50, 50, 50, 50, 50. Okay, so you got 50 times how many numbers I got here. We got 1, 2, well you got, so you got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Well, we just rounded up to 20. Times 3 is 60. Times 5 is 30 million. Times 3. Times 30. So you'd have 30 times 50, thousands. That's 3 million. Okay, that's 3 million. Okay, you get 3 million if you got 3 defendants. Well like, Bridget's got 28, so that's 28 million. And it's justified because when a jury goes through this thing, they have to address the chart. Now what's unique about the chart is it keeps things organized. It shows conspiracy at a glance.

The picture is worth a thousand words. You might have to cover 15 pages of text, but the 15 pages of text gets confusing in the mind. It's like trying to play a chess game all at once. You do it one move at a time, and then you can win. The same thing happens with the chart. The judge now has a chart like this here and he can look at it and he goes, oh yeah, one, yeah, he's established knowledge and all these definitions are in your paperwork in about six different pages of material in least common denominator form so that you are clerically correct and then the procedure is set up here and this procedure is an accurate procedure I just gave you. So you copy this down, you can probably use this at any given point in time should you be wrong or when you're producing your own paperwork.

But you create the chart first. Then you go back and write your story. You draw your case. Now you've got something to work off of to keep yourself organized at each of your procedures, yet put in proper order. Feel damaging this becomes now? And you being an attorney, you can apply this to just about anything you want to do in law. From the traffic citations, to setting up a divorce contract or whatever. Same thing. When you look at that, when you take a bank and you plug that into the formula, I didn't put it down, I didn't put down mail fraud. Okay, mail fraud is 1342 that's title 18. Okay now these will come in with a FRCP we got a 9B, we got a 10A, we got a 12B, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. also command a point of peace at $50,000.

So we just added another 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, we have 30, 44. So now we just kicked it to a cool $5 million for three guys. And this, taken before a grand jury, is that we're just asking for the minimum the law requires. You can go higher. Most states have got a quarter million to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars per cause of action. So you can multiply that times five and you got twenty five to thirty million dollars for just three people. And it's a justified number. Because you only need one win. You only got to prove one of these things happened. So you're looking at a system that has been built on a house of cards. Very fragile.

It's only through deception and secrecy that it's been able to be built so far. By proving that any one of those happens because they're in a linked list, every one of those cards falls. It doesn't matter if you pick one out of the middle. They're guilty of it. All the rest are also... All tied together in a chain. It sets up a chain reaction that is absolutely a nightmare. Your constitutional right gives you if they had done due process properly you wouldn't be in this problem. If the guy went ahead and he knew there was a crime that had been committed and went and took physical proof to a judge, the judge could sign a warrant. Give it to the police officer and say you've got to come in for a hearing.

Now it's a warrant to appear, not a warrant to be arrested and go to jail. The jury's going to bring back your warrant, but the jury will make the recommendations under common law to the judge, and the judge will then, of oath and affirmation, have the power to issue the warrant, hand it to him in court, and say, okay, police officer, now you can put the cuffs on him and take him to jail. That's the proper procedure. That's why we had all this stuff set up. So that innocent people didn't get kidnapped in the night and thrown into dungeons. It slowed that quick impulse because people are impulsive. People are lazy. They like to take shortcuts. But this is what happens when one man, a cop, didn't have a fourth amendment warrant, sets up and the system tries to protect their buddy.

And you wind up with a hundred and, well, 45 times 3, it's 135 procedural violations just because you didn't start with a warrant. Once a fraud, always a fraud. See what I'm trying to tell a lie? It just gets big. The guy that was arrested, the person who generally ruled in his favor on the child support, he took her away from him in a motion to reconsider. And so they kicked him out because of the service. So he started all over again, he filed a statement, made sure the person got stirred, goes into court, and says, I don't understand what you're wanting to do here. And the guy says, in honor of your rule, I'm just going to say, just once more in my favor.

Now that I've got it right, you don't understand. Dismissed. Threw him out of the courtroom. Fifteen days later, he picked him up on a warrant, a poster warrant, for a long case. He asked them for the warrant. The cops said, I don't have it with me. He called them down to jail, asked for the warrant down there, and they still can't produce the warrant. So he demanded to be put in front of a judge. Well, we can't do that until Monday, the National. No, I constitute the right of stay. Courts are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Courts are never closed. He made such a statement that the judge, they finally called the judge, that says, when the lesson, told him there was no war.

So he... Explain why you had, yeah, why you'd been arrested with no warrant. To explain why I haven't paid child support. Well, first of all, I only make $525 a month. I got a child support of $600 a week. I'm trying to get down to... Ben never done that. I'm trying to get down to $25 a month for a child that's allowed by staff. It's been going on and on and on. I retired on $1,200 pension, but my child support is $1850 a month.

Makes a lot of sense. Why did it all turn into a memorandum of rights? There is a thing called the Federal Protection Consumer Rights Act which only allows 50% of your net take home pay to be accessed for child support. However, the law also provides that if you have the capacity, in other words, you have the track record, education, and capacity to earn $25 or $30 an hour and you go out and flip penalties at McDonald's, then you are working below your ability. And it's done by the will of intent. It's the responsibility of the courts to prove will of intent.

If they prove it, you're going to get hit with that big child support payment, whether you like it or not. Also if you take and you have assets and you take those assets and try and hide them in a trust fund, in a corporation, any place, within five years they can go back and crack it open and take it back out and assess on it what it's worth. and they got hit by a big timber crash because of the spot on the highway. So that county is almost completely dead in front of logging concerns because of that. See the truck driver, he sits in the job every now and then driving the truck. He doesn't want to move out of the county because he doesn't like the timber. And they actually force you to take a job in some other area. Well no, that comes under freedom of choice if he's unemployed and available to be home full time to take care of the child, why doesn't he take care of the child then?

Or share in the responsibility. Well, that's a whole other subject in itself. He was awarded good vacation, you know, a few weeks in the summer and every other weekend and every other holiday. Right, but there's no... Equal protection clause, now up in Wisconsin we have a bill called LRB 1834 that I was responsible for helping put together. Now Mr. Isobar and Mr. Pangman worked on the tear down of your existing 767 for Wisconsin and putting that together and then I came in with my procedure to correct it and make sure there was no defects in it. And then put it, rewrite it in a Title 42 procedure guaranteeing equal protection that anybody that were to touch this thing and not give it equal protection was then be eligible for a Title 42 suit on treason against the Constitution and perjury of oath.

I went before our Congress up there in Wisconsin. Walked out of the room upon my presenting treason and in person. And the bill is still alive and well for equal shared parenting and is scheduled in November to go for a vote here in Wisconsin. But the same family material that's in this bill is in the paperwork. There is a divorce and paternity action in there which was compiled from 35 different lawsuits where the person spent between 5 and 35 thousand dollars to have equal shared parenting. I took the best material from all these cases and put it into one case. So this case has got a face value of about $5,000 in it and it's already there, it's boilerplate. It's a Title 42 equal share parenting bill.

Now the people that take that into court usually get an out of court settlement where the judge says go in the back room and sign this document because I'm not going to let you cross this bar and duck a knee for perjury votes. And he nails both of the attorneys in the case, or both parties in the case, charges them with that and I'll hold you in contempt if you guys can't solve this issue. Now there's another rule that goes along with this, it's called the rule of Solomon. Solomon had two sons. Solomon was the king and one of his subjects had two sons. When he died the two boys went to war fighting over the access in the kingdom. And it got, you know, war doesn't serve anybody. So he ordered his two boys into court.

He says, boy number A, you will divide the piles. But boy number B, you get first pick of the piles. That's basically what was done here, which is child support equals shared parenting bill, as well as the contract here. You've outlined the civil rights of both the mother, the father, and the children. Whether it be a paternity or divorce action, they're protected. And they're protected on the guidelines of the Constitution.

So in the event anybody messes around with the Constitution or tries to say, we're going to give, take the child away from one parent and give it to the other because the irritation of losing your children is going to cause you to fight and burn up all of your assets in a custody battle. Because you will give up your home and your business and all your money and everything, your self-dignity, whatever it takes, you'll prostrate yourself for your children and for that love, so that it is not lost. And they know that. And so what they're doing is using your children, investments of children, as a bargaining chip to extort all your money from you.

This document here doesn't allow that to take place. And it says if you try to do it, you're going to have to put up with this. This isn't cost effective. These cost a quarter million bucks a pop in federal court for a person to fight. So if you've got three people here you're looking at three quarters of a million face value and if the federal judge kicks this out and says we're not going to hear this and it goes to the United States Supreme Court that's 1.6 million dollars now to fight one of these things. For each defendant. For those of us who are riding drag on all this, could you give us an interpretation of what K, C, J, everything down the chart means?

Sure. Yeah, well when you look up the site search, they're all defined in the type of work. Okay, K is knowledge, and also negligence, I'll put it in there too. Knowledge and negligence. Title 42, USC 1985, subsection 1 is conspiracy. Subsection 2 is obstruction of justice, OJ. Good old O.J. Three is racketeering and extortion. Title 42, U.S.C. 1983, is your personal injury.

Now personal injuries are always tied to your constitution through Chapter 21. The only way to get to the constitution is to go through an 83. What people have always done in the past before I came along with the procedure was I was injured, jumped into an 83 and went right to the Constitution never establishing the fact that the person was smart enough in the first place to cause an injury. That is your disclaimer. Without a disclaimer, a UCC 3-501 is useless. It's a mute document. It's a fraud. It's not going to happen.

Anybody and their uncle can break it. Title 18, 16, 21, perjury of oath of office. Title 18, 241 is conspiracy criminal. 242 is deprivation of rights under... I told you this was for the ones who were writing that. Okay. On page B1. Yeah, I saw on page B1 if you go down here and it's written out. So just write yourself a note, CB1 but 241 is your conspiracy 242 would be your deprivation of rights under color of law by officers of the court now the unique thing here is under color of law color meaning the flag whatever you choose 872 is extortion 871 is extortion and you hearing you can get into a few sites above and below that in the annotated version and pick up stuff. 1512 title 18 is obstruction of justice being denied your right to witnesses your papers or in any way threatening your witnesses or your papers. In civil? One is criminal. Criminal carries ten years in prison. Civil carries just a fine. Kind of like a slap on the hands where you go to jail for ten years. Right.

That's a really nice chapter you guys should read. Some, as a result of kidnapping, lose jurisdiction, person kidnapping, putting you in this, and then saying sign this bond and I'll let you out. This bond is, is in effect by definition ransom. Because they say if, they use the old good old word of if which is collusionary, voids all contract, you don't sign it, you ain't getting out of jail. And forth you got your certified racketeering and kidnapping. Title 28 which is procedural of how judges have to act, 1359, that's chapter 85, 1359, is your collusion.

Now collusion means that they are trying to obtain anything by force or threat void of UCC 3-501 contract. 1359 and title 28, did you say? Title 28, chapter 85, 1359, collusion. Collusion is found also in just about every single title. The definition is the same in all titles. Yes? Kidnapping, just so that people really know, you don't have to be picked up and taken anywhere at all. Kidnapping, a party commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the party violates the law with any of the following purposes.

One, to compel the party to pay or deliver money or property or ransom. It's the same thing about taking it someplace first. To compel it, which means to will. The word compel is the synonym of will. Or to cause physical injury to the victim. Or to terrorize the victim or another party. Which means I'm going to hit your kid if you don't give me your money. Right. So you can't go after somebody else, a third party. And when you get into your conclusions, your definition, it says will of intent.

Everything comes back to every one of these things you have to put the word will in front of. The will of intent must be proven on every single one of these or they don't mean anything. How come you don't use 1988? That's Steve. The second part of it is Steve. The first part of it is talking about the vindication of the Column of Law. I never had any use for it. I always capture it with my flag and I don't get into it from a statutory standpoint. There's another one, Title 42, 2000, up in that section. There's some real good reading up in 2000.

You can surf through the titles and it takes a long time if you want to read everything to get it. But you stumble on, he hid a little bit up here and he had a little bit over here and he hides them up here and some down here and they figured that a human being could not physically read the procedure and put this thing together in their lifetime so why worry about anybody ever doing it they were absolutely right to the advent of the computer right and and and they developed a computer to make their job more efficient but they forgot about that we're Smart too. And a good idea is still a good idea. And right is still right. And wrong is still wrong.

Yes. Say again? Is Title 42 positive or wrong? Yes. Yes. This man's a lawyer. He should know. Oh my God. Ah, there's a conclusion. Uh-huh.

Making presumptions. Not allowed to do that. You guys should have caught me in that one. All right. One. Is your, uh, you guys know your amendments? First amendment, freedom of speech, right to grievance, freedom of religion. Four, warrants, five, due process. Six, the right to counsel and cross-examine your evidence. Seven, right to a fair trial, common law.

And 14, is the right to equal protection. Articles, 14th amendment, 14th amendment, 1964 civil rights act, article 7, abolish the three-fifth person, making it equal for everybody. That's why I use it. A lot of people give me a lot of grief about it, but if you don't want to use it, don't. If you can't get a guy in this many stuff, you don't need 14 yet. Anyway.

You want to go to another one? Oh yeah, we can go to another one. This is your fictitious. Now when you do a 10A nom de guerre, the attorney sends you a bill for money and you put your name in uppercase nom de guerre. Or the judge goes ahead and sends you the order to pay the attorney's fees in an uppercase nominagare you've got your conspiracy for mail fraud and you know there's 43 hits on conspiracy mail fraud in that 990 pages of stuff I mean it's really you don't have to sue a person for one form of conspiracy mail fraud you can nail them on about 40 of them this thing can get really sticky just in this. This is five years per count.

Is there any place in the statutes or anywhere else that has a non-begarer dead person who gets notified of that? If you look in the dictionary, non-begarer says war name or fictitious name or frivolous name. The word frivolous is hereby cross referenced under the 42 where it says use of a frivolous name for the extortion of money. Now it says mail fraud. Mail fraud is any delivery of paper for the extortion, whether if I hand it to you in this room, I give it to him, they give it to him. The sender going to the receiver, the person transporting the person, is a process server. He's immune from anything. The process server doesn't have to be charged either when he gives.

He can't be held for any point of aggression towards the individual upon serving him. He has immunity just like a lifeguard saving a child and has to knock him out to pull him in. As long as he doesn't know what to do, he's kind of a doc. That wouldn't change anything but if his behavior is unprofessional, you know, he comes up and knocks you down, you're going to take this thing and shove it down your throat. That's a little bit of grass that you will be charged with aggravated assault while doing process service. So, you've got to learn to cut your losses on this thing. You know, do it the right way. You cannot have contact with the person you're serving.

You must have a process service police officer or third party engaged. File number 80110 is your process serving statute. Now, come up in front of there, she had three picks to pick the girl and she was wrong all three times, case dismissed. I'm sorry, three guys, there's only a $40 ticket. You would use this to follow the 20 page limit. Right, what this does is you can make a, you take your definitions which will take approximately four pages, maybe five pages. And this is using a single space, are allowed for definitions in federal court.

They are, you put them in 11 points. They're legal in all federal courts at 11 points and you use the definitions I've got there. They should fit, you know, like I said, probably four or five pages. Now, your arguments of how this thing falls into a procedure here will also fall into a single paragraph for each individual as to this person violated due process of law, see the chart. Or with that, the person, when you make the statement, this person being non-violated due process of the law, doesn't indict anybody. Noun, verb, preposition.

You make the statement without the due process of the law, the defendant causes injury, then you can go ahead and jump into this. It's a couple sentence, paragraph, and then this here becomes relevant because this expands upon the definition where you can maintain the minimum amount of paperwork and let the picture draw your case for you. And it's very easy for you to follow, it's easy to write the case, it's easy for the judge to follow, he can see all the definitions and the most relevant thing about all this is conspiracy. It produces a pattern and if you've got 20 people across here and you see that that 3 runs all the way across and that 1 runs all the way across and that 12 runs all the way across, something wrong here.

It means everybody's got their own agenda and their policy and customs that cause you a deprivation of rights. And it works, it's got teeth and it's very easy to defend against even as a lay person, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this Okay, any questions on this? No, well Next little thing I'll run by you guys You guys can all look at these charts today and tomorrow or wherever Rank the whole thing. Your exhibits, you can put 5 inches of exhibits behind your Title 42, but your Title 42 itself, in other words, your arguments and supporting documents, or supporting arguments are going to be a total of 20 pages.

What was the purpose of that? Well, it used to be 50 pages because what they were doing was they'd come in with their initial arguments of only 3 or 4 pages, but they used conclusionary law and they put 40 pages of conclusionary law down which were a violation of due process. It's a presumptuous conclusion of the fact. I disqualified all those when I filed my initial case and from that initial case changed the guidelines at federal jurisdiction. Upon then filing at the federal level in Washington, D.C. with the Supreme Court, then expanded upon that, those definitions, into a clarity of treason against the Constitution through a violation of due process if they did not adhere to the guidelines. It took them about four days to come to the answer and disqualify this thing. We filed on Friday the 13th, the following Wednesday, five days on the 18th, my friend called me and said said they're disqualified. They are no longer going to accept any conclusionary cases, only statutory and procedural violations as outlined under the word appeal in black first position, the way it was meant to be because they are an appellate court. But then we take jurisdiction over the issue and file a title 28, 1331 original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and we strip circuit court and federal court of all jurisdiction, any cases pending now stop. If you're scheduled for trial, ain't gonna happen because now the Supreme Court's got jurisdiction over the case. And that prejudiced judge who planned to put you in jail for 10 years by carrying on in an admiralty court by blackjack and yet carrying you into court and then throwing you in jail, ain't gonna happen. And if he tries to do it, the US Marshals are going to come down from the United States Supreme Court with their orders, they're going to arrest that judge in a heartbeat.

So all we have to do is get a couple of these things down, we're going to have presidents. And our IMRP flags are going to come down in the United States, we're going to have a common law court session. And it's not only going to happen here, because if it happens here, it's going to happen worldwide in time. That's going to be front page news, set up a shockwave around the world, and Congress will have to declare amnesty, or every judge for every case you ever heard under admiralty will qualify for treason. And put every judge and attorney ever to touch a book under admiralty in jail for life. There's probably a lot of them that deserve it, but we can't shut down the judicial system. It's got problems, but these people are still knowledgeable and know how to do it the right way or should I say correctly. So we're not out here to destroy the United States, we're here to correct it. This isn't about getting rich, making money and big lawsuits, it's about getting justice. And how do you spell justice?

You know what justice is Cole? Lady justice carries a two-blade sword and cuts both ways. If the police violate the law it will cut them and if the citizen violates the law it will cut him. That's how it was meant to be. In my paperwork there I make a statement. That by the way is the other way of looking at standing equal before the law. Correct. All men stand equal before the law. Now there's another little thing I put in my document. It's about the dust ice.

Ever been to a winter sculpture where they carve ice sculptures? Inside every block of ice there's a beautiful sculpture. What do you got to do to get it out? Remove the undesirable. Negative law, remove it. Don't cut the statue out of the ice, remove the undesirable. Because the statue is always there. Same thing with our justice system and our laws. We got a good constitution, we got good laws, they work just fine, but just remove the undesirable people that want to corrupt them. And there's a statement in there to that effect in the paperwork. And Benjamin Franklin was the one that said it. We are not here to over, to obstruct justice, but to remove those that would obstruct justice. Remember, we're not going to go through the stop sign. You're going to get nailed for the negligence of not stopping. Okay? I was glad you made the statement, you went rather fast, but it was relative to the Supreme Court only accepting statutory and procedural cases.

You made a remark as to how we take the jurisdiction away from the... Title 28, 1331 is the original jurisdiction. That's covered under the word appeal in Black's first edition was written before 1905. 1905 is when titles were assigned to numbers. The Miranda which is 1983 was in 1867 ratified in 1971 and then given a number in 1905 under an 83. 1986 for knowledge was then established in 1906. I guess it was just, you know, they had to do the writings and they didn't get it done until then. But from 1905 to 1995, 83 was the vehicle by which all injuries were addressed and and dismissed because the Supreme Court sat on top of the 86 knowledge and never told anybody. That was always their back door to lighten the workload. Otherwise with 7,000 cases a year coming in, the only year it 100, you know, the first year they've been booked up for the next 70 years and nothing would have ever gotten done.

on the suit. That's on the Supreme Court Washington DC level? No, Supreme Court Washington DC level has got it broken. So you've got a hundred pages. They're four inches wide, seven inches long. Plaintiff gets 30, defendant gets one. Right. The answer. No. You're judged. See, because what you're doing is you're copying. You're going through a series of things. I've got my book here. Read it to you. Your questions, you can go, I've got five on here. Carol had six.

I dropped one because I thought it was conclusionary and not a question. And I rewrote, and because I took one out, I could expand on the definition of the other five, which I did. I re-modified my work. modified my words. This one page took 60 hours of work and 35 rewrites to come up with a one page of questions because it had to encompass 15 months of case battles, research and encompass all of this here into an argument. Six questions to be asked of the Supreme Court. It can only be on one page. Yes, it can only be on one page, which makes it unique because you have to choose your words that carry weight and put them into a proper content so that they have a substantive meaning to encompass the whole document.

It's kind of like making you really think if you're good you better be real good because you've got to put it on one page. It's really neat. In that sky? Yep. Right there. That's it. Does your 20 or 30 pages, does that include your cover pages? Well, I'm going to get through that right now. I'm going to go through it.

You've got one page here is your question. Your second page is the list of your defendants. Now, your list of your defendants is just the first names only. Later in the book, on the back of the book, you can put down everybody's name, address, phone number. And that's after the fact. I've only got 25 pages here. That's a big one in cases. And this one here is $78 million. And it's substantiated because of the damage of fraud and triple damages because it was a certified fraud by transcript. How many pages? 25.

25, since I was here. And a bunch of them are already tied up in the table of index and things aren't even relevant to this case. You know. My third page is the instructions on procedural evaluation. In other words, this was the page here that rewrote the rules and regulations for the United States Supreme Court. Adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, conclusions, presumptions, and assumptions. When they saw this, 1,500 cases had to be disqualified that they had already approved in Washington.

Next you've got your table of contents. Then you incorporate a series of definitions. All the words in the document that I chose to take charge of the definition. I then put here so that I said what I meant what I said throughout the document and nobody misunderstands me. Now the one thing that we expanded upon was the word treason. The offense of attempting to overt act to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. What do you know about the gold fringe flag? It's a foreign power on the deck of a ship. And the judge is of oath and affirmation and gave away his oath to a foreign power. That qualifies as treason. That's about as clean and as simple as it gets and no one's ever taken that scenario to court before.

So you list the defendants by first name? No, you name them. Put their names. Those are the characters within the document. I'll list them all with their names. Oh, okay. The next word I used here was allegiance. Allegiance, the obligation of fidelity and obedience to government. Loyalty, oath of allegiance. So then I took and expanded upon the word oath of allegiance.

Oath of allegiance or loyalty, an oath by which a citizen and party promises and binds themselves to bear true allegiance to the United States, small United of America, and to support the Constitution administered generally to certain public officials and officers, to members of the armed forces, to attorneys on being admitted to the bar, the President of the United States, members of Congress, executives of the United States government, and judicial officers of the United States courts. So you've got your judges are included under the oath of allegiance. The oath, any form of attestation by which a citizen and party signifies that the party is bound in conscience, Conscience now is mind. Mind goes with will to perform and act faithfully and truthfully. An affirmation of truth of statement which renders party willfully, again the word willful comes in, asserting untruth statements punishable for treason. Fifth, perjury of oath. And the oath runs to allegiance, allegiance joins treason. See how they all tie together? And they do it through synonyms and through definitions.

Another real strong word here was breach. Instead of saying that he violated his oath, he breached his oath. When you breach an oath, the breaching or violating of a law, right, obligation, or duty where one party to contact fails to carry out those terms of the contract, promise, or condition of the contract. Well, the condition of a contract, the condition cross-references with fraud, condition of mind. Mind being will, will being intent, which is criminal, will of intent. And it all ties together. Will, the power of the mind which directs the actions of a man, willful, knowing, deliberate, intending the results which come to pass, designed, intentional, purposefully, unlawfully, without legal justification. That's the definition of will. Pretty powerful stuff.

stuff and it clarifies it beyond reasonable doubt what a reasonable jury would come back with and nail a conviction on somebody who would do something like this. That's why it's absolutely important that you always establish the will of the mind and the will of the intent before the court if you want your conviction. So when this goes through then and someone is going to reach a logical conclusion who will pardon all the judges in terms of corruption? Congress. That will be Congress' responsibility. The United States Supreme Court can make the law, but before the stampede starts, Congress will have to declare amnesty. There's no way, otherwise the whole United States judicial system will collapse. You'll have pandemonium. You'll have anarchy. Right.

And they don't have a choice in this. I know what's going to happen. The only cases that will be awarded will be those that are before, under grandfather clause, before the pardon takes place.

