point that you didn't until almost the end of the program and here you found the US flag over here hanging but almost out of sight it was sort of behind Nate and Yahoo but off-camera but when you did see it how many of you noticed it did not have a fringe on it now what the soup do you suppose that meant. Me too. Did they run out of friends. What. One of the things I like to add to this is I was in a rush to get this material. I know about it. I've tried to track it for about a month. I've known about this procedure for about eight months. I finally tracked it down and I finally got a copy of the tape, which the tape is not a very good copy, but the audible is quite good. And and he illustrates on the blackboard several things. The screen's a little small up there, but maybe you can make it out. But you're going to find something very fascinating happening here. And this gentleman has already filed in the Supreme Court, totally upset him. And they're backpedaling as fast as they can. You're not even hearing anything about it right now.

So, but it, this will answer a lot of your problems. And believe me, you have more liability against those people now who have treated you this way, including the judge and the attorney, that you're going to be able to come back with major, major sums of fines against them. So, And because it is long. We just let's look at it. Yes. We want to pause while we look at this. OK. Feel background about myself. started went to John Marshall High School and John Marshall High School was named after Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and that was a very relevant part of my life when it came time to start studying law. I started that in 1980 but when I got out of high school I went into the Air Force and after I got out of the Air Force I went to work at A.O. Smith in Milwaukee.

And one of the first things that I learned about A.O. Smith was that you're never going to get rich with your back doing hard work. And I took about six weeks of working in a press shop at the age of 21, I believe I was at that time. I enrolled at MATC night school and then later second semester I enrolled in day school full-time on GI Bill and worked nights. Went to college ten years, got an instructor of arts and teaching, taught college for three years, having a Ph.D. in welding technology and metallurgy. I went through divorce in 1980, 16 years ago, and a unique thing happened here. I hired an attorney, paid him $2,500, and wound up getting one weekend a month's visitation of my children.

When the argument was presented to the judge, it came down to, well, you have no constitutional constitutional rights. Because I asked him about my equal protection of the law. And that was my wake-up call. And I said, well, gee, I don't remember my surrendering my constitution to anybody or signing my rights away to anybody. So I went and I hit the books. I started by taking John Marshall as a role model and reading what he had to write. The man has a very unique writing style. He said what he wanted to say and he meant what he wanted to mean.

And when I studied his material, I looked at the other Supreme Court justices and how they did their writing. they're writing and there were parallels in their style but one thing was very defined is that he articulated on the definitions of his words. In other words, he took control of the words. Now how many of you here believe 2 plus 2 equals 4? T-O plus T-O equals F-O-R. T-W-O plus T-O-O equals F-O-U-R There's 26 ways to write 2 plus 2 equals 4 Did you hear what I said, what I meant when I said, when I said, what I meant when I said?

Some of you have heard this before What the point here is, don't believe what you hear and don't believe what's written in front of you Because words have multiple definitions, words have multiple sounds and the one thing that everyone must be absolutely defined when you're talking about law is the will of intent. Now when you read in perjury perjury says that you must prove the intent of a person's actions in order for them to cause a violation. A violation is criminal.

Criminal comes from the will of the mind. When you look up will in Blackfaw dictionary, you're going to get a couple pages of will as what happens when a person dies, how that is divided up. But the word will in itself is only one line reserved for criminal activity. It is a state of mind. And the second cross-reference for this is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9b, under fraud and condition of mind. The condition of mind is what the will is, the will of intent. So it is required that you look up not only a word but the synonyms of words and how they interface with other words.

In Blackslaw dictionary you have several words that are incorporated and they take one word and they join it to others in phrases. Now you'll see it where it says in their will of intent or another one is allegiance. The word allegiance has a synonym of oath. There is also an allegiance of oath and oath of allegiance. So you need to look up the definition of each word and how they work together. They are usually joined with a preposition. Now I'm going to go over a bunch of different scenarios today in English. In the last 20 seminars that I had taught, I had given people a fish because they were hungry. And then after they ate that, they wanted another fish. What I was doing is giving specific examples in law as far as the subject matter goes, and as each one was exhausted, they were still hungry.

In other words, they weren't learning. They were only allowing me to think for them. So about ten days ago we did a seminar in Spokane and what I did there was I initiated an English course because I found out people don't know how to read and write. As brilliant as everyone is and as well as they write their law briefs and everything else they don't know how to read and write. And this is where I had to first establish a foundation of communication. And from this foundation, everything I said after that was well taken and well understood. Now when I studied, I studied from 1980 to 1990 subject matter. Because this is the way our laws were written, it was conclusionary laws, and I felt that there was a philosophy. If you copy a successful person, you'll be successful.

So I looked up the ten top lawyers in Milwaukee County. They're in the Milwaukee magazine, they had them listed. So I pulled their cases, looked at their style of writing, looked at the way they drafted their law briefs. I found I was able to establish the style of how the format of documents were to be put together on any subject that you wanted to take. I also looked at the definitions of words that they were using and how they created their language. So I went ahead from 1980 to 1990 and had 63 hearings fighting for equal share of parenting of my children using this style.

Now every time I said yes, they said no. Every time I said no, they said yes. Which means we were at a standoff here. There's something wrong. We were dealing with a subject matter, not a procedure. So I had to go ahead and crack this formula. This leads to another story, and I'll tell you that because that will set the foundation for how I got into law and established the law.

I'm not practicing law in any capacity. I'm not broken any laws. I have merely taken and showed people how to write sentence structure and preposition nouns and verbs. I mean it's as simple as that. I use law as an example. We could talk about how to build a tractor or how to do welding technology. I'm well versed in multiple subjects. I taught college for three years. So, you know, I'm just an English teacher, folks.

Just because I take the English words and that and I put them into meaningful definitions that we heard here today. That's me. I've broken the law. Otherwise, I'm going to shut down every English teacher in the United States and get rid of all the dictionaries and everything. So when I was when I went out to Montana, I spent a week in Cat Creek teaching the Freemans. there was eight of them, the procedure on how to read the law, how to understand the nouns, verbs, and prepositions. And from that, Leroy Schweitzer, Dan Peterson, and Mr. Clark constructed their Title 42 actions and then also had the format for the other 24 defendants that were up at the farm. Now while I was out there, that first day in that, the United States, or the FBI, or somebody, whoever it was, moved two 155 howitzers, land-based howitzers, into a gravel pit seven miles south of the Freeman camp.

And this was witnessed by patriots up in the area. They cleared out an area five miles wide from where the howitzers were. So if they did use them, the flash and the concussion would not be heard. It would just be no more than distant thunder. 155 howitzers about nine, throw the shell nine inches by 28, put the hole in the ground about 50 feet wide and 30 feet deep. And it goes 20 miles up in the air and it comes down nice and quiet and the whole farm blew up. Well, no witness, no crime. Fortunately that never happened because just last week Charlie Duke got on television and he made a statement that there was between 5 and 10 million patriots in the United States ready to go to war in the event the freemen were killed.

And there was another factor, the land that the Freemen are on is under an old Indian treaty. That's why they couldn't trespass on that land, it was a foreign country. And that was a secret that was kept and never released to the public. The 80th day of the standoff, my Canton, Ohio tapes were taken into the Freemen. And they played the tapes for the Freemen. Leroy Twicer and Clark took the tapes in and showed them what the title 42 looks like and at which time they surrendered to us because they identified with the remedy. You can't break the law to enforce the law and the procedure outlined what they had to do on paper as well as verbally to be found innocent and to prove that what had happened fraud. And when it went to court on July 16th, they did have a common law court and Burns was the judge and all the charges against the Freeman was dismissed and they were promptly taken back to jail as political prisoners and held there, they still are held there because they won't sign a statement that says they will not talk about the bank fraud in the United States.

Because of their highly exposed media, in other words, upon releasing them, you'd have every news network in the United States there and they have the documentation to certify the bank fraud in the United States. That the banks are doing no more than taking our sweat equity of the future and loaning it to us at 9% interest. They're creating, they're not creating money. Creating credit. Well, yes, they're creating credit but they're doing it through contracts. Which means it has not existed, it doesn't exist, therefore they haven't created it yet.

It will always be in the future, not in the present. In other words, the almighty dollar that we have, this is being held in our hands. So this is present today. The government can create a present entity. But this is where the banks have the power to create something that hasn't happened yet. And it can't be tried guilty for creating something that has not happened yet. We make the statement, the car went through the stop sign. Can't happen, right? Two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time. Therefore, this is a fraud. Therefore, case dismissed.

So, how do you prosecute that? The car neglected to stop. Negligence. Title 42, U.C. 1986. Now you've got a fact, but it's a negative fact, but it's a negative fact that's already happened, therefore you can't try it. If you make the assumption that the car will not stop, well, we can't try that until it actually takes place because now it's a presumption. Presumptions and assumptions cannot be, are not legal. Therefore, if we create money based on future sweat equity by contract, the contract is binding only at that point in time that it takes place, as it takes place.

Which means it will always be in the future and not the present. Therefore, it can never be tried because it hasn't happened. And yet, if you don't do it, the minute, the second you don't do it, you become a negligent. You didn't stop. You were negligent. Now you've reached a contract, now they can try you. See? That's where the trick comes in here. It's all in the words, it's all in the time. And what are the two rules? Highly defined, which they did with the contract, and all things are timely.

Time is our avenue to the future. Time is our avenue to the future, right. And time won't stand still. It moves. This is a secret that the United States government does not want the public to know about the bank fraud. Now you got it on tape. Too bad for them. So the freemen are still in jail although the charges have been dropped? Probably when this is spread around a little bit more. This is the first time I actually told that to anybody about how time is relevant to the bank fraud. So you guys are all the first ones to know about that outside of the agreement.

So when you take these procedures and you stand upon them, this is where you get an understanding of what the power of this procedure does. Yes? There was a trial in Billings approximately three weeks ago with two very good friends of mine. But the trial was for tax evasion. Okay. And that's what they're currently doing. All right. I will address the tax issue for everybody. Now, the paper money is a subject matter. It exists, it is now, the government can produce it.

If you try and produce it without authorization, it's counterfeiting. The banks cannot be charged with counterfeiting because it hasn't happened. It has never happened and never will happen. It's always in the future. They have a highly defined contract of what's going to happen in the future. But as all things are timely, it's just like if I'm holding a gun and I'm pointing it at you, as long as the gun doesn't go off, I'm not guilty of anything, correct? You haven't been injured. If I'm dropping the hammer and the bullet actually touches you, then there's a violation. If I miss, the bullet misses you, there may be an intent. The intent being that the bullet was supposed to go out of the gun when it happened, but there was no will because if the will was there, you would have been hit by it.

So maybe they might get you for making noise or scaring somebody. So, I have a follow up question. Where, why is it? Why can't he be tried? Because the Federal Reserve notes represent the future sweat equity. No, the Federal Reserve notes are today's sweat equity. You work, you already did the work and I'm going to give you money for it. Okay? The contract with the bank is predicated, in other words the credit they're going to loan you, the note that they are going to give you is predicated on your sweat equity that you are going to earn in the future and then give it back to them.

Now as long as you make, every time you make your payment you have met the word of the contract, the contract that precedes the Constitution. Correct you are staying current. At the first of every month you will pay $500 for this note. Okay, as long as you keep doing that, the sweat equity is being earned in the future and you're paying them at a specific point in time by contract. So you've met your contract obligations. They haven't created anything and you haven't except you've given them back something because you promised to give it to them. They haven't created anything. They have nothing. They've created nothing. They just created something. They just said that if you stay in this house, you've got to give me this much stuff because I own the house. I have the rodeo title of the house.

Not a lodeo. Rodeo title. A lodeo title is what can't be bought, sold, traded, or given away. You can't join anything to it. Because you can't join anything to an elodio title, they have to put a rodeo, R-E-D-E-O, title on top of the elodio. And then what they do is they mortgage that into the future. So the debt never exists. It's never tied to the elodio. And upon the point in time when the debt is due, this is when you are responsible by contract to pay it.

If you don't, you pay a fine. If you go too far into the fine, they lose it and they take it away from you. But at no point in time have they ever created any money. They haven't because they're not guilty of counterfeiting. What's the essence of the bank's fraud in that transaction? The fact that they open an account and create a debt on their books. What's the essence of the bank fraud? There is no fraud on the banks.

There wasn't in the future. You mentioned bank fraud. What's the essence of the bank fraud that you're talking about? The intent. What it is, is what they are not doing is they are not giving you the will of the intent of the contract for what it is that they're giving you. In other words, when you get done paying off the contract, 30 years later, you still own nothing. You don't owe them anything, but you can't get the allodial title to the property because they never owned it in the first place.

They just had a rodeo title of statehood to manage the land, but the allodial still is owned by the government. You haven't bought and sold anything. You're just paying rent. Everybody's a renter today. In other words, you're creating nothing with nothing. Correct. And all things, and it's all as it is, you know, you go out and you're buying a car with nothing with nothing. You're paying it back with nothing with nothing. If you had silver in your hand, that would actually be money to go ahead and do it. And I think silver is worth $39 and something an ounce, according to the United States assesses silver at $39 an ounce even though it only sells for $7 an ounce in coinage and involves $5 an ounce.

So you go out and buy your silver coin and you present it to government to pay your taxes with $39 an ounce. I love it. Part of it, if not maybe the origin of the fraud, is not, it wasn't just the banks doing it. The problem was that the US government and the banks got together under a supposition, an entirely 100% fraudulent supposition, that we the people owed any of the money that the government owed the banks. And under that entirely fraudulent supposition, then the banks said, well, as long as we can keep that fact relatively undiscussed, we'll go ahead and we'll use government money based on their future earnings, their property.

Which is actually absolutely fraudulent. Well, the will of the intent, if explained to you, would probably say, well, this isn't right, I'm not going to do it. But at the same time that they do it, it's all an assumption. It takes place in the future. It is not tangible at this point in time. Therefore, it hasn't happened yet. But they say, if you want to live here, and our guys with the guns and the clubs, you want to keep them off your back, then you're going to go ahead at this point in time, give us our $500 a month, and you can live there and keep your family and put a roof over your head.

That's what's going on. Yes? What is the power that the thing you do hold? Which is posing. The power that they have and the knowledge that they have is that we are going to loan you your sweat equity. We are going to contract the sweat equity of your future. We're going to get a contract today and you're going to pay me everything you make for the next 30 years. That's awesome.

Yeah. The trouble is you do it by contract, so the contract supersedes constitutional law. You can't con... We've got to go to the police. I need to see if I can get... You can reverse in opposite. So I'm going to go ahead and start the video. Alright, sentence says the police officer arrested a defendant without a fourth amendment What's wrong with the sentence? Anybody have any comment on that?

I'm going to say a fourth amendment warrant is needed for the police arrest on them. Kind of backwards, sir. Well, you're close, but you're dealing with subject matter. Yes, but the main clause of your sentence is a fourth amendment warrant. Okay. The subject is the defendant. Correct. Now, if we take this sentence here, and we read it, the police officer arrested. Police officer is a noun.

Arrested is your verb. Now, when you took English in school, you're always taught to write noun, verb, preposition. Right? So we create a subject. What we see is the way we talk. The police officer arrested the defendant without, what is without? Preposition. Without a Fourth Amendment warrant. Alright, there's nothing wrong with this sentence.

If you make this statement in court, the judge is going to say, this police officer has absolute immunity, what's his official capacity? He's supposed to arrest people. And because the injury took place after the subject matter, there's no injury. Because it's after the fact. And what happens? The judge is sitting up there and what's your first word out of your mouth? The judge didn't give me my constitutional rights. Well, a judge isn't supposed to give you your constitutional rights.

He is absolutely immune from everything he does. If he stood up there and took a gun and he pointed at you and shot you dead sitting at the table and you said, well he shot me and I'm dead. Well too bad, he's absolutely immune from what he does under judicial immunity, subject matter. Now, if we take this here and we stand it in front of a mirror, what's going to happen? You're going to read, the police officer arrested the defendant without a fourth amendment warrant, henceforth the reflection of the mirror, the mechanic takes place and the law lies inside the mirror. So now you're going to read it from left to right.

What are you going to get? Without a Fourth Amendment warrant, the police officer arrests the defendant. We started with a preposition. We started with a preposition, injury. Now he's committed a violation. Now we strip the police officer has now committed a violation of due process of law under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Now we've got three constitutional violations. While engaged in three constitutional violations, the police officer is now guilty of Title 18 U.S.C. 242, deprivation of rights under color of law. But before you can establish any kind of violation of law you must establish knowledge.

You've got to be smart enough to know what you're doing. Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 for knowledge of the law. Now that you've established your knowledge, what did you do? You didn't have a warrant, so now it's negligent. Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 for negligence. Then you can bring in your Title 18-242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. So even though this is your statement. Your statement is going to start, you can write this here, but then when you go into your injury where you want to actually accuse a person, you use a broad-based statement without due process law.

Now, due process is a broad-based blanket. You can start any sentence on any injury without the due process of law and tie down a Fifth Amendment constitutional violation on anybody that's of oath and affirmation. Accept. There is no accept. You bring your preposition first. I've been telling everybody, I've been giving you the sentences, but what I didn't tell you was you've got to do your preposition first, then your noun and verb.

We don't care what your subject matter is, just remember those three things. Preposition first, noun, verb. Then you'll have absolute immunity, or absolute power, to nail anybody that's of open affirmation, anytime, anywhere. And this formula will work in all 250 nations of the world, regardless of what their constitution is. Everything is backwards.

Everybody on this planet has been taught, regardless of what your language is, what your politics is, everything, noun, verb, preposition. And the Supreme Court judges have been sitting up there knowing that the preposition comes first and it's been their top secret. The judges on the lower courts and the lawyers have never been talked to. They've been giving you fish every day but they never taught you how to fish.

Now you guys can take all your paperwork that you've done, all your title 42's you've done, any case that you've ever looked at and take that paragraph apart and start thinking about what it is you wrote down. Now you can't use an adjective, you can't use an adverb, and you can't use a preposition, I mean a pronoun. Now an adjective describes the noun, it gives it color, it prejudices the subject. I can say here the black police officer or the purple police officer or the Chinese police officer or the bad police officer. What I'm doing here is I'm adding prejudice to the subject matter. And if I do that, I'm trying to influence the judge or the jury. That's obstruction of justice. Title 18, U.S.C. 1512.

Now if you're going to prejudice something, it's contaminated. And whatever your argument is, it's automatic disqualification of your document. Your next thing is your adverb. Your adverb is going to tell what the color of the verb is going to be, how it's going to be influenced. You're going to tell it what degree of the action should be applied. Again, you're creating a prejudice on movement. In all adverbs, anything ending in an L-Y, scrap it. Take it out of your wordage. Because you know what?

Anything that you can put in L-Y in your sentence, and lawyers just love to write, use L-Y words. They just beat up the page with it. It goes ahead and it contaminates the document. I go through and I correct them. Anybody hands me a document, the judge gives me an order, order to dismiss something that I've done and you use as adjectives, adverbs and pronouns, I go ahead and correct this paperwork and send it back to him and I says, go back to law school and learn how to write. And I say this is conclusionary, this is presumptuous, this is an assumption as to what happened. Where is the law here? Your opinion is not law and I won't accept your dismissal of my document. As a matter of fact, I'm going to indict you for treason against the Constitution and perjury of oaths, because you swore to uphold the Constitution and now you're trying to circumvent that.

And what gives you the power to circumvent that? You went ahead and put that gold fringe flag up there. If you look at Title IV, U.S.C. 1, anything placed on the American flag is a desecration of the flag. And they reaffirmed that in 1994 under the Flag Burning Act, about desecration of the flag. So, I'm going to go ahead and get started. During this pause, the camera is panning the courtroom. Another unique thing happens here. With placing a gold fringe flag in the courtroom, it creates a foreign entity, a foreign power. It takes the bar, the sanctuary of the bar, and it turns it into the deck of a ship. It's an admiralty flag, maritime flag, administrative flag, or equity flag. In any case, it doesn't represent any nation of the world.

It also, because it doesn't represent any nation, doesn't have a constitution. They establish it as an equity flag because an equity is done by contract. It is well established in law for over 100,000 years since the caveman said I'll trade you my saber toothed tagger for your brontosaurus right quarter there that when two people deal in commerce they create contracts and contracts supersedes all constitutions. Contracts is what creates treaties. Treaties supersedes all constitutions because in effect it's a contract. What is our constitution of the United States? It's a contract. A contract between the people and our land, our elodial land. And it says it can't be destroyed, taken away, or changed in any capacity unless everybody votes on it.

Three quarters of the people got to vote on it, or the states have to vote on it to change something in the Constitution. I've never seen any of that take place yet. So, in effect, our Constitution written in 1776 and ratified September 17, 1779 is the supreme law of the land and I haven't seen all 50 states agree on anything at any time. Well I guess it's pretty well set in stone, it's still alive and well and regardless of what kind of fringe they put around our flag and say it's going to disappear, it hasn't. The only thing they've done is create a foreign power by putting the gold fringe around it. What's the definition of treason? Treason says that if you take our constitution and give it to a foreign power, you're guilty of treason. So treason has always been giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Aid and comfort to the enemy meaning in the war. That was the intent. But there's a thing called constructive treason. Constructive treason is when you try and overthrow the government. Overthrow the Constitution. The Constitution is the government. So in effect what we've done here is the judge being the fiduciary of the courtroom is responsible for the colors of the court. Colors meaning the flag is respected in all nations as far back in history as I could find anything recorded. Even the caveman had a banner. They tie one guy put up a bear, another one used a lion skin. They had banners to set down their jurisdiction and their territory. You look in Roman times, everything in the Bible, every picture you ever see about anything, you have got banners, you have got flags. Because people couldn't speak the same language, they couldn't shout far enough, but they could see the flags, they could see the banners. This was their territorial jurisdiction. And the ambassadors for whatever entity we have here would then go back and forth and establish whatever those rules and regulations are of that banner.

And if it says, if that banner is up here, it says, if you don't wish to make contracts with my flag, don't come on my ship. Don't come into my country. Don't come under my jurisdiction. That's under the law of the flag, Black Swan Dictionary. So what our judges have done, well, not only our judges, started around 1800 with Rothschild. He took my procedure, the same procedure that was written in the Bible, the same procedure that is used in all the great religions of the world, the same procedure that is predicated for mathematics and sciences because it deals with rules and regulations it follows a time sequence there's only two rules for a procedure one is all things are timely and things have to be highly defined so that's what we've done here this is untimely and it's not defined, therefore it's irrelevant.

You ever hear somebody say, the police officer gets up there and he says, well he went through the stop sign, I had to give him a ticket. You know what the defense was? How does a 4,000 pound car go through a stop sign? Case dismissed. True story. I'm still confused about the logic behind the arrest. It's not a warrant for an arrest. Okay, I'll answer that question then. Remember, it's got to be highly defined, one, and two, all things are timely.

If the police officer is doing an arrest, we have a subject verb. Doesn't that come before without in the sentence? And it's timely. We're establishing a subject before, we have a subject verb, a subject action here before a subject violation. So because it's timely, this man has immunity. What is a police officer supposed to do? He's supposed to arrest people. And he has absolute immunity when he's in his official capacity doing his job. Now, then you say, well, you didn't have a fourth amendment warrant after the fact. So what? It was your fault that you didn't bring it forward. You didn't make the statement first. Because you're saying the duress took place and then after he got back to the station, the man's all locked up, then you discover he didn't have a warrant. So that was an untimely statement. It's the way you say it. Just like the car went through the stop sign. If you take things that are literal, because that stop sign is a solid object, and two things can't occupy the same place at the same time. Rules and facts of nature, the rules of nature. The same thing here. You can't, a police officer in his actions of arresting, if he didn't have a fourth amendment warrant, he didn't have it before he went out there to cause the arrest, right? But if you don't establish that until after the fact, then he's immune from what he did.

But if you put this into a mirror, you're always going to come out, when you read it, look at that sentence in the mirror, you're going to read it just like you do now. You're going to read from left to right. And it's going to start with the preposition first, and then the noun verb. And you'll always get the right answer when you look at something in the mirror. So in order to defend against these kinds of actions that are being used...

Violated, you must have a prepositional violation first. You have to say that you have to... Well, that can establish whether it was violated before you took the action. Correct, but you must do it in such a way that you have a constitutional injury take place first. Now, the constitutional injury that is absolutely guaranteed on everything is without due process of law. If you start every sentence without due process of law, you establish your constitutional violation before anything happens. Without due process of law, the judge brought into the courtroom a gold fringe flag.

The judge brought into the courtroom a gold fringe flag.