Global Voice Radio Network's tracks
USA Organic Republic Tuesday
Umm... Welcome to the USA Organic Revolution Tuesday called "You Were Listening to the Global Voice Ready on Network." "Hi Guys! We're going to have fun storming the castle!" I hate it when I hit the wrong button. Welcome to the Tuesday USA Organic Republic Calling Global Voice Radio Network. We're going to get the recording started. "The recording has started." And we're also going to set the conference to mute mode. "All participants are muted and they can unmute themselves." And we are ready to settle in for a great call. Thank you for joining us. Let's get started. Philists, take her away. Okay. Welcome to the good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Republic Education Call for the United States of America and our Republican form of self-governance for July 2nd, 2024 at 8.30 p.m. Eastern. I'm Phyllis Marie and I'll start this call with a short devotion from Psalms 5 verse 2 to 3, Deuteronomy 33 verse 27. And I hope everybody can hear me okay. Just sound good. Let me show you my way for you this day. I got continually so you can relax and enjoy my presence in the present. Living well is both a discipline and an art. Concentrate on staying close to me, the divine artist. Discipline your thoughts to trust me as I work my ways in your life. Pray about everything. Then leave outcomes up to me. Do not secure my will for through it. I accomplish what is best for you. Take a deep breath and dive into the depths of absolute trust in me underneath are the everlasting arms. And thank you for that Jesus we need you always. We the people of the Republic are peaceful, lawful and private. And our declaration tells us when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. And to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Many hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That the securities rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And I think we've got around 25 people on here tonight. So Darrell I'll turn it over to you and let you start it off. Okay, well thank you Phyllis and welcome everyone to tonight's call tonight. Up on the notice you'll see there's Americans for legal reform, it's a picnic and there'll be an invitation given out at the end but the notices up there and the email site or the website where you can find out more about it. It's up on the top of the notice for tonight. And tonight we're going to be covering basically the legal and lawful definitions of words and the meanings of each and how they use legal ease to trip up the people. And really it's the undoing of the true meaning of words of what God intended to not deceive. But this is the work of the serpent or the satanic element that has used basically deception of words to control and manipulate our lives. Which has been done through the media, through the schools, through a lot of things that we have been accustomed to throughout our life. But now to recognize the true meaning of the words and their application and how we can be set free once we know the truth is the real key. So Ed George is going to be sharing tonight and we want to thank you Ed for coming on and doing this. So if you want to take the floor, I've got your document up on the screen, I yield. Okay, thank you very much for that introductory there. Welcome everyone. My name is Edmond George and today's date is July 2nd, 2024. Before I get started, let me state for the record, this information is for information purposes only. It is not intended for any legal advice. I'm going to quote a thing from the 1893 dictionary of arts and science in encyclopedia botanical. It discusses the word, the legal definition, undoing God's law. Now, some people don't like the word God and that's a personal choice because into legal ease, legal words and language written or spoken in combination of means something that is legal, meaning undoing God's law. A style of writing or speaking heavily emphasized on the absence technical vocabulary of law to the point where a speech or a document may be incomprehensible to the non-specialist. This is why most people think they have to hire an attorney because they're going to speak that foreign language called legal ease. That is a language that was created to undo God's law. However, we as God's children know that God's law is the highest jurisdiction and the lower law must yield to God's law. That's a quote out of the 1893 dictionary of arts and science in psychopedia botanical. I thought it was very interesting the way they termed that. Let's get into some of these legal terms that they use. Really, it is a web of deception, most of it is. Assassination definition, the act of impersonating someone also termed personation, false impersonation, the crime of representing oneself as an authority person, usually a law enforcement officer for the purpose of deceiving someone. Tax law dictionary 9th edition page 18 and 18 USC 912 to 917 also termed false impersonation and impersonation. False impersonation is representing oneself to be a public officer or employee or a person licensed to practice or engage in any profession or variation for what a license is required by state law with knowledge that such representation is false. The act of pretending or representing oneself to be another commonly a crime if the other is a public official or police officer. This comes from people versus Murgum, that's B-A-U-G-H-N, one calling 96 California appellate division second 622. Edmund, if I may. Yeah. Anybody that's dialed in by phone and can't see the shared screen, if you want to follow along, all of the documents that were attached to the invitation. If you don't have that invitation, you can go to docs, d-o-c-s, dot, u-s-a, organic, republic, dot, com, docs, dot, u-s-a, organic, republic, dot, com and you can read the document there right along with Edmund. Edmund, what's the name of the document that you're reading right now? Is that the definitions document? Yeah, it's legal definitions of words. Legal definitions of words, okay. You will find that document up in docs, dot, u-s-a, organic, republic, dot, com, and you can read along. Thank you, Edmund. Oh, thank you. So how do you tell if someone is acting as an official employee or a public official who is actually impersonating a lawful government? You tell, by the way, they've taken their oath of office. Here's an example. Whenever you see an oath of office, that is styled like this. Then, they have taken an oath of office to a de facto foreign for profit corporation. As outlined in 28, USC 3002, part 15-A through A, B, and C. The following laws listed below. Any oath of office like this, United States/United States and upper lowercase, state of New York/state of New York, county of Canango/county of Canango is, in fact, an oath of office to the de facto corporation as outlined below. Yes. When you said the United States, all caps/United States, upper and lowercase, and then state of New York, all caps versus state of New York, upper and lowercase, and then county of Canango, all caps. That way, the people that don't see it on the screen will be able to distinguish the difference of what you're saying, I yield. Okay. Very good. Yeah. And just for that, I'm not clarifying it so good. De facto corporation, one that maintains itself by display, of course, against the will of the rightful lawful government by setting up its own in lieu thereof, Whitmer versus Walker, 133 Texas 255. So what you have is a de facto corporation. It's basically an unlawful government acting as a lawful government. Let's get into some of these statutes and laws here they go. This is New York law in my law, chapter one, desk 49 and 61 desk 123, section three and section 301, definition of county of. Here you see something that says county of instead of Canango County in lowercase. That's your republic county, but any of they always start a county of a county of is a municipal corporation. And why law, chapter three, the term governing body as used in this chapter means the board or body having charge and control of the finances of the municipality and county of New Jersey revised statute 40 colon three, dash one. County of are held to be municipal corporations, blacks, law, dictionary, fifth edition at page three, 16. Now, let's get into the style of the states. Three states spelled in upper lowercase, meaning the initial S is a capitalized and remaining is small. That is a sub corporation of the United States, which could be added 28 USC 3002, part 15 ABC. State means a state territory possession or commonwealth of the United States to USC section 60 f state defined state means any of the states of the United States and the district of Columbia. August 13, 1974 public law 93 dash 371 101.2 at 88 stat 427. Now, these are just the statutes being quoted. State five United States code section 55 17c at chapter 55 withholding state income tax. State means a state territory possession or commonwealth of the United States, a municipal corporation, municipal corporations is defined generally as a body politic and to administer local or internal affairs of the territory, which is incorporated. That's village of Lynch, Arbor versus Ocean Township 55 and Jay Superior 250. And Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division. From title 28, chapter 176, the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, section a, section 3002 of the United States Code at title 28 USC 3002, part 15, A, B and C. And this is what it says verbatim. United States means a federal corporation, section B, an agency, department, commission, board or other entity of the United States or C, an instrumentalality of the United States. Those instrumentalalities part C, that's your state of moving on 18 USC 912, officer or employee of the United States, whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department agency or office thereof and acts as such or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document or thing of value shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both. That's June 25th, 1948, chapter 645 at 62 stat 742, it's labeled public law 103-322. United States Code, section 913 impersonating making arrest or search, whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent or employee of the United States and in such assumed character arrest or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, belongings or other property of any person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both. Again, that's June 25th, 1948 in chapter 645, that could be found at 62 stat 742, public law 103-322. Moving on, 18 USC 914, creditors of the United States, whoever falsely pretends any true and lawful holder of any share or sum in public stocks or debt of the United States or any person entitled to any annuity, dividend, pensions, wages or other debt due from the United States and under color of such false presentation, transfers or endeavors to transfer as such public stocks or any part thereof or receives or endeavors to receive the money of such true and lawful holder thereof or the money of any person rarely entitled to receive such annuity, dividends, pensions, wages or other debt shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Again, that's June 25th, 1948, chapter 645, 62 stat 742, public law 103-322. Somebody want to say something? You just misspoke, that's personate, personate or impersonation, that's basically holding you in the false character of another, a yield. Correct. Okay, isn't that what all the public officials are doing, judges, prosecutors, district attorneys, attorney generals, police officers, law enforcement officers, et cetera, are they actually in personating us, the sovereign men and women who are the creditors of the United States? We'll get into questions on that shortly here. Also, are the public officials, judges, prosecutors, attorney general, attorney, excuse me, attorney generals, police officers, law enforcement officers, et cetera, committing an act of identity theft in violation of 18 USC, 1028, by forcing a living man or woman. Example, family name Smith, let me explain why I emphasize that writing family name first. When you were born, that name existed first, so you inherited that name. It existed in many, many generations down the line, so you actually inherited that name. So I style my paperwork when I'm doing lawful documents. I always say family name, this example I'm using Smith, semicolon, dividend name, that's the name your mom and dad gave you when you were born. It's usually a first and middle name, give a name, John Adam, to stand in as a person, legal fiction, dead entity, John Smith, all capital letters, into the corporate courts. See one United States code, one, the word person and whomever includes corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. Person includes an individual. Now this is the exact quote out of the operating and procedure manual of Social Security Administration when someone wants to apply for Social Security number, RM10212.001, defining the legal name for Social Security purposes. A legal name consists of a first and last name, number one, middle name. We do not consider the middle name part of the legal name and section two, give a name equals full first name and middle name. The evidence of a legal name, one, U.S. born individual in general, a U.S. born person. Person's legal name is the name shown on his or her U.S. birth certificate. Well isn't that interesting, I thought there were state birth certificates. Well there, you can come to the conclusion that the sub-corporations of the United States, they create it and it becomes the big corporations property, U.S. birth certificate. But note four, every taxpayer is a citizen to your trust, having significant interest in the preventing abuse of the trust, to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction as relation to in the proceedings to set forth sovereign authority in motion by action. That's N-ring Blames, that's B-O-L-E-N-S, 1912. The citation for that is 135 North West reporter, 164, Washington Supreme Court. The B-B-A's law dictionary, 8th edition, page 2287. The admission of a Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from inquiring jurisdiction, and Greg's manual of English. A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed is not a proper noun, denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name or a name of a dead person, or a noun du-jenaar. I'm pronouncing that incorrectly, sorry about that. Complaint must identify at least one plaintiff by true name, otherwise no action has been commenced. That's Roe v. New York, 1970, Southern District, New York, 49, federal reporter, 279. The resembling blend a true name is that neither a state nor the United States can pick up a pencil or sneeze, being nothing more than a piece of paper. They cannot therefore assume the liability of actions nor write a complaint. In other words, it's a name on a piece of paper. They can't do anything unless the man or woman picks up a piece of paper or type something out on its behalf. Name means the designation of an individual person, or a firm or corporation, source of black's law dictionary, 5th edition at page 922. The designation means is for a special purpose, giving it a special status and designation, means an addition to a name, source of black's law dictionary, 4th edition at page 402, and date of birth, means date of commencement of an action, source of the online free dictionary, let's see date, the specifications or mention in a written instrument of the time, day, month and year when it was made, interior license company versus Baker Moore, paint company, 73, Missouri at 433, a memory computer estate, 172, California, 268, and there's a few more in here. The time when an instrument was made, acknowledged, delivered or recorded, the cause of men to random which specifies that fact and the time from which it operates is to be ranked in ring Ivan's estate, 114, Montana, 577 to 139. Let's look at address means a place where male or other communications will reach a person. Mason versus Bay state, bragging and coding company, 314, Mississippi at 485, source black's law dictionary, 5th edition, page 36. So an address is designed for commercial activity, the act of pretending or representing oneself to be another commonly a crime, if the other is a public official. I don't know what I'm repeating, I think I read that already. Look, we'll go right to you, there's one more step. Police officer, people versus verm, 196, California, appellate, second edition, 622. To assume the person's character of another without his consent or knowledge, in order to deceive others in a such forged character to fraudulently do some act or gain some advantage to the harm or prejudice of the person confronted to pass oneself off as another, having a certain identity, low versus US, CCA, Ohio, 17, federal reporter, 923. Are you beginning to see the big picture of why you lost your connection with who you really are? What do I mean by that? When you take on the role of that name on the birth certificate, you just omitted your incorporation, you just omitted your sleeve. I have a successful solution, if you would like more information on that, contact me and George directly at leadingedge@gmail.com and request information on correcting the status. You can gain access to my free coaching calls at rumble.com account at George44. I do free coaching calls every Saturday at 7pm Eastern time. The dial-in number for that is 845-385-9503, again that's 845-385-9503. The access code is 401-7367, again that's 401-7367. We can open this up now for questions, comments, suggestions, I'll be happy to answer any of them. Okay, if anybody got a question, you get a fresh star or six on mute. Ms. John, Texas, I got a question. Go ahead, John. Ed, when you do your DBA at Minnesota, when you follow that in the county that you live in or work the tech implies, do you piggyback it with a fee schedule? I would. I've done it. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Does anybody else have a question? Yeah, Darryl, this is Kent. Yeah, go ahead, Kent. Ed, thank you for your presentation. Three things. Number one, you were talking about the, and correct me if I'm wrong or misstating it, the RM102 form with the Social Security Administration wherein it defines the legal name, the given name, et cetera. You found that to be the case also in any statutory language as it relates to also, let's just use an example as to the birth certificate is the verbiage always the same as it comes to that legal name, given name, or is that unique to the Social Security Administration? And then I have two other issues. Well, directly only the Social Security has used that exact verbiage and it's the RM0212.001. It's their operating and procedure manual. Where did I get this? I got this from a federal judge. I didn't know it existed until he put it in one of my cases. So I was dealing with it. So you really couldn't come? Well, yeah, I got something to add to that. The only other thing you can combine that and connect it with is you can look up in any vital statistics records in their statutes. They openly admit that that name on it is theirs and the birth certificate is their property. So that would support the operating procedure manual of Social Security. Okay. All right. What is your next second? The second issue is you were talking about the definition of address from a law dictionary or a legal dictionary and you were saying it's where the communications reach a person and then your commentary stated that basically that that put it in commerce and did you conclude that from the definition because it said where the communication reaches a quote unquote person? Well, yeah. We know what the legal definition of a person is corporation. So it's associated with manner. Right. And I was wondering if there was something else that should be read into that term address or whether that was what you were solely giving your commentary on the word person. That's my question. Well, as far as I intended to go on it, I mean, there is more we can cover if you want to. I don't have the information right in front of me. Okay. Well, if you had any other comments on that in the future, I'd appreciate that. And then the last issue that I wanted to raise it, which we had raised on Saturday night and then you subsequently sent out some information on that is the Chevron decision that originally came down in 1984 and now also that was basically reversed at this point in time, the end of the last week from the US Supreme Court, and then the immunity decision that came down yesterday. Don't you think that we still need to be very cautious about this because they have basically thrown everything back through the interpretation of the courts, but we still don't have the correct courts in place in this country for them to make interpretations. So it seems like some people may begin to rest on their laurels, if you will. That's kind of an open statement, but they'll say, "Oh, well, we're making progress." But don't we really have to look at what kind of progress we're making when we throw this back to a court system that most people have obviously by now, assuming they're not naive, have figured out is pretty corrupt. I agree with that, however, I don't know if you've got the updated, I put it out once that I did some amendments to it, adding more to it. What all these courts are, they are not constitutional courts at this moment. They are administrative courts. So even your local town, your county, your state, your federal district courts, even the Supreme Court is an administrative court, whether acting in that capacity. And what I did is I looked it up because I'm glad you brought that up because I'm going to read this. This is part of the decision from the Supreme Court this past week. What the court did, and this was Justice Roberts, I believe, it says he uses an example for instance, the principle of the Chevron defense means that courts would defer to the IRS's interpretation of tax laws, the EPA's interpretation of environmental laws, and so forth. So what they've been doing all this time, this is why a lot of times they throw it back to you and say they don't have subject matter jurisdiction, is they're saying what they're really saying is you've got to go to the administrative state agency, and here's what an administrative state agency is, and they are referring to the corporate state when they say this. The administrative state, the administrative state is the term used to describe the power that some government agencies have to write, judge, and enforce their own laws. So to answer that question, yes, there should be some caution, yes, but it's going to take time for these courts to come back to common law, constitutional authority, because it is going to set up, upset the apple cart. This is a major, major blow to them. It's going to dissolve all these administrative courts and all their procedures. It's going to change the way the administrative procedure act operates from 1946. So, yes, I would suggest using caution, but also you can literally force them based on this court case now to operate as a constitutional common law court based on this ruling. So while we have these agencies, whether they be on a state level or federal level, they are writing, judging, and enforcing, taking the place of all three branches of government and thereby being the fourth branch, so to speak, the administrative. That's now been thrown back to the courts, which if you don't say anything or set the court any differently, is basically in the same position because maybe you were a little better law, but you're still dealing with a court that's administrative in nature. And we got it out of the fourth branch of government and it's thrown back to the courts, but the courts are still acting administratively. So we still have another step to go and that is setting the courts properly. I think that's what you're saying. That's correct. All right. Thank you for clarifying that, I appreciate it. Sure. What the Chevron overturn is actually done is give the power back to the organic original constitution and we, the people. It's going to take time for that to unfold here, completely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who is this? This is our. Yeah. Go ahead, Art. Mississippi. What do you do with the court? Just trying to show them the other. It's very straining down your throat with the title to law and all that. Can you kind of clarify that question a little further? Well, the men trading courts right now, they have to mean right now. Well, they don't have to convert to common law or should I ask them to convert to common law? Yeah. I'm going to use the Chevron overturn case, absolutely. Well, I don't know if they don't know, super seeds all statutory law, so to speak. That's correct. Well, I don't think they can like that. Well, that can't help it if they don't like it. Well, anytime you spank a child, they don't like it either. So they need to be spanked and brought back in line. Good analogy, but better than I would have said it. Thank you. How are you? Yeah, let me let me add a little bit to that. It's going to take time because you've got a lot of corrupt judges in these courts. You got a lot of corrupt prosecutors or district attorneys, whatever name they want to put on them. They're going to have to change their ways and if they don't, they're going to be pulled out of the court system period. So it's going to take time and like Ken says, yes, I would use caution on this. I would make sure you've got your teeth, crossed your eyes, everything when you're attempting to convert them back to the common law courts because ultimately they have to based on this case, they're going to have to in no way around it. Now, what if you're putting out your gravy cheese and everything, can you put it in the gravy cheese and it must conform to the chevron decision? I would mention that. I wouldn't use that as authority. I would stick with the constitution, the maxims and the laws of nature and nature's God as your authority. Yes. As back as superior and we go back to the created can never be greater than the created in the create tour and it is the people, the God created the people, the people created the government so that authority goes back to the principles in which it came from where it was created. So if you're not under authority, you have authority over nothing and by what authority are they holding this statutory authority under? It's under a fictitious realm. It's under personate and represent the fiction. It's all an illusion, it's just the basically the color of authority which is no authority at all. It's only by consent and voluntary compliance, I yield. I very well put there. I'm sorry. Could talk to you about that website again. Does that answer your question? Which website should they document? Docs.usaOrganicrepublic.com Docs.usaOrganicrepublic.com You're welcome. What I live for. Okay, is there anybody else with a question? If not, it was a real, when I come to recognize the term "personate," what John has shared here some time back and the word "represent" when you go into a court and the judge asks you, "Do you have counsel or do you want court of counsel or do you want to represent yourself?" To understand what the judge is really telling you, who is self? If you are representing self, who is self, basically what he's telling you is, "Do you want to participate in the," and I'm going to represent from Black's Law Fifth, it says to appear in the character of semicolon, "personate semicolon," and that personate is to basically hold yourself in the character of another, to deceive, to exhibit semicolon, to expose before the "I" period. To represent a thing is to produce it publicly, period. To represent a person is to stand in his place, semicolon, to speak or act with authority on behalf of such person, semicolon, to supply his place, semicolon, to act as his substitute or agent. This has been the practice in this year's de facto system from its inception where they're holding you in the place of a legal fiction, as an entity, as property of a basically a corporate overlord, so to speak. This helps us to comprehend just how these courts are set up, who they're actually holding, they're holding the body in place of this legal fiction, as one in the same with basically the status as if you are collateral or property of the fiction. So, it's really an entrapment that's done through coercion and threat that if you don't comply they're going to beat you up, you're going to take your some property or throw you in jail or whatever, I yield. This is Rick, I have a quick career. >> Go ahead, Rick. >> Yes, go ahead, Rick. >> Are you going to be able to use the new Chevron ruling in the court issue file with those five states? >> Well, I'm not going to use it in particular at this point. I may mention it in the future if they don't, they give me a proper ruling. I don't know if that addresses your question here. I don't know, I mean, I'm not law expert, but they always use standing against you and I just want to know if that could help in any area. >> Well, if I was going to use it at this point, I would use it in a way to expose them that they're operating as an administrative court, not a common law court or constitutional court if that helps you. At this point, I don't think in particular we need to use it as a federal case that we still have ongoing. >> Right, okay, yeah, that's what I was going to say. >> I only mentioned it as well, I'm going to need it. >> But to answer your question, can you use it in a court case? Yeah, you can use it as a mention to help you persuade them to do the right thing and be a constitutional court of authority instead of an administrative court. >> What this really actually does is it takes away their presumed power they had to write and force and define their own laws, the three letter agencies, D.M.B., EPA, IRS, etc. It takes that authority completely away from them and the administrative courts. They have what they call administrative judges that takes that authority away from them. >> It basically re-establishes the authority of the common law court where they cannot come as a legal fiction against you as a legal fiction. They have to put the accusing party up on the top line as it's you, them versus you, not a legal fiction represented by some attorney that is standing in behalf of the state of or the corporate USA and it brings back the authority of the trial by jury rather than the jury trial aspect that this here de facto has substituted the authority of the people and put it through the administrative process of this corporate system or corporate structure. >> That is a very good point. Whenever you see, let's use an example of a theft like if somebody was charged with stealing something from Walmart or any one of the big stores, whenever in front of that court it's going to be styled the state of New Jersey, state of New York, etc. It does not say that Walmart is accusing you. It says the state of is accusing you. They're not a real party. They weren't even involved in that if you were accused of stealing something. The same thing with traffic tickets. These three-letter agencies, DMV, motor vehicle services, etc., they're going to have to expose that sovereigns have a right to travel and they have to issue exempt tags. That's what this Chevron case is going to ultimately do. It helps our federal case, absolutely. It supports everything we put in it. Are there any other questions? >> Yeah, Ed, Dau, yes, you can't. I have something that I'd like to hear discussed between you and Ed, but I'll wait. I'll hold it until you've taken everybody else's question and then I'd like to pose this because it has to do with the strategy that people use when they're being brought in on a traffic case or some other type of fictitious entity case. >> This is Darrell. I was going to share, you know, if you're going to mention the Chevron case and what it did to reverse all this administrative procedure stuff, I would put it as FYI for your information, your law, and then I would put the Chevron case in brackets to, it's like for your information. This can be recognized, but it's not part of the document as claiming any authority from it, it's just that you recognize that their system recognized their inferior authority. >> Mm-hmm. >> Through fictionating or personating. What you've got is you've got the attorneys that are personating the state of or the United States of America as an agent, and then they are also personating you as the entity that they're coming against the legal fiction that birth-certificated name person. And that's why if you're in a court situation and the judge reads off your name off a sheet of paper and you will ask you if that's you. And you can basically go into a little bit of an explanation that I understand that you're reading that name off of a piece of paper, but do you have authority over me? And then the whole thing is he'll go silent and then state that again. And then you just basically state for the record, you know, that the judges through his silence and acquiescence has agreed that he has no authority over me, therefore this case is dismissed and just walk out. And if you don't do that, you know, if it's a pressure deal, if you stay there, they're going to claim authority. Just like when you walk into the court, they're going to ask, they're going to say, well, if I don't have authority, why are you here? See, they're recognizing that you're recognizing some sort of authority that they are exercising. So you have to exercise your authority as a sovereign and basically hold them to acknowledge that they don't have authority, I yield. You're going to partially where I want to go, but like I said, I already asked some questions, so let the rest of the people ask whatever questions they have and then take me at the end because I want to talk about just briefly what we've been talking about regarding strategies that people need to use when they go to court and how some people are incapable of grabbing hold of some of this information and they need possibly delaying tactics or whatever. But again, take other people's questions first and then come back to me, if you would. I would appreciate that. Okay. Daryl, I have a question. Who's that? This is Paul from Kentucky. Go ahead, Paul. I've got two things. One, this kind of goes to Edmond George and everyone listening tonight. Here in Kentucky, we are considered a Commonwealth state. Just to agree with Edmond here, unless you're filing a civil suit against another person, but if you file a complaint and with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth picks up your complaint, it all of a sudden, instead of being Paul against Edmond, if I'm filing some kind of criminal charge or something of that nature, it then all of a sudden becomes the Commonwealth against Edmond as well. Paul is totally out of it. It's crazy. Now you're fighting this imaginary ghost because the Commonwealth is stepped up to represent something that they have no knowledge about. They don't have a dog in the fight. They just have a big Billy Club. So I wanted to agree with Edmond on that, at least in Kentucky. We have that same ugly issue, and it's very disturbing because the party that has filed the complaint pretty much, they try to hide them. They only come forward if there's a trial of any kind. I mean, they're not even hardly over there in the pretrial state. I mean, in the pretrial conference. I just thought I would share that with everybody. And then the other question is that one of the things that I'm struggling with in my multiple civil lawsuits is how these judges are not doing anything as far as following the rules of professional conduct or following the ethics or following the canons of law. I mean, as I've spoke to many of you, Daryl, I know, can't I know, and of course you, Edmond, I have a case that's going to trial right now. And the party has never even stated a claim of which relief could be granted, nor have they delivered this discovery we've propounded on them answers to the discovery. Now those answers, in a way, are considered omitted, but omission and admission in Kentucky and maybe across the world are the same, but I mean, are not the same. Ovation is kind of like, well, this is what I said and we're going to agree with you. Admission is an admission. So they're not even stating that my omit, I mean, because they allowed these discovery questions to be omitted, that's almost like saying, well, you know, you said that, Paul, but we're not and we're going to allow it, but we're not going to stand behind it. So, you know, in a way, it doesn't hold a lot of ground with an omission. And they do that on purpose, as you've probably mentioned in several of your coaching sessions. If the person doesn't want to admit to something, which in reality, the judge should have held those folks in contempt of court, but again, going back to the judge, not following rules of ethics, not following canons of law, not following rules of civil procedure, due process. I mean, all of this is going on in just about every case, it's like the same story. And so I wanted to share that also with all the people on the call. So they understand that maybe some of them are going through the same thing. But again, you know, I can't stress enough, I can't believe I'm going to a trial. And it's a civil trial, it's a civil complaint, actually what happened, they filed a complaint against me and I counterclaimed and my counterclaim is what's going to trial. But again, they've never even been able to bring forth a claim of which relief can be granted. So that should be automatic default on their part and the case should be over. Instead, they're going to drag it out a whole year. And when I brought that up to the judge and some of you've already heard this, when I brought that to the judge, I said, judge, we don't even have a claim here. He said, Oh, we'll figure that out. And I yield. Thank you. I wanted to share those things. Yeah. Thank you. Maybe it would be prudent to discuss the difference between a complaint and it's kind of like a three or a four year old complaining to Mommy because somebody took your toy. Mommy is the ultimate authority. And a claim actually filing a claim against somebody in person. Maybe we can go over the difference of that because when when you file a complaint, you are granting the administrative state authority to act on your behalf and they're never going to. They're only going to be in it for what they can get out of it is that's true. I agree. And then I've talked about that. We're working on that. The two things that I have somewhat done wrong in this process and hopefully this is a learning experience for maybe someone on the call. You're right. In the future, I will only file a claim, not a complaint. The other folks file a complaint, this thing is so administrative, it's pathetic. And Edmond and I are working on that. He sent me some documents, emails. We are working on that. So Paul, thank you for that because you're absolutely right. There is a huge difference between the claim versus the complaint. And when I was on a call, I heard a lot about the administrative versus the common wall. And so, yes, I'm getting 10 days off, I'll be up in New York area, I'll be coming to the picnic. And during those 10 days, when I'm away from my daily duties, I want to get these documents typed up and approved. And when I get back to Kentucky, I want to get them entered into the court. But you're right, Paul. I do need some assistance in that area and you're right about the difference between claiming, complaining, and administrative and common wall, or common law. Thank you. Are you? This is Darrell. I'd like to explain a little bit on that as basically a slave will complain, but a sovereign files a claim. And when the sovereign files a claim, he states the facts. And he gives the other party an opportunity to rebut those facts. And they have to be rebutted in the same manner as when it is affirmed under the penalties of perjury. They have to also affirm their statements in rebuttal under the penalty of perjury. They have to come with something of the same weight and stature. And that will basically eliminate a lot of it through that, basically the administrative process of that, where you're stating your facts and they're rebutting your facts. And they have to come back with proof to show that it is not true. And that will eliminate a lot of the process because now, is there any material facts in dispute? If there's no material facts in dispute, then the facts will stand and the judgment will be clear, you know, either by default or partial default where you would take it. If the controversy is over the value of $20, then it would, you could take it before a trial by a jury of your peers. And then the jury will make that determination. You're not asking an administrative law judge for any discretion. You're not given the judge any discretion. You're standing on the facts in your claim. And that's what a counterclaim is. You are the claimant and they are the counter defendants. Now, who originally brought in a complaint asking for discretion. What you did is you took the authority of the court and stepped forward with your authority to address the facts and to correct the issue. I yield. I have one more question. Okay, go ahead, Paul. Okay. Thank you. When I end up transferring or, you know, re getting this case under like we had talked about the common law situation, get it away from the administrative, as I'm writing up those motions or what have you, is it also a good idea to add an invoice or a bill of damages at that time or do you stare at it or take, you know, take steps, like get the motion filed to get it in the, or get it out of the administrative process. And then once it's out of the administrative process, is that when you send an invoice for damages because, you know, as it's been talked about tonight and I'm a, I'm a testimony to this, had I done it the way that you all are speaking of by following the claim, keeping it in the common law and not in the administrative side, I would have, I would have seek remedy by now. It's been, most of these cases are three or four or five years old and all they're doing is it's like playing tennis or just bouncing the ball back and forth or they just stand there and hold the ball for six months a year, 120 days, whatever. And then they kicked the ball, they hit the ball back in my court. I hit it back and they hold it another 90 days. So, yes, I agree, I would have, I would have much quicker remedy doing it the way you all are speaking of, I just was not knowledgeable of that and I did it to the best of my ability. And the good news is we're still in there, we're still in the game. But the question is, and I'll yield is, when I go to file this, this paperwork that Edmond and I had spoke about and Paul, you'd mentioned and Darryl, you'd mentioned, would it be a good idea to also include an invoice of damages, I yield. Did you have a fee schedule in, or do you have a fee schedule in, basically stating you don't? Not yet, what I have, what I have in right now Darryl is just, you know, I've listed the damages and I've tried to file in most all cases summary judgment and so the damages have been listed, but there's more damages now because of the length of time. The incompetency of the court, the lack of competency of the judge, et cetera, and I yield. Your time is your value, and absolutely. And when you, and when you exercise basically this through an administrative process, you know, I, this is my opinion, I feel it's good to have a fee schedule in for the other party to know that if they're bringing false charges, or if they cannot verify the damages that they're complaining about, then they will be subject to the fees that are assessed for trespass, libel, slander, whatever the issues may be. Okay, so would you recommend, without going into too much detail and taking up too much time, then I guess my next step would be to do a fee schedule along with all this other documents that I'm going to be turning into the court to, to move this case into a different status? Well, it sounds like you're in a counter claim status. So, you know, I don't think it, I think it would only be fair to, you know, give notice of the, of the fee schedule, of damages, you know, when you, okay, if you fail, I yield. Okay. Sound free. Okay. Thank you. I yield. Yeah. Is that a cancer? Yeah. Yeah. So, I want to say something about, I want to say something about what Paul was saying. He was talking about admissions. So, if he's talking about the admissions, they're part of the discovery process. If he's working within their systems, and they don't do the admissions, then some of that difference or those problems can be picked up in the deposition stage, which would come after the grid, broads, admissions, and the production of documents. So, I don't know where exactly what it is with each case is got, but some of that difference could be picked up in the deposition. Don't you agree? Any paper made of mute? Carol? Yeah. Yes. I hear you. What'd you say? Yeah. So, I said, wouldn't you agree that if they're negligent in the admissions, why you can move forward and, you know, do a court proceeding over that, you could also, if you did depositions, you know, in-person questioning, then with them sworn in, you could pick up some of the things that are missing or that end up being vague in the rods, the admissions, and the production of documents. Right. That would all be, you know, part of discovery and basically confirming discovery with the evidence and their confession or acknowledgement or admission under the penalty of perjury where they are testifying under oath, and you have the in-person cross-examination. Right. So, I bring that up because Paul was talking about omission versus admission, but I see admissions as being part of the discovery process, the written process, the three parts to the written process, and then if they don't comply with that, you either do a proceeding on their noncompliance for their failure to answer, or you pick up that difference, so to speak, within the depositions which follow that written process if you so desire. See, this is almost like an arbitration issue where when you initiate your claim, you state your facts and basically, and then give them so much time to rebut those facts. And then if they don't rebut, then you give them a notice of fault, and the notice of fault would only be that if they did not receive the notice in the first place. And then you would give them three days to respond with proof of service that they have not received it. And then you would have to reserve them to give them an opportunity to rebut those facts. And now you're nailing it down where they've got notice of the facts, and they have to acknowledge, admit, or deny. And it's all part of a, it's a different strategy of a discovery process, but that can be done right off the bat, and that's basically through an arbitrary process. Well, I mean if you look at, you go ahead, well, I was outdone. If you look at all cases that are happening virtually all cases in this country, I mean, I think it's safe to argue that they're either in negotiation process, an arbitration process, or some kind of mediation process, because it's almost inevitable when you go to court today, if the judge doesn't ask, well, that the parties talk to each other and try and settle this matter. So what does that really say? You know, it asks the question about arbitration mediation and negotiation. Well, this comes down even like if there is any material issues of fact in dispute, that's the only time that it would go before a trial by jury. Otherwise, you'd be actually settling it out of court just by acknowledgement and acceptance or denial of the facts that are presented. And that is when all the discovery is done, then there's either material issues of fact in dispute, or there's no material issues of fact in dispute. If they go into default, there is basically no material facts in dispute. Gentlemen, what you're overlooking is that if the judges follow the rules of the court, what's happening is the judge is basically allowing other parties who are represented by attorneys to get away with murder. If I were not to file discovery, just like in the one case, or I was not able to stay to claim, that case would have been dismissed and the other party would have immediately been granted whatever. Or if I would have failed to deliver discovery, I would have been held in contempt of court. The courts would have pursued it with every aspect of the law or with everything in the law. In this case, the judge is just making it up as they go. Like I said, when I told the judge, "Hey, you don't even have a claim here," I should be automatically granted summary judgment because this party who filed a false claim doesn't have a claim against me, so it's fraud. And he said, "Well, we'll figure that out at the trial or we'll figure that out between now and the trial." So I yield, but your gentlemen are absolutely correct in a perfect world when the courts are actually honoring the rules of civil procedure and due process and the code of ethics and code of conduct and all of that, in my case, it's totally off the, I mean, the rule, everything's off the window, and I yield. Well, remember an attorney can only represent an infant, an incompetent person, or a deceased person, or entity. And so these are, but the other party can have assistance of counsel, I guess, this so-called what you call an attorney, could act as an insistence of counsel, but otherwise they would be personating if they're acting on behalf of another. And that is fraud within its own definition, and that is criminal in nature, I yield. Can you write about that, Carol? And there's one case that is really big that slices right through all that, and I've been using it, and I've been holding ground, and that's called "Trinsey versus Pagliaro," where an attorney cannot represent another party, or someone cannot represent someone else as far as their testimony. You're right. You could have assistance of counsel, but an attorney can't go in and say, "Well, can you listen?" And says this and speak on tense behalf. Now, the assistance of counsel can be there, and can go in and speak for himself, but that's not how the court, I've never seen a court do it that way. But that's how it should be done, and that's how "Trinsey versus Pagliaro" won, and I yield. Okay, is there anybody else with any questions? We're kind of-- Yes, John, Tex. I got a question. Yeah, go ahead, John. Okay, there's a phrase that you can put in when you're going to court. It's called, "I am competent to handle my affairs," and you also put in their UCC article 3-402, "Prinsey's being, Prinsey's won," and that's supposed to stop those attorneys dead in their tracks. The document I've got's about five pages. It's too much to involve, and would you put that in your court case? Yes. You did? You did? That'll still help. I think I would--if I would use UCC, I would put the UCC code in brackets, just as like a reference of the authority or of the right, not that you're using UCC as authority. I yield. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to add one more thing here, guys, Kent was talking about remedies and stuff when you go into court. This is one I've used for years, and it does work. When you go in for the so-called arraignment, if you're going to go into these courts or if you're dragged into them, I would never enter any plea. I would simply say no T.O. record, try to get the judge to enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf. Let him do that. He's really practiced him up in the bench, but rather than argue that matter, you simply say, "Make sure you have at least two witnesses in the courtroom when you do this. Have them do affidavits," that they were in the courtroom and stating the facts that happened, everything that happened. Then when the judge enters a plea of not guilty on your behalf, then you simply ask the judge was that a judicial determination? If the judge says yes, you say, let the record show that the judge has just made a judicial determination of not guilty, and then you say this matters now closed three separate times. Walk out of that courtroom, it's done. That's a quick remedy. I'd like to ask a question, okay, everybody's been talking about the Chevron case. Now, is that the one from 1984, because this, it's all supposedly around President Trump, so I'm kind of confused here, because I want to look at the case and everything, and I've got it, I had it pulled up, so I'd just like to know if that Chevron case is cited in the Trump case, or is that what is this? Who's speaking? It was Sherry Elizabeth from Washington. Okay, Sherry, Ed, do you want to address that? I'm sorry, I didn't get that somebody just pulled, can she repeat the question? Can you repeat that, Sherry? I'm asking about the, everybody's talking about this Chevron case, and how it represents or is supposed to be affecting President Trump, so, but I pulled up Chevron, it's from 1984, is that the one that is supposed to be related to President Trump, because, you know, I just need to know what I need to read? Well, it's not directly related to Trump, it was overturned. Yeah, it was in 1984, when they first created that Chevron doctor, but there's a different case of you referring to the one where they overturned Trump's conviction, is that the one you're asking about? Yeah, the one that everybody's saying is going to change everything, this Trump, this Chevron thing, I'd like to know where it is so I can read it. Send me an email at leadingedge8@gmail.com, leadingedge8@gmail.com, and I'll send you the whole case. Okay, I have to jump off here, guys, I gotta take care of something. Okay, was there anybody else that had a question or commented, they wanted to add to this discussion? Yeah, Darrell, this is Ken, I told you that I wanted to open something up for discussion between you and Ed, but if he's leaving, then we won't be able to do that, unless you just want to make a couple comments on it. Okay, well, it depends if I can't- Go ahead, go ahead, Ken, I'll take on that, go ahead. Okay, so Darrell and I have had some conversations recently about the level at which people are grabbing this information and able to go into court and implement what is being said, and although John Hershberger and Ed George and others that have been doing training on this call have been doing it for a long time, some people are having trouble grabbing hold of that. I was discussed on administrative and ministerial calls behind the scenes that determine how these calls operate that you're presently listening to, how people are grabbing the hold of the information. So I just want to put out a suggestion here, and I'd like to hear a little bit of discussion on it. I don't want anybody to bite my head off, but one of the things that I found productive to do is when they arrest you and haul you into court, and one of the first things they talk about is giving you an attorney. Now I know a lot of people in this quote unquote movement will argue vehemently that they would never take an attorney, they never even want to be asked that question really, et cetera, et cetera. I find it positive and sometimes beneficial to let them provide that, or let them think that you're going to take that attorney, but then once that process begins, you start to ask the necessary questions which will knock that attorney out of the box. In the meantime, you've led them to believe that you're going to cooperate and operate in their system, and they're not really ready for what you're going to do to defend yourself, and in addition to that, perhaps more importantly, you buy yourself some time. Now, having said that, you do have to be able to talk yourself back out of that situation and not have made any material or substantive statements regarding the acceptance of that attorney. But just like, "Oh, well, if that's what you think I should do, perhaps I need to investigate that." So I was interested in some comments from you, Ed, and Darryl, so if people can't grab a hold of the personation and what they have to say and what they have to do for one reason or another, they could at least buy some time when they're in an emergency situation. So your comments, please. I think that would be a landmine. I think Ed dropped off. Ed, are you still there? I don't see him here. I think that would be a landmine, because you're just saying that you're allowing them to assign you an attorney, you're admitting to being incompetent and unable to speak for yourself. So how can you make a claim that you're unable to speak for yourself, but then hold their feet to the fire and disqualify the attorney they give you? I think there would be a landmine there. If you would go ahead and ask for an attorney or allow an attorney to speak on your behalf, you are basically declaring yourself incompetent, like Paul said. But the whole thing is that we have to basically exercise our rights as somebody that is competent to defend themselves. And for that, we need to know our rights and be able to defend it, but the whole thing is that when you put yourself under another, you cannot allow, and even going into that court acknowledging their statutes and their statutory authority as authority, then you would be given them discretionary powers if you're asking the court to make any determination on your behalf. And this is where it's so powerful, like when you do the counterclaim, and you're stating your facts to correct the record, and given them an opportunity to rebut those facts, and if not, if they don't rebut them, the counterclaim is already setting there for the damages. Well, let me be clear, and everything I say is being respectfully said. I'm not suggesting that what I just said is the best way to do it. I'm basing this upon various conversations that we have in the calls that I previously referenced a couple of minutes ago, where it's been said that people freeze up and don't know what to do. I'm suggesting that if you handle this properly, and I'm not just coming up with this, I've successfully done this, and I've done this for other people. Where it appeared, they're going to take the attorney, but then after the application process, the interviews, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, the attorney doesn't want anything to do with you. So I think it can be a very, very effective strategy if you know what you're doing, and you know how to do it properly. Hey, this is Kirkland. Can I make a comment on the issue about the attorney thing if that's all right with everybody? Go ahead, go ahead, Kirkland. Yeah. I want to share, it's a good question, you brought that up in a situation about what the attorney is. We all understand the concept that attorneys are spies. They're not good, and they don't help us one bit at all, but he is right. You can't actually contract with an attorney. If you find yourself dragging the court and you have to go to court and you don't really want to be in that courtroom, I will advise you from experience if you're forced to play the game, play the game and set them up. The best way to do that is get a public defender and start weedin' them out. And once you start talking, you make your own little contract. Contract with your public defender on the side when you have an interview with them. Have a witness there with you, set them up as evidence. Have them touch your document. Have a document ready and say, "Then you have under the due process clause violations that of appointing an attorney to you that's competent. You can go on and act or go on an appeal." So yes, it could be used to your advantage. I recommend if you're in a situation, you're in there and you're getting ready and you're afraid that you're going to go to jail, I would definitely, to stop from going to jail, I would say I'd like you to appoint the public defender. So I'll let that, if you have the floor back then, if you would take a public defender, you really have to set up the contract that you have with them and allow them to defend only certain issues, defend that you are a national. And these are the issues and then basically what's going to happen is that public defender is going to recruit themselves and remove himself from the case because if he tries to go against the wishes of the state, who he is an officer of, then he's going to get removed either way. So he will more than likely just remove himself from the case. But you have to set up the contract of what he can say and what he cannot say, a yield. What I'm suggesting is you just use this when you're in a jam, as Kirkland just said, when you're in a jam and you need to buy time, because this can take weeks, weeks and weeks for them to settle to get one attorney off while the attorney tries to make a claim. I don't want to represent this guy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And then you can structure your whole case the proper way. That's how I'm suggesting it. I'm not suggesting that you ultimately use the attorney. Yeah, Daryl, this is Paul from Kentucky. I totally have done that. I was in a situation where I got put in a jam. They were forcing or trying to attempt to force me to use an attorney. And so what I did is very close to what Kent's talking about. I didn't necessarily at that moment use a public defender, but I also had another case where that public defender thing came up. And basically my out for the public defender and the attorney was every time we went into court, I requested a competent and coherent counsel, whether it was the public defender in one case or whether the judge wanted me to get an attorney so that he could do his deal with the attorney. Either way, I came back and said, I need a competent and coherent counsel. And so far none of these people meet my qualifications. So yes, and that's what I did exactly what Kent's talking about. I guess you call it a stall tactic or whatever. And it also kind of gave me leverage at the end because at that one moment in one case, I was probably facing going to jail that day. In the other case, it was probably going to get messy also. And it kind of let the pot was getting ready to boil and let the water cool down quite a bit. And so yes, I have actually physically done that that sometimes you hear people give advice they've never done, but I've physically done that. And yes, I got those results that Kent's talking about. And I believe Kent and the other guy Kirk and myself all agree that you don't hire the guy at all. You don't let the guy ever represent you. But you can use it as a stall tactic or to buy you some time and I yield. Okay. Well, we're getting close to time to kind of end the call. But is there anybody else at the last minute question? If you're muted, you've got to press star six. Is there anybody else at the question? I want to say something about the barbecue before you finish up the call. Okay. There was somebody that spoke up there. Yeah, it's John from New Jersey. I do appreciate these forms here and we do appreciate this education there because we all have to learn and anyway, we're getting close to the end there. And I'm sorry, it was hard to get in there. I want to ask some questions on a case that I'm working on there. Well, if you've got something, you know, first of all, with the case that you're personally working on, maybe you can contact Ed and try to get some of his guidance or help with it. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. I have this stuff there and yeah, I was trying to review it and, you know, take notice there. Yeah. Well, yeah. I did follow a claim in my county and I'm still trying to get my truck out of it in town yard and, which I have probably plates on it and yeah, I drive is a, yeah, you go in the court and they, you got a judge and they, you know, I turn in the, in the acute issue of being a sovereign citizen there. I haven't even heard that. Yeah. John, have you looked at that counterclaim that was posted last Tuesday? I, I, I'm trying to get a find a way to, to look at that document. I know Paul has put that information on there and I tried to look that up on my phone there and it just wouldn't come through there. I don't know why I'm going to try that again. Yeah. There's two samples of counterclaims that were posted last Tuesday and they're pretty much set up with all the law, the Maxims Constitution and all that. And the whole thing is that you would just put your story in the front of it, the first page, page and a half and, and adjust it, you know, to your needs. Yeah. I believe it will be stocks, stocks, stocks, USA, organic, republic, great.com, right? Is that correct, dot org, I believe, or no, it's dot org, no, it's dot org, no, it's not D O C S dot USA, organic, republic, dot com. And you might have to put the HTTP colon slash slash in front of it. Because a phone is going to try, a phone is going to try and make a secure connection. And that's not a secure web address. So just put in HTTP colon forward slash forward slash docs dot USA, organic, republic, dot com, no spaces. We've got to put that link on the on the republic website. So people can just go to that republic website and just click on it. Yeah, I'd really like to see them documents there. Yeah. I mean, we're all learning, you know, we can't learn enough there. And I appreciate people that are trying to put good information out there. I'm very grateful and thankful for that there. It's under God's will there. Hey, Kirkland's got a comment if I may before you guys close. Okay, make it quick. All right. I just want you guys to let you know, I do have a draft on that is available for the judge and attorney conflict with the so if anybody's interested, I'll share with you guys. And it's been, it's been utilized before and it seems to work. So if anybody's interested, just give me a call and I'll share the draft or with them. So it's a contract for the attorney, judges, lawyer, police officer, whoever clerk, whoever's giving you the problem, basically, it's a, it's a trap meant to trap for appeals, all it is. Okay. Okay. Well, maybe you can get that down there to Paul and he can get a put up on the site. All right. Anybody's interested? If you're interested, just email me or whatever. I mean, somebody can hold me and I'll share it. Okay. Now, a true live experience, I can tell you how I used it once in a couple of issues for just being a witness with the client, just being there with him when he had a public defender and I actually turned a public defender to the good, teaching him one important thing of article six paragraph two. And he, he just basically told me when the next time I met with the attorney, he goes, I sure wish we had a lot more people like you. That made my day. I tell you, it really did. Turn in an attorney to do to help somebody was great, but all right. Thank you. Okay. Did I hear there was somebody else that spoke, or was there something else? I'm not waiting to take care of the barbecue. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and announce the barbecue camp? Okay. I noted you announced it in the beginning, but started July 20th, 12 noon, till 9th and a clock at night, whatever, there'll be a free barbecue hosted by Americans for legal reform. That's Americans plural. The number four legal reform.com, it'll be a 14 Ray Lane in Smithtown, New York. That's on Long Island again, Saturday, July 20th, brain date, Sunday, July 21st. The additional thing that I wanted to say about that is that we're using that, we're using this event this year. The call who founded Americans for legal reform about 40 years ago has been gracious enough to let people use this event this year to network. So if you're coming from a particular group, or you have a conference call, or you somehow have a group of people that are related to the movement of good governance, good governance, and sent by the people, restoring the conversation, then we urge, then we urge you to come to this barbecue on Long Island, you'll be able to set up a table there on the front wall and distribute your literature. If you have some books to sell or something like that, as long as they're related, that's fine. So again, it's a networking event. My other comment is, I want to thank everybody that participated in the call tonight. It seems like we brought a sense of water to these calls and made them more civil, if you will, between people so people can have a conversation. And we can learn by other people's trials and tribulations. And I also want to thank, there's a lot of work that many people may not realize that goes in behind the scenes to produce these calls. And so I want to thank all the people that make that possible. Thank you very much. Back to you, Darlin. Okay. Well, thank you, Ant, and we want to thank everyone for coming on the call for the dialogue. We learn from each other. We have these experiences, and for us to express how we dealt with it, positive or negative, it gives us an idea of what we're confronting and how to confront things effectively. So we can continue to grow, if there's anyone that has any suggestions on topics that you would like to have discussed or addressed on these calls, please send, fill us an email. But if there's anybody that does not get the notices for the Tuesday or Thursday night calls, we do a health call on Thursday night. And we will not have one this Thursday. Okay. Okay. If you're calling the dog, please mute yourself. Yeah. Okay. If there's anybody who wants a cat who's not received the notices for the Tuesday or Thursday night calls and would like to receive them, you can send, fill us an email. You'll want your first name, state who invited you to the call and a phone number. We do not share any contact information, but if somebody would want to reach out to you, they will send, fill us an email and she will forward that on to you and it'll be up to you to reach out to them at your convenience. So first, would you want to give out your email? Real quickly, before she does that. Before I give out the email, I want to make sure that John in New Jersey knows that if you want the attachments, you need to send me an email to request to be put on the distribution list because those attachments are on those notices every week. My email address is blueridge1121@gmail.com, blueridge1121@gmail.com and I yield. Okay. Thank you. Did somebody have something they wanted to say? Well, if I could please for just a moment, sketch in the radio ranch group. Just sketch in the radio ranch group via this hand up. Sketch, do you have a comment? Do you have something you want to add? Well I know you guys want to get on with the, finish the show up, but I would mention that you want to delay things, you can say, do I have a right to know or be fully informed about the nature and cause of this action and it is up to you to be belligerent and say, I am not fully informed, we need to go further with more questions, I yield. Yeah, I don't understand, I don't comprehend. Well, you don't understand, I fully comprehend, but you don't understand. Yeah, okay, you have a right to come. You need to know, you don't understand, you need to know the nature and cause of the action. Correct, okay, well with that, we want to thank everyone for coming on the call. We pray that this information will be beneficial, that we can be able to more effectively defend our rights, that are inherent, they're not constitutional rights, they're rights secured by the Constitution. As all public officials that have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution have a duty and an obligation to basically protect those rights with their limited authority that is granted through their oath of office, that's the only thing that gives them authority, and that's why it's so important that we get back to a constitutional form of governance that is guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4. So with that, we'll close out the call with the prayer, is there anybody that would like to share in a word of prayer? If not, then I can heavenly Father, we come before you to thank you Lord for the information that you've made available and the things that have been shared this evening. We just pray, Lord, that it'll help us to further be able to stand for your truth and to defend the deception that has come before us through the personating and the represent and the word, the words that are spoken to deceive the legal ease and these methods of deception that have been acted upon as a policy for this country. We just pray, Lord, that you'll continue to help us to be vigilant and to stand firm for the cause of truth, that we'll be able to set free from the bondage that has encapsulated us through this deception. We just pray, Lord, that as we acknowledge the Fourth of July, that stands for freedom, that we can once again restore this nation back to being recognized under the principles that you've given us to follow, that what is said and done is for your glory, that we can once again be looked at as being one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. And with that, we want to thank you all for coming on and we ask all this in the name of Yeshua. Amen. Amen. This session is no longer being recorded. Goodbye. That's it for the USA Organic Republic.com. Tuesday night call on Global Voice Radio Network. I want to thank everyone for joining us tonight. For more information on the topics discussed, you can go to usaorganicrepublic.com. That's USA Organic Republic.com. And for more information on what Ed George 44 is doing, go to edgeorge44.com. That is edgeorge44.com's number 44. You can also find all of Ed George's coaching sessions on Rumble on the channel of the same name. Ed George 44 on Rumble, Ed George 44 on Rumble. Catch us here Tuesdays and Thursdays on Global Voice Radio Network. That is Radio.GlobalVoiceRadio.net. Thank you so much for joining us today. We'll catch you, I guess we won't catch you on Thursday because apparently the Thursday is going to be a day off for the July 4th weekend. You can also go to thematrixdocs.com or nationalsonly.com to find more information on the national status with Roger Sales in the Radio Ranch Radio Program, Monday through Saturday 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. You can join us on the air. 1,500 of you is what we've got room for. You can actually join us on the air, ask questions, or you can monitor any number of live streams, eurofolkradio.com, global voice radio.net, one of the 6.9 WBOUFM in Chicago, homenetwork.tv, freedomnation.tv, collivetv and streamlife.tube. We are literally everywhere and we're here for you and that's what we're doing. We're doing this for you for freedom, for sovereignty and for deliverance from the administrative state. I'm Paul. Thank you so much for joining us. We will catch you right back here for the USA Organic Republic Call on radio.globalvoiceradio.net. Take care, have yourself a very pleasant evening and a better tomorrow. Bye-bye. I didn't do that right, let's do that again. Blasting the voice of freedom worldwide, you're listening to the global voice radio network. Bye-bye, boy. Have fun storming the castle. Bye-bye. Bye-bye, boy. Have fun storming the castle. Bye-bye, boy.