Trump Tax Cuts BS. Just Keep All Your Money!

Hello, everyone. Welcome to our Monday, May 19th usual Zoom with our fabulous instructor, Scott. Scott, say hello to the group. We've got some new people.

Hello, everyone. How are y' all tonight?

Sorry you can't see Scott. And please don't take judgment over his big pimp and iPhone name. He's a very. He's a very fun person. As passionate as Scott is about the law, he is as fun and has a great sense of humor and. And please start with a prayer.

Absolutely. Heavenly Father, we just come before you now, and we just thank you so much for your presence. We thank you so much for all the gifts and just for all the wisdom and understanding you give us, for the protection that you give us and for our health. Heavenly Father, our prosperity. Father God, we just invoke your spirit into this meeting. We ask you to open the eyes and the ears of everyone watching and listening. Father God, we ask you to give everyone an understanding of what's going on in this country and just to remind everyone and give everyone a peace that surpasses all, understanding that this is your nation. This is not the devil's nation, and you're not going to let them take it. Heavenly Father, we thank you for all the. The gifts that you've given us and all the doors you're opening for us right now. We thank you for our president and for our administration who are finally coming in and doing the right thing. Heavenly Father, it's in the mind, the character, and the heart of your son, Jesus, that we pray these things. Amen.

Amen. Hey, I've got a couple things I'd like to start with.

Okay.

First of all, Scott, I was. I was on a drive this. This weekend, and I was, like, just thinking and thinking, and I am just so grateful to you for giving us this education. And I'm sure I speak for Tamara as well. We have so much fun. In the beginning, when we first met, we thought there were just processes of being free, and we're going to, like, inform the government that we're sovereign and that would grant us our freedom. And, you know, we all know that's not. Not the truth that you stand situationally and you extrapolate yourself. So I just wanted to give you a very fabulous public thank you because I do enjoy my life. Even though this is a battle, I really like tending to all these people. We have 167 today. We've had the most at 2:20 show up for Zoom, and we're grateful to speak to people who want to be part of this army and So I want to also give shout out to the people. You are so fantastic for showing up here because if you want to learn the sport of standing up against the civil servants, we like to call it sport. We love it. We wouldn't do anything else. And we'll do this till we draw our last breaths. Like I'm sure that we're never going to run out of the fight, but it is really, really fun. And we're just at it, we're just at a precipice. You can't be complacent. Go ahead.

Sir, I want to, I want to touch on something that you just said about, you know, there's, there's a lot of, I call them gurus, if you will, self proclaimed gurus. And they teach that all of this is a process and that if you go through a process there will be an end game to that. Right. And that's just not, that's not reality. So the government, you know, back in the 1800s, they incorporated, we all, everyone knows that they moved into administrative law. So I get, people ask me all the time, you know, what is, you know, maritime law. Forget about everything you've heard about our courts being under maritime law and admiralty and all that kind of stuff. They're not, they're under administrative law, which is contractual. And that means that that court or that state or that municipality has to have some sort of a contract with you.

Right?

And so because of this system that we're under, the people in these courts, these politicians who are in this system, they are also in charge of granting you a remedy or they're in charge of guarding the system. Right now that's a problem in and of itself. And that's why they did away with our common law. Because under the common law, we the people had the power. We would convene common law juries, we would decide what was best for us. And the government would just have to take whatever we said. Under the administrative law, it's, they can do what they call administrative adjudication of a claim where a judge can rule unilaterally, he can dismiss your claim. Federal judges are the absolute worst with this. And under that system, if you have a grievance with the government, you're going to the government and asking them for a remedy. Well, you see how far that gets you. So that's the system that we're underneath. But it's not a, it's not a, it's not a process. You're not going to file a document, there's not going to be a magic bullet. And anything that teaches you to go to the government and ask them for your rights, I would run from that as fast as you can, because the government never took your rights. Okay? And this is something a lot of people have a hard time understanding. They never took your rights. You never lost your rights. They just covered them up with a blanket right. And so since they can't take away your rights, they can't give them back to you. And so whenever you're going to the Secretary of state and you're saying, hey, I'm sovereign, or I'm this and that, they're just laughing because they don't have your rights. They can't. They're just administrative agencies, corporate. So it is a situational basis. Everything is going to be unique. And that's what I say sets us apart from anyone else, is that we. Over the past 25 years that I've been doing this, everything has evolved through trial and error, literally. I didn't learn this stuff in law school. I didn't learn this in a book. No one taught it to me. It's just inherent knowledge from all my years of trial and error and praying and God revealing things to me. But with that said, go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna say the genius of Scott is that he'll always look at a situation and he has this brilliant brain to, like, look at what they're doing, and then he'll. He'll come back and look at the strategy from overhead, and then he always comes up with something new based on, like, they're always giving you clues as to how to combat them. And that's what Scott does.

Well, I'll give you an example of that, but let me finish this.

Yes, sir.

So since everything is. Is by trial and error, because they have safeguarded all this stuff for a hundred years plus, they're never going to reveal these things to you. You'll never hear a state judge go, you're right, we don't subscribe to common law. You're right. We're administrative. They'll never tell you that. They want you to believe that your rights are present. So let me give you a prime example of how to read between the lines. And like I always say, you know, God bless me with, with turning my eyeballs around backwards where I see things in reverse, where most people don't. So you, you go to a federal court, you follow suit at common law, and we have filed dozens of these things, right? And here comes the magistrate or here comes the judge saying, you have to File this as a civil action right now. The average man or woman would be like, oh, okay. And they would go back and they'd file it as a civil action. But if you just step back and you look at what the judge is saying, why would he be telling you, whenever you file a suit at common law pursuant to the seventh Amendment to the Bill of Rights, why would this judge be telling you you need to file this as a civil action? Because he understands that civil actions are public, civil servant civil law, these are public. And that gives him the administrative authority to dismiss your claim in a pre trial setting, so forth and so on. Under common law, you can't do all that. So what the judge is telling you is number one, civil complaints. Civil law is distinctly different from common law. Right. Or else you wouldn't be saying it. Secondly, the question to be asking these people is how did you or this court or Congress get the authority to sweep away or to cover up our Bill of Rights with administrative tribunals and administrative law under civil actions? Because anytime you file a civil action, if you're going against the government or against a police officer, and you don't have some irrefutable video of them, you know, doing whatever they're doing, you're not going to get a remedy. They're going to dismiss you for failure to state a claim or, you know, some 12B6 nonsense or something like that. So the question is, how did they get the authority and when did they do this? They didn't, but they want us to believe they did. And the next question you want to ask is, since we have the Bill of Rights, if you ask the average man or woman, does the Constitution include the Bill of Rights, they're going to say yes, of course. All of our politicians, all. And here's where it gets really, really, really hairy. All the judges, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws, right? Well, that Constitution includes the Bill of Rights. Well, part of the Bill of Rights is the seventh Amendment and it says that all suits that common law, when the value exceeds $20, you have a right to a jury. Okay? And then it says once the jury renders a verdict, it's not reviewable in any United States court, meaning a common law jury is the only body in this country that can override the Supreme Court, can override Congress, can override everybody in our government, because that's we the people. So you have judges swearing an oath to the Constitution who then turn around and use all sorts of tricks, parlor tricks, whatever you want to call it. To coerce you. They'll threaten you to say, I'm going to kick out your suit of common law if you don't follow it under a civil action. If you go back and file to this under a civil action, then he's just going to find another. Another way to dismiss you. So another question to be asking a judge is we can do a demand for clarification, a demand for judicial clarification. You can say, okay, judge, you said I got to file this as a civil action. Walk me through, step by step, Tell me what's going to happen if I follow a civil action. He won't do it because he knows he's looking for a reason to. To dismiss you. Now, in one of my personal cases against, you know, this guy down in Florida filed the suit against this guy or a member of ours filed a suit against us, against the department. Their attorney chimed in, started threatening me and her with arrest and civil suits if we didn't drop the case. Well, that's completely illegal. So we turn around and sue him for making threats, witness tampering, you know, all sorts of things. Weaponization of government. The suit was filed, and within five days, this guy didn't even file a response. Within five days, the judge picks it up unilaterally and says, I'm going to dismiss this because it's frivolous, it has no merit, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So again, the average man or woman would be like, oh, okay, I got to go to the appellate court. But that's not true. Number one, courts cannot unilaterally move themselves, okay? That's why all these attorneys go into court and say, you know, here comes so and so, Moving this honorable court to do this, that and the other thing. Courts are paralyzed. Secondly, judges. And this is going to be something that people don't realize. Judges cannot practice law from the bench. I know it sounds weird, but they are only there to administrate, right? They cannot practice law. So by this judge picking up this case within five days and dismissing it with no response from the other side, he's now acting as defense counsel for this guy. He's now practicing law from the bench. He's now colluding, conspiring. There were emails, and, I mean, the evidence was so clear. So these are the things and these are the perils that I want people to understand that is that we are at a time in this nation where there is nothing that is certain, okay? The only thing that is certain is that the system is fighting back in a way that I Never thought I would see in my lifetime. I've equated it to be a snake with his tail on fire. They're just flying around now it's a snake that's burnt halfway up the body. I mean, they don't know what to do. And so I'm seeing such lawlessness come out of these courts, but here goes the flipping around backwards with my eyeballs. I look at all these things as positives, right? Because just like, you know, God will tell you, the Bible will tell you when the devil attacks you, that's because you have something that's a threat to him, right? When these courts throw all the rules out the window and start doing shameless things and just, you know, making stuff up as they go along, that's because we have something that they're scared of and that's why they're fighting so hard against it. They're trying to shake us off this tree. But fortunately for us, number one, God's never lost. He's never lied, he's never done anything that, you know, he never, he never broke a promise. But fortunately, we have a president now who is constitutional, who is now echoing what we've been saying. We have a Congress, we have people in the FBI and the DOJ and the DOD that are starting to echo what we're saying. And so we're starting to see some results. And that's the good news that I wanted to share with everybody.

Thank you. That is wonderful. I got a couple of things I want to talk about. So it's very funny that you're mentioning the common law because Scott and I went to an event two marches ago, March, early March of March of 2024, where Scott stood up. We were in front of Mike Lindell and his billion dollar fabulous attorneys that are all very seasoned men, like over 60. And Scott stood up and said about this case, Mike has a case going next month, finally, after four and a half years to trial in Colorado. And I don't exactly know what it is, but it's something about the machines and he's the defendant. So maybe it's slander or something like that. I tried to look before here, but I didn't find any details. But I did find his give sen. And there he's asking for $1.5 million for his legal team. And so I posted Scott had asked this question to the legal team, to these very people that are going to trial next month, why didn't y' all file refile as a suit at common law? And so Mike is going in front of a statutory jury and not a common law jury because you could fire the team, save $1.5 million and bring a real trial to the headlines. And so of course, I'm sure that will be ignored. Even though it's on his X, nobody pays attention yet. But what I learned from. What's this guy's name? Anthony Bourdain. Anthony, I saw this on when he was on Oprah many years ago when I was on the come up, like trying to get people to pay attention to what I have available online. And he said, you're only one post, one blog, one book, one video away from like breaking open. So we keep going. We obviously keep growing every single day. And we will keep going until they hear us about this seventh Amendment jury. And you know, I want to talk about the Trump, the Trump tax cut. So I did. Go ahead.

Let me, let me say something about the jury real quick.

Yes, sir.

And this is something that no one really understands. So whenever you stand in front of a state court judge and you seventh Amendment jury, you start talking these things. Judges and attorneys, they'll tell you all the time. We give juries all the time. We have jury trials every day of the week, you know, across this country. And that's true. But they don't have seventh Amendment juries. They have statutory juries. And let me tell you the difference. I use the analogy of eating jelly beans on Sunday, right? Let's just say the state passes a law that says eating jelly beans on a Sunday is illegal. And there's a picture of me sitting there on a park bench eating jelly beans, holding the Sunday Times, right? And somebody gets a picture and they arrest me for it. They bring me to court and I demand a jury. Well, that's an administrative court based on statutes. And they're going to convene a statutory jury and then the judge is going to give them, you know, all sorts of jury. The judge is going to tell them, this is what you can consider, this is what you can't consider. This is what you can think, this is what you can't think. And so they're going to bring me in front of this jury and my rights under the Bill of Rights are not going to be mentioned. They're not going to be present. Because we all know in this country I have a right to eat jelly beans on any day of the week, right? But the state made it a crime. So the jury is going to be instructed pursuant to the statute. And the statute says that if anyone eats jelly beans on Sunday, they have to go to prison for the rest of their life. So that's what they're going to be given. And so they're going to stand up and show the picture of me eating jelly beans and boom, I'm going to prison. Right? Under a common law system, a common law jury pursuant of the seventh Amendment is not susceptible to statutes, codes, ordinances, the Supreme Court, nothing. They are only constrained to the facts of the matter. So in that scenario, if I were to stand up and go, nope, I want a seventh Amendment jury, a common law jury, and I got it, then I could stand up and say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the state says eating jelly beans on Sunday is a crime. But we all know that I have the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, eat jelly beans. I can do these things because I'm not bringing harm to anyone. So in that regard, the jury would find me innocent. So you see how the states and these municipalities, they twist things around and they pass statutes, right, that are not law. They are the color of law or the image of a law. And I use the example of the statue of David. Right? The statue of David is not David, but it looks like David. Right. So a statute is not a law, it just looks like a law. It's a color of a law. So they twist things around and then they use the fact we give jury trials all the time, but they do not give you common law juries. And there's a huge difference.

And I wish you guys could have been there when you saw the look on these four guys faces, was going to answer the question. And they deleted Scott's question out of the video when it made it onto Rumble because we looked for it. So Scott, I want to talk. I was looking at Mike Benz, the great journalist Mike Benz did like 31 minutes about the American Bar association got $40 million from USAID, which means taxpayer funds.

Yep.

So we are paying for this barbaric demonic system to violate our rights. And as I was researching that today, that a great thing came up that said there was Justice Warren Berger, who was from a long time ago, like the 60s and 70s. He said that most of the 90% of the trial lawyers are incompetent. And he gave that speech in 1977 to the American Bar Association. So I thought that was kind of funny because they are incompetent. Scott is finding when dealing with attorneys in our situations that they don't even know what the course of performance is, which is totally mind blowing.

Fundamental basic to. To. To law is course of performance, right.

It's UCC 13022.

Yep. So under common law, everyone will know this. Under common law, we have the adage an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth, meaning if someone doesn't rebut what you're saying, it stands as truth. The codified version of that is course of performance. Which is course of performance is a sequence of conduct between the parties that exist if the other party knows about it and they have an opportunity to object. If they do not object, it says they acquiesce in without objection. That then creates an agreement, which then creates the contract. So, attorneys, I had, you know, one of my colleagues the other day was sitting in a meeting with some attorneys and he brought a course of performance. They just looked at him like he had three heads. And I'm like, that's amazing that these legal experts don't even know what course of performance is. But course of performance is literally the heartbeat of our financial industry, of the irs, of our courts even. Right? Because the, an attorney will send out a letter and say you're being sued, you know, for whatever, and you won't respond. That attorney will take that letter to the court and go, your honor, they, they acquiesced. They didn't follow us. And he will follow the suit. If you don't respond, you're going to acquiesce again and he's going to get a default judgment against you. But they just don't understand. They're taught procedures. They don't know what, they don't know the, the machine behind the procedures or even how to even describe it. So there's a lot of attorneys are just taught protocol, okay? I went to the same school they did. I know exactly what they were taught. They're just taught protocol. They're taught statutes, and they're taught a divorce. File this motion and it's just like this big club. But the American Bar association is the parent to all the different state bar associations. Right? Now pay attention to the word association. These bar associations, they're nothing more than non profits. They're just private, non profit companies or organizations. So there isn't one attorney in this country that actually has a license from the state to practice law. So recently this guy Paul Roselle in Florida sent this email to me and said, you know, I haven't been able to find your license. And I, I, you know, I'm concerned that you are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. And I'm like, well, hey dummy, you're engaged in another, you don't have a license either, you know, and we know they're watching.

You know, we know they're watching us.

Of course. Yeah. So this dummy doesn't even have a license himself, but yet he's pointing the finger at me and threatening me with the arrest and a Lawson suit, but he doesn't even have a light. The Florida Bar association, it's nothing but a private guild. So again, it's all administrative. All of our judges, all of our attorneys there are members of these bar associations, and they all administer this administrative form of law that keeps the government in power. And we the people don't have any business going into their courts with our rights. They don't exist there. And the only way you'll ever get a remedy in one of their courts is if you have something that is so egregiously over the top that they can't possibly sweep it under the rug, then they may give you a remedy. But let me give you an example. There's a case called Bivens versus six unknown FBI agents, right? Landmark case, blah, blah, blah. And he got this relief, but you'll never see that again. Okay? So this was something that they used as a landmark. And these are what they call. What I call. These are pacifier cases, in my opinion, where the government, from time to time, they'll let some litigant come in, they'll give him some relief, the Supreme Court, or whatever you want to call it, and then they'll blast the case out. They're going, look, we gave him justice. But you can have a very similar, almost identical situation years down the road where you go in and sue. Nope. Dismissed. Nope. And you'll never get the same remedy. So these cases out there are just pacifier cases. And that's why I tell people all the time, the linchpin to this entire system is our federal courts. The reason why, when you look at a police officer and you say, I'm going to sue you, and he just laughs because he knows you have no remedy. He knows the state courts are going to rule in his favor. He knows you're not going to have a remedy in the appellate courts or the federal courts because they're all rigged against you. Every time you, you know, tell a bank or tell somebody you're gonna, they just laugh. The linchpin is our federal courts because as soon as you walk into a federal court to follow suit, they're going to coerce you into filing a civil action. And if that judge doesn't like you, or if he likes the bank better or he likes, you know, he's going to guard the government, he's going to dismiss you in a pre trial setting against the seventh amendment. So this is a system that they've created to keep themselves in power. But you're never going to get these, these sorts of remedies out of these administrative courts. It's not going to happen.

Which is why last week we talked about becoming a belligerent litigant. We do not quit, we do not give up. We are reporting judges to ethics committees, we're including the words weaponization, retaliation, because this is all true and it's treason and racketeering. And we are going to shake trees until this comes down because we had enough of it, you know.

And this is why they fight so hard against these suits of common law. Because I want everyone to understand this, the lynchpin to their entire system is the federal court system. When a cop violates your rights, when the state violates your rights, you go sue them in federal court. You're going to be dismissed quicker than day, right? So the federal courts block and guard these agencies. But like I've been doing for the past three years, following these suits of common law, when a magistrate chimes in, I sue the magistrate. When a judge chimes in, I sue the judge, right? I got I don't know how many suits getting judges right now, but that's how we beat these courts into submission is that way. And once we get them beat into submission and we take away their power and this gets up the pipe and these administrative courts get shut down, we get our common law courts back, it's over with. For this, this tyrannical government and all these states and all these police officers and all this stuff going on, then they're going to start acting, right, because then they're going to be liable and they know you're going to have a remedy. And so that's where our focus is at right now.

And we want to go back to some basics today, but as we're going through these things, that's how we're building the common law suit area. Everything that we're doing is ending up becoming templates for situations. And we only do that for the situations that happen inside here. We're not for hire, like as attorneys for suits. Anything else? Scott? I have a couple things to talk about.

Well, I wanna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna kind of end up on this. I'm sorry, I want to, I want to end up, I want to finish up with this for the new People, in the Book of Revelations, chapter 18, it talks about how the Babylon has fallen. Has fallen. It's an angel flying around. And he says, babylon has fallen. And he says, the kings of the earth have become wealthy and the merchants of the earth have waxed rich from partaking in her delicacies, Right? So we know that Babylon is the system that's going to be set up by the anti. Or that's already set up by the Antichrist to enslave the world. And we also know by that scripture that's going to be a financial and a commercial system. Now, you understand the driver's license and our banking system, so forth and so on. But right after that, God says, come out of her, my people. Do not partake with her or lest you receive her judgment. So God calls us not to participate in this Antichrist system, this administrative system that's overshadowing our rights. When God calls you out of something, or when God calls you to do something, he will equip you to do that. And so that's what our university is about. You know, mortgages and, you know, taxes and things. Those are just the stepping stones that are leading you out of this, you know, this system. But God is going to provide everything that you need to get out of this system, and that is the only way that it's going to be toppled is whenever people stop participating. Because the one thing that the, I guess the men and women who formulated this, you know, diabolical plan years ago, they moved us under administrative law. Administrative law is contractual law. Well, we also have what they call the foundational elements of contracts, which is full disclosure, free will, consent, so forth and so on. They bypass all that. So they actually shot themselves in the foot by moving us into this law. Because all you have to do is put the pieces together and go, wait a minute, they didn't give me full disclosure. I didn't consent. And that's where it starts to unravel on them. So I just want everyone to understand that that's why we're moving in the direction of where we're going. Because over the years, I've identified all these problems. I know where it's all funneling to, and that's my target. And then that is going to filter backwards and it's going to start giving everybody relief all the way down to the. To the local levels. Right.

I foresee that we are going to sit in front of the Judiciary Committee on C Span. We're going to be talking. I see it so strongly in my brain. I was listening to George Gordon, and he's, he's passed on in the audio Common Law library of George Gordon. His audios are from, like the early 80s. And so the courts were different, of course. And George took everything to court. And George says, take everything to court and you make them spend the money on it. You know. So I was listening today to the one where he talked about how incompetent attorneys are. And he said, he said, if the police won't violate your rights, help them on a little bit, you know, like pushing and pushing. And he said, I'm the only person in the state of Idaho that can legally drive drunk because he does not have a driver's license. He's not in the contract. So he can drive drunk unless. Very, very funny, unless he harms somebody. And then, SCOTT Harmeet Dhillon, this is very interesting. Harmeet Dhillon is the new assistant attorney general to Pam Bondi. And so just like two or three days ago, a video came out, maybe it was Friday, of the mayor of Chicago expressing at an event that he hires black people over other people because black people are more generous. And by today, today, the DOJ has opened up an investigation into him. Oh, look how fast she did that. So I'm trying to get on her radar. She did get one of my letters last week, but I will be composing things that we need composed into a report to get to Harmeet Dylan. And then I wanted to talk about some wonderful IRS victories because I keep saying, stop waiting to do for politicians, to do for you what you can do for yourself. We have hundreds of people in the IRS class. It goes on every week. There's new testimonies. That's why we have a testimony area. This was a wonderful one. So saying I have to share some good news on my journey with the IRS. They did their exit on 37 of 25, because you'll see, I tell you, 32 days from the day you enter, you will be free from the irs. I make you wait the first month because we want to see your character and your grit and make sure you learn the foundation. So on day 32, you can get the IRS class. It takes maybe 90 minutes to go through it, and then you can mail out your letters the next day. I received a letter last month saying we need up to 60 days to respond. That's their general letter. And not everyone gets it. So don't think if you didn't get a letter, it's not working. And then they got their letter today, whatever day this was posted, Dear Taxpayer and they wrote lol because they have learned that a taxpayer is a legal entity. And when they're addressed as such, they know from taking our class that this is not a scary letter as it may appear to be. But the letter did say thank you for your correspondence, which we received on March 7th of 2025. Re so the same day of they're referring to it. We reviewed the information you provided and determined no action is necessary on your account. Sincerely, Mrs. Bingham. And so this person said, thanks to Giana, Scott and Tamara, a huge weight and anxiety is off my shoulders. I am free. That's not the only one. Donna said, I'm excited to say that I was able to mark myself from federal withholding through workday, which is probably an online something. And my last paycheck there were no federal is taken out. We have another wonderful testimony from Stella. Stella was having a little pushback because sometimes when you're going to do this and you work for somebody, you're going to go online to do what we advise you in the class. And sometimes those online forms aren't set up for you to do what we say. What we say is your right. And so she asked me what to do and I said submit a paper form because it's your right. And then she came back and reported today that the people from whatever online place, or maybe it's her human resources, I don't remember right now, but they came back and they said, okay, just do this and this. And they guaranteed her next check was going to be tax free. So I like to talk about those fact.

Very good.

It's the easiest thing in the world to get out of the irs. So please take that class. So Scott, go ahead, Go ahead.

I want to point out something. You know, there's some stuff on the news right now about, you know, the administration, they're pushing tax cuts and things like that. You know, no tax on tips. No, there's no that. And then they, there's something out there about pushing the Social Security number for a child. That's what we're talking about earlier. So I want to point out some stuff to people that I remember listening to a speech with Donald Trump and he said he was going to balance our budget in a very short order and he was going to use the IRS to do it and he was going to use tariffs to do it and so forth and so on. So with all these things coming out, I believe that Donald Trump is using because he, he used to say, I'm going to abolish the irs. I believe he's using the irs. If people want to continue paying, he's going to use that to balance our budget. But I have noticed one thing. The people that refudiate the irs, because you have a right to do it, it's in their own code. By the way, the people that refudiate the irs, no, they're not coming after anyone. They're not threatening anyone. They're not knocking on anyone's doors. They're not living or seizing any problem. They're, you're refuding them and you're going on about your business and you're getting refunds and things of that nature. So I believe that's what's going on. And just like you just said, I don't want people to sit around and just wait. You know, Donald Trump is not going to come save everyone. Donald Trump said himself, he said he is giving power back to the people. He's going to get us about halfway, maybe 60% there. But it's up to us to stand up, right? United we stand, divided we fall. So refudiating the IRS is a, I mean, it's something that you have a right to do. You don't have to wait. You know, I know everyone's heard about the Nasara Gesara and all this other kind of stuff, right?

I want to hear about it.

Look, you know, I can tell you this. I'm not saying it's not true, but there I have, I have not been able to find any evidence whatsoever that they're even closely remotely moving in the direction of you waking up one day and all of your debts being gone. I just don't believe it. Now, with that said, too, I want to point this out. We all know that the Supreme Court said you don't need a driver's license to drive in your private automobile. Right? They did that years ago. But how many DMV shut down? How many police officers stopped writing tickets? None. They all just kept going on as business as usual. So if Congress stood up today and said, hey, all your debts are erased, do you really believe that these shyster bankers are not going to come after you for it? They're going to still kind of collect. Because if the government said you got to wipe out all the debts, the government's going to make it right with the bank and the bank's going to come after everyone, I believe, for all these loans because they want to enrich themselves even further. So that's why the IRS refudiation is. It's really a simple process.

Well, I'D like to go through it a little bit because I like Caroline Levitt, and she's totally amazing as the press secretary. I like Donald Trump. I know he's going to do what he promises, but they came out today because I want people to see through. One of Scott's best sentences is that you're just rearranging your furniture in your jail cell. And I'd like to show that that's what these tax cuts are. If this is what Donald Trump has to do, like slow walk it, that's fine. That's what he's going to do to the public that isn't as interested as the 183 people sitting here. So. So it came out, rah, rah, rah. Pro small biz. No, to be pro small biz is you want to put your business in the private. We have a class that introduces you to the topics. That's a free class. And then we have a group where you can come in and we teach you how to do the steps of that. And everyone's been very successful in that. Pro America. No, it's not American to give people loopholes. It's American to give the power back to the people. They said it's pro family. I want to go through what they're doing for the family. And these were their promises, that the families will take home bigger paychecks. Or you could just keep all your money.

Right.

You've heard me say this.

Let me, let me point this out, too. We have this thing called the equal protection under the law. Right. So everyone has to be equal. Then we have the full faith and credit of the United States. Meaning that if something is legal in one state, it's legal in all 50 states. Right. So if you're giving tax credits to a server on their tips or you're given tax credits, like right now, you know, you know all banks are tax exempt. Did you realize that?

I did.

Banks are 100% tax exempt. So if they're exempt and this class of people, then everyone is exempt because we have the equal protection under the law. You can't give it to one person or, I'm sorry, one. One set of people and not the rest.

So says the Supreme Court now, back in the day, just to show you what, you know, legal fuckery this is. I was a tipped employee back in the early 80s, before we had computers. We walked out the door with lots, oh, cash. We got paid a, an hourly rate like $2 and some change. We didn't care about that because we made tips. Those Tips were not taxable until we got computers where now we're punching in our sales. And then they became, oh, we know that you sold $1,000 worth of stuff and you probably at least made 15% and you would get taxed on that $150 whether you made it or not. It was just an assumption and a presumption which is how all the government works. So just to show you this has no meaning, no tax on overtime. You're they're giving you a tax deduct. These are all deductions. So if you're a tipped employee or you have overtime, you're going to still fill out your tax form. Unless you take our class, you're going to fill out the tax form and you're going to be able to check. Yes, I don't know how it about these deduct. Oh yeah, I have tips, I have overtime. I'm on Social Security. I'm looking at Terry Miller. He's already on Social Security and he's been tax free over a year. They're going to give you a tax deduction if you buy an American made car. Or you could just keep all your money, let that sink into your head. So they're saying the working class of American slaves I inserted, that part is that makes 30 to $80,000. It's going to be paying 15% less. Or you could just keep all your money. I want you to keep rewinding this in your head. The average family with two children and their take home pay will be up $13,000 higher because of the increase in wages which is all relative to inflation and reductions in the tax obligations. Or you can just keep all your money. I cannot see this on rinse and repeat. Enough. Now there's a $2,000 tax cut for first responders for overtime. Those are the professions that they named. But we all have equal protection under the law. There's a pro family increase in child tax credits to 2,500 per child. Or you can just keep all your money. Are you getting it yet? There is. Oh, this is the big one. This is the big slavery, Scott. A MAGA baby savings account. Upon the birth of your child and you go along with the system which if you've been here long enough, we are against putting your children in the matrix and that you get. You have a Social Security number which most people our age already do. You get your child a Social Security number, they're going to give you a $1,000 tax credit to put it into a 401k and this didn't make any sense. That, that. Well, I'm going to get to that part in a second. She said she, Caroline Levitt said when someone asked her a question about it, your, your parent, the parents or friends or family like grandma can put up to $5,000 a year in this MAGA baby. 401k. Why, why is it limited? Why? And of course it's, it's post taxed income. You can, so we're going to take your income and tax it and then you can put in the savings or you can just keep all your money. You can take the same thousand dollars and start a savings account or invest it however you want to. So then when this baby becomes 25, that's well past 18. But they specifically said 25 because you're still in the rules of the IRS at 25. But then she didn't say any parameters around 25. She said at 30 they can withdraw. Maybe at 25 they can take some. But at 30, they 30 years old, you're a freaking grown up. You can take all of the money and do whatever you want. Now that is a good incentive for some people, for our people you can just keep all your money. I cannot stress this to you enough.

Well, let me say this.

Yes sir.

Remember back whenever the retirement age was what, 55?

I don't know that. No, I don't remember anything.

55 or 60 something. Yeah, 55 or 60, the retirement age you get Social Security. And I remember way back a long time ago people used to get, you know, Social Security and was a decent amount but now they've whittled it down to where you get hardly anything. I think you have to be what, 65 to retire.

Now you can get it at 62, but it's less money and then 62 it kicks in.

And I said that to say this.

Yes sir.

So why would anyone, I mean I don't understand why anyone would ever put trust in the government that something is going to be there in 30 years for you. Yeah, there's, they squander money left and right. I mean why do you believe that it's going to be there in 30 years? You can take that same money, the same money that you're paying into Social Security. You only, the average man or woman only gets 2% of their, their, their money back. What they put in. You can take that same money and put it in a regular standard extended CD and get the same interest, the stock market, all these things, you know, IRAs, you can do all that for yourself and you can have it in protected accounts, and you know it's going to be there.

Right. And then here's what it says about the tax relief to seniors. Marketing buzzwords. Marketing buzzwords. To deduct an additional $4,000 from their income. Or you can just keep all your money. Terry Miller, would you like to speak for a moment and tell people you're on Social Security and a pension and how much are you paying in taxes?

I'm paying nothing in taxes for over a year now. Right, very good.

And I would tell you guys, Terry came in because of his son, and in the beginning, zooms. I knew he was skeptical. I could see.

Now, I want to point out something else to everyone listening. And, you know, think about it like this. You pay into the Social Security system. That is your money that you're giving to the government, saying, hey, put this in the account and save it for me. Right? You're giving it to them, but then whenever they turn around and give it back to you, they're going to tax it. The idea of that, I mean, it's just. It's not. I mean, it's not even legitimate. The same thing goes for the sba, the Small Business Administration, or student loans. You know, we're expected to believe that these government agencies, like the Small Business Administration is a. Is a branch of government. They operate off of tax dollars. Right. We all know they don't. But the average man or woman thinks they operate off tax dollars. So here's the SBA taking tax dollars from the people, loaning them back to the people, and then you have to pay it back to the government with interest. That is just so counterproductive and oxymoronic it's not even funny. But we know they all operate with banking licenses, things like that. But just if you start looking at things through a common sense lens, you'll see where things start to really make sense.

That's what you're going to get here. Hey, I have a common law situation that just happened this week I don't think I told you about. I go walk in the morning by the lake, and I returned to my Jeep, and there was a pink sticky in a. Like, a sandwich bag. I thought maybe the place I parked was telling me I can't park there. Well, a woman hit my beautiful Jeep. No, she just hit my bumper, and it's a little bit disconnected. And she left a note with her phone number to pay for it.

Wow.

And so I called Zeke because I don't know any body shop people here, and Zeke gave Me, a body shop guy. So I drove out there and you know what's so great about living here now? Everything's just so easy. Like boom, boom, boom, boom. Everything's so easy. I'm not even in traffic to go see this crazy looking body shop guy, Shay. So I go into Shea and he gives me a price of $600. And I told the lady and she said, could you please send me a screenshot of the receipt? So I had put out down a deposit and Shea ordered the part. And then she Venmoed me and she made very clear language that this satisfies the bumper that she bumped. And it's the very nice language. And I, I said I agree. And boom. We just had a common law private agreement and we didn't have to call the police.

That's refreshing.

Nobody's shocking, but.

Right.

We're friendly down here in this. We just have a couple of questions. We've got 12 minutes left. Scott. Ms. Tamara. Look, I'm calling her Ms. Tamara because I live in the south now. She wanted to know the date of the last common law case judged in the US and when did jurisdiction become the mechanism they used to deny us their private services?

Well, the last common lawsuit was back in the late 1800s. Last Common law jury. I don't know the exact date. And then once the. In 1871, whenever the United States incorporated, all the states followed suits, Right? So whenever they incorporated, that's where they became autonomous or separate and apart from the people. And they started ruling over the people. Then they started using this word called jurisdiction. And so now the first thing out of a court's. Well, you have to, you know, this court doesn't have jurisdiction or this court has jurisdiction. First of all, no court has jurisdiction over any man or woman. Right? That's just a. That's a farce. But they use the word jurisdiction because that's how they gain control over you and then make you a legal person in an administrative court. And then they can start administering your affairs for you.

Start listening to the common law library. Because George is so brilliant to unwind your brain to like. No, nobody ever had jurisdiction over us. It was an inch by inch accumulation of people just not knowing this language. Tamara's been doing research and she said judges used to travel from court to court being the overseer of a claim. What if I saw the lady hit my car and she didn't pay? Then I would have a claim so as to not have an impartial view of the citizens. But now counties have Their own judges. And this is a huge disparity because of the bias. Can happen naturally because they're all paid by the circle state. For instance, in a traffic violation situation, I drive in the private. The cop has no jurisdiction, but the state of Florida commissioner will not let me out of the contract, even though I have proven it's fraud. Then there's the association of Motor Vehicles. So I didn't buy my car in Florida. But generally they'll claim that the title is somewhere not. Not me. And then he's. They're paid by the state, then the officer, the clerk, the county judge, everyone. Everyone's paid by the state. How is that not racketeering? And that's the terminology you need to start taking. And then Carrie has a question. When. When the judges unlawfully dismiss our cases, what happens to those original cases? Are we going to be refiling? Yes, but we also. So what's going on with that is Scott's going to update the suits with some new language as soon as he catches up, and then we'll put those in the suit area, and we're going to refile. And we're going to use Tamra's golden cover sheet now. And now we experiment. We see if they take it. Because so far, Tamara did file a suit. It was filed. She's got the bar across the top that it was filed. Let's see if the judge kicks it. I think it's been about a week for that.

Well, whenever these. Whenever a federal district court judge dismisses your suit of common law, the Supreme Court said he's committing an act of treason because he is ruling in something where he has no jurisdiction. Anytime a judge intervenes where they don't have jurisdiction, they commit an act of treason. District courts do not have any jurisdiction or any right or claim in a suit of common law. Period. Okay. Because Jar Kessy, the Supreme Court case, Jar Kessy, they specifically said that suits at common law deal with matters of private rights. And then they laid it out in chronological order. They said, the jury finds the facts. The Judge, the Article 3 judge, presides while the jury is finding the facts. And the normal rules of evidence and discovery govern litigation while the jury is finding the facts. There's nothing in our Bill of Rights or the Constitution that gives a judge the power to dismiss your claim in a pretrial setting. The ideology behind that is completely insane. This is where they have concentrated the power into one man's hands to say, well, I'm either going to let your claim move forward Or I'm going to dismiss you if I don't like it. And so you can never get to a jury with these judges. That is insanity at its highest level. We the people have the power to decide what's going on with us. And that's under common law. These judges don't have any power to do this. So whenever they do chime in and dismiss a suit of common law, they then get sued and then they don't, they don't touch it from that point on.

I'm a person that's always enjoyed cop in judge shows and I never gave thought to the word motion until Scott was telling us about it. Hey judge, we want to motion you this way or motion you that way. And so it's, it's subjective.

Yes, motions are subjective because so clear.

So that takes care of that. And then our darling Kyle, who is a lovely veteran, remember Kyle has my case with my angry, greedy ex wife. He stopped paying child support when the judge moved forward. Now we advised him to do an AOD and an affidavit to demand for dismissal, but he did lose and lost his parental rights. She's seeking back child support. And he has not participated in the court date at all. Scott. But he was served a 20 day notice to pay or they will take his driver's license, which he hasn't, and property, which he hasn't given up yet. You know, he's not driving in the private yet.

And well, that's how they do things administratively. They, they coerce people into getting a driver's license, right. Or a business license or a contractor's license and then they use those license is that you don't even really need. They'll hold those over your head and go. If you don't comply, we're going to take these things from you.

See, so and so what could he do if he's not participating? I mean, I guess sue her. Right?

Well, the judge.

Okay, sue the judge. So Kyle, when we get those.

The Supreme Court has already said family courts are unconstitutional because they're nothing more than administrative tribunals. They never give you a jury trial. It is adjudicated by a judge. That is unconstitutional. And the fact that they are ruling on cases that involve children and families, that's. That's probably right up there with treason, right? I mean these judges are just so egregious. They have no jurisdiction in these cases.

Kyle, when we get those templates back in the suit group, I will alert you and invite you in there to file a suit. So I hope that juices you up. It's something, you know, it's some movement. Yeah, good, good.

I do want to say the state of Maine refused to purge, unfortunately.

Yeah. You know.

Yeah, we're dealing with that. We're dealing with that.

We're dealing with on my list too. There's nobody wants her license purge more than me because I already had it purged. And then the state of Florida and New York are committing crimes by not purging my license when I got new ones. So, Scott, do you have any parting words? That is the end of our hour.

I don't. I just want to thank everybody for coming tonight, and we look forward to seeing you next time.

Thank you. Welcome. I love how Mary and David are always eating like they're at a restaurant while we're at Zoom. Thank you, everyone. We'll see you on the inside. And the replay.