewsNetwork.com Guests: Donna Brandenburg, John Tatar
Good morning and welcome to Brandenburg News Network. I am Donna Brandenburg. It is the thirteenth day of January twenty twenty six. It always takes me a while to remember the year when I make it when we move to a new year, but it is what it is. So anyhow, let's go right to adding John. And hey, John, how you doing, buddy? I'm good. I'm good. Awesome. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an American. I want my country back. I'm wearing my good shirt for today. I love it. I absolutely love it. You know, the fighting that I see between people, I had a situation last night that was really kind of crazy. In a way, because there was a misunderstanding of some sort by, I wasn't part of it, but I had to moderate it. And there was some misunderstanding by some people. And you know what? The tempers flared a little bit and people were looking for justice for their hurts. And they weren't able to look at the situation for information and to make a good decision. But I thought it was a really interesting interaction because there was no heroes amongst this. It was people that were acting out of pain. And I think that as we go forward as a nation, as a group of people, as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans, because they're both part of the crime syndicate, the structure of it, not people, but the structure is. And so we really have to think things through and probably should pause before we speak. So there's my good morning, think about it before you speak moment. Yeah, once you open your mouth and it comes out, it's too late to take it back. Yeah. And so and there's usually unless somebody stand in there with, you know, some sort of a clear and present threat. I think the first thing is to just to stop and say, what's the real threat here? Is there a real threat here? Answer to that. Ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine percent of the time is no. And so, you know, you can sit there and evaluate what's happening, you know, and make a good response to bring peace to any situation. I'm not saying you as John Tater or anybody else out there. I should say one should stop, you know, and take a pause. But I don't like talking that way. It's not the way I talk. So. Anyhow, so we went through, so you were saying that Janice wanted to clip out. Janice Daniels is part of the Magnificent Republic group, and as a hats off to all of them, I think they do wonderful, wonderful things out there and work educating people. John, it's John's group and such, a whole group of them. So she wanted to clip something out from, I think it was the twenty third of December. Was that correct? That's correct. And so we were talking about that this morning and going over the cases that we had in that segment and maybe adding some new ones. So with that said, I'm going to sit back here and drink my water and let you, the teacher, if you don't know John, John was or is, I'm going to use it present tense because you never abandon your oath, a colonel. as well in the army as well as um he was a teacher did i say that right it was your your colonel in the army right well lieutenant colonel some people make a big difference difference or exception to the fact that it's a lieutenant colonel, not a colonel. Well, educate me a minute on the difference because I'm fairly uneducated on the structure of the military when it comes down to squadrons, battalions, this company, that company, and even ranks. I know some, but I'm not an expert. So can you explain that to everybody what that means? And he was also a teacher, taught history as well as building. Yes, home construction, building, history, government, taught government for a few years, and wood shop or just general shop in general. But anyway, yeah, in the military, you start as a second lieutenant, and you work up to first lieutenant, then captain, and then you go into what they call the field grade. military and that's major lieutenant colonel and colonel and then there's the general grade so there's three different kind of stages that you advance in. Lieutenant Colonel is whenever they have the word Lieutenant, that means you're not quite there yet, but you're going to be there kind of thing. Like Lieutenant Governor. Lieutenant Governor. Yeah, Lieutenant Governor. Not the governor, but could be the governor if something happened or whatever. And Lieutenant Colonel is the same thing. Lieutenant Colonel is pretty high in the grade. In the Navy, they're called commanders and they do command ships. So it's way up there. Lieutenant colonel and then you become a full colonel or bird colonel if you want to call it or whatever. And then you go into the general grade. First one, first star is brigadier. Second star is major. Third star is lieutenant general. So he's not quite a general, but a full-fledged general, which is a four star. He's a lieutenant general, which is really a high rank. But the lieutenant kind of just sets him back just a little bit. So that's basically what that's all about. so the the second man usually is the one that does all the work in my experience well that could be true um i never found that to be the case but except when i was a when i was a captain uh they always used to tell me the captain is the two bars and the two bars are the railroad track which which the eagle lands on the colonel lands on and of course he gives you all the work and all the effort and you have to do everything so i mean that's that's just a saying in the military because we got frustrated i got frustrated from time to time uh as a lieutenant and as a captain because of all of the extra stuff i had to do you know that was part of the game so if you're if you're into the game if you understand the game and you understand the rules a little bit you get through it without much effort If you don't understand the rules, then you're constantly butting heads because it's too much work or it's this or it's that. But it's like everything else. If you understand the game and you play the game, you're fine. So anyway. Yeah, well, I think it's amazing. So let's talk about some of these cases and a short review over the ones maybe we did before and then go into some new territory. And I'm going to sit back and drink my water. Okay, before we do that, got to go back to what the Republic is all about. And the Republic is based on the rule of law. If we don't have the rule of law, then we don't have a Republic. And all of the deep staters, Democrats, Republicans, and all those people that are on the side of trying to graft the system, those people do not want to do not want a republic because then it's the rule of law and you can't bend from the rule of law and judges can't twist the rules of law because they feel that they have a right to do so they have to follow it the letter of the law and so that's why we want a republic and not a democracy or not uh not any other form of government that's out there A republic not only protects the rights of the individual, because there are no group rights in the republic. There are no rights for the LGBTQXYZ people. There are no special privileges for the blacks. There are no special privileges for women. We all have the same exact rights and privileges that are guaranteed to us by what? By not only the Constitution, They are God-given rights, but by the Declaration of Independence. And in the Declaration of Independence, it says governments are instituted among men to protect their life, liberty, and property. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which is what it says. But pursuit of happiness is also property, the right of ownership. And so the Declaration of Independence is a very critical document, as well as the Constitution. And we need to understand what the function of government is. The function of government is not to run our lives, or to create what we call a hospital from birth to death. They're going to take care of us. That's not what the Republic is all about. The Republic is about a set of people called public functionaries that do their job, that follow the rule of law, and therefore run the country the way it's supposed to be ran and giving us, the citizens, the rights, times, and privileges that we have to enjoy life and to experience what life is all about. That's the real version of a republic. The democracy is obviously mob rule And in mob rule where you can have a fifty plus one percent tell the other forty nine percent what to do, that's basically a dictatorship because that can be that can be swayed. As we know, the Michigan Constitution of nineteen sixty three was brought on by one tenth of one percent of the public voting and that one tenth of one percent put of the ruling over the rest of the people that didn't want it. And that's an unfair system called a democracy. And we want to stay away from the democracy. And as Pacific states, which is one that we will talk about a little bit, basically says, if you see the word democracy, you demolish it because they had no reason or no good things to say about a democracy. We have a republic in this country. We always have. And that goes back to our Constitution, which guarantees every state, local government, City government, state government, village and townships, a Republican form of government, and that's Article IV, Section IV of the United States Constitution. Guarantees it to us. Can I interject something here that's just an observation a minute, is that I think the example of how ridiculous thing, even thinking about it as a democracy is, is that having an example of how this could really be abused. Okay. Because I don't think a lot of people understand what it means to have a democracy. So I'm just going to give you a scenario. If people decided that the, that the color orange is no good, it stands for something bad. So guess what? Orange is now abolished. That would be a democracy. If they decided that the church that you go to is something that they find is important to them, your church could be nullified and or abolished. If they decided that if the majority who may or may not be working, but on the government dole decides that, Hey, nobody should own property. So we're going to take your house and it goes into community property. That could happen. It has happened. And so when you think about individual rights, it's the in my in my way, the way I look at it is that you get to live your best self and nobody can tell you otherwise, as long as you're not hurting another person. That is correct. That is correct. At a very base level with Donna being the color commentator right now, the danger of going to a democracy is the most unstable, most likely to devolve into a lack of a better word, a pissing contest on who's more right. And everyone is going to lose because the country will divide very quickly. It is a democracy that creates a dictator because the final end result is the public votes a certain way. And we know that elections can be manipulated. One or two votes, three votes can make a difference. And that one, two, three, or four votes that make a difference. And we know it by the, uh, uh, the, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh where a small group of people that voted for and how many times did they did they vote for the Constitution before it became accepted? There were several different votes. We have to look that up. But there were several different votes. It didn't pass the first time or the second. I think it was the third or fourth or fifth vote finally that it did pass. And so if they keep grinding at us long enough, they can get what they want, the government, those people in power, those people that seek power. that seek to be the dictators of all of us, those people can manipulate the system, can get one group against another group and destroy just by the media and so on. And the media does a great job of it, separate people based on whatever. Obama brought that up. Obama started the racism that we pretty much got rid of prior to Obama getting in office. And then he brought it all back just by constantly manipulating the news cycles and the media. And we, the people that only pay attention to CNN or some MSNBC or whatever those alphabet organizations are out there, are not paying attention to what's really going on and that brings me back to the most important thing is everything out there uh patriots that they call themselves patriots uh the people that uh have podcasts and so on and so forth don't speak about the republic and how to bring the republic back they speak about the democracy in many cases and they are What, distractions, do we call them? Playing into the narrative and becoming useful idiots or captured assets is what it is. Are they CIA front? Who are they? We don't know who these people are. They call themselves patriots, but they don't talk the language of the patriots. They talk the language of patriots. some other group of people that want to distract us from the republic. All of these fringe arguments, one of them being excuse me, one of them being the flag, another one being birth certificates and another one being the Susquehanna trust. And I've gone through all of those. Those are distractions. Distractions from what? Because you are chasing down that rabbit hole rather than thinking about the republic and how to bring the republic back. That's a distraction. No matter what we do, we got to stop the distractions and focus on the republic to bring the republic back because that's our salvation. Nothing else. Okay, I'm going to show you something that I'm going to through the magic of Having a little bit of a skill. Choose to be a patriot, not a patriot. And that gets us out of the realm of our political. That's good. I heard I heard that one time or a few times, actually. And so, you know, it's like there's a difference. And when you're in the political realm, like you ran for governor, I ran for governor. the the amount of money going through these organizations and what it is was they literally created an industry and the industry is a political industry which is set against the people it's all about the money and that that is very easy to see if you spend any time and i mean any time really evaluating it, not listening to their, their craps, you know, spiels out there, their canned, their canned, uh, pitch job for getting into office it's all it is it's kind of like it's it's like a snake oil salesman listen to him for a few minutes and and the majority are plastic political action figures i got into that with ralph yesterday too um with ralph revan he we talked about how being authentic or not majority of them are not it's all canned they repeat the same words the same buzzwords somebody tells them what to say because they're like a puppet with somebody's hand up their you know, and you know, just moving the lips. I mean, that's, that's what it is. It's like, it truly is. So the question I always ask is whose hands out there, you know, of this puppet, because somebody is making them say to what they want them to say, do what they, you know, do what they're doing there. And you can spot inauthenticity a mile away. Most people can. How about those that don't really know what they're doing? I mean, they run for office because, oh, it sounds like a good thing to do, but they never read the Constitution. They don't know what it says. They have no idea what a republic is. Yeah, they wanted a shiny title above their head and their desk. And that's it. And I ran into a lot of those when I ran for governor, people coming up to me and I'd ask them. I had a Democrat come up to me and I said, hey, What kind of government do we have, a republic or a democracy? And it was a woman, and she said, a democracy. I said, really? I says, where did you get that from? I says, you know the difference between the two. She had no idea what it was. And she's running for office, and I don't know if she ever got in, but that's the point. that they run for office, they don't really even know why they're running for or what they're running for. They're just running for a paycheck and a title and to be somebody important. But rather than try to fix the system, fix the government, fix the republic, they're not interested in that. So that's a problem that we have. Distractions are everywhere. The internet is a distraction. if you don't know how to discern between the truth and the republic and the democracy and of course the news media i don't have to say much about that because we all know that they are as corrupt and as trump put it fake news and they've been for a long time So it's all in control of the public. They want to control us. They want to control us through the food, by poisoning us, and then putting us on pills for the drug companies. You know, all my life they've been battling cancer. They still haven't come up with a cure. You know, I got a really interesting having been diagnosed with incurable. So they said cancer years ago. The way you cure it is you'll never go back to the doctor again. That's what I did. You know, not telling me what to do. It's not medical advice. But I made it through four appointments. And I was like, this is crap. I'm not I'm not doing any of this because they have no interest in getting anyone while the dollar signs flash in their eyes. They don't listen to what you have to say because they know best and they treat you like a child. It was it was a very eye opening experience, you know, but yeah. I just lost my train of thought there. So what were we talking about previous to that? All of the professions are that way, though. They all are. But we're looking at the attorneys. They're the same. They're not out there to protect you as an individual, as a client. They're there for the court system. They work for the court system. They're to protect the court system and the illegal operations of the hamster wheel of injustice that's out there. That's what they're there for. It's all about money. That's right. The more they can get you to give up your cash based on your divorce, based on your suing somebody, based on whatever, whatever, whatever, the more they can get involved in that, the more money they make. And that's their game. They're out there to make money. Well, think about all the trade associations. So I see this with the railroad because we own a rail yard. And what I see that there is that, you know, you got to get certain certifications to do certain things and handle different materials, which the training is a good idea. I mean, I'm not advocating not being trained, but what happens is they set the standards and this is in the builders trade associations. It's in the plumbers trade associations. It's all of these unionized type. They all look like a union, whether they're not, or whether they are not declared is that they function is that, and they get to set the rules or the standards. They get to set the prices you have to pay in it's extortion because you have to pay into these trade cartels in order to work in those areas. and they keep raising the bar, raising the bar, raising the bar, until the only people that can get into that are the ones who pay to get into it and pay dearly. It is to stop the growth, stop jobs, and then if somebody within the government who is appointed to oversee these unconstitutional trade mafias, they'll get a nice, cushy government job and in another area where they reward them so they can funnel money to them. It's incredible. You know, there's the payoff. Cheat America through the trade associations and the unions and all of this, all of these cartels, trade cartels, and you get a payoff somewhere down the line. It's going to happen. I have absolutely seen it in action. And, in fact, there's a local mayor who was involved in that on overseeing a uh a construction a highway construction project and he got in his mayor and i i looked at him because he was kind of being a jerk and i said so how'd you get your cushy government job what'd you do to get the cushy government jack and uh i had figured out though he wouldn't tell you what he didn't have to i knew because the contractor left an additive out of the the uh the concrete that would have made sure that it had a longer life span, it was left out. And surprise, surprise, it absolutely failed when the warranty expired. And he got a cushy, and he made sure it happened. And he got a cushy government job as a mayor. Yep, of course. well that brings us to the rule of law and if we're going to talk about the rule of law we have to talk about supreme court cases and of course there are six circuit cases in our in michigan area and the the circuit that we belong is the sixth circuit there are other circuits and then the district court level uh first of all if you go into the district court level in michigan you are going into a very corrupt system The district court level doesn't follow the rule of law by any stretch of the imagination. They are all courts. No, I don't know where the judges come from or where they get their law training from, but they don't know the law or they use the law against the public. That's what it's all about in the district court level. You're never going to get any justice at the district court level and anybody paying attention to what Trump is doing, he's not getting any justice at the district court level yet. But we're going to get rid of these district court judges, both federal and state, and eventually over time, we'll get rid of them and bring in people that understand the rule of law. or trash the whole system and start over again because it's not going to work the way it is. There's too many entrenched assets there, and I think there's so much threat and coercion. Even if you've got a good judge in there, they're going to come right up against them and do things to hold them hostage. That's right. They do that. They do do that. I've seen it. Okay, so the first case that I would like to talk about is Haines versus Kerner. Would you like me to bring it up? If you want, or I don't know, there are a lot of cases, so you're not going to be able to go bring them all up, but the names of them you might publish. I'm trying to get everything you sent me in a folder. Well, it's in the folder, yeah. Haines versus Kerner is an important case because What it basically says is that judges are not to hold pro se litigants. Those are people that go in without attorneys to the same standards that lawyers or well-trained attorneys are held to. but they don't follow that law either. The judges don't follow that. The judges are actually supposed to help the pro se litigant. Oh, they don't. Trust me, they don't. Oh, they don't. We know that. Yes, we do. And I'm firsthand experience of that. Judges ignore Haynes versus Kerner, but it's a Supreme Court case. Now, the purpose of the court cases the supreme court cases are to establish basically what the united states constitution states or says it's constitutional uh so in in the case of haynes versus kerner it is uh constitutional that the people that are going in as pro says have a level playing field against the attorneys but we know that that's that doesn't hold water especially in the district court level uh attorneys have just the fact that they're an attorney they have more power and more uh more clout with the judges than pro says that's not the way it's supposed to be judges aren't supposed to be uh Robert Underwood Jr. : Balancing the scale one way or the other they're supposed to be the arbiter which they listen to both sides, they listen to both arguments, then they make a decision based on both arguments, but they don't do that judges, because they are attorneys in in the past. Robert Underwood Jr. : All support the Attorney system. or the bar. Therefore, in the district court level, you have a hard time fighting as a pro se litigant. If you don't go in there with your ammunition properly set out, you're going to lose. That's just typical behavior of it. Haynes versus Kerner, again, if you scroll down a little bit, there's a yellow section if it's mine. I just kind of figured out how to bring it up because it didn't center. It's a little wonky this morning. Let me see if I can center this thing and we'll see what we got. Keep going. I'm still messing with the computer. Okay. They're great when they work, but if they're not, it's going to say. Yes. Then you got it. Yeah, I do. If you scroll down a little bit, we'll read that section. There you go. I think it just passed it and I can't read it because it's too small. I will read it for you. Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however, inartfully pleaded are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim, which would entitle him to relief. Okay, basically again, cannot hold us to the same standards they hold attorneys to. And in my case, Judge Berg on his last order said that I filed my document on twenty nine days and I was supposed to file it within twenty eight days. So he dinged me on the one day. And the fact that it took him eighty six days to come up with a response to or come up with an order based on the filings of the opposing party and myself took him eighty six days and it took the court clerk who screwed this whole thing up from the beginning. One hundred and forty two days to get me to a point where I could actually see a judge when they were supposed to only have twenty one days to answer my complaint, which they never answered. And the summons said they had to answer within twenty one days. Then it was sixty, then another sixty. Uh, and they never answered it. So, but he dinged me on one day and he dismissed my case based on the one day. Uh, so this is, this is, uh, he doesn't follow Haynes versus Kerner at all. Uh, he holds me to the strict standards of an attorney and an attorney. If the attorney doesn't do it on a timely fashion, uh, you know, he has all kinds of excuses. We have a big law firm. We have lots of cases. I mean, we have a lot of different things going on. Therefore, don't hold us to the twenty-eight day. We'll give us another day or two or three or four or whatever, another month. He'll do that for the attorneys. We won't do that for pro se. Well, you know, in my case, that summary disposition that the judge approved, but we re-objected to it. So we're in the process of continuing to go on and not only expose people for misrepresenting the law, but both But both not doing their job. And the reality was that the opposing attorney used a case and the judge just was like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that kind of nonsense. And then I brought it up and she's like, where'd you get it from? What court was it in? What was the jurisdiction? And I'm sitting there going, you just took his word on the same case. And you never grilled them, but they grilled me. She grilled me like crazy. And it was rapid fire. And I'm like, I'm done there. There's no, there's no justice right here. So, so actually there was an attorney in the courtroom and offered to He goes, you absolutely have a case here. Absolutely. And, you know, it was like there was nothing done correctly in that courtroom. So if you decide to go pro se, prepare to get your tail handed to you at some point in time because they don't want you there. You're just a you're just a in the way of the revenue raising judicial system that we have. But that doesn't mean you don't do it. It means just get better at it. Yeah, if your pleadings are good that you turn in paper wise and you are able to, you know, they don't they won't let me into court. I have I've not been in the court on in the federal since two thousand twelve. They just won't let me in to do oral argument. They are a bunch of crap. It has to be heard. Why are they the choke point to the system? The court system is a choke point. Because I'll embarrass the attorneys, I'm pretty sure. My pleadings are very well put together and there's really no wiggle room for the judge. So he doesn't want to argue that with me in an open court where it becomes public record. He wants to close the case as quickly as he can. So Judge Berg, federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, is just that. He's a criminal. He doesn't know what he's doing. He does know what he's doing. He's trying to shut me down in any possible way he can and dismiss my case. So that's that. That's that. We'll get on to the next one, which is a very important case, which is US versus Throckmorton. And US versus Throckmorton basically states. that uh fraud vitiates everything if it's fraud there is no time limit on fraud and everything is thrown out based on uh a fraud if if a fraud case is brought forward but it's very interesting that the courts do not like to use that word fraud they like to use other terminology like overreach which doesn't exist or or misrepresentation but they never use the word fraud And again, I can't read this too small. All these cases and many others, which have been examined relief has been granted on the ground that by some fraud practice directly upon the party seeking relief against a judgment or decree that party has been prevented from presenting all of his case to the court. That also happened to me. Violation and fraud vitiates everything and a judgment equally with a contract. That is a judgment obtained directly by fraud or not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument for in general blah, blah, blah. There you go. So U.S. versus Throckmorton talks about fraud and fraud vitiates everything. There's not much more you could say about it. Next case we talked about last week was Downs versus Bidwell, and this has got some very very important points in it, even though it's a dissenting opinion, which means that several judges dissented from the Supreme Court majority and their word is just, their opinions are just as important or powerful as the judges that ruled in favor of this particular case. But in the descending opinion, and it's close to the end, so you can do some scrolling, there are several things that we need to look at to this case. One, most important, is that we are the sovereign. I think that's the first. I think you just passed it. Just kidding. I'll keep going. I'll get there. Okay. Yeah, it's Justice Matthews. That's a very, very important and powerful part of this case. Mr. Justice Matthews said, when we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they 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 the play. Hang on. in action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself, of course, is not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law. But in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power from Marbury v. Madison to the present day, no utterance of this court has intimated a doubt that in its operation on the people by whom and for whom it was established, the national government is a government of enumerated powers. to exercise of which is restricted to the use of means appropriate and plainly adapted to constitutional ends and which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. There you go. Most important point is sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. and we are the sovereign we are not subject to law laws the whole purpose of law is to protect us from the over running of government the usurpation of authority by government you took it off there's still some other stuff there that you know okay you still want me to do that okay i'm almost there too quick to click here this morning Yeah, you want to go back because there's a couple other parts that are very, very critical that we might want to look at. Scroll down. This is, like I say, one of the very, very powerful cases, descending opinions of other judges of the Supreme Court. So this is very important. I think I'm going too fast, so I'll keep talking while I'm finding it, please. The other, the next one talks about the Constitution is never suspended because we've heard this nonsense, especially during, uh, two thousand nineteen. Keep going beyond that. Two thousand and nineteen when they had the Covid-nineteen nonsense. that they could suspend our rights and make us stay home and make us wear masks and make us stand six feet apart they had no authority to do that all right that's the read that part right there in the language of judge cooley the constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment It neither changes with time nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances. It may be amended according to its own permission, but while it stands, it is a law for rulers and people equally in war and peace and covers with a shield of its protection all classes of men and all times and under all circumstances. Its principles cannot therefore be set aside in order to meet the supposed necessities of great crises. No doctrine involved involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the writ by the wit of man. Then that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exegesis of government. Uh, what happened? COVID- they ignored everything that was lawful. This was, this was suspended. our right to go to church if you wanted to, our right to speak, our right to go anywhere we wanted to, to travel, was all suspended based on some sort of ecstasy of crisis that we had. And of course, the Constitution is never suspended under any circumstances because basically it was brought on during a crisis, right? When we were fighting the Revolutionary War, we brought on the Constitution. So how can you suspend it when we have something like a COVID problem? Oh, my God, got to go get vaccinated and all this nonsense and wear your mask and Because it was fear that brought us not intelligence, not the Constitution, not the laws of the land, but the fear created by these public functionaries that have been in office that were out there just to create fear. And so the constitution is never suspended. You know what? And it's, it's like, it's like this, you know, you've got, we've got a bunch of crazy people out there who want to stake a flag onto any crisis, which is one popping up every two minutes, instead of dealing with things and having the weight of what's going on. The problem with COVID is they created it. It was created in the United States because I interviewed the guy whose family actually funded the great, the gain of function. They, and, uh, And University of Madison, Wisconsin is where it started. That's right. The whole nonsense of the COVID thing really brought the Constitution down and the people to their knees based on fear, not on intelligence, not on understanding the law, not on understanding what the republic is all about. So we need to go back to the rule of law and these people that violated the rule of law, and they're going to, they're going to suffer the consequences. I am pretty sure they're going to end up either in prison or, uh, uh, might have a necktie party. Who knows? Well, that would probably be appropriate because it's treason and, uh, the persons and people that were involved in the gain and function, the gain of function, uh, stuff that happened in Madison are tied directly, and I mean directly, to the Bush crime syndicate. Oh, Bush and Clinton and Obama, that whole crew of dirigibles. It was tied directly to the, because of who funded it. And so that came through the Bush crime syndicate, which is the right wing of the same bird, the Uniparty. Yes. The next case is Yickwo v. Hopkins, but you don't have to bring that case up because... Oh, but now it's a challenge, John. You gave me a challenge, and you want to know what happens when I get a challenge? It's like, ain't no going back. Yickwo v. Hopkins basically is stated in Downs v. Bidwell. Yickwo v. Hopkins was ruled in and Downs v. Bidwell was in I think somewhere around there, in . So it updated Yickwell v. Hopkins, but it quoted Yickwell v. Hopkins pretty much to the letter. That's why I'm saying you really don't have to bring it up. There's two cases that say that we, the citizens, are sovereign. And you don't want to bring this up. I'm going to bring this up so that it's on record. So if anybody wants to go back and clip it, like, say, Janice, for example, that they'll be able to have, like, information here to see what it is. Okay. Yeah, you go versus Hopkins, uh, and, and I don't know if I yellowed this or not. I think I did, but. It's been a while since I've looked at this case, so you can kind of scroll through it and see it. But it basically says the same thing as Downs versus Bidwell. And since Downs, there it is, since Downs versus Bidwell is more recent, I use that more often. When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they're supposed to rest and review the history for the development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and 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 government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. Does that sound like something we just read? Kind of like word for word almost. It is. It is. But that's why I didn't bring your quote. That's why I didn't say you didn't have to bring it up. But there it is. And it was ruled in eighteen eighty six and it didn't change for several hundred years or a hundred years back in nineteen oh three or four. Whenever Downs versus Bidwell was ruled upon, they used the exact same quote. So that's still very powerful. And we need to understand that. It's probably more powerful, really, if we're looking at it as constitution constitutionally allowable. That I think we've got to peel back like the last, you know, hundred, hundred and fifty years and really take a look at things on what was manipulated, such as our tax structure. The Sixteenth Amendment should be absolutely abolished. It was in conflict with everything before it. And it was not done correctly, just like the Michigan Constitution. Somebody that had a great idea out there and spends time eating fat free cookies and sipping pumpkin latte somewhere. decided that this was their personal issue to install. This goes to another thing I wanted to talk about with people who are in office and have a personal agenda. I'm going to bring up an example because I was in Grand Rapids yesterday driving around. I had to go do something. And they've made this absolutely incredibly stupid arch over Wealthy Street to connect a hospital to an office building or whatever it is. It's there under construction. My guess is I'm going down the road and the road is falling apart totally. But somebody got to stamp their name on that stupid arch so that they had some bragging rights of some great, fantastic finger painting that they've done. It's like a kindergarten mentality, but didn't take care of the base problem. And if you look at that, and I haven't done a cost estimate or looking at what it costs to put that stupid arch up, okay, to make some sort of stupid political statement for somebody to stupidly put their signature on, it's gotta be in the millions. And so with that said, the add-on, why are the streets right underneath this, absolutely enough to shake your car or truck out of alignment. They could have used the money to do so much good instead of a finger painting project. That's what I looked at it yesterday and I said, this is just another fingerprint painting from a kindergartner who wants to step on a stage and go, everybody go, yay, look at the great thing you created finger painting. So from here on out, I shall forth can, you know, refer to that stupid arch on wealthy street as a finger painting. So anyhow, anyhow, all right. But you're going to, you're going to upset the poor guy. Who knows? It could be a guy or a girl. It probably it could be a bunch of them that decided to get together and say, let's make an arch. Won't that be fantastic? You know, and that was it. We get to put our names on it because we got to build an art and have a plaque and everything as the streets fall apart. Unbelievable. Stupid, stupid, stupid people. Another case that we want to talk about, and we're kind of running out of time so that we might have to end here and pick it up next week, is Scher versus Rhodes. This is a very important case. The reconsideration one or Rhodes two in my files. I've got three Scher versus Rhodes files. Reconsideration. Well, it has to do with... I'm going to take a guess and say it's two. We'll see what happens here. It should be a... a Word document. And I've got it from you under PDF. These are all things that John has sent me, by the way, just so everybody knows. And it is, in fact, his yellow... Go down and see if there's some red and yellow on it. Yep, there's John's work right there. That's not my work, that's Ron's work. Oh, okay, Ron's work. Yeah, my sidekick that works with me, and he has a law... degree but not a bar license so he's uh all in favor of the rule of law and not in favor of the rule of the bar which is a private membership club a country club so when they whip their alleged license out they are committing fraud upon you and the united states because there's no such thing as a license to practice law period subject over right yep they're all criminals Scroll down, and I'm not quite sure how to tell you when to stop, but there's a red line that says the state has no power to impact to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. That's the Constitution. Then he brings in ex parte young as part of it. That's on the next paragraph. If you find that, let's see. Oh, there's a page number on there. Eleven. Two. Yeah, two. Number two. Roman numeral two. Okay, page number one. Yeah, no. No, you're too far. I just thought when you flew past it. I think you just passed it, basically. There you go. That's it? Yeah, scroll a little more the other way. Okay. Up or down? Back. Yeah, down. Up. I don't know. Down, down, down, down. The other way. The other way. You're at three. You want to go to two. Okay. We're going to go to two here a minute as we do this in a very, very authentic way. I think you're right there. I think you're right there. There's two. Yeah. it it it has been settled that the eleventh amendment provides no shield for a state official and and they come and they use the word official but it should be public functionary but nonetheless um uh and then and then and i have it up i have my copy up so i can read because there's a lot of little in a lot of little points in here that need to be brought out and and i I thought I could figure it out if I brought my own up here. And then it says, a state has no power to impact to him any immunity from responsibility of the supreme authority of the United States. and here we have these uh people from the doj and including berg who doesn't know any better and says oh yeah they have absolute immunity they can do whatever they want to in the court of law and as long as they're in their jurisdiction they can they can do anything they want and get away with it no this says state has no power to impart to him and they're speaking of representatives, and again, stripping officials of their character. And that brings in Ex Parte Young, which basically says the same thing. And we'll get to Ex Parte Young in a moment, but that's very important. This is another one that says no immunity to these people, to these judges, to whomever is violating the law. If they have total immunity, a judge could literally put all out a gun and shoot somebody in a courtroom and not be charged for it. I mean, that's the extreme case. But the case, the example still stands. If they have no immunity and they say or if they have immunity, which they state they have, which they do not, then they are above the law and can do anything they want, which is what they're doing. And then, yeah, if you scroll down a little more, there's a star on the left, couple of stars on the left side of the article. And one of them, I'm looking at the second one, actually. In this country, the development of the law of immunity for public officials has been the product of constitutional provisions as well as legislative and judicial processes. The federal constitution grants absolute immunity to members of both House and Congress with respects to any speech, debate, vote, or actions while in session. While in session, a congressman could say something that's off color or not correct, but he can't be held for that based on the fact that he's conducting business. Same with the judge. If a judge conducts business properly in his courtroom, by the rule of law, he cannot be held liable for that. and the Constitution grants immunity, but only if he's within his authority. And then, public officials, whether, yeah, there's the three star. That's the one we want, just below the three star. public officials again public functionaries whether governors mayors or legislature police legislatures or judge who fail to make decisions when they are needed or who do not act to implement decisions when they are made do not fully and faithfully perform the duty of their office and therefore they lose their liability I mean their immunity, not liability. They lose their immunity because they have not performed faithfully the duties of their office. Now, what's faithfully the duties of a judge? The duties of the judge is to use the law, to judge the law, right? And if he fails to judge the law, to use the law in a case, then he fails to perform the duties of his office and he becomes liable for that. So you still canceled just before I had one more important point to bring up. I just switched screens. I wanted them to see your face when you were talking. Okay. All right. That's fine. It's just an artistic determination or something. Going down to... This is what I consider very important for this case. Going down to section four, which you'll find on the left. Keep going, it's a long way down. There's a lot of important stuff in this case, but this particular point is something that I like to drive home. I use this in my case against Judge Berg. Okay, just a little further. That paragraph right there where it says we can readily grant that a declaration. Nope, that's not the one I'm looking at. Further proceedings is the one I want. Keep going right there. Further proceedings, either by way of summary judgment or by a trial on the merits are required. In other words, they can't dismiss, the complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than is possible on a motion to dismiss a complaint. And in my particular case, the DOJ came up with they have absolute immunity, dismissed the case, and Byrd dismissed the case. Never was heard anything on the record. never brought any of the merits of the case out, never spoke about what the content of the case was, or even had the defendant's answer My complaint, which was required twenty one days after they received the summons to answer the complaint, they never did. This is a year later, still not answered the complaint. And yet it was dismissed by Judge Berg based on the fact that he thinks they had absolute immunity. And that's what not what sure versus road says, says further proceedings, either by way of summary judgment or by trial on the merits are required. Not maybe you could have it. Maybe you can't have it. There are required. The complaining parties are entitled to be heard more fully than is possible on a motion to dismiss a complaint. Bring the information forward. Let the defendants answer. Let the defendants defend themselves. Then maybe a motion to dismiss would be a possibility. Motion for summary judgment would be possible, but not until. And Judge Byrd totally violated this one. He just doesn't pay any attention to the rule of law in any case. Anyway, that's where I'm at. I think I have to end there because I'm going to have to disappear eventually. Well, it's good to do it in bite-sized pieces, I think, too, because there is so much information involved in actually mastering a subject. You can't get a whole book within a ten-minute reading. And the same thing with a lot. You aren't going to get it all, so it's better to break it up into chapters, paragraphs, and sentences in a very... analogous way so that we can understand what it says. Do you speed read by any chance? Do you know how to speed read? I do, but I don't generally speed read, especially when I'm reading court cases, unless it's the very beginning of the case where they talk about what the case is all about, who's being sued, why they're being sued, and the general setup of the case. I can get through that pretty quick. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the case where I really have to understand what the, I can't. Speed reading doesn't cut it. Yeah, it would be a good subject to get into for everybody to help them understand how to speed read in the process of looking at the book, flipping through, flipping through every single page in the book, reading the outline, reading the chapter head. So you go through it several times very quickly and then you read for information. And what it does is it sets it up in your mind so you have a higher retention rate and you get the overall picture before you get bogged down in the details. And it's a good process actually to learn. If you haven't ever learned how to speed read, I suggest everybody give that a shot because things will make sense very quickly, very, very quickly. And you'll have an understanding of the overall picture and not get lost in the details. So, you know, it actually works pretty good. So like when when I was in in college, I used to be because of the way my brain works. I could literally sit there and kind of like go down the page and remember where I got the information on the page rather than having to memorize the information. I could go right in my head to that page and see the see the information. Kind of a neat skill to have. But I don't know if it can be developed or not. I would like to think it could, but it's worth giving a shot to. And that wasn't even speed reading. That's just sort of something, if you remember, a page is a texture and you can pick things out of it. You can pull anything out of the air. So, well, why don't we... Now that these... This podcast has all of the information of the cases that we talk about. It would be good for people to go back and look at the very beginning, kind of bring that information out to themselves as to what the case was all about, because then it makes sense as to, you know, the sure versus road had to do with Kent State. uh the shooting at kent state and the governor and and what happened with in that particular regard so it would be good to have a little background of the case and then you understand why the supreme court ruled in the way they ruled uh not giving the governor who said you know hey i have all kinds of absolute immunity doesn't matter if i send troops and troops shot individual citizens, that doesn't make any difference. So that's the purpose of kind of understanding the general tenor of what the case is all about. So, okay, let's go ahead and let everybody know how to find you here. I put your banner up so that they can come and find you. And just so you know, John and the group puts up our videos that we make here on Brandenburg News Network, and they've also got them uploaded on The Magnificent Republic. So if you want a quick cheat to finding the videos that we've done, because I've got so many of them on my channel, if you want a quick cheat, you can go to The Magnificent Republic. And actually they'll have other things for you to learn too. And I think it's valuable. I think it's valuable for everyone to take the time to read, to try to write your own case. and learn how this process goes, even if you never do it. It's like most of what we do is academic when we're in school. Well, this is an academic exercise that will absolutely teach you more about the law than anything you've ever done in your life. If you want to learn something, do it, not study it. Though it goes together, studying shows you what to do. But the reality is, is that if you really want to do something or master it, Do it yourself. And I think that's an important thing. And think about it. What have you got to lose? If you want to try writing a case, what do you have to lose? You could waste more time at a coffee shop eating fat-free cookies and drinking herbal tea just looking at nothing profitable. This is one of those things that you can do to improve yourself. and really become a help to everyone around you by actually learning. And I think what you guys are doing a great, I'd love to get, you know, it'd be fun to do would be, it would be fun to do a whole meeting like what you guys do on, on Wednesday nights and bring anybody in that wants to be on camera and go ahead and tape it and show people who is involved in this. If they want to be involved in it, if they want to get some recognition for all of the years that they put into this, because I, It takes so much patience and determination to stick with something as you've done, Janice, you know, Rob Pervera and all the people that have been involved in what you're, you know, what you're doing, Ron, it takes incredible commitment to, in an unwavering stance on seeing something to the end. Not trying to fix the entire world, but picking something and becoming a master of it. I think it's fantastic. So let everybody know where to find you and what's happening tomorrow night. Yeah, tomorrow night we have a meeting on Zoom. I've sent out the invites for anybody, but if anybody wants to join us, They can go to the Magnificent Republic. It'll tell them how to, or they can write me at jtater, too, and I will send them an invite. Either way, they can join us. It's only two hours, seven to nine, and we do this every Wednesday, try to teach the Constitution, the laws, the rules, everything that's going on, and it's very good. Yeah, that's just awesome. Well, thank you to everybody in your group that I know and I've met too. So I appreciate all the work you guys have put into this. And I really do hope that everyone that's put in time at some point in time receives a thank you from the people from America in general. Because you guys have done it without money, without looking for getting something. You've done it just because you're patriots. And I don't mean P-A-Y. I mean... this guy right here, choose not to be a P-A-Y-triot, be a real patriot. And I thank everybody for that. So let's go to prayers unless you have the last words. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for John and everyone that's working with him and everybody out there, true patriots who have laid down their time, their treasure and their sacred honor. to do the right thing, even when the rest of the world doesn't do it. They're still out there doing it. I know there are people out there that are doing that because I've met a lot of them. And I thank you for having them be close to you as your children. It's wonderful when you are leading them people into a direction that benefits so many others. And the people that are receiving the benefit, they don't even know that you are leading people to defend and protect them. So we thank you so very much. We thank you for President Trump, General Flynn, Admiral Rogers, and all the wonderful people out there, the thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of people out there who have done the right thing. in non-ideal circumstances. I ask that your favor rest mightily upon them, bring peace to their home and healing, and let them know above all that you are their father and you care for them, you protect them, and you provide for them. And I say that all honor and glory goes to you. Give us the feet to walk the path that you've set us upon. In Jesus Christ's precious name we pray. Amen. So here we go, boys and girls, that part of the show. Ding, ding, ding, ding. Go to brendraforgovernment.com. It gives the best non-concealers ever. In the history of the United States of America, I'd like to have a discussion with President Trump in cowboy boots. Who wears them better? I win because I wear them every day. and let's get on to fixing this nation. Thank you so much for being on today, John, and I hope you have a very wonderful day. We'll plan on next Tuesday. We're going to do it all again, only different cases. It'll be fun, and we'll learn something along the way. Goodbye, everyone. God bless you all. God bless all those whom you love, and God bless America. Make it a great day.