It would be the number one case, they would have to award the damages to that and everybody, if there's one or two cases in there already, anybody else below that would have to... But the judge would have to have your court back. Then after the fact, after the amnesty, any judge that were to ever put an amnesty flag up again and not obey your oath would then be qualified for treason. And all of these non-jailable offenses we could go back into our courts again and make our arguments and we would have peace. People wouldn't be picking up guns out of frustration. They would be able to take their grievance in the court and talk about it. So this is court reform. Major big time, yes. This is about as clean as it gets. The case that you're talking about there, you referred to the Supreme Court being a total court.

That's correct. So then this format would be recommended for any suit, the top 42 suits that we file? Right. If you guys build your suits based on the guidelines, because these guidelines are 100% procedural, there's no conclusions, there's no presumptions, there are no assumptions. You're addressing only the facts. You cannot take the facts of this pen and take it in front of a jury. But you can take the facts to the jury that I neglected to hold it. And when it fell, it caused an injury. The same thing is true if I held a child in my hand.

If I dropped the child, I've got a noun, I, drop is the verb, the child, and it hits the floor. Well, it's supposed to fall on the floor, it's the point of physics. It's the intent of the action that is supposed to happen. There's no criminal act here. But if I say, without due process of law, I neglected to hold the child, and upon dropping the child, it was my will and intent to hurt the child, now I'm guilty of child abuse, and the whole thing falls into place. And now I get to go to jail for criminal acts. It's how you address the situation. You say without being prospective, then a lot of these things are true.

Right. That's why our framers of our Constitution were so very careful to make sure that the process of law was spelled out in the Bill of Rights, in several places, but in just so many words, in the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, the due process of law. So not only do you have to follow the process, or not only is there the process, but you have to follow it. Right. See, when you filed it, the 1,500 cases went out the window. Was it so much you educated the courts of the way it was supposed to be as much as it is the fact that you uncovered the things along and weren't revealing to anybody else?

Well, since 1933, common law, nobody's been doing common law. So everybody's been bringing statutory cases in. Now, they don't want to lose their jobs, so they got to stay busy. So they looked busy. But they couldn't take writs of errands because they weren't common law cases. They used statutory cases and they were done in amnesty. So as close as resembling a violation like Wade versus Roe or the black girl going to a white school or the black lady that had to sit in the back of the bus and wanted to sit in the front of the bus, these were issues that were absolute common law civil rights violations that were bad in 1864 and they were bad in 1964 and that's why we were abolished.

But everything else along the way there, they went ahead and they had nothing but statutory subject matter cases before them. So to stay busy, they put on a show for the public. For 65 years they've been putting a show on for the public. In the last 12 pages of this document, in your paperwork, I incorporated the opinions of Black and Douglas from 1966. And what they outlined there was that the lower court under have crowded or covered up the Constitution and not allowed a 7th Amendment jury trial to take place. They obstructed that and they did it through all kinds of contracts and clever use of words and everything else. What I've done is I've stripped that all away with the treason and perjury vote. They can't hide behind that anymore. Even the Supreme Court couldn't make the order because no one brought a proper case and they can't practice law from the bench.

They can't create a law as a judge because they are supposed to be the Supreme Court judges, not attorneys at law trying to influence the public below them. It's not their job. the conclusion of your case, will all these judges be forced to sit a count of off exclusively? Yes. They're going to have to because if they ever go back in the ad once, they have a guilty of treason. Unless they have a two corporate case before them that requires a statutory violation or a procedural violation on a corporate level due to equity, then they do qualify for a hearing. That was my question, now. Will we be removed from the statutory jurisdiction? No, statutory jurisdiction is still proper within the corporate entity, but when it comes down to human beings, natural human beings and civil law, that goes up to common law.

I was thinking in reference to equity. The equity jurisdiction has been transposed into statutory form. When we go back closer to the equity, true equity, jurisdiction rather than the statutory thing that everyone is being prosecuted illegally under now. Well, right now, the minute you hear the word you've been charged with this, you know you're in advocacy. You know they've already violated your rights and they tend to violate your rights because you just have to make the statement with your flag no matter where you stand. I am a sovereign citizen of the United States of America. From all of you, this is the flag of my country and I reserve all my constitutional rights. You can only accuse me, not charge me with anything. Now four weeks ago, on a Monday morning, it was about 9 o'clock, Clinton was being interviewed by a commentator.

And in that interview he said, you know, I was charged with bank fraud, and I proved myself innocent. And the next day they charged me with bank fraud, and I proved myself innocent. And the next day they charged me with bank fraud, and I proved myself innocent. Eight times they charged me with bank fraud, and I proved myself innocent. He says, imagine that. I haven't even been to trial yet, and I've been charged. He says, there's something wrong with our judicial system. I says, hey, wake up buddy, it's your flight. You put it there on your judicial order. Is the legal profession going to have a foggiest idea of what they're doing anymore when we're trying to go back to common law?

Do they know how to function under it? Of course they do, they don't go to school. It doesn't make much difference. The common law, the common law is that it's complicated, is removing the adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns and understanding the conclusions and presumptions and assumptions violate the due process. And that's as hard as it gets. It doesn't take a lot of science just to figure it out. That's why common men did common law.

When the community got together, they know from right and wrong, even in the Indian tribe, they didn't speak English. The tribal laws of the American Indians had common law. They practiced the same common law as the United States citizens did and what the British did and everybody else did in the world that had common law. It goes back to the Benjamin Mammoth. Yeah, common law has always been there. It's where reasonable men get together and they think about what's right and what's wrong.

They allow the arguments to take place on both sides and if no one can make a determination, then they allow battle by combat. Whoever walks away from the thing wins, you know, or they flip a coin. What type of impact do you think this will have as far as all these things like the Congress and the Uniform Commercial Code. There's nothing wrong with the Uniform Commercial Code. I know that. But, you know, through licensing and regulation, with all the commerce and so we're licensed and regulated, the regulation has to be associated with the will of intent. Any contract produced under UCC 3-H 501 must establish the will of the intent of the contract and the will cannot be criminal. The will has to be just and it has to be purposeful with knowledge.

You must establish the knowledge to make the will of the contract binding. If you just make it the intent of the contract to be a deception, then you're going to have your old lemon law car, car law. Remember the old lemon, everybody used to be stuck with lemon? And so they came out with the 72 hour rule? That's when the UCC 3-501 had its teeth. Because anything that you do, you can undo it in 72 hours. Guys, you ever close a commercial loan? And then go try and pick up the money the day you sign the contract? You start that stopwatch, you got 72 hours mister.

Come back in 72 hours, I don't care what 72 hours it is, when that 72 hours goes past, we'll hand you the paycheck and you can go do what you want with that money. But under the 72 hour rule, you ain't touching this money. And that goes for when you sell it or buy it. All contracts are floating for 72 hours. Now the judicial system said, well, we got a lot of lay people here and there's a lot of discovery. Some of this stuff is forced upon them, we're going to give them a couple extra days so they get the five day rule. You get five days to refuse it. But there's a backdoor in this. The backdoor is under Title 42, U.S.C. 1986 for knowledge of the law, and FRCP 26-C subsection 2, discovery of the law.

If you discover a fraud took place under FRCP 9-B, you can then come back in and crack open that case, submit your new evidence, run through those three factors, and have a new trial. Under the 7th Amendment. That's your formula. Even though they've been dismissed at one time? It could be 20 years old, dismissed with prejudice, once a fraud, always a fraud, and there's no statute of limitations for fraud.

Because if the actions in 1970 destroyed your life, and now it's 1995, or 1996, 26 years later, and you are still suffering from the loss of that financial. Say you cost $100,000 25 years ago and you never recovered from it. Whereas if you would have had a beautiful life, had kids, a home, education, the whole nine yards. Now you've got 26 years of injury on top of that fraud that was perpetrated. Where that individual in 1970 extorted $100,000 and caused it to take place. Namely throwing you in jail because they were acting under an equity court and didn't give you a notice of disclaimer as to the intent of what you were walking into and perpetrated a fraud under treason against the Constitution and perjury of oaths.

And I guarantee you, you will get your new trial because those are very, very strong charges to initiate a 2016 subsection 2 discovery cause of action to get a new trial. And this procedure is all substantiated by definition and by procedure. After the judges are granted amnesty, are you going to be able to go back at that point? No, if they get granted amnesty, amnesty is amnesty. It'll stop that, but then these are men of good conscience and are going to have to go back and face the public that they've just screwed. And some of these guys have got a hundred thousand goats sitting in their closets. That's a lot of goats to eat. What about all those political prisoners?

Yeah, they're going to have to set up some kind of a tribunal and every single prisoner in jail is going to have to have his case reviewed and taken apart and they're going to find out because of the paper trail perpetrated they're going to establish all the frauds that took place. And if some people are guilty of, it was the will of intent by design, they're not going to get away with amnesty. Because the people that they're going to let out of jail, especially those that are in there for 20 years. A million and a half people in jail, that's a couple of hundred. Let them out? Will that amount? A lot of it won't take too much. It's not anybody that's sitting in jail for not paying traffic tickets.

They just look at it, okay, well, that's fine. Because it was all extortion in the first place. Yeah, it was all extortion and a violation on the contract in the first place. There are thousands of them that can be processed real quick. With our computer system today, and that's another miracle of this point in time. You put a 500 megahertz Pentium processor to work and it can process all these guys in jail in about 15 minutes and come out. You know, artificial intelligence, because they're not going to let people do this, there's too much prejudice involved. They're going to give, you give me a Pentium processor with a 500 megahertz and I guarantee you that's about as close to artificial intelligence as you're going to get once you put your parameters in there because this is mathematics here.

This is an exact science. And when you get stuff reduced down to mathematics, now you've got an exact science to work from. And you're always going to come up with the same answer. David? Well, I don't know what the thought is to answer to what you're saying. Is it really, I mean, we'll be attorneys, but is it really someone who represents you? Is that what you're saying? In common law? Well, you can represent yourself but you will have the choice of somebody who has learned to speak for you.

So you can't have them license attorneys? Well, at this point, no. But when they declare amnesty and they do bring in a common law deal, they're going to be a whole different set of rules and regulations. Question, again. Right. If you want to take, and it's my understanding, and this is based on an opinion of my own, I could become an attorney and represent somebody knowing what I know about law. And that's a reasonable answer. If I took and just pointed at this man at random and said, he's going to defend the guy sitting next to him, and he says, well, I don't have this ability, well, then he won't be qualified.

You'll still have to take a test. Any person that this person wants to defend him will have to pass a certain test based on the subject matter before the court. If it requires a certain amount of learning, you know, some subjects don't require you to take six years of college. It's only a couple of paragraphs in law that you have to understand. And if you're a reasonable man with a reasonable understanding of knowledge can learn that because this person is, person number one is too nervous or intimidated by the whole movement and needs someone to speak for him, then it would become a reasonable request. So he's going to get a term back to be an attorney right, like they used to be well attorneys originally used to be basically if I argued to wash my car you're going to get an attorney for me and I can wash my car they just went and they made deaf people think that an attorney means the same thing as a lawyer if you go back part of it because that's the whole problem with the way they've manipulated the word over the last couple hundred years.

The original definitions aren't necessarily what they mean now. Well yeah, you've seen how they've stricken words from the dictionary from Black 1st to Black 6th because they have done everything in their power to protect the fraud and make the public think that the Constitution is a dead thing, it's gone completely and that the only thing they have to choose from is advocacy. That's like ex-post-facto on global change. like a post-factual on the world of danger. You got to go back to the first edition. We can't any more close to the real list of names because I don't think that's what the fact is even in the sixth edition.

There's a lot of things that aren't like non-beginners in the sixth edition, either even in the first. You got to go to Boogie A's. But Webster's got it. What if you find it Webster's dictionary? That's the definition in all words. That was. Yeah, I think it was 1905 edition. I think that was. I just that was just brought up in discussion at the last seminar. Now, 1828 would be the definition in all other words. I believe you're right.

I think you're the best for that. You've mentioned the term several times of will and intent and I still don't understand exactly what that means and how it relates to the problem. Oh, okay. This pen, if I drop it, the intent is gravity will make it fall down. But if I throw it at you, it is the will of my action that caused it to go to you. Because if I released it, it would have went down by another force, the force of gravity would have had to pull it.

It was the force, it was my force that threw it at you. The same thing if I have the intent to hold a child in my arms, the child will remain safe as long as I hold it. If you come up and hit me in the back and I jump forward like this here and the child falls, it was still the intent that the child would fall and become injured, but it was not my will to become injured because it was an outside force that caused it. It was not in my mind to cause the child to drop. There's no full-blown intent to do that. Right, but if I say, well, bang, you know, there, I'm going to throw you down on the floor, it is the will, my criminal will of my intent to cause the injury to the child, now I'm liable for that.

That's the difference between second degree murder and first degree murder. The first degree murder is the will that the person be injured because you aimed it, pulled the trigger and caused the injury. If I'm sitting here playing around with a gun and twirling like this and it goes off and it just, whichever direction it was pointed into, that's the person that got struck by the bullet, it was the intent that that bullet hit that person because that's what happens when a gun goes off. But it wasn't your will that caused that bullet to go there and cause that injury. You would be charged with reckless use of a weapon, probably get five to ten years because it did sustain somebody some harm, but it won't send you to the gas chamber and get you hung.

Is it like madness and forethought? I heard those three others use before. Is there a difference? Foresought means you plan to do it and madness means you were out of your mind when you did it. Malice is the willful intent to cause another harm. Do you think that will make all those things smaller? No, you'll be grandfathered on those. They'll try those but there will probably be some really quick negotiations. Because they know it's going to go into a... Supreme Court has already ruled.

Right, because the Supreme Court has already ruled they're going to plea bargain it so you don't have to go up there. But if you want to push the big bucks and gamble on what they want to do and spend. Then it might take some years but if you want it immediately. People always have to run the gambit that between point A and point B in a two or three year wait for a court that you may sustain an injury. You never get to collect your money whereas if you just take what you got now which is a reasonable number you can go out and enjoy the rest of your life. It's easy. And these two can't be any more than 20 or 30 pages in our size that we file? Yeah, what do you got there, a 50 or 60 page?

I've got two or three pages. Oh, okay. Now, when you take... Is it 20 or 30, so I know what the number is on our side when we file it? It's 20, this records 20 pages. But you won't use, you won't get one. See I did one three page cause of action and I did... There's 28 people in that one. That ran into four pages for cause of action. We have 21 pages and 23. Our 21 sentences are 23 pages. Of causes of action? How much conclusionary law did you put into it? None.

None? You mean it said without due process of the law or did you just simply put two spaces between each sentence? Two spaces between each sentence. That's a common law case, put it in one, you know, single space, it's common law. You can put your definitions in common law, you can put your cause of action in common law, the only thing they want in double space is when you get into your colorful explanation of facts. But there's not something that can kick out, so I guess... No, you still... The right to grievance is protected under the First Amendment. Freedom of press or freedom of speech is protected. Or Andrew Bernadone said that when it comes to competition...

Violations. Violations, there can be no rule or law making there ever be a single space. Okay, so do a single space and keep your paperwork thin. You know, we got enough trees cut down in the world already, we're running out of oxygen. Has anybody said something to you? Hey, you know what? State of Wisconsin 7th District threw out colored paper as a backing because the argument was brought by Greenpeace before the 7th District saying we got enough trees, you know, we're cutting our trees down for stupidity because you want to like make...

How do you prove will? In other words, the criminal intent of the individual. Like I was saying before, what happens to this pen when I drop it, gravity is relevant. The specific action will take place when I release it. But if I move this thing in an unnatural manner, it will then become the will of the individual. In your document there you have a, you have the maritime, you have the maritime of international law and it says freedom from proof, freedom from negligence. What that says is you're guilty until proven innocent. Alright the ship now is going down the river, or going under the bridge. An object in motion will remain in motion till set to rest by an opposing force.

Goes back to mathematics, goes back to physics. Like I was explaining to you about metallurgy, you gotta go back to facts, physics, mathematics. Alright, ship is going straight, the only way it's going to hit that bridge is if an opposing force now becomes relevant. If the wind blows from the side, it is the intent that the force will cause it, and it is the act of God for the ship to hit the bridge. There is no negligence upon the officer of the ship, between the captains. But if we have dead calm, an object moving forward will continue to move forward unless he steers the boat into the ship. Now it is the will of his intent, by his direction, that causes the will to take place. The same thing is the flag that is in his office that he carries out. It is the will of his intent that moves that flag because that flag is not going to move. It's a stationary object.

So no matter where it goes, he can just as easily pick up a Title IV USC-1 flag on a standard and bring it in there and set it down and have a common law court. So it was the will of his intent of the choice of what flag was going to be used to set down the jurisdiction. I'm going to say this. Throw it. Contract law. Okay. The guy contracts, say it's a warehouse, to Long Kim. Okay. Contract says it's 10% interest. Mother nature comes in and wipes out three miles of highway, can't do nothing for five months.

Is that interest still relevant on that month? Sure. You know, airlift it out like a helicopter, or float it out, or take it out a different way. But if you were smart and you have contracts, you would have made provisions for that. If a person is negligent of making provisions, then that's their own fault, because they don't have foresight. So we did make a provision and we brought that provision to warehouses' attention. Warehouses said, so what, we can charge you an interest payment.

Then you'd have contention, you can handle it. Now you've got, right, now you're moving against a moving vessel. Don't forget, we are made of water, we are vessels. Anything that has the power to control itself is called a vessel. Automobile, it moves, we are moving. This table is a stationary, it's not a vessel until it has a force applied to it, then it becomes a vessel. Anything that is initiated by force qualifies as a vessel. I don't care what it is, it's still ten years a vessel. The minute I throw it at somebody, it's got force behind it, it's got inertia, it becomes a vessel. As long as it sits there on the table all by itself and does nothing, then it falls under the classification, here is what you do when you stay in one place too long.

That's a joke, you've got to think about that. I got the list for the books I want to send out for you guys. Put your thing in pause there for a second. Regulations are relevant because the judge brought in an equity flag or a military flag. The gold fringe around a title four U.S.C. 1 flag is used for parades in the military. That's why it's covered under Army regulations. The judge was the one that made the determination that the sanctuary of the bar was to be under military jurisdiction. Therefore we are using the military under a Title IV USC1 because it's beheld in the highest order over all foreign flags. Henceforth, we captured the flag properly. And that's one of the secrets because they pulled every Army regulation off of the shelves, out of the libraries so that the people would never know what it meant, where it came from.

And by putting it back into the paperwork here and educating people, now they have the vehicle for what had happened. The next question was, why is the paperwork all printed in uppercase? Well in May of 1995, my typewriter did not have, I only had an 8086 and I had a broken shift key. So, this is the truth. I only had, I only could type in upper case. So I typed the whole document out because I was pressed for time. But I did have enough sense to take and push each key up in lower case and then tap it to make, to type out the lower case name. So then I submitted it and then James McDermott, the Attorney General of Wisconsin got it and we went to court. While we were in court there, Judge Moser gets up there and he says, Mr. Miller, your case is all uppercase, that's very interesting. I said I'll forgive that because you're a pro se. I said I refuse that statement for fraud your honor, whatever he says.

Mr. McDermott he says how come you put everything in uppercase and nominogary, he says well we've never seen one of these cases before your honor and frankly we didn't know what to do so we copied them. Judge about fell off the bench on that one. He says just for the record everybody, he says uppercase means you shout okay, it means you have to answer if I put ten points down in all uppercase questions they have to answer all questions if I write them in lowercase, they can ignore it and you know what, because we're working with a procedure the procedure is relevant here because it has to be answered every single one, if you take any one of them out it doesn't mean anything. It loses its effectiveness.

So of course we want to shout and make the demand so that the procedure is enforced. Now one of the things that I keep telling everybody is that people are lazy. They don't like to, they like to minimize the work before them. machine that the reason for thinking is to abolish thinking. Hey, it's a fact, because you're lazy. Everybody is. The only reason you think of something is so you don't have to do something else. To make your life easier. And, you know, I'll show you. Now I want everybody here, I want all you guys to answer out loud. It's a real simple spelling test.

I want you to spell top. Spell which? Top. All together. Top. Spell hop. H-O-P. Spell pop. P-O-P. Spell crop. C-R-O-P.

Spell trot. C-R-O-P. Spell shop. S-A-T-O-P. What do you do when you come to Greenlight? S-A-T-O-P. I don't know. See, you put one side of your brain to sleep because one side of your brain produces thought, the other one analyzes thought. So I lowered through rhythm, pattern, pattern, association of rhythm, lowered one side of your brain to sleep, so when it came time to actually do a thinking and answer questions, the first thing everyone here said stop. I mean you went for the F when I asked you where to come to a green light. Everyone of you said started to go after an F. But then you stopped and said wait a minute this is a question not an answer.

Well this is the first question. Everyone go to the green light and get caught. You can, you can, you can. Alright, yeah, there you go. There's your defense, okay. That's great. Thanks. Yeah, well did I tell you how to take? Okay, now we've got it. Alright. One guy.

Well, of course, they all answered that way. Just because they answered slowly doesn't mean they didn't answer. Everybody knows what our United States looks like, right? Thank you.

