Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:59:34 — 109.5MB) | Embed
The Agenda31 podcast as a Youtube video is NOT advertiser friendly, according to the feedback Corey got after submitting it for monetization on the Google owned video website. Danielle DiMartino Booth‘s new book Fed Up: How the Federal Reserve is Bad For America is previewed and Group Stink at the NY Fed prior to the 2008-09 financial collapse is discussed. Corey wonders if Booth addresses US Notes versus Federal Reserve Notes that were set up to act as competing currencies, via non-elastic currency (US Notes) vs elastic currency (FRNs). Elevator speech by Jason Fried, tough to explain the complexity of US Citizenship… listener comments on Corey’s video effort to explain the differences between Article IV and US Citizenship and how the video and messaging can be improved. Corey discusses ways illegals get DL’s and id’s in CA with fake SSN’s and without SSN’s… and Corey plays clip of Obama care architect stating, “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage…call it the stupidity of the American voter” as an example of the way government does “everything.” Todd recounts the 1999 Guidebook Against the Pro-Se Litigant and how it is illustrative of how government and the courts especially view the citizen-slaves who dare question the court’s authority when it comes to the people asserting their rights are secured. Bob Schulz’s historic efforts in 2001 are recounted by Todd along with former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s assistance to ensure that government was obligated to answer petitions for redress of grievance, which inspired the film by Aaron Russo “Freedom to Fascism”. Schulz’s fast on capitol hill in spring of 2001 is recounted, along with then Liberty Caucus congressmen Ron Paul and Roscoe Bartlett’s engagement. So called #Resist activists today can take a big cue from Bob and the We the People Foundation. Corey recounts how his complaint to the Commission on Judicial Review body has not been reviewed and how they affirmed they can just opt to ignore the ones they want. Todd reads Corey’s affidavit he intends to use upon next contact with LEO who demand a gov-co issued ID. The story about the Constitution being banned in a Nevada courthouse leads Todd to a real court house activist. John Lamb’s insightful and detailed accounting of the March 21, 2017 Bundy Ranch trial proceedings, in Nevada federal court house, is played back. Corey cites the Federal District Courts’ civil cover sheet as the way to get people to lose before one even starts in court by signing off that one is not one of the people, but one is servant of the government. Corey asserts that these six defendan’t John Lamb is talking about, more than likely had to sign a civil cover sheet and are not in a position to aver Article IV citizenship, even if they had not signed. That is a detail A31 should look into. John Lamb recounts how the marshals at the entrance to the courthouse stated judge Anna Brown has banned the Constitution from the courthouse. Lamb also explains how the same judge admonished the defendants Gregory Burleson, Orville Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, Richard Lovelien, Eric Parker and Steven Stewart and Corey asks what if the courts are only geared towards handling US Citizens and not the people of the several states, and the adversary of freedom has been able to completely dismantle every institution that is there to protect the rights of Article IV citizens and replaced with a facsimile that is called the District Court. Brit informs the chat room that the 7 charged in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Refuge “standoff” were exonerated, and Corey states it was due to the Ammon Bundy defense argument of adverse possession.
Oregon Refuge Standoff Trial
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/oregon_standoff_verdicts_annou.html
Bundy Ranch Standoff Trial in Nevada Coverage
The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook
Preface: There is a movement afoot in this country today that is made up of disaffected and often dispossessed Americans who are seeking a better way through a wholesale return to their view of the past. This movement has been called many things: the antigovernment movement, the sovereignty movement, and the common law courts movement. Regardless of the name attached to the beliefs and the people who follow them, one common denominator exists: a feeling of despair, rooted in personal and pecuniary loss, and manifested in a new, defiant mistrust and spite for the ways of the current government. This guide focuses on the ways in which followers of these movements impact the operation of our state court systems.
While the commentators have discussed these movements from all angles – ranging from ridicule to outrage to fear – most of the mainstream pundits discount the powerful emotion that drives individuals from the fold of our everyday society and into the ranks of the modem patriots. This guide asks that our state courts not take these individuals and their problems and concerns so lightly. In 1928, Justice Brandeis said:
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”1
The people who make up the movements that we are concerned with consistently speak out to say that our government today does not listen, it no longer serves the American people, it exists to serve its own ends. The merits of that argument are not within the purview of this guide. Rather, the authors wish to urge Justice Brandeis’s warning upon those who administer our state courts. That is, while we do not advocate an ultra-sympathetic response at the expense of safety and the efficient operation of the courts, we do implore those charged with running our court system to do two things: learn the history behind the beliefs we are seeing spread across our land, and understand
1 Olmstead v. United States, — U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
that these are not militia members or “Patriots” or “ultra-conservatives,” but rather citizens who come before you seeking the same fair treatment that those without any label attached receive.
Full Document: Anti-Government_Movement_Guidebook_The_National_Center_for_State_Courts_1999
Recent Comments