|0.00|> Philadelphia connection?<|2.00|><|2.00|> In a bad way or when you were in Hawaii.<|4.00|><|4.00|> Well, there's a whole lot of stories about that stuff.<|9.00|><|9.00|> I mean, I'll go through the stories.<|11.00|><|11.00|> I cover all that stuff.<|13.00|><|13.00|> I'm going to have another contact about the questions.<|20.00|><|20.00|> So we have a number, contact us.<|24.00|><|24.00|> Good question.<|25.00|><|25.00|> Again, we have to knock it out.<|27.00|><|27.00|> Does everybody have one of these cards?

No. No. No. No. Nobody has one. We have a couple of cards. I can't watch it. I always turn it off. I can't find the way out. How do you turn it off? Well, it's a yellow piece of paper.

She puts icons on it for facts. Because the name keeps turning to a blur, she gives me a secondary memory system so that I can associate patterns and associations. That's right. secondary memory systems that I can associate, patterns and associations. Just like when I did the book, the first one took an hour, the last one took three minutes. Patterns and associations. I didn't even have to look at what it was, read what it was I was doing. I just looked at the pattern of the printed word on the paper and the pattern had it.

I knew where all the patterns went. Like you put the same puzzle together a hundred times, the last time you're going to do it, it's just going to fall in. Do you have a photographic memory? fall into better. It depends if it's digital, it goes in one area. If it's subject matter, it goes into another. If it's plant binary. I do everything binary. So that's how we put that together. I am about to fall in pain. I'm going to go ahead and close the door. But everybody can do while you're waiting is start numbering. There's 145 pages in the book.

I would recommend before you break these books apart and get your respective numbers, get the papers mixed up, number them. So because this book is laid out in a procedure of all the different areas, that way we'll all be working on the same thing at the same time. It should take you a few minutes to remember them. And there's been a, the book itself I rewrite it about once a week. As far as I go through it and I look for, in other words, I try to commit a fraud upon my own paperwork. And I'll even go get with lawyers and have them work with me to see if we can find a fraud. And this book as far as any of the rewrite stuff goes, we took out stuff that was, I would call it belligerent.

And it wasn't necessary with conclusion or any, or with subject matter. And that's why we removed it from the book. It didn't, it wasn't, it would probably confuse an issue more than help it. So that's why we took out some phraseologies. The intent of the documents have not changed since they were written. We've changed words like instead of using the word violation we'll use the word breach. Or the whole book has been edited in the least common denominator is when you have multiple synonyms that have parallel definitions where you use a word that is parallel to the paragraph.

In other words, if you have three different synonyms in a paragraph, you take and remove, you pick one of them and you then replace that one synonym with the other words in the paragraph. It's called the least common denominator just like you would do fractions. One third and one half doesn't equal five sixths. You have to reduce it to three sixths and two sixths equals five sixths. The reason this book is created the way it is, it's put into a binary code and so that all of the words are relevant to the mathematical formula and then it's put back into a word process. And what it does is it keeps things on point. The same way if you have five procedures in an algebra formula, you can't add to it, take out, or mix up the procedure in order to get the correct answer.

The same thing is true with the law now. And this is the first time in 200 years that someone has taken law and reduced it into a binary formula so that their judges do not have broad-based discretion. We remove this privilege from them so that we could take control of the case right from the start because as moving parties we are in control of our own destiny. We set down the rules and regulations in the contract of our case and when we pay our filing fees and the judge signs on to the case he creates a contract with us so that our case will be heard according to the procedure that it was written, not to his agenda. In other words, to move it into a foreign government and have his will with our rights.

Here are just topics we're going to cover today. So we don't forget any of them. People constantly ask questions. We're going to do this, we're going to do that. This way we can stay on point. Everybody's been at my other seminars today. Who hasn't been at the other ones? You two haven't. Yeah. OK.

It is a lot of you have been at my other ones. So you recognize me, huh? Of course. This is a problem. Why is that? Because you haven't got to have a family of your own to thank me. You're speaking of family. Oh, they do that with DNA today. They would take and replace it. What's the name of that stuff?

Yeah. During the breaks, this was my latest adventure, Huh? Well, it's, uh... For the first time in 200 years, a circuit court judge has stood trial for treason in the United States. I was the prosecutor on it. And that's why I wound up in jail. They weren't going to let it happen. Well, they only compounded what was initially a marginal case. case they now have turned it into a federal headache, a serious federal headache because I have 80 signatures for treason against the judge. See all the people that were in the court that witnessed what happened, that sent me to jail were students of mine. So they had already spent 6 months studying the procedure, knew all about the flag, had all the certifications, had all the procedures, so they were able to follow with detail and understanding exactly what was going on in the court.

The only person that did not know what was going on was the judge. So he kind of stepped in a cow pie in this one. You're filing the same way as you do a regular complaint, ain't it? Yeah. You're doing a regular complaint. The only thing that you're doing is that you're a witness to the violations. I'm the victim of the violations. And then I have 82 people who have been invited to judge for treason. Or if you have to confess under oath. I had part of a confession already for the treason when the Judge Smith stopped it.

But Judge Smith was named in the complaint for treason. Then he discharged the jury, discharged the case, sentenced me to five days in jail. Well, the law provides a maximum only under probable cause of 72 hours. He put me in for 5 days. So I had to stay 5 days to be come injured, which I did. But when they put me in the pod, it took about an hour before I had all the other 15 prisoners in there with pencil in hand and paper writing title 42. When they found out that I just sued Grover for treason and Grover was the one who put all of them in jail, they were quite eager to follow suit. And as I was writing my seven page title 42, along with the outline for adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, presumptions, assumptions, and conclusions, plus all the tricks and traps in the courtroom, I gave all these guys a complete blueprint of how the tricks and traps put them in jail in the first place.

There was only one person of the 15 that I would say belonged in there. The rest of them were in there on technicalities that they should have never been put in jail because this is just a county holding cell. It's not a prison. But they're using it to intimidate people. And so everybody had a lot of fun learning about this. We did about four hours a day of classes for five days besides all the paperwork that everybody got to write. So it was a learning experience, you know, being in jail.

Did they buy you a dime tip? No, no, they didn't do that. I gained eight pounds in five days. The food, the food. No, the jail staff was very nice to me. They, when I checked in and asked, they wanted me to sign for my property and I said, why, you guys kidnapped me. I said, you have no standing before me. And the sergeant in charge of booking, he goes, I gotta call my lieutenant. The lieutenant comes down and says, yeah, that's Dave Miller. He says, he doesn't sign in.

He says, just, I'll sign for him. And the lieutenant signs for me. And he says, just get him his stuff, put him in there. And five days later when it came time to sign out, I said, I ain't signing out either. He said, I ain't going to give you permission to kidnap me and then forgive you by signing out of this place. And he says, we had a different lieutenant, I mean a different sergeant for the checkout. So he called the lieutenant down again and the lieutenant says, this guy won't sign. He says, yeah, it's Dave Miller.

He doesn't sign. He says, I'll sign for him. He signs, he'll get out of here. So. But the two of the days they put me in there was we had 60 below zero wind chill factors in Wisconsin. They closed all the schools and businesses because the temperature had gotten 20 to 25 below zero straight away without the wind chill. So, yeah, it was warm.

Gwen, In learning the law, the number one thing that has escaped people for over a hundred years has been the intent of law. It's called the will of intent. Now the papers, the way the statutes are written, the judges at the Supreme Court have been very careful about writing this so that you didn't prove the intent of the judge. You didn't prove the intent of the police officer or of the attorney. Whoever it is you're trying to sue in government. And in the next sentence they would then say what was the willful, did the person have willful knowledge about what he was doing.

What they were doing here is they were taking a single phrase called the will of intent and they're breaking that up into two sentences so that the individual, the light person or even an attorney would not be able to identify what it is they're trying to say. And the will, if you look up in the Bible dictionary it says the criminal condition of the mind. That's it. That's the whole definition of the word will. There's two pages on contract wills, you know, for when you die. But the actual will is thinking.

Now the first thing that you must do in any scenario, I don't care if it's traffic citations, bank robbery, taxes, you want to file a lawsuit with the government. You must establish the will of intent. It's a condition of your mind. Thinking process. Thinking is a verb. Now there's two laws in... in the rules and regulations. It says no facts shall be tried before the jury.

And the facts must be highly defined and it must be timely. Timely being an adverb which we don't use but in this case we're going to use it. Now what they're doing here is a fact that's a pen. If I set this pen down, it's a fact and it's under physics, an object at rest will remain at rest until set in motion by an opposing force. So this fact, being that it's not influenced and sitting still is not timely. So it can't be tried before the jury. But if I go ahead and I pick that pen up, it's not moving.

It's going through time. And a normal person would look at it and say, I picked up the pen. I being the noun, picked up being the verb. The pen being the prepositional phrase or the subject of the motion. If you take the same pen and I hold it in my hand still, the same thing takes place. An object at rest remains at rest until set in motion by imposing force.

It's a fact. Okay, now I drop the pen. The person looking at me might say, what did you see? He says, you dropped the pen. The U is the noun, drop is the verb, the pen is the prepositional phrase. But because you're putting noun and verb together, you create a subject matter. What is the intent? Anytime you use a noun, verb, you create intent. You create subject matter. An intent is gravity.

It takes control of the intent. Anything that happens in nature is an intent. But what happened here was it was a willful condition of my mind. Thinking is what forced my fingers to close and hold the pen still. Thinking, or the lack of thinking, now makes a determination. I'm going to neglect to hold the pen. It's my negligence to create the criminal condition of the mind which sends the pen in motion because my thinking knows that if I release it, gravity is going to take over.

So you can't try the pen before a jury. You cannot try the fact that gravity is going to make it fall. That again is something that happens in nature. But you can try the thinking of the mind. Why did I hold it and why did I release it? What was my thinking process? That is what the jury is going to make a determination. If I had a child in my hand and I did the same thing as long as I held the child there would be no problem. But upon dropping the child I neglected to hold it.

And it was my thinking process now that would become on trial for injuring, for allowing the child to fall and become injured. Child abuse. I did the same presentation before the jury up at Chano. And the district attorney was objecting. And Judge Schmitz says, I've never heard this approach before. He says he is doing a very good job of explaining to the jury the intent or the responsibility of a jury before the facts. And as I said to the jury, I said, it is the will of intent that will be on trial here today.

Was it the will of my intent to cause a contempt of this court or was it the will of my intent to see the justice be upheld under Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 for knowledge of the law and to prevent a negligence of that knowledge. The judge had knowledge as he is the fiduciary of this court. And I had knowledge as I am highly studied in law. I've got 22,000 hours into the study of law. So I am responsible for my actions. If I stood outside the bar, because this was a military court-martial, I knew that this judge was under a military jurisdiction. I'm a civilian, what am I doing in a military court-martial? So it's the will of my intent not to enter a jurisdiction I don't belong in. The second part is that I that the judge had knowledge of this information.

And it is in the cross-examination today that I will establish that the judge had knowledge of the jurisdiction of the flag, had knowledge of the will of intent to bring the flag into court, what his intent was to use it, what was going to be the outcome of this intent, and the criminal activities that would become involved through the thinking of his mind. We are going to put his thinking process on trial. We are going to put my thinking process on trial. The subject before the court of who I am as a human being is irrelevant. Who the judge is as a human being is irrelevant, his title. This courtroom as a whole is irrelevant.

The only thing that this jury is going to try is what was our knowledge to cause this action to take place? Why is there a conflict between what the judge believes and what I believe? And does he have the authority to break the law, or do I have the authority to enforce the law? So with this idea before the jury, we now went into cross-examination. Using, putting the will of intent on trial, because that's all they can hear. They can't hear subject matter. The district attorney got up there and he immediately wanted to get into a subject matter debate to tell the judge, well, tell, what happened? Well, he ordered Mr. Miller to come into the courtroom and he wouldn't, so he ordered him to leave and he wouldn't.

He stood up holding the American flag and giving some kind of a speech about the American flag. And so I had him arrested and put in jail because he wouldn't leave the courtroom. So then I went ahead, we had got the whole thing on videotape and I said to the jury, I said, now the judge just described to you the exact episode of what took place in the courtroom. But that was a subject matter because he was describing the action. The defendant did.

Defendant is a noun, did was a verb. He talked subject matter. I said, now we're going to talk procedure. What is the condition of this courtroom? What is the flag that stands in this courtroom? It has a gold fringe around it. And under Title IV U.S.C. 3, it's a desecration of the flag. It creates a foreign power. The foreign power has a spear on a flagpole. Under Army regulations 840-10, chapter 8-2, the spear is only used in a military court-martial with gold fringe around the flag. It is described as such. I am a civilian. What is a civilian doing in a military court-martials.

What is he doing holding a military court-martial, or practicing law in a military venue? Wrong venue? Completely. Wrong jurisdiction? Completely. The judge is also, because he desecrated the flag by putting gold fringe around it, he can put gold fringe around a national flag. Now this is folded for a reason. A national flag is 4 by 6. The field, the blue field with the white stars, when you fold it, will be half the flag.

That's how you identify your national flag. This is a military flag. You can use this in court and have a military court-martial. You can put gold fringe on this and have a, again, a military court-martial. But if you take this flag here, a Title IV U.S.C. 1 flag. I had these flags with me by the way for the jury. If you take this flag here which is a title 4 U.S.C. 1 flag and I fold it you can see it's somewhat longer. And so with this regulation the reason the military uses a square flag is because a person walking at 2 miles an hour will keep the flag aloft. It'll stay upright so that the colors are aloft and free. That is the function of it. This flag is too long, it's heavy, it will always hang down and hide the colors. You have to be almost at a run to make this stay up.

Takes about five miles an hour wind to hold it up, whereas that one takes two. So this was the function why the military way back when, around I think it was 1820 that they had created the national flag there. I said when you take this flag, the Title IV U.S.C. 1 America flag, it represents the Constitution of the United States. When you put gold fringe around it under Title IV U.S.C. 3, it creates a desecration of the flag. Now you have a foreign power. Now Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution says, no titles of nobility of a foreign power shall have jurisdiction over sovereign citizens.

I said the judge was an attorney before he became a judge. The judge is a esquire and this esquire is his official title. Now when you put a gold fringe around a Title IV U.S.B.1 flag and desecrate it, you create the foreign entity, the foreign power. The judge is no longer a judge, he becomes a master of this foreign power with the title of ex-plier. Henceforth, a title of nobility of a foreign power does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen. How can this judge send me to jail? He doesn't have jurisdiction over me. I have my flag. I'm holding my flag, I have this all on videotape. He says, I am a sovereign citizen and he's the foreign government. Because I didn't go into the bar, I didn't join with him. He has no jurisdiction over me. The two police officers that he ordered to arrest me, both had gold-fringed flags on their shoulders.

They were also part of this foreign government. They cannot have contact with a sovereign citizen. So because they don't have jurisdiction over me, I was kidnapped under Title 18-1201. And they ordered me to pay $150 bond to get out of jail. Well, that bond is not a bond, it's ransom. Title 18-USC-1202. I said the both police officers had guns on. So it was armed assault kidnapping. Here's life imprisonment in the United States. And I mean I had these people scared, the judges, both Grover and Smith, up on the stand. I says, in my hand here I have a document that the judge signed. He says he entered a plea of not guilty for me. He acted as an attorney under title 28455 subsection I. A judge shall not act as an attorney or practice law from the bench.

If the judge practices law in a case and represents the client as an attorney, cannot be the judge on the case. So anytime a judge enters a plea from the bench for the person in front of him, he then disqualifies himself and commits a criminal act. If he does it while in a de facto government or as a master of a foreign power this individual now is acting in a criminal capacity. He's causing a title 18 U.S.C. 242 deprivation of rights under color of law by officers of the court. The phraseology color of law means corruption of the United States is suspended. What they are trying to do here is they are trying to make you come into a courtroom and make contracts with them. There is just one little problem with that. The contract that they make with you has to have on it a notice of responsibility disclaimer. The responsibility disclaimer is the proper term for it. A responsibility disclaimer, you have five forms in your paperwork. The state of Wisconsin has always had, upon my challenging the court for these documents, every courtroom now in front of the bar has a table set up with five different forms to give up your constitutional rights by contract before entering the bar the judge won't talk to you. So he can't be sued for having a article one section nine paragraph eight violation of the constitution because private contracts are not being paid private contracts to proceed constitutional So by private contract he then can become, has the power to be a judge over you or to rule over you as a master.

If the disclaimer is not formulated he then has taken his oath and affirmation to the Constitution of the United States and surrendered it to a foreign power. When he does this he commits perjury of oath and false swearing. Perjury of oath carries a five year prison sentence under title 18-16-21. False wearing carries a one year prison sentence. It's a class A felon and a thousand dollar fine. Also, immediate disbarment for the judge. The next thing that takes place is the Constitution itself is surrendered to a foreign power. And because the Constitution is surrendered to a foreign power by the judge, the definition for that is constructive treason.

He's committed treason. If 80% of all judges in the United States are Masonic, belong to the Masons, the rule of Masons is they cannot sue other Masons. They must come to the aid of their brothers. There's only two reasons why they cannot aid a brother. One is for first degree murder. The second one is for treason. And with perfected treason. If the judge is a Mason, and he's committed treason against the Constitution, he loses his protection from the fellow, from the brotherhood. He's immediately disbarred as a Mason for committing treason against the Constitution. With this technology...

I'll do next is I'll just go through the book. That way you'll know during the course of the day as I'm talking that whether or not it's in the book or relevant to what I'm saying and you can follow along. Everything I'm going to go over today is in the book in form, procedures and it's laid out. What I'm giving you is the story and how it interfaces with each other. I'll run through this. It takes about an hour to go through this book. It's about 145 pages long.

I like to type a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, one o'clock we'll break for lunch. They have a nice restaurant upstairs. What we'll do is we'll get a hold of the caterer of the restaurant and we'll let them know that we're going to break for lunch at 1. And that way they can, I don't know if they're going to, usually on the weekends, Saturdays they have a buffet up there. Yeah, you can check with them.

See? They can also at break time, they can bring a menu down and you guys can all pre-order and at 1 o'clock your food's ready. And their prices are reasonable here. And the food's really good. They have a chef here that really knows how to cook. Yeah. And his pull is really good. He's got a chapter that really knows how to cut. It's so nice there. about stopping and getting it up to speed for the launch of the rocket?

Maybe we'll take a break later on and answer questions. We'll probably be done about 5 o'clock with this material. And you guys, I know, it's real easy to burn four hours up on questions. The previous show was in St. Joe, Missouri, and everyone that came there, I was just there four weeks earlier for a 16-hour seminar. And we had 40 of the people from the first seminar came back for the second seminar. I fielded 350 questions in 12 hours and answered every single one of them. We had a district attorney for St. Joe there that could only answer six of the questions. But upon hearing the answers to the questions, he certified that they were all correct every time.

He said he'd never seen a procedure before, so he was very interested to learn how a procedure went. When he got done, I told him, I said, now you're qualified to run for the state court in Washington, D.C. I said, your local judge is going to be at a very big disadvantage. I said, if I were you, I'd run for judge at the next election. I said, because now you're qualified to be a judge here in St. Joe. And he was all thrilled about that. I said, but you also know the problems that you'll be facing if you break the law. Like you'll go down for treason the first time you step out of line.

I think it can be the best judgment you ever had. Or spend the longest prison sentence you ever had either. Alright, section. As long as I'm going through here, I'll tell you to put alphabetical numbers on the top of these pages because each section is a procedural document. And that way you can keep track, not that you get your sections out of, if you were to drop the books, you'd know where everything goes. Alright, the first section is on traps. You can know everything there is to know about law, and if you don't know what the tricks and the traps are, you can be 99% correct and commit one fraud against the court and your case is dead and you're going to get sanctions for attorney fees and court costs.

And when you're dealing in a title 42 environment which is federal you're looking at a quarter million dollar case and you'll get a sanction fee for committing a fraud against the court at $10,000. And some of the judges throw you in jail for a year. We got a guy up in Wisconsin called Eckbart, he got sentenced to 10 years because the judge said he was so close to sticking him in jail for life that he wasn't going to let him come back and ever get him. This man was 68 years old when he put him in jail for 10 years. But now with the treason papers that are in here, well I'll be able to secure his release, get him back out of jail.

He's an ordained, he's a minister by the way, never did a thing wrong in his life except didn't know how to file lawsuits properly, that was his only crime. In section A here, the number one fraud that people are going to commit against you is they're going to address you with the word person. They want to make you a corporation. They will call you a pro se. A pro se can only be used, the terminology can only be used if you are a licensed bar attorney representing yourself. That's what it means. If you are a private citizen, you are called a citizen in party. If they address you as a pro se, and you answer to it, you have committed a fraud against the court. Once a fraud, always a fraud, your cases will be dismissed any time you traverse with the word pro se. And then they will come back and say, you will address yourself as a pro se or you will not be allowed to have your case heard before this court.

Trying to use collusion and intimidation to get you to address yourself as a pro se. And when this individual says, no, I'm a citizen of the park, I refuse that statement for fraud. You don't say the word no because no is a traverse. You say, I refuse that statement for fraud. And don't use the word I either. You say plaintiff or defendant, whatever you are. Always maintain your proper identity. Don't use pronouns because if I'm making a statement and saying I refuse that statement for fraud and you're standing outside the door, the person who's hearing that who doesn't have eye contact or writing it down and wants to go and get a hint from somebody else, they have to ask a question, who is I? Disqualification, the fact is not defined.

All pronouns are undefined, therefore they are a fraud and it disqualifies your case. Even if you incorporate a pronoun within a paragraph or you identify yourself at the beginning of the paragraph, there may be more than one person's name within that paragraph. Hi, we, they, it, he, he, we, were. All of these different pronouns are disqualifications. If you lose a paragraph, you lose the intent of what you're trying to explain to the court. If you use an adjective, the adjective will make color upon the subject, which means it's prejudice. If you're going to prejudice the subject, then how can you come to a conclusion before the facts are presented before the court?

It's a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process. Same as a pronoun. It violates the Fifth Amendment due process. You don't want to use adverbs, words that end in ly. The word ending in ly, just like I put up here, timely. I'm trying to influence upon the verb. The verb here is time. Timely, I'm trying to make a determination on it. Well, maybe it was quick.

Quickly. He quickly ran down the street. There's the word he, who is he, quickly, while you're making a determination as to his running down the street with his prepositional phrase. What it does is create the compound prejudice upon the sentence. And it disqualifies you. Makes good fiction if you want to write fiction. But it has nothing to do with law. So don't be... One of the really nice words they like to use is sincerely.

The attorneys like to be very colorful with words. He was sincere about his pleadings to the court. Plaintiff pled to the court, which means the plaintiff talks to the court. Why does he have to be sincere? Who makes that determination? If you're trying to influence the jury to come to a decision because you want to use an adverb, to control the verb and the speed of the verb, it disqualifies the case. It disqualifies the subject because you are trying to influence a jury as to how they are going to think and what speed they are supposed to think at. Now anytime you are in court as a defendant or a plaintiff and the other attorney comes back and does a, goes into his argument or makes his statement to the court, every time he uses an adjective, adverb, or pronoun. You can say objection, your honor, conclusionary, presumptuous, or assumptuous. Any one of those three words. Can be tossed.