What process of law authorized him to bring in his flag? There is none. No, there was none established. But as you say, there is none legally and there was none established. Therefore, what happened before that? What's the last thing a lawyer does when he graduates from law school? Takes your oath. What's the first thing a judge does before he becomes a judge. Takes a note. And by the time a judge becomes a judge, he has sworn and affirmed 12 times that he will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Basically, piracy when he brings it up in his book. Piracy is one of them you can add to it. But what happens here, you have to set up a procedure. If your procedure is defective, you're going to jail for 10 years for malice against a judge. You're going to jail for 10 years for deprivation of rights. You might see paperwork for you from places and that is outlined in the exact procedure to nail anybody, anytime, anywhere of open affirmation. It's a spoiler plate. Scares the hell out of everybody who looks at it.

Alright, the procedure here is the judge swears and also an affirmation. He swears to defend the Constitution of the United States and administer justice. Now he, because he is assigned a fiduciary of the courtroom, he has a shield of immunity. He's immune from everything he does. So we're going to start the sentence off under federal authority, title 42, USC 1986 for knowledge of the law because he's a smart man, he's educated, he's got degrees. He was negligent under title 42, USC 1986, but now he's negligent, carries a one year prison sentence and a thousand dollar fine. Go Rodney King play hockey with his night sticks. And they didn't stop and correct it.

Because each man of that ten watched the other nine do it. You got a year and a thousand dollar fine for each man. They wound up with ten years in prison and a thousand dollars, ten thousand dollar fine. In silence. Don't think by just sitting there and bumping the law since you're going to get away with murder because it ain't going to happen. Because that's why the 86 negligence was established. And that goes for citizens too, ladies and gentlemen. If you have the knowledge, like when I walk into a courtroom and I'm sitting there with all this knowledge and they know I got the knowledge and I don't stop and correct the judge, I could be sentenced to one year in prison.

So every time I walk into a courtroom, the judges got my picture hanging in Milwaukee County. They get up and walk out of the courtroom. I don't care what's going on in the trial. They just get up and walk out and the trial ends right then and there. They're stopped. Until Bailiff comes up to me and says, you, out of here. It's a public forum. I can sit here. He says, well, nothing's going to happen as long as you're in here, sir. You're going to have to leave. Well, nothing's going to happen. Yeah, well, that's it. It's your choice. Yeah, but this is, this is, this is what happened.

I've been well established in my lawsuit. But getting back to my story here, the judge now, with these two statements under 86 for knowledge and negligence, picks up the flag, the gold fringe flag, and he comes into court with it. He swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, but when he picked up this flag, under the laws of the flag, he says, I'm going to suspend my Constitution, suspend the Constitution of the United States. This is done with knowledge, therefore it is a state of mind. What is a state of mind? It's a will. W-I-L-L. Will of intent. What is a necessary element to prove perjury? You must prove intent and you must prove the will of intent.

So now we have a knowledgeable person with the will of intent to commit perjury of oath and establish a foreign jurisdiction inside the bar. A second thing happens here too. He has taken the Constitution of the United States and surrendered it to a foreign power because the judge now becomes the captain of a ship and the sanctuary of the bar now becomes a foreign country. And he's the power factor within that country. Therefore, he has surrendered the Constitution to a foreign power and is now guilty of treason. Title 18, 2381. When the judge takes the Admiralty, Maritime, Administrative, or Equity flag, in other words, any flag you put the gold fringe around. The gold fringe, because it adds a fourth color to the United States flag, it captures the flag and automatically makes it a foreign entity. It's not our Title IV U.S.C. 1 flag. Our flag is only red, white, and blue. So, because he has created a new government, a new power. But this power does not have a constitution. It has no contract, it has no rights, it has nothing. So he can do anything he wants. He can play God up there. If he wants to kill you, fine. He's got absolute judicial immunity because he's the captain of a ship. Put any captain on any ship on the high seas and that man can hang somebody if he wants to on his ship. And there's not a government in the world going to stop us from doing it. Because if he puts up his flag, puts up an admiralty flag on that ship, everybody's fair game. They made contract with him under the law of the flag, came onto his territory, and now he's Lord and Master.

That ship is a country. That ship is a country, that's correct. Now if you notice, yes? Are the judges aware of what they do? You better believe they are. They go to the Star Chamber. You're not going to see anything written down here. Every judge that gets sworn in, they go into the Star Chamber. When they get into the Star Chamber, they get debriefed. What is the Star Chamber? Star Chamber is a slang term used for the secret rules and regulations of judicial, yeah, judiciary procedure. Now a unique thing is most judges are masons.

And under the law of masons a judge cannot, a mason cannot go after another mason. Okay? Except when they commit first degree murder or treason. We've now established treason so therefore any judge can prosecute another mason who has committed treason against the Constitution or against this country. Because of the flag. But this formula has never been presented in this manner any time in United States history or any place in the world. I'm the first guy to go ahead and present this procedure on this argument of treason. And I have submitted this argument before the United States Supreme Court and has been accepted. Now, three weeks, September, anybody familiar with September 13th? Friday the 13th, 1996, Day of the Compass? The beginning of the end for the Admiralty?

It is. We filed our Title 42 suit in Supreme Court on September Friday, September 13th. Now, we filed a writ of certiorari. Those of you that are aware of what a writ of certiorari is, it says that the court is going to review a lower court's decision, a lower appeals court decision. But it doesn't have to accept anything. So out of 7,000 cases a year that are presented to the United States Supreme Court, only 100 to 120 are accepted. Now, on September 13th, when we walked in there, there were 1,700 cases in front of us.

We were looking at roughly 13 to 15 years' wait before a case would be heard. But a unique thing happened. I put in an instruction sheet on how to read the Title 42. No adjectives, adverbs, or pronouns. No presumptions, no conclusions, no assumptions. One thing I didn't tell you before is the pronoun, who is I, who is we, who are you, who are they? It is not highly defined. It is a violation to use a pronoun. It creates a presumption, an assumption, and a conclusion before the fact. Therefore, you can't use adjectives, adverbs, or pronouns. Presumptions, assumptions, or conclusions.

And you can't use statutory law. There is a cubic mile of statutory law written. And it is only the opinion of somebody else's accident. It is only the assumption of somebody else's accident. It has nothing to do with being highly defined or being relevant to your point in time. So now we have any case that is written that has an adjective, adverb, pronoun creating a presumption, assumption, conclusion or uses statutory law in any capacity is now disqualification. On September 13th, the United States Supreme Court read that and I also outlined another fact that happened a week later. Five days later, I got a phone call from my friend, and he said there will be an announcement that 1,500 cases are going to be disqualified.

All the cases that were approved are being disqualified because of this. Because when I went there on September 13th and made argument before the United States Supreme Court Election Board, Mrs. Jones was the person, I took three cases that she handed to me as an example. I wanted to see the mechanics of the layout of a registered area. Quite harmless. It took me five minutes for each one of them to disqualify them. I started going after the adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns in the thing there and explaining to her how this was a violation.

Then I showed her, under the words, due process of the law in Black's Law Dictionary, that any presumption, assumption, and conclusion is a violation of due process. If your judges violate due process, you've committed perjury of oath. And as a Supreme Court Justice, you guys got gold-fringed flags in the courtroom. And you've been taking these cases in there and doing it under that. That's treason against the Constitution. She immediately snatched the book out of my hand. She turned around and handed it to the clerk and said, Disqualify this case.

And she said, Well, this case has already been approved. She said, Disqualify it. Don't argue with me. It was disqualified. So I took the next one. She said the same thing. She disqualified that. But I taught her how to read this thing. And what was relevant here, the trumpets did blow on the Admiralty that day. Because they took the adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns out of my document and they went ahead and they applied it, they programmed their computer to re-read.

Because there's a computer that reads all the cases and chooses which ones are going to be accepted and denied. The cases that are as close to being a constitutional violation, because this thing is supposed, this computer is supposed to have artificial intelligence, but didn't have the guidelines put in it. That's why out of 7,000 cases a year presented to the United States Supreme Court, only about 100, 120 were being accepted. But now with the new guidelines, they went and they put back all, they put this into the computer and they had all these cases re-read again. And now 1,500 were disqualified and last week Friday I went back to Washington D.C. and I got to look in the book and verify that all 1,500 of these cases have been disqualified. There are only about 25 or 30 cases right now in front of the Supreme Court that are qualified. They will only accept conclusion of statutory violations and procedural violations in the Supreme Court. My cases, based on this paperwork and my guidelines, have been engineered without adjectives, adverbs and pronouns, without conclusions, presumptions or assumptions and there is no statutory law. We don't have to go out there and read all that stuff. You just have to have your injury.

Okay, 1953, true story. Farmer's out plowing his field. Police officer comes rolling down the road. And he yells up at the farmer, he says, I'm going to take your shovel. And the farmer says, no, I got a shovel of grain to feed the cattle with. He says, you can't take my shovel. He says, I'm going to take it anyway. Pulls in his yard, grabs a shovel, costs $25. When he sees a green shovel, a nice one, he throws it in his trunk and drives away. The farmer being the simple man that he is, goes ahead and goes into the barn, goes back into the house. He didn't have any paper, so he took a brown garbage bag from the local store and ripped it, took a pencil out and wrote on there, without a Fourth Amendment warrant, the police officer stole my shovel. I prayed to the court for 1.3 million dollars in damages. He put his name as plaintiff, the officer's name as respondent. Not defendant, because in common law you're a respondent until proven guilty. Don't write down anybody as a defendant, because you'll violate your own contract. You must be a respondent.

Until you are charged from the jury, then you are a defendant. He wrote it down in this matter and he took it into the local district court, federal district court. The judge looked at it, approved it, went to the grand jury, was accepted and he was awarded 1.3 million dollars. True story. Without a fourth amendment warrant, the police officer stole the shovel. How do you write the sentence, folks? Preposition, noun, verb. Now, I don't care how you want to think about what it is you're doing. You get it in your head that you're going to... You can tell a story and be as colorful as you want, okay? Then take the story apart, remove all the adjectives, add verbs and pronouns. You have to take all those pronouns and give somebody's name to it, identify it.

Now you go ahead and you take that sentence and you rearrange it, creating your prepositional phrases first. Always start without due process of law. Without due process of law, in this case here we are talking about the judge. Without the due process of law, the judge, under federal authority title 42, USC 1986 for knowledge, was negligent. He picked up the gold fringe flag and caused perjury of oath because it was his intent to suspend his oath of office that he just swore he would uphold. He also committed treason against the Constitution of the United States because he is setting up, he surrendered his oath of office, his Constitution to a foreign power, because that flag, under the law of the flag, in the sanctuary of the barb, now creates a foreign power. And he has surrendered the Constitution to a foreign power, therefore he is guilty of treason against the Constitution. And the Brother Masons can't protect him at this point in time, now that this has been established.

He now, under twelve federal rules of civil procedure, we start with the highest number first, 26E subsection 2 for discovery of the law, commits a federal rules of civil procedure 12B7. He hasn't joined with the party that's going to be coming into the court. Okay, because he hasn't joined with this party, and it is the will of his intent that this flag establish a foreign power, now causes a Title 18-242 deprivation of rights under the color of law for anybody that walks into that bar. That carries a 10 year prison sentence. He also plans with the will of intent, a Title 18-241, conspiracy, no we can't go to conspiracy yet, he does extortion, 872, Title 18-872, on this person's rights, before this person enters the bar. It is also his intent, civil, Title 42, USC.

We can't go that way either, not yet. We first have to go through the federal rules of civil procedure. No, we have to go through the federal rules of civil procedure. Nope. We gotta go. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it isn't 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Because first, he has not joined with the person coming in causing the deprivation. Planned, will of intent deprivation. Number... Huh? 12B7 is first. He didn't join. His second error is 12B6. He has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because now he is initiating, he hasn't joined, so now there's no claim established. The person isn't in the bar yet. But it is his will of intent not to state a claim here. There is no process There's no paperwork in front of him.

Court hasn't started. There is no 12B4. He hasn't given anybody service. Nobody appeared in front of him. He's still guilty of this deprivation under Title 18, 242. There is no venue before the court, 12B3. There is no subject matter jurisdiction over the exact subject itself. So he's done all of these things in a deprivation of rights under Title 18.242. Now, so this all predicates a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9b, fraud. No statute of limitations on fraud. Once a fraud, always a fraud, and fraud also incorporates condition of mind. Condition of mind establishes the will, the will of intent. Okay, now I'm going to take this marker here and I'm going to... what just happened? It was the intent that it hit the ground because this hand hit this hand.

This hand was holding it. Gravity is relevant. It was the intent that if I let go of it, it falls. So intent is not a criminal activity. Only the will of the mind becomes criminal. But if I'm holding this and I throw it at you, if I let go of it, it should have fallen. But if it hits you, that means it was my will and my criminal will that caused the intent to take place. Now we have a criminal act.

Just like that flag didn't get into the courtroom by its own initiative, it can't walk. It was the will of the intent of the judge to carry it into the courtroom. And he's the fiduciary. He's the person licensed to carry it in. He is responsible. So now you've established in boilerplate the will of intent to create a foreign power to surrender the Constitution to. Treason. Boilerplate treason. There ain't no way around it. And when I hit the Supreme Court judges with that on September 13th, you know what? They threw out all 1,500 cases. Because it was the will of their intent to take those things in. If you look at the pictures of the bench. Have you been back there yet?

I haven't been back there yet, but I would be willing to say that the Title 42 that I drafted for them... They probably got a guy walking down the street now making sure they're not coming. Well, they're going to be pulling those flags out. They can't take any pictures because they can't be seen in front of these flags. We're going to have boilerplate treason and all nine justices go down for treason against the Constitution. And put that gold-fringed flag on his uniform. They were questioning him about the Supreme Court. They asked him, why were so many cases rejected by the Supreme Court? And he said, well, I can't talk about that. Well, you know what?

One thing, he didn't know the answer. Well, he went on to explain, he gave a, like a politician's answer, but he didn't give the right answer. All right, he didn't know the answer. Believe it or not, the formula that I've just released to you guys has never been used. And I did it because I like to take words apart. I like to take them apart by definition, by syllable, and look up all the words. Because I've got a binary brain and it cross-references everything as fast as I can pull it out. It starts flagging up, what's the will of intent? Oh, here, the word intent pops up under fraud. Fraud goes with will, goes with intent.

False is found in allegiance, allegiance is found in those. Perjury is a promise, what is a promise? I swear. Start pulling up all the synonyms, you start looking them all up in Black Claw Dictionary, cross referencing all the different definitions and the relevance. Now comes up with a thing called the least common denominator. Now all the statutes as they are written, the judges who wrote these needed a back door so they put a back door on their computer programs. So the guy can always, there's always one guy to go in there and pop the formula on this. Well the least common denominator was maintained by the nine Supreme Court judges as a secret. No one had this information but them. It gave them the power to disqualify all the cases coming into court.

They could only pick and choose the ones that they wanted to. Now the least common denominator is when I started pulling up synonyms, and I started looking up the definitions, on the word person. We started with person. When two or more persons come together to cause a citizen a harm, the party shall be able to sue for redress. What's wrong with that statement? I have the broad-based discretion to identify what a person is. It's a corporation. How can two pieces of paper come together and hurt a citizen? We've got a fraud here. Fraudulent statement. Number two, how can a citizen be affected by the paper and what about the party who is suing. The party hasn't established anything because the corporation is a fraud. All statements are fraud.

We haven't established anything. We've put together a series of statements and we've put together a series of laws that are under the broad-based discretion of the judge because you guys didn't go ahead and isolate the definitions. You may have isolated the definitions for each word but you didn't tie them all together. So what I've done is I've taken the word person and replaced it with citizen and party. Citizen is a human entity or a natural person, human entity, with constitutional rights. In is the preposition of party, party being the human entity with constitutional rights, put it highly defined into a human entity form and gave it litigation. Now you can't call it a person. Now you can't make it a corporate entity. So now you've got, I've taken all the persons out of all the definitions, had my computer do a search and find and replace.

Put citizen and party. Or you can just use the word party. But now it reads, when two citizens, in this case, citizens and party come in disguise to cause another citizen and party an injury, that citizen and party shall have the right to sue for damages.

Least common denominator, one half and one third equals five six. Gotta convert it before you can do it. Same as mathematics. Mathematics is relevant to the procedure. The procedure has to be relevant to what goes on in English. So we've got the 1-half now gets put into 3-6. The 1-third gets put into 2-6. Now we can go ahead and add the formula together, we can get the answer.

Same thing applies to statutory laws. In my book, it's divided into Section A and Section B. Section A is written in statutory law, which is why the government gives it to us. I'm being fair and I'm letting you see where it comes from. The second section is in the least common denominator and it has been completely rewritten so that it is prepared for the Supreme Court. If you use the definitions that I have modified, you will be clerically correct when you use those definitions to take control and be highly defined of the words in front of the Supreme Court. Could we take about a ten minute break and come back and go to about one? Sure, that's fine. I have one question. You are the respondent until?

Until a jury, only a jury can charge a person. Now all of you have heard this, you know, I've been charged with this and I've been charged with that, that's a fraud under admiralty and you've got the rules of international maritime admiralty in your court. The moving party must be free from guilt in order to be innocent. That means you're guilty until proven innocent. You see they wrote it in a negative, they wrote it backwards. Free from guilt. So you are guilty until proven innocent. That came under the initiation that a ship going under a bridge is a moving vessel. It hits the bridge because the wind was blowing. Well, it was the intent that the ship hit the bridge. The captain is not held responsible for that. Captain goes in and says, yeah, we're going to smash this bridge today.

Spins the wheel. Criminal. Will. Knowledge. Bang. Hits the bridge. He's now held liable. So you're the respondent until your case is accepted? Yes. Anytime anybody in government addresses you with paperwork calling you a defendant, you answer with a notice of refusal for fraud. You're going to be using the definition in here that states, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38A, which guarantees you a Seventh Amendment common law jury trial, this case is under the jurisdiction of the American Flag of Peace, Title IV, U.S.C. 1 of the United States of America, small united. No jurisdiction of admiralty or maritime will be allowed in the jurisdiction of this case. pursuant to Army Regulations 840-10, Chapter 2-1, Section A and B, and 2-5, Section A and B. What's unique here is Army regulations are relevant here because the Army uses a gold-fringe American flag.

They were the ones that set the jurisdiction down to suspend the Constitution of the United States with the gold-fringe flag, making it a military zone. So when you go into court the only thing you have to do is have your United States title 4 USC 1 flag, you walk into court, say this is a title 4 USC 1 flag and my name is David Miller. I declare this a common law court. Before the judge realizes what happened, takes a whole whopping 5 seconds in it, you've got common law jurisdiction. You've captured the flag because section 2-1 A and B states the flag should be red, white, and blue and should be held in the highest order against any foreign flag. And guess what? The gold fringe flag is a foreign flag. We just captured the flag on jurisdiction. The judge swore an oath of sports constitution in the United States. He did it underneath this flag. His oath of office automatically makes it federal.

This is a federal flag, he took a federal oath, now we got a federal court. All the federal rules of civil procedure apply and forget about all your state rules and regulations. Do you do this in time or in front of the bar? You must be in the bar. Now don't forget, the bar is a sanctuary. And everything else outside of that is a penitentiary. That's common law though. But you take the flag, you send it to jurisdictions outside the bar? Inside the bar. Outside the bar you've already got common law jurisdictions. You do it inside the bar.

Right. You must go inside the bar. The reason for this is the judge cannot rule over two jurisdictions at the same time no more than you can talk. Now, everyone's been in traffic court here, right? Yeah. Guys are all sitting out there. Here's the bar, it runs across here, and I stand up and I say, I'm going to read everybody your Miranda rights today, folks. And you're going to go, do you have a right to remain silent? Anything you say will be used against you. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Does everybody understand that? Everybody shakes their head yes, and the judge is up there going, ha, got another bunch of dummies. Because he didn't say anything to the crowd. They're all under common law, they're all sitting out there with their little flags on their chest.

He's up there with that Murphy flag. And he can't rule over two jurisdictions. This is that invisible wall. Go ahead, just come right into the court here. So you come walking into the court here with your flag on and you think you've got jurisdictions. Guess what? We are lay people. We are not, we are not notaries. We are not experts at what a flag are.

We don't have a license for it. So therefore, it is only our opinion that this is a red, white, and blue piece of cloth. We need two witnesses. The two-witness rule goes back 100,000 years. International law, anywhere, anytime, anyplace, two witnesses say it is. So you must always go into the sanctuary of the bar with two witnesses. And they both must say, that's a Title IV USC1 flag at the same time. And if you do it quick, then you walk through that bar and you say it right out loud right away and that's before the judge gets you up to the table and that, you know, you catch them off guard and that, you capture the court and then give your name and yell out, this is a common law venue, or common law jurisdiction, you've captured the court. And he has no way to undo it because you've got jurisdiction.

You can only book state. We did this inside of the sanctuary of a bar about three weeks ago and put together a little speech for the defendant to say, and Judge Lieutenant Tom Lex denied it. He can't deny it, you've got jurisdiction, you've captured the court, that's like saying I ain't going to do my oath. What was really important to me was that the judge was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility.

He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility.

He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to have to have a little bit of a sense of responsibility. He was going to do my oath. What we realized here was the judge has never been to judge school yet. He was disappointed. Alright, he was what's called a B-judge, probably elected. He's not a lawyer. He was disappointed and he had absolutely no idea. knowledge of the law. If he doesn't have knowledge of the law, he can't be held liable for the will of intent. Because that is one of the absolute necessities. That's why I told you, you must do a Title 42 U.S.C. 1986 for knowledge of the law first to prove the will of intent. Well, what we've been doing with this particular court, especially the prosecution, is we've been giving them knowledge of the law.

Well, you're doing it wrong. What you do is, in the paperwork, it's a complete full-blown Title 42 in the form of a motion. And that includes your definitions and everything. That explains everything. The intent, it gives you the will of the intent. It explains the words and the definitions. You take control. Once you present this to the judge and the attorney, there doesn't have to be a name on it, it's information.

Now you have given them notice of knowledge, if they proceed after that point in time, they're toast. We did it. We put it in in the form of a motion, two weeks prior to the court. Then they had notice, they can't play dummy up to it. And then he went in and read it into the records and denied it. He can't deny that, he's guilty of treason. I said, scratch that, I'm asking if he's going to uphold the constitutional rights. When he asked that question, the judge said, the only judicial notice I'm taking here today is judicial notice to my federal folks in the membership.

Common law jurisdiction denied. Can't do it. Can't do it. Once you've castrated a flag, he has no jurisdiction to undo a common law. In other words he now when you go ahead and you kick that up for procedural violations he will be he is facing 75 years in prison based on the violations that he committed when he made that statement. That's what it adds up to and it's outlined in the paperwork. Are you moving forward with that? Yes. is a complaint writ of error. In a writ of error, I'll explain this to everybody, we went into the Supreme Court, we filed a writ of certiorari because that was the only thing the Supreme Court would accept.

It's the only paperwork they had in front of us. And I'm going, well I don't like this. For one thing, everything that I know about the law is a lie and everything they tell me has got to be a lie too. Therefore, if I submit this document according to their rules and regulations, I expect to be kicked out. You know what? Ten days later they sent back our complaints. They said, your complaint is okay. It is in the air. And Carol calls me up and he goes, Dave, you said your stuff was boilerplate. It was absolutely certified. How come he sent me back a letter and said that our case was in the air?

I said, there's nothing wrong with our case. You can't do that. So I got to thinking about it. Err is not a verb. It's a noun. It took me four hours to wake up to the fact it was a noun. And I pulled out my black law dictionary and goes, Err, writ of err. What do you know about a writ of err? It's a common law. When a procedural violation takes place, you file a writ of error under a title 28, 1331 original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court has to hear it in the Supreme Court.

They cannot deny it because it's a constitutional violation. And it used to be called a caram nobis or a caram nobis, a bovis, which was stricken because it said that the judge you were suing was the person going to hear the case, conflict of interest, which was a 60.07 violation, but it had to throw it out. So now it just stands as a writ of error. But what is this United States is a court of appeals to only hear procedural violations and statutory violations under writ of air. That's all it says under appeal. When you look in the fourth, fifth and sixth editions of Blacks, it's got a whole different idea. It says if you don't like what the judge did the first time, we'll take it up to the next higher tribunal. It doesn't say anything about a writ of air. They have taken the words apart, and they put one over here, and they put one over there, and they put one over here, and through cross-referencing it, it certifies it.

So when the judge said to us, I mean when Lorson, Lorson is in charge of the supervisory committee that runs the Supreme Court. He's got, I think, more power than the judge. He's way up there. Sound wise. Yeah. He made the statement to us, your case is in error. So we went ahead and we... Thank you. Yeah, we went ahead and we got the little white plotters and we went ahead and took every writ of certiorari out of all 82 copies.

A lot of, like 250 times we did that. Plotted out all the writ of certiorari and put in writ of error on everything. Accepted. That was the only thing wrong with that case. We had the wrong title on it. And the guidelines for adjectives, adverbs and pronouns, assumptions, assumptions and statutory laws have now, it's a new guideline for the United States Supreme Court and all 1500 conclusionary law cases have been thrown out. Yep, we should hear it before election day. Which means because treason has now also been established in our suit by definition they have to not only hear our case but they've got to hear it in common law and then they have to......

I would really appreciate it if you get this put to paper by tomorrow. We can divide up tapes, however is convenient to be able to get this put to paper, so that we can make copies and pass them out. Now, we have dragged along here for ten years to get you to the point that you're ready to do this. And I cannot tell you how difficult it is to get each one of you thinking enough to act, as in the case of Bob, he's going to be in real trouble. He knew that. The reason that you get to be higher and higher and higher up the bench level is because of these star chamber things. It isn't a matter of knowing the law better, it is a matter of manipulating the public better. Okay. I got some friends that have been hassled in Fresno courts for some time.

Now are they going to be able to benefit immediately from this type of information? It depends on what they want to do. We're not going to do it for them because we've got our own cases to work through. Unless you're talking about the same friends that we have. Well, we're not going to want to catch up by tomorrow and begin to utilize this. You're damn right, we're going to utilize this. But you had to learn, and now you've got to get it onto paper. And don't think God ever allows coincidences to happen. Bruce Tracy is here because he is an English professor. He will know what an adverb is. Gene is going to continue and I wanted to do this you see while Gene's out. We will take absolutely everything that we have received, everything that we have sent, and we will do exactly what this man suggests you do.

And you do it on the basis of constitutional common law, with no fringe on the flag. And we're going to take these cases and we're going to rewrite them, and you're going to come back and say they don't have a case, and you don't have any right to rule.

