Summary
âž¡ The text discusses the history and structure of Washington D.C., explaining that it was created as a separate entity, not a state, to serve the 50 states. It was initially meant for government workers only, but after the Civil War, many people moved in, leading to a need for better infrastructure. The Act of 1871 was introduced to streamline the city’s governance and infrastructure, not for any underhanded reasons. The term ‘foreign’ in this context doesn’t mean owned by another country, but rather that D.C. stands alone, separate from any state.
âž¡ The discussion revolves around the formation of the United States as a voluntary union of 13 sovereign nations, which is referred to as a confederation. The southern states left this union when it no longer served their interests, forming their own legal union, which was a confederacy. The conversation also touches on the legality of secession, the economic reasons behind the Civil War, and the role of slavery. The hosts also discuss the idea of birth certificates being traded and invite listeners to call in with their questions or comments.
âž¡ The discussion revolves around the complexities of different types of law, including common law, statutory law, and maritime law. The speakers debate the merits and drawbacks of each, with some arguing that statutory law can be manipulated by the government. They also touch on historical events and their impact on current law, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s actions. The conversation ends with a brief mention of securities and the process of issuing them.
âž¡ The text discusses a nine-digit alphanumeric Q sub number used by companies to offer securities. The first six digits are unique to the company, the next two indicate how many times the company has offered securities, and the last digit is a computer-generated authenticity check. The text also clarifies that birth certificates are not securities and cannot be traded as such, debunking a common conspiracy theory. The importance of birth certificates in establishing citizenship and the rights that come with it, such as protection from the government, is emphasized. The discussion concludes with a critique of laws that violate the Constitution and the need for nullification.
âž¡ The discussion revolves around the perceived shift in corporate censorship, with the speakers agreeing that while there may be signs of change, caution is still necessary. They also emphasize the importance of individual research and critical thinking, rather than relying on others’ interpretations. The speakers, including one known as the War Hamster, promote their online platforms and suggest future discussions in a more interactive format. They conclude by thanking their audience and each other, and express interest in continuing these discussions.
âž¡ The text discusses a document called the Act of 1871, which established a government for the District of Columbia. The speakers clarify that this act did not change or sidestep the U.S. Constitution, but rather, it was in line with it. They also discuss how the act was repealed four years later, and how some people mistakenly believe it set the foundation for a separate, secret Constitution. The speakers emphasize that the Constitution can only be changed through amendments, not acts of Congress.
âž¡ The discussion revolves around the theory that the U.S. is a corporation, which the speakers don’t believe in. They acknowledge that many who believe in this theory are patriots who recognize issues with the federal government. They also discuss the role of a resident agent in a corporation, who acts as a go-between for lawsuits. The speakers encourage critical thinking and investigation into these theories, rather than just accepting sensationalized information. They also touch on the shift of money flow from states to the federal government, and the impact of post-Civil War amendments on the Constitution.
âž¡ The text discusses the historical debate about the role of the Supreme Court and states in deciding what’s constitutional. It argues that states were originally intended to be the judge of constitutionality, with the Supreme Court only settling disputes between states. The text also debunks the idea that the phrase “Constitution of the United States” was first used in 1871, stating that it was used by George Washington in 1789 and in several acts thereafter. The discussion also touches on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed federal courts to intervene in state issues, a move seen as contrary to the original intent of the Constitution.
âž¡ The text discusses the financial history of the United States, focusing on the country’s debt and banking system. It mentions how the U.S. debt increased due to wars and the establishment of the First and Second Banks of the United States. The text also discusses the theory that the U.S. went bankrupt after the Civil War, leading to the country being sold to European banks and the Vatican Bank. However, it points out that the Vatican Bank didn’t exist until the 1940s and the U.S. financial data doesn’t support the bankruptcy theory.
âž¡ The discussion revolves around the history of American debt, the concept of mercantilism, and the Civil War’s impact on the economy. The speakers discuss how mercantilism, or favoritism by the government towards certain corporations, has shaped our current economic system. They also touch on the Civil War, explaining how the war led to a significant increase in national debt due to the need for war funds and the introduction of a debt-based currency system.
âž¡ The text discusses the history of U.S. debt, explaining that the country did not borrow from foreign entities but issued debt-based securities known as greenbacks. It also addresses misconceptions about the term “bar” in legal context, explaining that it refers to the physical barrier in a courtroom and not an acronym for a British entity. The text also discusses the U.S. Constitution, arguing that it restricts the powers of the government and that any perceived deviations are due to individuals or groups within the government, not the government as a whole.
âž¡ The text discusses the U.S. Constitution and how it has been altered over time. It emphasizes the importance of Article 5, which allows states to make changes to the federal government. The text also discusses the role of federal agencies and suggests that they should be reduced or eliminated. Lastly, it explains the concept of corporations and their history in the U.S.
âž¡ The text discusses a court case involving the United States Corporation Company, which is often mistaken for the United States government. The case is about a person who has been repeatedly filing lawsuits, leading to her being labeled a vexatious litigant. The text emphasizes that the United States Corporation Company is a private entity, not the U.S. government, and the case has nothing to do with the U.S. being bankrupt. The text also mentions a document falsely attributed to Donald Trump, which was found to be fabricated and filled with errors.
Transcript
Brady. How are you doing there, brother? Good to see you. I’m good, man. Thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure hanging out with you and my good friend Mel. Yeah, it’s been. It’s been a minute. Well, I’m going to. I’m going to put Mel into the big chair here because she’s this kind of the star of the show here. But you know what kind of. What we’re going to do here is. We’re going to do. We’re going to do kind of a brief overview of stuff, and then once we get to the. Once we get through with that overview, we’re going to open the phone lines up and let people call in, and there will be some rules about the phone conversation.
So. But that is. That’s coming. But for now, Mel, what would you like to start with in terms of presentation? Yeah, so there’s, you know, I think we all are already on the same page about what the topic is, so we don’t have to, you know, basically restate it, but emphatically, the corporation, the idea that America is a corporation is 100% false. And again, you know, people start screaming at me and calling me a shill and a commie and all kinds of names just for making that statement. But I want people to know that we’re on the same team.
And I’m, you know, we’re bringing you information that I’d love for you. We would love for you to say, okay, I’m willing to look at it and not be too emotionally tied one way or the other. You know, peer review, be critical thinkers about this, and let’s just talk about it. And that’s when the question and answer time is going to come. So please just be open minded. But. So the idea of the corporation was started by, you know, people with bad intentions. And know, we can go into that. We don’t have necessarily have to go into the history of how it was started.
But we can. But when we break down every one of the articles that is used and propped up to call or to supposedly be the evidence behind the United States being a corporation, every single one of them is dismantled as fake, phony, and false or misconstrued, completely out of shape. So I’m willing to talk about every single one of the documents. Anybody can bring up any document concerning any of it. And I, We. We will be able to show you how it was crafted outside of truth or misconstrued. So, yeah. And I have. I’ve got four documents ready to rock and roll.
Yeah. Should you need them. Okay, let’s. So let’s start with, you know, the biggest. I think the biggest aha for most people or they think is an aha is the act of 1871. So if you want to bring that up, the activities. So just maybe just the first paragraph. And maybe like, what is it? Number nine or ten? Let’s see here. This is. Let’s see, page eight. There’s nine. So are you in my book? No, I’m actually not in the book. And this is the original document, but if you want me to pull the book up, I can.
No, no, no, no. I just was trying to figure out what was on here. Yeah, if you. Yeah, if you. So while you’re looking for that, in the very first paragraph of the act of 1871, we’re going to notice a couple of things. It’s going to say municipal corporation, which I’ll explain what that means. And first, I want to explain what an act is. And most people just go, oh, The act of 1871 tied us to London and the Vatican. And it’s, you know, this evil and nefarious thing that basically sold America to another country, to the Vatican, basically because of indebtedness over the war.
And so all these evil people came in and basically took America. Well, first of all, Warhammer is going to show us how, in fact, we were not bankrupt, but that. We’ll get to that in a little bit. An act is written by Congress. So we still have acts today. Acts are, you know, we know in the Constitution that Congress was given. They were. They are the. Of the three branches, they are the ones that can make law, and that is they can legislate. And that is what an act is. Be it an act of that. Okay.
That’s the law Congress cannot make. Acts are not instruments that communicate with other countries. They’re our American laws. There are United States laws have nothing to do with another country. If you want to negotiate with another country, you’re doing that through a treaty, not through an act. An act doesn’t do that. It’s not capable of that. So the act right there, act of 1871, means the law of 1871, the legislation of 1871. And the reason it says 1871, back then, everything was in chronological order. So Every act had two names. It had the act of 1871, the act of 1792, the act of Whatever.
And then it also had, like, the act, the Coinage act, the act to create a mint. They had two names so that they could try to find them. Which gets into another topic later that we may get into or may not. You’re welcome to ask questions about it. But why we went from common law to what we now have, which is codes and so forth and statutes for our laws, which was basically our Dewey Decimal system for making it a different way to be able to find laws more easily than it used to be in chronological order.
So. And at the act of 1871, all it did. And you’re at this first paragraph. I’m. I have your book as well, if you want me to share this one instead. This is the. This is your page nine. Yeah. Neither one of those are the actual Act. If you want to go to my. If you go to the appendix and find the actual first page of the Act, I want to show the first paragraph. This is the Act, I believe, here. I’ll go to the very top. The 56th Congress, Senate, District of Columbia by William Tindall.
No, this is not. That’s not the act of 1871. No, this is a pamphlet written by that William Tindall. That’s where we get into the street view of everything that was going on in government. But if you flip over the appendix, you’ll find the whole Act. I have your book. And where would you like me to go in your book? Specifically the appendix. It should have the entire act right in the appendix there. So the very first paragraph, not really legible. Yeah, probably not. You’re right. You’re right. Hey, Brady, if you can. I don’t know if you can.
I’ve got it. I’ve got it archived. It’ll only take me about 30 seconds to find it. So basically, do you have it in a PDF? You can actually go to Wikipedia. If you can just go to Wikipedia and click on. Go down to. Oh, you got it. Okay. Yeah. The very first paragraph tells us exactly what the act of 1871 did. And it’s not nefarious. In any way, shape, or form, has no dealings with London or the Vatican. If you read the entire act, I think it’s, like, several pages long. There’s nothing in it that has anything to do with London or the Vatican.
Like, nothing. So the way people get away with this is just by making you believe them so much that you don’t even want to go and actually look at it. And that’s the really unfortunate part of these things. This. I found it on Wikipedia. Like, you. I asked. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ron. I don’t mind. Mine’s not coming up as quickly as it should. The District of Columbia organic act of 1871 is an act of Congress. Or that’s actually not the first paragraph. Go down to the bottom where you have, like, you can. Different things you can click on.
Okay, there’s references. References, yep. Origin and government of District. No, no, go down. Go down a little further. American in Washington, D.C. 1800-1975. The original 2000. Did they see here history of Self government? No, no, go down a little further. Okay. I don’t see very well since my. My retinal detachment. So I think it’s number eight. You think so? Okay, yeah. Right where you were. I think it was number eight. All right, let me go back down there and. Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia. Okay, well, that sentence right there tells you pretty much all you need to know.
We can’t find. I mean, we should be done. We can all say good night, right? Or the District of Columbia has nothing to do with the United States of America. Right? So to put some flesh on that, most of you live in an incorporated city, or, you know, if. Unless you live in an unincorporated area, which, you know, when you’re driving through rural America, you might see some areas where people live, have congregated, but it’s. It’ll say something like the incorporated, you know, whatever. And it just means that they have not said, hey, we want to become a city.
And therefore, we want to partner with our state and basically say, hey, write to the states that we want to become. We want to become a incorporated, which would give us, you know, city. You know, city, water, city utilities. Give us a government. Give us a mayor. All of that. And so if you have a mayor in your town, you are incorporated. But that doesn’t mean a corporation, like a private corporation for profit. It doesn’t mean that someone’s making money off of your city. It means a corporation. And Brady, you’re really good at explaining this, but basically, it’s the entity through which the money changes hands.
You got to pay your government. You got to. Our taxation goes through it from us to them. It’s the pipeline of accountability for them that then turn around and, you know, pay our government officials and to supply us with all the things it takes money to have infrastructure like this. So when you think about the whole area of D.C. pre the Civil War, people were not supposed to live in that area that were just, you know, random citizens. You had to be working for the government to live there. And. But then the war happened and all these slaves just flooded into that area because, you know, there wasn’t any slavery in D.C.
and there were still states. You know, the states were still slave ownership. And so they came there and they’re like, we’re not leaving, we’re staying here. And so you have all these people here. Well, prior to them coming there in 1790, when they first built D.C. and then they took the 10 years to build it and build the buildings and actually get Everybody there. In 1801, they had the very first act to create Washington D.C. why does no one yell about that one? Because it doesn’t hold up the narrative. No, hold on a second, guys. We, we went to Wikipedia as a, as a, as a fail safe last minute thing that wasn’t.
We’re not, we all, none of us trust Wikipedia. So. But that the reason, yeah, the reason I had you go there, Ron, is just because it actually pulls up the one from the, from the Library of Congress. I’m just getting feedback in that you’re talking about facts and you’re using Wikipedia. So I understand the argument. So. Yeah, no, as a matter of fact, thank you for saying that. Yeah, we don’t trust Wikipedia. However, it has the link that takes you straight to the Library of Congress, which pulls up the actual document. That’s the only reason I thought on the fly, because we were going to be reading from the actual Library of Congress.
The actual document. However. Yeah, I agree with you don’t read any of Wikipedia’s opinions. But it wasn’t an opinion piece. Right. So, yeah. So anyway, the, the corporation. So when they first, in 1801, they had the very first act of Washington D.C. of, of the District of Columbia, which basically all that did was created infrastructure. Now think about this territory. When Hamilton and, and what’s his name? Madison. Jefferson. And let me jump, let me. Because it’s a really fun debate of what’s going. Where were they going to put. District of Columbia. Exactly. Yeah. And you’ve got Hamilton, who Wanted a bunch of things above and beyond what the Constitution allowed.
And you had Jefferson, who did not. And they were part of the argument, the debate with Washington about whether we should have the first bank of the United States. One of the deciding factors, some say, and this is probably not very well documented, but it’s worth bringing up where they put the District of Columbia just happened to be right next door to Mount Vernon, I believe is where Washington had his estate. Right. So that, that happened when they were choosing the location for this new municipality. It was a big negotiation. It was political. And two states had to give up their own sovereign territory and agreed to do that.
And it made sense to them because if you have the capital right next to your city, there should be additional commerce. Prior to that, the capital of the United States was where, Ron? Philadelphia. God, you’re smart. I knew you were going to know that. Go on, Mel. Yeah, so, so basically they decided to build the territory there and it had to be a territory, not a state. Because think about states. States are sovereign. So you can’t take the federal government and put it inside the state because then it’s going to have to answer to the sovereign states laws and disenfranchise the other states.
And so it’s this, it’s this catch 22 that doesn’t work. So they had to have a territory that was free of being a state. So when people say, oh, it’s foreign. And I called Jan Halper Hayes out on this publicly on a spaces and I’ve got it recorded and it’s on my rumble and I made her tell everybody foreign did not mean owned by another country. They used to use the word foreign a little bit differently than we do now. But think about any of you who have a corporation, and a lot of people don’t, so you may not know this, but if you have a personal private corporation, you have a business, whether it’s profit, nonprofit, whatever, if you, you have it in your home state and it is considered a domestic incorporation.
But if you decide to open a satellite in another state, say you’re in Missouri and you open one, it’s your domestic corporation. And whatever you do all this stuff, if you then decide to go to Nevada and open another one, guess what it’s called? It’s called a foreign corporation. So the word foreign is used differently than what we think only is foreign meaning another country. So when we talk about DC being foreign soil, it’s really not used the way we use the word foreign anymore. It shouldn’t really be in our Vocabulary concerning this. It just means that it is not in a state, it’s not part of a state.
It stands alone. It’s meant to serve the 50 states. It’s meant to be the government for the 50 states. But back to the war, back to the Civil War, all these people moved in and they weren’t really supposed to be there. But then they’ve got all these people. What are they going to do? Well, right now all we have is Washington City and we have Georgetown. We at one point had Alexandria, Virginia, but everything that was in Virginia got retroceded back to Virginia. So now the landmass that was given that all of D.C. sits on is less than the 100 miles square that’s required.
It’s actually smaller than that. People don’t know that because Virginia retroceded. Right, but so then you’ve got these two cities and then all these people move into this area and there’s not enough infrastructure. There’s. I mean, the plumbing is about. Everything’s bad. They’re like, man, we got to fix this. This is a mess. It’s like Georgetown and Washington City just blew up and now they’re like one big mess. You know, you think about, you’ve got two cities that grow together now. It happens all the time. So they went in after the war and said, let’s restructure this and make it just one municipal corporation instead of two.
Because guess what? Washington City was a municipal corporation by itself, and Georgetown was a municipal corporation back when it still belonged to Maryland before it was even given as part of the territory for dc. So then once it was given, they changed its charter from being tied up to Maryland. Now it’s just tied up to Congress, who is basically the governor of the whole territory of D.C. that’s how they set it up way back in 1790, they set it up this way. And so now they said, let’s just make it one. So the whole act of 1871 is housekeeping.
It is to streamline. It’s to go over, okay, who can be, you know, who can serve in government. You have to take this oath. If you do so if you owe any money to anybody, you can’t. You know, you can’t. There’s so many different, like, things inside that act. And it’s just a beautiful, very boring, very vanilla act like any other one. And nothing was done that was underhanded. If you just read it, you see that it’s very black and white. Birdie, you actually shared something. And I put it up on the screen. But then you turned it off.
I just want to make sure I had the right thing. Do you want me to pull it back up? If you want, yeah. I’ve got it right here. I think this is the full act. That’s what I had bookmarked. So I’ll just bring it right back to you because I know people, they kind of want receipts on this. So here it is. Okay, so let me explain a little bit at the top of this page. Keep in mind what I said earlier about chronological order. Whenever they met in. You know, they’re sitting in Congress today and they’re talking about things.
They did it just like this. They’re going. See how on the top there’s all this, and then there’s like a kind of a break in there, and then there’s more. Everything they did on that day, they just did in chronological order. They finished one thing and. Okay, next topic. And they just kept writing. So at the top of this act that you see stuff about money changing hands and so forth. That is not the act of 1871. That’s the previous thing that they were discussing. Then they close the books on that, and you can see that right there at the bottom, it’s.
Or right there in the middle where it says, can you make it a little approved? Yeah, it says approved February, you know, whatever. And then there’s that little line and they’re starting a new topic, and that’s when they start. Okay, let’s talk about the active 18. Let’s. Let’s put the act of 1871 right here. Right here. It says an act to. I’m sorry, I can’t highlight with this PDF form. It says an act to provide a government for the District of Columbia. If that sounds familiar, that’s exactly what Mel said about three minutes ago. Yeah, go ahead and read that whole paragraph because there’s something else in there, Brady, that’s like so obvious.
Be enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That all. I’m sorry, that all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia. B and the same is hereby created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia. Well, let’s stop right there, because that’s pretty clear that all of the part of the territory of the United States included within the limits. And limits is. The key word is now the District of Columbia, which means it has no authority over anything outside those limits.
And what was even the word territory, Brady I mean, the rest of it wasn’t territory. The rest of it was states. Well, you know, I, I think a lot, a lot of the. What we’re talking about here can be rendered moot with the knowledge that this whole act was repealed like four years later. So. But, but people even come up with stories about that. I mean, it’s ridiculous. So we need to come back to. I really think we have to come back to this foundation and go, this is a vanilla, boring piece of paper that has.
Doesn’t do anything. Because they say, well it did. But then. So then they made a lot of things happen. Even though they repealed it later. All this. They set the stuff into motion. No, we gotta flatten this right here. But sorry, Brady, I interrupted you. No, I handed off the baton so both of you guys could interrupt the heck out of me, because that’s important. Okay, but keep reading past that. Past that? Yes. It’s only for that area that’s bordered in there. And then read past that. And the same is hereby created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes.
For municipal purposes. And may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be imputed, have a seal and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation. Not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act. Can you read that? Not with. Can you read that again? Not, not inconsistent with. Not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act. Exactly. It’s all comes up under the Constitution. None of this people saying, you know, the sidesteps of Constitution, it broke the Constitution.
They went around the Constitution, the very first paragraph tells you this is constitutional and it abides by the law of the land. Yeah. And Ron, you and I have done a lot of classes with our good friend Douglas v. Gibbs. Mr. Constitution. So I’m going to ask you a couple tough questions. How can the Constitution be changed? Amendments. Oh, is this an amendment? No. So Congress does not have the ability to change the Constitution? No, not whether they can propose an amendment, but it still has to be sent to the states for ratification. Oh, so basically, even after this act, the Constitution is still intact and none of those rules have changed in any way, shape or form? Not to my knowledge.
I think your knowledge is probably spot on here, Mel. You agree? But I will, I will say, and I may be jumping the gun here a little bit, but the people who talk about this as being the foundation for Our, a current government, corporate or whatnot. The fact that the existing government doesn’t even follow the Constitution anymore, I mean, they basically just ignore it. And I think that is where a lot of people, they’re looking for a reason to attach that too. And I think this just, you know, this whole thing of there being a separate secret Constitution maybe justifies it in their mind.
I’m hypothecating here. Let me, let me, let me address that. You said the current government ignores the Constitution. And I think that’s slightly off. I think what they do is they try to twist it and reinterpret it. Okay, that’s what they, that’s what pretty much the, pretty much it’s a Warren court in the 60s. They’ve been reinterpreting it. But I go back to the 1800s, but we don’t have to, we don’t have to go to full fully into that one. That’s exactly right, Ron. The Constitution was not amended. Right. Well, and also guys, I think, you know, we say that the cost.
They don’t follow the Constitution. But you know, there’s some things that the Constitution doesn’t address, which is like the marketing. I mean, I put this post out yesterday and it’s basically, look, if you have something on your ballot that says, hey, will you please okay this penny tax because we want to improve the schools in your area, or this bond, and there’s signs everywhere. It’s like, vote yes for this. And my thought is the second you fall for the marketing and say yes, you can’t complain about your taxes because you’re giving permission to be taxed. And I don’t think we really understand how much power we have over what’s happening to us.
But we allow ourselves to be emotionally marketed. And if we actually put some of this up against the Constitution. Let’s talk about 501c3, for example. As an, as an example, you know, there is a separation of church and state, which a lot of people think that that means the church and the state can’t be combined. No, what that meant was the state had to pound sand and they were not allowed to infringe on the church, not the other way around, if you really look at it. And the church could do anything they wanted. So when we think, well, how does that mesh with what’s going on today? Because if they talk in the pulpit about stuff, they can get their 501C3 pulled.
Well, what they decided to do was let’s get them to give us permission. So they said hey, let’s dangle this in front of you. We’ll give you a tax break if you sign this 501C3. And that’s how they work around the Constitution. You don’t have to sign a 501C3 to be a ministry. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist is one of the most into most misinterpreted documents from the founding age I think we’ve ever seen. Yeah, it was completely Ms. Well, we don’t have to go dive into this too deeply, but, yeah, 100%, Mel. You know, one of the interesting things is churches that are worried about the tax exempt status to such, such a wide degree that keeps them out of politics is the biggest lever that the state and the government does to keep churches and people that go to church from being politically active.
And we, you know, we saw the statistics leading up into the 2024 election about how many evangelicals are not even registered or don’t vote. And that’s got to stop. You know, it’s an important topic. It’s all, it’s not what we’re talking about today, but it’s a big deal. Following up on. Yeah, and it’s just a. Go ahead. Sorry. Let me share, let me share this on the screen real quick so you guys can see it. This, this is S.D. gardner and I, I know S.D. and she says, I think the 1871 act is a diversion to where the real causes of what legal jurisdictions we operate under, any problem.
Well, is she suggesting that that could be a suggestion towards maritime law? And I’m not sure we want to go there this early in this conversation, but, Mel, do you want to get that later on? Well, and let me say that, let me say that, that this individual worked as a contractor for the Department of Homeland security for almost 20 years. So, I mean, she’s, she was in D.C. for a significant amount of her career. So, I mean, she’s not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody here is. I mean, that’s the beautiful thing is nobody here is.
Yeah. Reiterating the point that Mel opened with, you know, people that believe in this 1871 corporation theory, which we don’t believe in. The three panelists here, we consider that you people, we consider you guys friends. You recognize there’s something wrong, there’s something wrong with the way the federal government’s being run. We’re just suggesting that this is actually not quite the cause and therefore the solutions might be a bit different. But we do not think that most of the people espousing this theory. And I say most because there’s exceptions. There are grifters in our world. Most of the people who believe that the US Is a corporation are absolute patriots.
People. I would absolutely go in a. You know, in a. In a. In a foxhole, absolutely, in a heartbeat. We’re talking. We were talking. This is. This whole show is addressed to friends of ours, not enemies at all. That’s right. That’s right. And we want to be considered your friends as well. We’re not. We’re not here to twist your minds. We want you to look at this stuff and investigate it yourself. But we’re going to take you to the original documents and invite you to step away from, you know, the people who are putting up things.
Like, you know, that whole. The whole video. What’s. What’s it called? The World’s Greatest Story. The Greatest story ever Told and stuff like that, where it’s all memes and there’s no documentation and there’s a lot of great cinematography and there’s a really cool voice and, you know, and all that. And. And, you know, we are. We’re human beings. We’re emotionally drawn to things, but unfortunately, a lot of these documents are boring. You know, they’re. There are documents that were put up by attorneys and. And so forth. It’s not. You know, it’s not that it’s hard to read through.
It’s just. It gets boring. Right. And so people gravitate towards the sensational. And I think it’s an invitation to step back from the emotion and to just look at things critically, objectively, and then put everything in together and they go, okay, you know, I’m not dumb for having believed these other things. I just. I want to reassess. So Mel, I. By the way, she says. Exactly. That was my point. So I just. I just shared. If you can see the screen, I shared the certification of incorporation of United States Corporation Company. Oh, I love this one.
Yeah. And if you guys see right here. Let me make it really big so that it cannot. This is in. Looks like it’s. I can’t. Is it June or July? Looks like July of 13th of 1925. Yep. So if you go look up this company, it’s an actual private company, people think it’s the United States. But this. This poor company, had they any idea that they were going to be part of a huge grift and a psyop? Maybe change their name to something else? But who here has heard of a R.A. forget what the R stands for? What’s.
Help me, guys with a corporation, you have to have a resident agent. You have to have an agent. Agent, yes. Resident agent. You have to have a resident agent. So if you don’t know what a resident agent is, because most of us don’t have corporations, by law, you have to have what’s called a resident agent. And they are, they have a number of different duties and one of you can probably articulate better, but they, they are kind of a go between. Because what is the whole idea of a corporation? A corporation is to put a shield between you as the person and lawsuits that you can’t endure.
But your corporation is sued. So you have to have this ra. You have to have an agent in there and to handle like, kind of like a. It’s a blanket between you and these lawsuits or whatever. So this company is a registered agent. That’s what they do. They’re a registered agency for a conglomerate of different businesses. It’s a private company. So when they. So when someone sues, like, I want to go sue Chrysler. I’m not. I don’t. The lawsuit doesn’t go to Chrysler. The lawsuit goes to my resident agent, whoever that is. And you can go look at resident agents.
You can go look that up on Google and go find one. If you’re in the market for a resident agent, you can find many different companies that are registered agents, and that’s what this company is. So whenever you see that the United States Corporation Company was sued, they are being sued on behalf of one of their clients. Yes, that’s right. And resident agents, typically, if you. Because I know I have. I have a corporation based out of Wyoming. Well, I have to have an agent on. I pay like a monthly fee for a resident agent in Wyoming.
If there’s any legal documents that have to be sent, they come from the state. They don’t come to where I am. They have to go to an address within the state because I have to have. I have to have an address in the state where they can, where they can send official documents to. And yeah, Ron, when we did the, when Doug, Mel and I did the video last month, I had a. The website up that showed that there’s like 47 US corporations as registered. That link is now dead. So that, that disappeared in the last four or five weeks.
So did you do that through open corporates or through the Florida sign? Like, what did you pull that from? Because if you go to the Florida. What is that? Yeah, I’ve got it in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. U. S Department of Transportation is where I got it from. Okay. So I believe I’m going to share this, I’m going to share this comment here. And I think there’s a, there’s, this is. I, I kind of think this is apropos and a lot closer to what’s really going on. Creation was the takeover of the nation. Yeah.
Because. Well, because essentially what it did is it reversed the flow of money from the states to the federal government to the, from the federal government out to the states, follow the money, thus concentrating power in the, and at the federal government level. That’s all Brady. That’s going to be all Brady’s wheelhouse. I’ve been saying this to Ron since the day we met. Follow the money. And it seems to work out pretty well throughout history. Yeah, I, I think a large portion of what people think is the 8, 1871 Constitution really was, was derived in the, in the Progressive Era with the, with the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.
Those, that’s my contention. Well, yeah, that ties into another topic we’re going to be talking about a lot in the next upcoming weeks is the 14th amendment. The entire post Civil War era, there was a lot of, a lot of acts done by Congress, etc. There were a few amendments that changed the very nature of the Constitution, not by the way they were intended, but the way 20th century courts would interpret them later on. But that’s not tonight’s conversation quite yet. Well, and I don’t, I don’t want to go down that, that, that, that road too much, but I just want to say I was listening to a, to a, an Andrew Napolitano speech before we went live today, and he was talking about that he, when he was a judge, he had inquired to courts at Cornyn, he was a congressman at the time, and he said, you know, he’s, why don’t you guys follow the Constitution when you pass laws? And Cornyn’s response was, well, we don’t, we just, we pass, we pass the laws and if they get passed, then it’s up to the guys on the robes to decide whether it’s constitutional or not.
And if it is, you know, if it is, they’ll, you know, they, and they, if they approve it, great. If it isn’t and they approve it, okay then, well, then we got something that we would, that we wanted. I mean, that was basically his answer, so. Which is complete and utter nonsense. Yeah, well, because that, you can’t leave that out there without me jumping in a little bit. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between sovereign states. They are the parties to the contract. Only they can change the Constitution and therefore only they get to interpret it.
In 1803, Marbury versus Madison, the Supreme Court decided they would be the interpreter. That power is nowhere mentioned in Article 3. It was debated on the floor in Philadelphia ad nauseam. It was soundly defeated. The fact that the court should decide what’s constitutional. No. The states were always supposed to be the judge and jury over what is constitutional. And if they didn’t like it, there were two options. Nullification and secession. And the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was only supposed to decide arguments between. If they were between states. Now, Article 3 clearly articulates that, Ron. It tells you when.
When the federal courts are involved. And, well, everyone wants to know. So how long have they been trying to. How long has the original Constitution, original intent been decaying? And what we always say is, before the ink was even dry, because the. The Judiciary act of 1789 allowed the federal courts to stick their little noses, big noses apparently, into state issues. Yes. Great example of that is if Mel and I are both living in North Carolina and we have a problem that is a North Carolina court issue, she doesn’t get to take me to federal court, Period.
That’s none of their damn business. That’s it. And the Judiciary act of 1789, which was passed in the very first Congress of the United States, went completely against what was argued against in Philadelphia, what was put down in paper in the Constitution, and what was argued very heatedly in the Federalist Papers, the anti Federalist Papers, the ratifying conventions of Virginia north and New York, which are very well documented. And in Madison’s notes, there is no ambiguity to what the intent of this was. The federal. The last thing the state. The Constitution would have never been ratified, period, if the states had thought that this new federal government they were going to create, which expanded upon the powers that the Articles of Confederation gave, that already been agreed upon.
If it ever thought it would give this new federal court, this new federal judiciary, the ability to stick their noses into state business. Okay, I have a. I have a question and I don’t. Obviously I’m not asking for your. I don’t think you know the answer. Maybe, maybe this is rhetorical, but if that was the case and the states, actually, the state governments were responsible for sending the senators to represent the state’s interests at the, at the federal government level, how did it get past the Senate? John Adams. Really? That’s my answer. Okay. Can you elaborate on that? Not tonight.
I’d have to go dig into some old notes. But we can bring me back on for that conversation because it’s a really important topic. I agree. I agree. Because basically what you’re talking about is judicial review. That was the predecessor to the judicial review. Remember, judicial review wasn’t the first time that the Supreme Court thought that they had the ability to be the adjudicator of what’s constitutional. It was the first time they actually overturned Congress. They’d actually tried to do that before. They’d actually assumed the power five, seven years earlier. Okay, that’s right. That’s right. I do.
But I still. I just remember Marbury versus Madison. But anyway. Well, it’s a John. It’s a John Adams problem that could have been stopped. Should have been. All right, well, do we have any other documents or any things that we want to talk about before? Okay, what do you want. Which. Which one you want to go to this time? Let’s see. So I want to talk about, you know, there’s. There’s rhetoric going around about how there’s two Constitutions. One, you know, the. The original one was the Constitution for the United States and the act of 1871.
Change it to the act, the Constitution of the United States. And I want to just talk about. First of all, it was not titled originally the Constitution for the United States. They just called it the Constitution. And they were saying, it’s the one that’s for the people of the United States. It wasn’t a title. They never said this is the title. But it’s that preamble that people go, oh, see, it’s the title. Well, I got. I still am trying to figure out who started that, because it’s such a silly grift. I mean, it’s such a silly psychological mind twist to say that’s the title.
Because all it is, if you read the preamble, it’s just saying the Constitution, the one that’s for the United States. And actually, let me kind of piggyback on that. Originally it said we the states, and then it listed every single state. And then they said, oh, no, no, no. Okay, we’re not going to do that. Then they went to the we the people. But that was. That was understood at that time because the people didn’t approve the Constitution. The states approved the Constitution. So the context of the preamble was we the states, and all the states listed out, and then they changed it to shorten it up for brevity, I suppose.
Well, and Also because they didn’t know if they’re going to list the states, they were going to be adding more states. And so they couldn’t just, you know, confine it to that there would be more states online. But that was not a title. And as a matter of fact, most of the time they just referred to it as the Constitution. However, let’s go ahead and debunk the idea that the first time the United States, the Constitution of the United States was used in 1871. In fact, the first person to coin that phrase was George Washington himself in 1789 when he did the proclamation about having Thanksgiving.
He calls it the Constitution of the United States. But then the first legal document where it’s used that we can find and someone can find one sooner than this, that’s fine. But if you think about, you know, Congress, all of this just started, you know, 1787 started being ratified in 1788, 89 by the different states. In 1792, they passed the coin, the Coinage Act. And I think you have that there, Ron, that document. Yes, I do. You would pull that piece up. It actually states in here the very first time, it refers to the Constitution as the Constitution of the United States in this act right here, 1792.
And I’m not going to know exactly what paragraph, but. Okay, so the second congress. Secret someone. There’s chapter 1415. Say lighthouse. I can actually read it because I pulled it up on my phone. Father, no active mint and regulating the coins of the United States. Yeah, that one right there. And it says, let me pull it up. I have it on my phone. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled and is hereby enacted and declared that a mint for the purpose of a national coinage, b and the same is established to be situate and carried on at the seat of government of the United States for the time being and that for the well conducting of the business of the sed.
Mint, there shall be the following officers and persons, namely a director and assayer. An assayer. A coin chief. Excuse me, a chief coiner, an engraver, a treasurer. Section 2. And it be further enacted that the director of the mint shall employ as many clerks, workmen and servants as sh as he shall from time to time find necessary, subject to the approbation of the President of the United States, and further enacted that this respective functions and duties of the officers above mentioned shall be as well. As you want me to continue. I’m just trying to find where it Specifically says it.
It says, I thought we had that. I apologize. I thought we had. Right. Like a graver take the oath. There’s. There’s like. There’s little things here on the right hand side. On the left hand side, actually, my right. Duh. That say what? The assayer, engraver, treasurer. To take the oath. I will find it and get it to you so that you can show it to your people. But it is. It has been used several times in acts from that time all the way up through, so that the act, the phrase Constitution of the United States was not used for the first time in 1871.
It was used in acts all through that time. But George Washington in 1789 was the very first one. And I’ll read it to you because I have it here. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor. And whereas both houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peace.
Peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore, I do recommend and Assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the people of these states to the service of that great and glorious being who is the benefit beneficial. I love this beneficial author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be, that we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation, for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of his providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war for the great decree of tranquility, union and plenty which we have since enjoyed for the peaceful and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness and particularly.
Oh, my goodness. It’s just gonna keep going. Yeah, that was. I’m sorry. It’s in here. I thought it was right at the top, but it’s not. But anyway. Yeah. No, which way? It keeps going. But he talks about. Yeah. The Constitution of the United States. I apologize. I thought I had it. That is in. That is the very first time it was used was by George Washington. So I’m going to get you those because I thought I had them printed out I apologize, but those are. It has been used several times in acts throughout history prior to 1781.
And when I researched it, most of the time it’s just referred to as the Constitution. Well, you know, you don’t. What’s interesting is. Let me segue to one of the other big things I know Mel wants to talks about in her book and likes to debunk. Part of this theory of the 1871 corporation was that the United States went bankrupt following the Civil War. Yes. And the theory was it the Civil War or the Revolutionary War or both? Just it’s a Civil War. Okay, so that it’s Civil War on this one because it’s 1871. My apologies.
I’ll address the Revolutionary War in a second here, Ron. So I’m glad you brought that up. But ask that question again in a couple minutes when I show you some of the real data over how broke the United States actually was. The theory says a couple of things that the United States was bankrupt because of the Civil War which ended in 1865. And so obviously six years later they had to, you know, Congress had to unconstitutionally sell us to the banks of Europe. And the Vatican Bank. Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. The Vatican bank was next.
Didn’t actually exist until 1942 or 3. Right. And during World War II. And the city of London is really interesting because it really, it circles back this idea of a corporation. The city of London is actually the longest standing municipal corporation in the world. It is just like D.C. city of London. It is a municipal corporation that has its own little set of rules. And they have a bunch of little City of London, I don’t know, call them quasi mayors or representatives and that do things like negotiate trash tax and stuff like that for garbage pickup and stuff like that.
They actually have no authority outside of that is become a banking mecca. And we can get into that later. That has to do with Nixon taking this off the gold standard. But that’s totally different conversation. The question at hand is was the United states bankruptcy after 18 after the civil War. And I brought some hard data to talk about that. And I know when you guys talked for the brief time last week that Mel asked me to bring this data. So let me bring that up now, Ron, if that’s okay. Yeah, if you want to share it.
Yeah, I got a spreadsheet just for that purpose. What I did was I pulled the United States financial data since 18 since start from 1789. And you guys should be able to see that now. Hold on right here. Can you increase the font? Yeah, I can get that up to. Let’s put it up to 200. Everybody can read that now. Yeah. Can you go 300 one more time? And you can go 300 so that I can see it. Oh, forgot how blind you were. Let me see if I can do that. I’ve never had to deal with anyone quite as planned.
Trust me. I don’t like it. I know. I watch you, I watch you, I watch your reading. I’m going. It hurts sometimes when you miss the word because I know how smart you are and you know, that’s. I, I read very well. I. And I just. But man, it sucks when you can’t see. You can’t read as well. You see these things on my head. I went and tried to get contacts and I got to figure out whether I’m going to be able to make them work or not. I can’t get the contacts in or out well enough.
But I’m tired of wearing glasses myself. But that’s not my issue. But that’s another day. So let’s walk through a fiscal history of the United States in 1789. We are 71 million. This is the national debt. Okay. This is how much we owe to people outside of the government. Most, $71 million. And it stays around 70 to 80 million most of the time up until no big fluctuation until we get to 1811 and the debt’s really going down. And what happens in 1811 was the charter for the First bank of the United States expires and the United States says we do not want, you know, because the first bank of the United States was never constitutionally allowed.
And you know, here we are. And this is Madison is the president. He’s pretty darn constitutional at this point. He’s, you know, had eight years of studying under Jefferson, etc, and he’s pretty good on most things constitutional. And the Congress at the time and the Senate upset. Congress is the Senate in the House. They chose not to renew the 20 year charter for the First bank of the United States that Hamilton had rammed down our throat for the sole purpose of saying we need to pay off our Revolutionary War debt and create credit so we can become a mercantilist government or system just like the Brits were.
So we’ve just fought a very bloody revolutionary war to a standstill to get away from the mercantilist system of England. And Hamilton wanted to reinstall the same thing and had much more success than we would have liked to. To have had. So in 1811 that bank expires. Now Rothschild, and I think it was Nathan Rothschild, which is son of the founder Mayor Amsterdam Rothschild actually has a famous quote and I’m going to butcher it a little bit, but he basically said if the United States does not renew the first bank of the United States Charter, I predict a very bloody war will show up on their shores.
Fast forward about six months and we got the War of 1812. The United States all of a sudden goes into quite a bit of debt for the war, tripled their debt over the next five years and they, and they in 1816 chartered the second bank of the United States to pay for the war debt because they have to borrow money from abroad or from anybody who’d be willing to lend it to them. And you need a central banking system to make that happen. So we get on all this debt for the war of 1812 and then we go through the pre civil War period and the debt goes down.
What’s going on right now in terms of an economic standpoint is the north is starting to shift to industrialization and they’re trying to impose tariffs on the South. The tariff is a net exporter to Europe and they, they wanted to have import taxes which by definition become an export tax on the South. Right. The north was doing that to protect their young burgeoning industrial base from the British competition. England was 50 years ahead, ahead of all of Europe and America and industrialization because they had a very developed banking system, were able to create capital, pool capital and they were able to industrialize much quicker.
One of the reasons the British Empire was, you know, became the empire where the sun never sets had to do with their banking system. It may not be moral, but it is effective for short periods of time. Any comments before I keep going? No. Yeah, you, no, you’re fine. You’re going, you’re getting into the. Well, that was with the tariffs of abomination. And that was, that was, in my opinion that was one of the main, main reasons for the war of Northern aggression. But I know what you’re going into here. You’re going into the Andrew Jackson painted out, painted off.
Yeah, well, so here’s Jackson in his first year. He’s elected in 1824. He starts serving 1825 and the national debt starts going down. He never quite paid it off. But in 1835 and 36 they actually get rid of the second bank to the United States. He did not quite pay it off. That’s, that’s, that’s. He tried to Andrew Jackson is a. There’s a bunch of good and bad about Andrew Jackson. Yep. He created a lot more government than was constitutionally allowed. But when it comes to the bank, the, the national bank and paying down the debt, I give the guy an A plus.
Agreed. Mel, any comments before I go on? No, I just, it’s so profound to me because I, I’ve always just assumed, yeah, we were in debt and I just. Knowing this body of research is fascinating to me. I’ve never really delved into the financial side of things. Okay, yeah. But if we’re, you know, when you get done with that and we go back into corporation stuff. Yeah, but no, I mean this is intense. I mean I think this, this, this piggybacks on the corporation. It does because it really, what it gets down to the foundation is that something’s wrong.
We’re trying to show what the problem is. Right. And they’re making it about money and we had to be bailed out and all of this. And because of that they made dirty deals and we weren’t. Right. We weren’t. Well, it touches on, you know, what is mercantilism all about? And we should touch on that. And really talking about that. They talk about internal improvements. Protective tariffs and internal improvements are the biggest parts of what they call mercantilism. You can also call that crony capitalism and you can also call it fascism. It’s where the people closest to the seat of government, corporations get handouts or special favors from the government and they create cartels where they basically are eliminating their competition.
Unless you’re one of the favored insiders. This is how we end up building the railroad system. This is in the founding days they were trying to build canals and this is what Hamilton wanted. It’s also called patronage. When you have political patrons, you have a system where the government can hand out goodies to the favored people. It’s also known as corruption. This is a system we live under today. This is not what the founding fathers wanted. This is what Hamilton wanted. This is the system we got that the British had been living under with a British eastern East India Company for centuries.
The Dutch had it before, that was Dutch East India Company. And that’s a derivative. It’s a derivative of how the Venetian Venice, you know, it’s the original founders of this dual entry banking system. This whole idea of capitalization had conquered quite a bit of the ocean faring world. Even though they’re a little small island city state, this is the same system. It’s very effective for. Can I ask you a question. It’s. I think it’s related, but if you can correct me. But you know, because everybody talks about how our, our Social Security numbers are traded, Q SIP numbers and all this other stuff and what I know that not to be accurate because the numbering system is different.
So can you explain that a little bit? Can we push that back about 10 or 15 minutes? I know Mel knows this answer really well and so do I, but push that back, cable that and bring it back up if you don’t mind. Okay. But we absolutely want to talk about the Q step number because that’s part of this theory. Yeah. Is your Social Security number. Yeah, we’ll get to that. So let me just finish this bit and then we can shift over to that. So here we are in the 1830s and 40s and all of a sudden the debt starts going up a little bit, but not alarmingly.
So we’re not even, you know, we’re still $38 million. This is also known as the free banking period. And it was actually amazing period of growth. And I don’t want to go into all the details but most of the states were creating some of their own currency. You had regional and local banks and they were doing pretty well. They weren’t failing very often. It was a good period of time for economic growth across America despite the tariff abominations. But we had issues that we’ve already talked about. So the debt’s still reasonable. And we get to 1860.
Abraham Lincoln is wins a really tough four way election. We break out into a war between one slave owning constitutional republic and another slave owning constitutional republic, which Ron alluded to earlier as the war of Northern aggression. And some people were taught that. It’s called the Civil War. Correct. It was not a war of slavery. It was a war of the. The South. Well, I always like to say this at the fundamental level of a civil war is two entities fighting for control of one thing. All right, well, the south was not fighting for control of Washington D.C.
right. They were fighting for control of their own self determination just like the 13 colonies were trying to. They were fighting for their own self determination away from Britain. There’s very little difference there. Well, the first one was a civil war. The second one was not. It was a war of. It was actually an imperial war. What we call the Civil War was not civil. Correct. The Revolution. The Revolutionary War was actually a civil war because we were British citizens in the time. That’s a good point. Actually I hadn’t thought about it that way. But you’re, you’re.
That’s actually interesting point. Words matter. Yeah. Yes they do. So we get to, we get to the. Can I call it the Civil War just for the sake of, for the sake of the discussion. Yes, Civil War. All right, so this is the, actually the unions debt or debt and it just goes skyrocketing because, you know, one of the biggest, one of the biggest things in the Civil War and we’re going to do a couple shows on this going forward and I know Ron wants to be a part of this because you’ve done a lot of reading on this, but if you go and read the Constitution of the Confederacy, it’s actually a better document than the U.S.
constitution because they had 80 years to learn what the mistakes were. They stuck with this idea of federalism and local government. Because of that the south and they were so adamant about their principles, it was harder for them to raise funds for the war. And the north, it was very easy. Well, to some degree it’s interesting that you say that. And that is, that is absolutely true. The south was way. The, the south was full of principled men. A thousand percent agree with you. Not 100, not 100, not 100, but much. The principled, the principled ideology of the south was basically the, you know, it was the Jeffersonian wing.
The south, the south really was more Jeffersonian, whereas the north was much more, you know, nationalistic. And they wanted central government and stuff like that, whereas the south wanted to be, you know, they wanted the more of the states rights and decentralized government. Yeah, that’s accurate but incomplete and they need to complete it. So what you have to remember is the 1860 election, there were four major factions in America. The Southern Democrats who had had held a lot of power because of the Senate were corrupt as all hell. These are the Southern aristocrats. The Northern Democrats were probably the people the three of us would agree with more philosophically than anything else.
They wanted the Union, but not at all costs. They wanted slavery to die a very slow but hopefully quicker death. You had the Whigs which became who had just died out and becoming the Republican Party. And these were the. This is the party of industrialists, this is the Rep. Lincoln’s Republican party would become a single single party dictatorship for the next 40 years. And they, and in their system the robber barons created the greatest wealth disparity in history. And we can talk about that more if you want. And there’s a fourth faction that was also for unification, but this is all problematic.
And Lincoln only Won with like barely 40 of the popular vote. He just won in the electoral college. Right. That’s where the north had the advantage. So Lincoln’s trying to fight a war and he needs money. And you see and I just showed you how the debt went up. Well, he was, he went over to Europe and well his bankers go to Europe and they say, okay, we need to borrow money for this war. Now our friend Matt Eric talks about how the Europeans wanted to split up America and he’s partially correct on that. But the real reason Lincoln wasn’t able to borrow money is because they were asking him to pay 35% or more in interest.
And that’s just not going to happen. Right. So they issue what’s called a greenback system. It’s the first time we went on a debt based currency that happened. I want to pull back up the screen and show you what happens to the debt after that. Ron, can you pull me back up? Okay, so now we’re on the green back as of 1863 and the National Debt wars over $2.6 million. I’m sorry, that’s $2.6 billion seems like a big number at the time, but it’s not escalating. If you’re paying 35% interest, your debt’s going up much faster.
You’re trying to go through reconstruction. You had a wartime economy, the south is destroyed. There’s no way your debt doesn’t go up if you’re paying that kind of debt. So it did not happen. We didn’t borrow money from anyone foreign. We issued debt based securities called the greenback which is very similar to today’s FRN Federal Reserve note. It’s backed by the full faith and credit of the government. We did not go into foreign debt, period. It did not happen. And you can see that goes down over the next. From 1871, from 65 to 71, when the war ended, when this, when we allegedly we’re so far in debt we had to, you know, sell our entire country, our certificate, etc to the Vatican and the London banks.
It didn’t happen. I mean if the numbers there aren’t crystal clear, I, I don’t know what more evidence you could want. Well, can you go up, can you, can you go up to like the, oh like the, like the Progressive era. I want to see kind of what happened to the dead up into the, as we get into the 1900s. Yeah. Look how it stays. So it starts going down. Yeah. And there’s no way it could go down if there was interest Accruing. So now we get to the 1900s. Now we’re fighting wars of aggression, Spanish American War, US war against Hawaii, Cuba, etc.
We get to your progressive error. Teddy Roosevelt starts going up. I have a couple of questions in the chat that I know where. I know we still have some stuff to go over here, but I want to involve the audience a little bit here. If you guys would humor me here. Let’s see, the first question is. Just got home, was listening to the car. First question. If we won the Revolutionary War, why are our courts under the bar? Shouldn’t it be aar? Yeah, I can. If I can take this one. So the bar, they’re talking about the British Accreditation Registry, if you go look this up, there is no such entity.
There is a British accreditation registrar. It’s one or the other. But this is a, it’s an auditing company. It’s a company that if works on best practices on several different schema. As a matter of fact, if you pull it up, British accreditation registrar and if you’re able to show that they are in Britain, they deal with best practices in different schema like food, like, I don’t know, several different schema and having nothing to do with law or courts or America or anything to do with our attorneys and so forth. It’s, it’s not there. So you think, okay, well if that’s, if British accreditation registry, the bar is an entity, well, then they would have a presence.
But here it is. This is the bar. And it, they certify different, you know, environmental quality of, you know, like it has to do with basically certifying bodies, certifying different companies in Britain for best practices for whatever certifications they need. Doesn’t mean there. And you won’t find a schema in here having to do anything with law or the courts. But the problem with the bar, infection management, personnel, marketing and testing, calibration, that’s all in Britain. It’s not even in America. It has nothing to do with America. But the, the other part of this is the bar was actually talking about.
It’s not an, it’s not an acronym. It’s not three capital letters. It’s a capital B, Little, A little R. It’s a word and it’s referring to the bar in the actual courtroom. So whenever you go to law school and then you got to go past the bar, what that means is it’s an exam that allows you to no longer just have to hang out in the, you know, I can’t as a civilian, as a per as just a person, I’m not allowed to go through that little gate unless I’m summoned by the judge or if I have an attorney and I go in there with my attorney, I’m allowed to go through that gate and sit at the table.
If I’m a defendant or if I’m the, you know, whatever, if, if I’m in a lawsuit of some sort, I can’t just do that. Attorneys can because they pass the test that allows them to pass the bar that separates the general public from the court proceedings. That’s what the bar is. And Mel. Mel is a hundred percent correct on what she just said. That matches our research. Ron knows this because our good friend Doug Gibbs looked into this three or four years ago because we had this. We get this question all the time why they called it a bar.
Might even go a little bit deeper than that. Because it was short for barrister. The barristers were the original lawyers in England. Interesting. And that’s why they called it the bar. But that’s why they called the bar that’s in the courtroom a bar, because of the barristers. It was an abbreviation for barrister. It’s a great question. We get it all the time. And Mel, I, I didn’t. We haven’t talked about this, so I’m glad you nailed that one as well. Yeah, and that’s in the book as well. And then, you know. Yeah, go ahead. I haven’t finished the book either.
So. Ron and I are both guilty of not completing all of the books. Well, no, I finished the book. I just, I. There was a question. Yeah, there was just more questions, so. But I want to. Because I want to make sure that we get the audience involvement here because it’s really going to be good for us, I believe. Second question. If our hosts, and now ourselves know that the government operating outside the Constitution, then. And they have to know it themselves, how do we get back to the Constitution? I guess my question is, are we operating outside of the Constitution? I think that they find loopholes for things, but I don’t think that the government is fully working outside of the Constitution.
The Constitution worked just fine for me. And a lot of people don’t know this, but I was sued by Mark elias. Well, by two different incorporations in Arizona during the 2022 season. I stood up almost 10,000 people across America to watch Dropboxes and ended up in a lawsuit that they hired Mark Elias as their attorney of record who came after me with the Klan act and with civil rights violations. They were trying to make it Federal to shutter everyone’s first amendment rights, to stand guard at drop boxes and just watch over lawfully from a lawful distance.
Not voter intimidating, not any of that. And they wanted to shut that down. So they tried to go after me federally. And you know what, the courts worked just fine for me. Like the judge was like, no, no laws were broken here. You know, so I don’t think this is. We can just carte blanche stamp that everybody is breaking the whole government. Like we throw the government out there like it’s one great big giant entity. You know, there’s a lot of good people that work in the government and there’s bad people that work in the government and there’s people who work the system and there’s people who to abide by the Constitution.
And I think it’s, it’s really about personalities and certain people and cabals and groups that work at what they do. I mean, I don’t agree with any of the three letter agencies existing. And so let me address that real quick, if I may. I. When people say the government, what they really don’t understand is the government. Like you said, it’s. It’s a conglomeration of a lot of people. But where we start talking about the government is in terms of like, call it conspiratorial stuff. It’s not the government, it’s basically criminals at the head of the government who have the authority and are above the compartmentalization of information and they have the authority to give orders that will be followed by people who may not realize they’re doing ill will or, you know, malevolent deeds at the hands of the people who truly.
And you know, the puppet string holders, if you will. And that’s. I think, I think the question is how do we get rid of them and go back to a system? Because there are a lot of things. I mean, let’s just take the second Amendment. Okay, well, the second amendment says Congress shall make no law, you know, abridging owner, owner of firearms. Right. That’s not exactly what it says. But the 1934 National Firearms act is unconstitutional because the federal Constitution is a restriction on federal powers. It doesn’t, it doesn’t tell the government what they can do.
It tells the government what they can’t do. It is a restrictive document on the federal government. Yeah, you’ve either got it, you’ve either got an enumerated power which is what the government can do and anything that is not enumerated to the federal government. And I hate using the federal. The word Federal government because federalism is the antithesis of a national government. So let’s call it the national government, not the federal government. That is a misnomer and I’m starting to irritate me. I might have to go on it. So agreed with both of my co hosts tonight answering the question how to get back to the Constitution.
So the Constitution is not broken, but it’s bent. It’s been twisted and warped in many ways over at least 164 years. I did that back to Lincoln, but it goes back further. I already talked about 1789, the Judiciary Act. It’s been warped since the paint was, since the ink was not even dry on the, on the parchment. There are seven articles in the Constitution and one of them is Article 5. And that tells you how the states themselves can meet, have a discussion and ratify changes to the federal government to make sure it stays in line.
We talk about this. We use. We’ve used six of the seven articles on a daily basis. Well, the seventh was how to ratify. And it told us it was a contract between states, not between the people, but between the states. We the people don’t own the government, we the states do. That’s an important distinction. So if you want to fix the Constitution, you got to start thinking in terms of federalism and it’s we the states. So you act locally. But we need Article 5 convention in the worst way. And there’s a reason we’ve never had one, because the people in Washington D.C.
that we’ve sent there to represent us seems that they represent, I don’t know, multinational corporations or other specialists instead. And the last thing they want is for us to send non politicians to meet in convention and make decisions that might take away their power. So if you want to fix, get us back to true constitutional original intent, that’s an Article 5 convention. Yeah, yeah, and I agree with that. I agree with that. But you know, I’ve also, I heard the argument against it and I understand that, but you kind of shot that down too, so I’ll leave that for another day.
But here’s a real special Ed has last question. Can Marbury vs Madison be used to get rid of all three letter agencies as they have not been formed via amendments by Congress? Example, Federal Reserve act isn’t an amendment. Marvary vs Madison is not the path for that. You know what I actually, I think the path to that, to get rid of three letter agencies is exact same way they’re created. And I would say doge or government efficiency might just Start taking a look at that. You have to make it part of the national, national conversation again.
Well the, a lot of that stuff was. A lot of those agencies have been neutered as a result of Chevron deference. Yeah, that was a big deal. And we, we covered. Doug and I covered that on my Federalist report show quite a bit when those, when those cases came down. We were tracking those closely. Yeah, basically Ron’s talking about is the federal, these, these unauthorized federal agencies, three letter agencies have decided they will become the judge. Sorry. They decided to create law, enforce law and then adjudicate law. They, they’ve usurped all three branches of government as the fourth branch, the administrative state that’s now no longer in play.
And the fact that you know, last week’s election turned out the way I hoped for and we have a lot of people coming into the government that absolutely agree with that line of thinking. You’re going to see a lot of federal agencies curtailed and maybe even eliminated and moved back to the states where they friggin belong. Yay. So awesome. So here’s one quick question. Why is it called the bar exam? And I think I’m just going to take a stab. Because bar is short for barrister and if it’s a barrister exam then that’s what you’re. That was.
Am I. Would that be. That would be a logical conclusion. My part. I go with that. Yeah. Okay, let’s see, let’s see. There’s Somebody sent me a link and it said explain this. I went to the link and it just. Okay, so it says united. Let me share it here. Sorry. When I go back and forth up. So this says. Let me see if I can. Oh yeah, yep, got this one. Okay. United States 15 United States means a federal corporation and agency, department, commission, board or other entity of the United States or C An instrument, an instrumentality of the United States.
Yep. So this, this is something that kind of goes back to what I was talking about earlier that used to law was all chronological and I think it was like 1926 or 28 or 29 right in there. They said this is hard, this is a mess, we need a different system. And they took everything to statutes and code and basically what that was is they reorganized how they organized the law. Instead of it just being chronological order they gave it a basically a fancy Dewey decimal system. So now we have, we have you know, code. And so they also though wanted to make sure that in.
So I’ll give you a couple of examples but they wanted to make sure that it was understandable by everyone when you. When you read a certain section of code that they would have a set of definitions for the way words were used in that section. If it was possibly could be mean something else in a different section. Like if one word has the same definition all the time, you know, they didn’t need to do that. But at times when it was used differently for different purposes, they put a definition section in each section of our statutes of our code.
So this particular 28. So chapter 28 is about taxation. It’s about. It’s about receiving taxation. I believe it’s a taxation clause. Correct me if our act. Not Act, Title 28. Title 28 is about collecting debts. All of Title 28, that’s what it’s dedicated to. Okay. So they put in definitions where you would go in on different lines. It says United States. And well, on this line it’s talking about. It’s talking about how the. The side of where there’s a corporation set up. Again, not. Not a for profit. The United States has not turned into a corporation.
It is talking about how do we funnel the money. Like, how do we have the accountability and the transparency to show we’ve received debts paid or we’ve collected debts that are owed to the United States. That’s what Title 28 is about. If you go and read in a different title, United States, it’ll have different definitions. So they put the definitions clearly for each different title so that you understand. Here, let me. Let me read the definition of corporation in as of the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary. Corporation noun. A body, politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual.
Corporations are aggregate or sole corporation. Aggregate consists of two or more persons united in a society which it is, which is preserved by a succession of members either forever or till the corporation is dissolved by the power that formed it, by the death of all its members, by surrender of its charter or franchises, or by forfeiture. Such corporations are the mayor and alderman of cities, the head and fellow of a college, the dean and chapter of a cathedral, church, the stockholders of a bank or Insurance Company, etc. A corporation’s soul consists of one person only and his successors as a king or a bishop.
Let me pile onto that. Okay. The word incorporation is different than corporation. To incorporate something means to adapt it into your fold, etc. Alexander Hamilton argued on the floor in Philadelphia to incorporate all of the states into the national government. He was resoundingly rejected on that. But the actual first, what we consider a corporation today, the way. The way we know it in modern day. So. So like Microsoft or, you know, AT&T or any other corporation, the first one of those didn’t exist until the 20th century. That was U.S. steel, and that was created by J.P.
morgan and of course, my favorite law firm. Ron, you know who they are. Oh, Sullivan and Cromwell. Absolutely. And it was basically a way to shelter the owners from liability for what their, quote, what their businesses did when the trusts were being broken up, allegedly air quotes, because that’s. Teddy Roosevelt did not bust any actual trusts. They were just restructured. That’s the same period of time that the wealthiest robber barons in the world created this concept called the Tax Free Foundation. Just two years before they sent their emissaries to Jekyll island, created the Federal Reserve. And two years later, we got the income tax for the rest of us, but not for their tax refoundations.
But that’s going off on a different tangent. So says statues are the color of law. Oh, it’s a. It’s a comment below that I was hoping you’re going to ask about. Well, bankruptcy was filed by Trump in 19 in 2018 and finalized in 2021. Okay, where is that documented? I have it right here. Now, we’ve all read this. Yeah, this one. All right, this one’s fun. Okay, so this one, if you actually. United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division. And there’s also that darker piece of paper that I had you pull. But if you guys read this, most of the time, what you see is just this top part of this, and that’s all you see.
And you go, oh, my goodness. You know, United States. And I think there’s even a different one, but it talks about the defendant is the United States Corporation Company, which we already dealt with earlier, is actually a registered agent. But if you go down through this, you actually look at the document, you guys, you can actually. Can you scroll back up to the top? I want to invite everyone to go and Google this or whatever. Whatever. That’s not the same case. That’s a different case. It’s. I think it’s the. So I punched in the case code that was from your book.
There’s. There’s another one in there. It’s. I think it’s 21. Let me find it. Give me. Give me the case number. Yeah, you know what? That’s right, because it was 2, 0. Yeah, 2, 0, and like 2, 3, 7, 7.5kks or something like that. It’s in the book here. I’ve got the book right here. What am I thinking? Yeah. And if you. So when you get past it, all everybody has ever shown is this top part, which, that’s not the same one, but that’s all everybody is ever shown. And I’m like, hey, why don’t I just go Google this? Let me find it for you.
It’s right here in the book. And I have your book right here, too. Here it is. It is case number 20. Yeah. 204-0375-KKS. Invite everybody with a screen right now to go pull that up on just on the Internet. I’m going to look it up right now. And it says, United States Corporation company, alleged debtor. Okay. That’s what it says. Case number 240375 KKS. So here it is right here. I can blow it up a little bit so it’s a little easier on the eyes. Okay. And you know, somebody went and found the one. You know, there’s a bunch.
Whenever you have a court case, there’s many times there’s all kinds of documents that go through the court. And this particular one that keeps getting shown to everyone is it says United States Corporation Company, which again, is a registered agency. It says alleged debtor, and it says order to show cause why chapter 11, involuntary petition should not be dismissed, why petitioning parties should. Should not have to post a bond, and whether petitioning parties should be sanctioned pursuant to bankruptcy rule. So this is all about a bankruptcy. Well, if you scroll down and actually go through the document, super fun.
It actually, you’re not on the document. You’re. No, but it is. This is interesting because it’s got United States Corporation company addresses, 1201 Hay street in Tallahassee, Florida. That is the address of the registered agent. Yeah. DBA Corporation Service Company, dba, CIS or Coastal Intern into Internet Internation Security, Inc. Okay, So I have it right here in my book. Let me read this to you. So, and you can see, like at the. Well, you can’t see on this book. If you have my book, you can read this. But it says this matter for the court. What page is it? Page 69.
Copy. Okay. This matter came before the court for hearing on December 17, 2020 on the order for petitioning party Ceteria Hebziba to show cause why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Order to show cause. Doc 38, petitioning party sateria has Hezbollah, aka highly favored Shekinah l appeared having considered the. The record and testimony at the hearing. The court finds that Hezbollah failed to show any cause why this court should not declare her a vexatious litigant. She has. And they say her name. And I’m not going to keep saying. I’ll just say. She has commenced two bankruptcy cases and three adversary.
Adversary proceedings in this court, including the instant case. She has also filed numerous cases in state and other federal courts. She has sued or attempted to sue federal and local agencies, their employees, attorneys, judges, and other private persons and entities. This court and others have determined that cases and claims filed by her, other than the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed in this court in 2018, which again, had nothing to do with the United States. There was one bankruptcy thing that she filed against this corp by somebody. That’s the only one. They’re saying, okay, that one’s okay, but it wasn’t against the United States.
I think that’s the problem is people are going, united States Corporation Company is somehow equal with our United States. And it’s not. It’s like a private company. Right. But anyway, we showed, we showed the founding document that it was formed in 1925. Yeah, it’s actually a, you can go and look at who the, you know, who the. There’s bylaws, there’s all of that, you know, in that corporation. In an effort to curtail her pattern of abuse, in 2017, the district court of the Middle District of Florida entered an injunction against her, enjoining her from filing suit in this court.
So this whole entire lawsuit is them saying she’s a vexatious litigant. She keeps suing everybody. And she actually spent time in prison for this. Like, she went to jail over doing this stuff. And also this, there’s a whole chapter in the book that talks about the Moorish people. And, you know, she’s a Moorish individual and it also ties her to Islam and it also ties her to human trafficking. So, you know, if people would just click, you know, and go research the documents you use, we see these clips like, okay, just go Google, go, go look that up.
You find out, in fact, has nothing to do with the United States being bankrupt. Now, there’s another one that I sent you a picture of today, Ron, that was a more of a kind of a beige color sheet of paper. Did you happen to. I think you grabbed that one. Got it. But it, you know what? I got it. The, the quality of the image. I’ll read it to you. So if you guys. It says the White House, Washington at the top. And a lot of people are going to know what I’m talking about. You can find it pretty much all over the place.
Jan Halper Hayes put it up as documentation. United States as a corporation. A lot of people have put this up and it is a. It’s on page 77. Of course, it’s not in color, it’s in black and white. But it says U.S. re, U.S. federal person, Roger Allen Moore. Slash Raj Mxamore, RAF L. Another Moorish person. Taxpayer Identification Decedents, Social Security number. Okay, so I actually had anons go and research and find this paper. Now, it’s signed supposedly by Donald J. Trump, and the signature at the bottom says, sincerely, Donald J. Trump, President Chief Executive Officer of the United States.
Well, if you read the body of this document, there are several different fonts. There’s actually some in bold, some not. There is, there are erroneous words. There are obvious things that are cut and pasted in here. There are typos all over it. And so we went everywhere, we went and looked for this in the Library of Congress. We went and looked for this and any White House documents because anything that comes across that Donald J. Trump or any president signs is going to be archived. Right? So we looked for it through the entire White House, all the White House papers.
Nothing there. It was filed, this piece of paper was filed in a lawsuit. However, somebody made it up. I can, you can file anything you want in a court of law. Like I can go and say this is, you know, I’m filing this as whatever evidence and they’ll, they’ll put it in evidence for you. But that doesn’t mean that it’s factual or real or good. But if you look at, if you guys will investigate this, you’ll see different, even different fonts and so forth, commas in weird places, dashes, things underlined, just odd stuff. So then if you go read the chapter in my book about the Moorish people, you learn more about these people and why they do this stuff.
But they often go to jail or get fined for the same behavior of becoming vexatious litigants. They harass the courts. And so she was harassing the United States Corporation Company, which is again, a registered agent private company, as well as she was harassing a lot of people in the courts themselves. So I think we’ve debunked that. Well, okay, so, I mean, so, so while I don’t know if this is, if it’s Wild Bill, but I mean, this, he is Wild Bill. Look, if you’re not going to be. We’re trying to have a civil conversation here, and you are coming in as an authority, so I’m going to respectfully ask that you tone it down a little.
Hey, Ron, Ron. Let me address that. Yeah, if you don’t mind, because Wild Bill just did say something. Put something in there that’s actually very much accurate and we agree on. Okay. He says, nope. The Constitution is a contract. When the south left the republic they created. Well, you spelled it wrong. They created a new contract based upon the Articles of confederation. That’s 100 correct. It is. It was a voluntary union that was formed in seven. The Constitution formed a voluntary union, and when the Southern states decided it was not working for them anymore, they absolutely left and formed a legal union of their own.
And that’s 100% correct. And it was called. It was. Because the style of government that they formed was a confederacy. That is where they get the term Confederate States of America. Well, let me take that back further because there’s a comment above that from the real special ed. Do you want to pull that one up? Confederate means against the federal government, I think. All right, so words matter. We are not a constitutional republic. We are not a national republic. We are a federal republic. And what that means is there are. When it was formed, there were 13 sovereign nations that formed a confederation.
That is the United States. That is how we were formed. The difference is France formed a national republic. There was one nation of France. We had 13 sovereign nations. That is a confederation. And that was the Articles of Confederation. That’s when they seceded from the original union. They thought that the United States of America was trying to form a national government, not a federal government. This is why I nitpicked earlier that we keep calling it. The federal government is not federal. It’s not acting like a federal government. It’s acting like a national government. Ron, can you pull up the 1828 dictionary again and type in the word confederation so we can have that properly defined? Yeah, yeah.
So these are really, really good questions. And so Wild Bill, who’s been a little bit, you know, antagonistic in the chat, actually said something that’s 100 correct is what we said earlier. People that disagree with us on this stuff have the same feelings and love of freedom and opposition to tyranny as we do. We disagree with the interpretation of history. We’re going through source documents trying to explain why there’s been some misinterpretations. And the reason we’re doing it is because we think the solutions are a little bit different than people that believe in this, you know, 1871 corporation theory believe.
And we’d like to have you guys back, you know, on our side, 100% as opposed to 95%. But. Yeah, but, but I, I said it before. Said again, I believe what they’re doing is they’re. It’s. Maybe this is a cheap way to say it, but it’s like just blaming it on the 1871 corporation is. It’s, it’s like a. It’s like a cheap way to not really have to go look into it. It’s just, it just. I could just say, oh, well, this is 1871 Corporation. We just need to get rid of that. Everything will go back to the way it was supposed to be.
But we cite source documents. I, I know that. I’m just saying that people. No, that’s what they’ll say. That’s what we said in the chat. Wild Bill said that. He said they have source documents. I don’t think Wild Bill saw the beginning when Mel was going through all the source documents. And we did the same. But, but that’s okay. They cite source documents. Doesn’t mean they interpret them properly. But okay. I brought up confederation, the act of confederating a league, a compact for mutual support alliance particularly of princes, nations or states. The three. The three princes enter into a strict league and confederation to the United States of America are sometimes called the confederation.
So the United States of America, when our union was founded, was an experiment in self governance. And we had 13 sovereign states, sovereign states that decided we would join into a confederation and signed this contract known as the United Constitution of the United States. When it didn’t work for the southern states, they decided this contract no longer works. We’re going to rip it up. We’re parties of the contract. We can exit this. Now. Was secession legal or not? Let’s address that right now. Yeah, of course it was. You had the treaty of. You had the conference of Hartford and 18, I want to say 14, where the northern states tried to secede from the Union because they didn’t want to be part of the War of 1812 because they relied on trade with the British.
No one thought that was unconstitutional, no one accused them of treason, and no one said that the other states should invade them. But I’ll give you the best argument for why secession was legal between the time period where Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 and was inaugurated in May of 1861 and shortly thereafter, the quote unquote civil war. Started. Congress tried to pass three bills making secession illegal. None of them passed. But why would you pass a bill trying to make secession illegal if it wasn’t legal already? Nobody has an answer for that because there is no answer.
Secession was legal. It was always a voluntary union. When the south left, they had every right to do so. I agree. I agree. And the thing that the primary reason they were pissed is because of all the tariffs. They were spent. They were paying. Exactly right. It was an economic war more than anything else. There’s a lot more. It wasn’t just an economic war. I’m not naive enough to think that slavery, that slavery didn’t have a, didn’t play a role. But I mean, it’s not nearly the role that the modern day history books try to persuade as it was.
So, guys, I want to have the, I want to have, if you guys want to, want to call in, let me know in the live chat and I’ll put the number up so you guys can call in. I wanted to take phone calls. So, but if you guys, if nobody wants to call, then, I don’t know, I’m gonna open it up. But if somebody, I want them to because I, I, it’s specifically you, Dixie. I want you. All right, I, while, Bill, I’m, I’m gonna be honest, I’m a little apprehensive because I feel like you’re going to be adversarial, but I’ll let you call in.
But if you’re, if you’re adversarial, I’m going to cut you off. Let him call in, Ron. I’m sure he’s, I’m sure he’s a great guy. All right, here we go. I’m gonna put the, let me put the banners up here. Mel, we hit all the points you wanted to make. No, there’s so many more, but, you know, we could just add so many more numbers. The birth certificates, the, you know, there’s, your name is being traded on a trading floor. Yeah, yeah, we can have a lot of fun with that. Ron, can we call this round one and maybe schedule round two? Yeah, if you want to.
Absolutely. I mean, you know, obviously there’s enough material here. Phone, phone lines are open, guys. I’m waiting on, on anybody to call in. So in the meantime, if nobody’s calling in, let me go there a little bit. But as soon as somebody calls in, break in on me. How’s that? Copy that. Sounds good. Okay, you guys go ahead and call even though I’m talking. All right, so this Whole idea of your, your, your birth certificate has a Q step number on the back of it and that, you know, your birth certificates are created on bond paper, therefore they’re a bond and they’re trading your, you know, your parents signed you over to.
There’s music. Hello? Hello? Hello? Hi, is this. Who’s this? Oh, okay. Yeah, that’s like. Hold on. There’s. Hold on. I think the connection is just absolute garbage. I’m gonna call you right back. Sounded like something out of a sci fi movie. Yeah, well, I think the. So what’s going on is my Bluetooth is acting wonky. So give me a second. Mel, jump back in your train of thought, if you don’t mind. Yeah, so you know all this. So the Q sip, if you know what a Q sip is, it’s like a company that wants to trade bonds or, you know, have some sort of a tradable, what do you call it, securities of some sort.
So my company wants to have tradable securities. And so I have to go and apply for what’s called a Q step number. And the phone is ringing. Hey, Ron. Okay, so. Oh, that’s so much better. All right. Is it? Oh, yes, absolutely, I can hear you. It’s much more clear. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. So this is Wild Bill. So, okay, so what is your question? Okay, so here’s, here’s what I, you know, I research too, but I’m not somebody who’s actually sending a library doing the source material. Right. So I listen to other people, lots of other people.
And one of them, the guys went by the Informer, and he did his research way back in the day. So, for example, and he was actually questioning this, the state he lived in, as well as he said he got out of pain, taxes by writing this very long letter to the, to the Vatican. And it was a very specific place in the Vatican office in the Vatican sent it to them. This is a story online comes back from the Attorney General of England is calling him up and asking the questions. They said, yes, sir, yes, sir.
Next thing you know, he gets a letter from the irs. They said, don’t use your Social Security number anymore. You no longer pay. You’re talking about. What’s his name? He’s got three names to his word. What three were three names that he goes by. I can’t think of his name. Right, right. But long time ago, right? He went by the Informer. I don’t think he wanted to put his name out on the podcast. This is way back in 2007. So this is a long, long time ago. Okay. What he stated was that with you, what they did was they tricked the American people.
What they did was they re ratified. Like they would go back and re. Ratify the constitutions. I think the states maybe, but they would change it from state of say your state history was North Carolina. State of North Carolina. Well, it was really the estate of North Carolina. And like you said, words matter. Estate is a corporation. There’s no documentation for this though. But yeah, yeah. Well, wait a minute, wait. He’s the one who did the source material, not me. So you’re arguing with the wrong person. Okay, Right. But do you know. Yeah. Library. He read.
He. What he did was he was a paid researcher. So he got paid to research for Fortune 500 companies. He was also one of these guys who were against taxes, right. He would go with other people to court the taxes. He told one story where they’re given so much time to look at the code, right. And then try to come up with their argument. He says, well, you’ll never be able to do that. Okay. He also said there were many people who were doing this trying to fight taxes. They go to court and they say that’s against the Constitution.
And the judge, the federal judge would tell them, sorry sir, but that contract does not apply to you, okay? That’s why contracts matter. The only true contract that matters to anybody is your own state constitution, not the federal one, because you’re not a signer of that concept contract. So you know, basically the other thing too is, is that if it’s not a corporation, then why are they issuing birth certificates? Because this is all based upon mercantile law. It’s not based upon real law. You’d have to go back in time to. Here’s an example. So we won the American Revolutionary War.
He stated that he was very good friends with a professor from Clemson, Clemson University law professor. He asked him, he says, hey, what would you like if I go over to England to the library? He says, I want a certified copy of the treaty signed by Benjamin Franklin. Now that treaty is sitting in a law library. The original, not a copy in the law library in England. Okay. It’s real simple to understand this. That’s true. Right? Well, it’d be like, it’d be like the Chicago Bears claim the Green Bay Packers. The Bears lose, but they keep the trophy.
That doesn’t happen in wars. In wars, all, all wars that are declared have to end with a treaty. It’s all contract. This, this is very ancient. Laws that go way back hold that thought because you’re laying out a bunch of things and several of them need to be addressed. So hold the thought. Don’t go away. Mel, do you want to go first or do you want me to. Let me do a quick one. Do quick. Yeah, go ahead. First of all, there’s no such thing as mercantile law. What they’re referring to is maritime law that only extends to the waterways outside of a country’s territorial waters, period.
That’s one of the interesting rabbit holes that people that accede to this thought of 1871 Corporation go down we. That that’s an entire show into itself. But it’s not mercantile law. It is maritime law. That’s where they’re going with that. What you have the difference between the British law, it’s called common law versus commercial law. And Ron was kind enough to send out a cool video that reminded us of that earlier today. We could get into that a little bit. That dates back to 1938. Wait, wait, wait. I hate to interrupt, but you’re going to 1938, right? You’ve got to go way back to the beginning of the country.
What law was. Say we had common law. American common law is based upon British common law. Right. We don’t have. We don’t. We don’t have common law anymore. We have statutory law. In fact, if it, in fact, if it was common law, it would be very harsh. So they, you know, what he described was, is that, you know, common law way back when was extremely harsh. So if you were in the speed of a contract or whatever like that. Right. It’s not like today. Right. What they’ve done is, is that if you take law, the only true law is if you injure somebody.
So if you and I have a contract and I don’t fulfill my end of the contract and there are about. They said anywhere from seven to 10 things. The contract, to be valid, has to apply. So one of those things is that you have to know about the contract. You have to consent to the contract, get to know what’s in it, to consent to it. So we really need. Hold that thought. Mel, Go ahead and address a couple things because I don’t want to. To get too far down here. Yeah, we’re getting. Yeah, we gotta just maybe stick to a question or two.
But let’s go with a lot of this is. First of all, there the. The whole maritime law thing, like what he was talking about. No, I’m not going to go into the maritime law thing. The comment. Okay, let’s address the common and the statute law. Okay, so common. Okay, so we started off with common law, but if you understand that common law is based on judicial decisions, it’s the judge decided. And so now it’s created precedents. We. Common law looks back to what was precedent made. So we said that’s not robust enough. And it doesn’t. You know, then.
Then it’s almost like you’re legislating from the bench, because if the bench has decided something, but, you know, it. It’s based on maybe one judge’s decision. And then common law is basically going back to precedence. That’s not really fair. That’s not good lawmaking. And so we went to statutory law now, which is actually more specific. And there’s actual this. You do this, you pay this. You know, this is the. This is the crime, here’s the punishment. So there’s a reason that we actually adopted statutory law. But. But our lawyers and our attorneys still also do have precedential law, which is common law.
So we actually operate with both, and they try to balance the two. But statutory law is not evil, and common law is not the best thing in the world either. But somebody else take it for you. That’s what I know about those. Statutory law is not. It is evil. So it’s evil because what you really do have are statutes that they can make up. They can make up any statute and then apply it to you. So, for example. So, for example, it’s like this. If they decide for one moment that you guys, which you are pro.
You could be labeled enemy combatants, which you could be. And they decided. Well, but let me. Let me pause you for a second. Let me pause you for a second because I want to ask a question to get some clarification. When you say they, who is they? Right. The government. Okay, which government? Federal. Which, like federal, state, local, what? Federal. Okay, so right now. So federal law right now, the federal government has been a lot of. A lot of the federal government. The agencies have been neutered with the chevron deference case, as well as. Which branch are you talking about? Are you talking about the judicial, the executive, the legislative separation of powers? Well, if you.
If you guys know your history, then you would know that franklin delano roosevelt actually declared u. S. Citizens enemy combatants. I hadn’t heard that. But, Ron, let’s. Let’s move on. Let’s move on to the next caller because I’ve only got about 10 more minutes. And let’s see if anybody else. Wild Bill, I don’t know. Yeah, come back on and ask These questions again. But we. We’re not going to litigate this entire. Your whole theory tonight. But thanks for calling in. All right. I’m gonna go. Yeah, I appreciate the call. Yeah. Seriously. Yeah. Okay. Have a good night.
Later. All right, so let me see if there’s anybody else who wants to call in. There’s one line is open. Go back to the QSIP thing real quick and try to finish that up because it’s going to get into some of the stuff that he said, too. So the whole idea of, you know, so first of all, if you are someone who. Your company wants to give out securities, you go to. It’s called Q sip. Something. Something online. And I’ve got it written down, but you have to go to this entity to actually apply for a Q sub number.
It is a nine digit number. The first six digits are alphanumeric. Your Social Security number is not alphanumeric. The number on the back of your birth certificate is different. I will tell you about it in a second. But the first six numbers are alphanumeric. So it could be letters and numbers. Is letters and numbers. The next two numbers, let’s see, 678. The next two numbers are. Let’s say your company has offered a security. Well, you want to offer another security. So the first six are your company’s number forever. Like this is. This is ours. So if we offer security, this is our company’s number, these six alphanumeric digits.
And then maybe this is our number, our first one. And then the second two numbers is. Maybe this is number two or number 25 or number 26. This is how many times we’ve offered security. This tells how this distinguishes which security you’ve offered. And then the Last number, the ninth number is a 1. Pick by the computer, an algorithm to make sure that the other eight are authentic. Looks nothing like a Social Security number. It looks nothing like the number on the back of your birth certificate. But the birth certificate number that they say is a CUSIP number is actually different state by state.
This is not a federalized number. The number on the back of your birth certificate depends on how your state decides to organize their birth certificates. And what this guy said, he said something about birth certificates are evil. No, they’re not. We need those to go, hey, I’m an American citizen. And if there’s not any proof that you’re an American citizen, which, by the way, that’s the biggest reason for your birth certificate, guess what? You don’t have habeas corpus. Guess what? You know you don’t. You don’t get to enjoy the protections from our government. And that is what being a citizen does.
Being a citizen protects you from your own government. So you do get habeas corpus. There’s posse comitatus applies to you. You cannot get thrown in Gitmo, which is, you know, goes against all of this, this conspiracy theory stuff too. There’s no Americans in Guantanamo Bay. As a matter of fact, they’re not allowed to be held there. And that’s by law. And so these numbers on the back of your birth certificates, they need you to be organized as a citizen. Because if you’re not a citizen, guess what? You’re foreign. You’re. You’re. You’re. You’re not part of America, and you don’t get to claim the rights of an American citizen.
So. Hey, Mel. Birth certificates are wrong or bad Is. Is evil. What, what, what were it? Fun question. Do you remember what year the CIP system was invented? 1970 something. I think it was 1964. It was updated. It was updated in 1973. Okay, so if this whole dastardly plot started in 1871. Yeah. And the Vatican bank wasn’t created till the 1940s and the Q SIP system wasn’t created till the 1960s. Yep. That’s a bit of a problem with that argument. The timeline doesn’t. None of the timelines match up ever. So we talked about, how would a Q sub number? Well, we don’t talk about the birth certificates.
But the one point I wanted to make to your audience, Ron, I don’t know if everybody knows about my background, but I’ve spent most of the last 20 plus years with the Bloomberg terminal sitting on my desk. That basically means I’ve got access to more. Every bit of financial data that’s available in the entire world with a Bloomberg terminal. I’ve typed in my, you know, my birth certificate, Q ship numbers. You name it, it does. This does not exist. It is not treated as a security. If it were, it would be available. This is what I did for a living for a long, long time.
You cannot trade someone’s birth certificate as a security. It doesn’t exist. And there’s faux websites where they say, you type it in, it tells you how much you’re worth, right? Go look them up again and try cashing in on it. There is no trading market for it, period. And they say, well, because it’s on bond paper, therefore it’s a bond. You can go down to any office supply, office depot, wherever, and buy Bond paper. People use it for art, people use it for photography. People use it for, you know, stuff at work that they want to have a better paper.
But guess what I found out. Your birth certificate is not even made on bond paper. They made a special paper just for your birth certificate that blows bond paper out of the water. So it’s not even on bond paper. So there’s that. It’s not on the same paper that bonds are created on. Holding down Dixie said cite Section 1 of the 13th Amendment and the second part of Section 1 of the 14th. And I’m not really quite sure why he wants to do that here. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Okay, so I get that part. Now, you said the second part of section one of the 14th, so I’m just going to read it all here. All persons born, naturalized in the states and subject to jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor any. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Okay, so I’m not really quite sure why you wanted me to read those if you holding down Dixie. Let’s see. And he says it’s all the language used to break down the words and cite law dictionaries. I. Well, well, law dictionaries. You know, I look at the corporation. The corporation. I look at the Constitution, and I don’t see congruency in a lot of the statutes that abide by the Constitution. And I talked about that with that. With that Napolitano thing. People in Congress make laws and they violate the Constitution all the time knowingly. And they write laws and then.
And to see if they get passed. And if they get passed, then they get passed. And then what? It’s like, well, it’s up to judges to. To revoke it. So just because the government is passing. Passing laws, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re congruent with what the corporate or with God, with what the Constitution. Well, that’s why we have. That’s why we have nullification. Well, that’s why we’re supposed to have nullification. We have nullificate. We have nullification. We’re just not using it. We can do any of this. We’re just not doing it. Well, we are using it.
Look, look at sanctuary cities. That’s exactly what nullification is. There you go. This is the Democrats using. I agree with that. That’s. And, and Missouri tried to do the same thing recently. It was more of a second amendment case where they wanted to be a sanctuary state from the, from the federal government’s laws on firearms. And the federal government sued and surprise, surprise, the federal courts found in favor of the federal government as opposed to the state. Hey Ron, I gotta, I gotta wrap up here. I’m at my two hour limit. I kind of need to go as well.
I wish we could do this more and longer. I’m going to save all the comments in here and share them with, share that, share the document with these two so that we’ll have a better idea of maybe some things that we can talk about next time. Because I, because I agree there, Warhammer. I think we need. This is, this is something that we could probably do three or four or five shows and still not even scratch the surface. So. But I, but you know, I feel as though this is a really important issue, one that nobody really takes the time to delve into from, from our side.
And there’s. So a lot of people believe this because there’s no pushback. Right? Exactly. Exactly. And also before you guys go, or before we go, I don’t know if you have the links to the book, if anybody’s interested in the research in the description. It is. Okay, both. I think, I think I have your Amazon link and your, and your other. Or no, no, please don’t do the Amazon link. Oh, I don’t do the. I put your, the other link. Okay, good. Yeah, that. I don’t want to support Amazon when I can not support Amazon. Listen, I completely understand.
Yeah, so I completely understand. It’s actually, it’s actually an interesting conversation that came up today. Mel. Yeah, you know, you know, my company were basically created a free speech platform to get away from corporate tyranny. Censorship. We had that. You know, we’re sitting there having a planning session today and I asked the question about my business partner. I go, you know, we started this two years ago when censorship and you know, cancel culture was a thing. But after the victory of Donald Trump and we saw Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon and the Washington Post decline to endorse Kamala Harris.
Have we seen the end of corporate censorship as it starting. Is the tide turned? Maybe, but let’s, let’s not let our guard down yet. No, no, I. I agree. Let’s not let our guard down. But I. I agree that we are seeing a seismic shift in. In terms of. I believe we are seeing a. An unwinding of a lot of the nasty government stuff that we all despise. It’s. We. It’s the beginning of a. It’s the beginning of a change. We’re not. We had a lot of work to do, and you got to realize that Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither was the United States.
And where we are now, a lot of this crap. I know it sounds so awesome that if we could just wave a magic wand and make it all go back to the way it used to be, but I don’t think that you would be able to achieve that without a severe cataclysmic event within society. If I can promote myself before I sign off, Ron, please do. I am Brady, known in some very obscure corners of the Internet as the War Hamster. You can find most of my material at. On Rumble at War Hamster, spelled exactly like it’s supposed to.
You can get me on X, also known as Twitter at War underscore Hamster 1776. And I’m on True Social. At War Underscore Hamster. Yeah. You know, actually, what might be a good thing to do, you know, you mentioned it earlier, Mel, is spaces. Maybe it might be a good idea to do this in a spaces format where people can. People can chime in. That might be great. Absolutely. And we actually. I’ve done three. Well, I did one space that I broke up into three segments because it was so long, but we actually debunked Gitmo. We debunked the Capitulation Tour.
We debunked the corporation. We debunked several things, and those are on my Rumble as well, the Coach Mel show. But I would love to do a spaces. And if. That would be fantastic. It’s such a better. Because you do. You can talk to a large audience out there, and then you can open up microphones and you can go all night if you want. But yeah, I would love to do that. Absolutely. And I know a couple of people that I can reach out to, you know, to get, like, spaces that would be in the thousand. So.
And, Ron, thanks to your audience. It was a good audience, a lot of good questions. And that’s the whole reason we did this show, is because we know these questions are out there. You know, if you don’t believe us 100%, hopefully we gave you sources so you can read it for yourself and. Absolutely. That’s all we’re really trying to do here tonight. And I just like to say, as you know, as a finishing off. This is information, guys. And, you know, I think right now, you know, we all think that the left is hyper emotional when it comes to information, but the right is also emotional when it comes to information.
Because if we’re saying things that you disagree with, you know, you’re kind of emotionally attached to your belief system, and all we’re kind of asking you to do is to. Is to check your emotion at the door, analyze the information, and come to your own conclusion. Don’t let other people do the thinking for you, and don’t let other websites and say, hey, this is the way things are. And then you just subscribe to that notion. And then if anybody says anything contrary, then it’s like, well, no, that’s not what I believe, because I heard somebody else say something else.
So it really comes down to doing your own research and not relying on somebody else’s research. And that’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to share the screen and share the documents and whatnot. So. But on that note, guys, I’m gonna. We’re gonna cut it down here and. And go. And let me and Brady enjoy their evenings. And I have to go as well. So thank you, everybody for your participation. I. If in the future, we’ll let you know when this is gonna. We’re gonna do this again, and then we’ll also let you know when we’re gonna do this on a space.
So thank you, guys. It was good to see you, Mel. Thank you. You too. Good to see you guys. Let’s do it again without your gym clothes on. Oh, my gosh. That was so embarrassing. Wow, Ron, thanks for having us, Mel. Always a pleasure hanging out with you, my friend. Great to see you, too. All right, guys. Have a good night, everybody. Good night.
[tr:tra].
Author
