reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @skillz17q
reSee.it AI Summary
I start recording as soon as I see lights in my rearview—at minimum, I run a solid dash cam. Officials’ footage often gets corrupted or “lost” when it matters most. I document everything to protect myself.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
This is exactly why you should start recording the second you see lights in your rearview - or at minimum, run a solid dash cam at all times. Too often, the official footage magically corrupts, disappears, or gets "lost" right when citizens need it most. Protect yourself. Document everything.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes being pulled over while driving a Jeep with no doors, windows, or roof, resulting in a window tint violation that was initially described as a warning but later they claim the officers “were going to give me a violation” and that the speaker was “seen… again.” The speaker says they submitted a FOIA/public records request and received two emails: one from the public records office and one from the sheriff.
In the email responding to the public records request, the office states it searched for in-car dash camera footage related to a traffic stop that occurred on June 27th, 2026. The office says the associated video file is unavailable due to data corruption and cannot be recovered, concluding that “No video exists that can be produced.” The email also addresses the speaker’s request for any recorded telephone conversation between the speaker and members of the Sheriff’s Office, stating no responsive records are available because routine administration telephone conversations are not maintained as a public record and any temporary recordings are no longer available per the agency’s records retention practices. The email further states that portions of the request sought internal communications, and that no responsible records are available for disclosure. It concludes that the request is fulfilled to the extent responsible records exist.
The second email, from the sheriff, addresses the speaker’s publication of multiple videos across social media platforms discussing interactions with the agency and making allegations about the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office and its employees. The sheriff states the videos contain statements that are misleading, inaccurate, and harmful to the agency’s reputation and its personnel. The sheriff then directs the speaker to immediately cease publishing additional content and to remove all existing videos, posts, and related content referencing the incident from any social media platform or other public forums within 72 hours of receiving the notice. The email warns that failure to comply may result in the office pursuing all legal remedies available under applicable law, including seeking injunctive relief, and taking appropriate action. The sheriff also states that nothing in the correspondence should be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies available to the office.
The speaker says they provided these messages to their lawyer, who told them there is “ain’t nothing they can… do” and that they could post the correspondence. The speaker says they plan to talk to the sheriff “here soon” and indicates they will be posting the sheriff and the county “here soon,” while expressing anger about the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So a lot of you guys know that I got pulled over while driving the Jeep with no doors, no windows, no roof, nothing on it. And I got a window tint violation. Well, a warning. But I said that they were going to give me a violation and they've seen me again. I put in a FOIA request or a public record request. And I got two emails. One from the public record request and one from the sheriff himself asking me to take down my videos. I'm going to read both of them. I just got back from walking my dog, so I might be a little bit out of breath. So let's hear. It says, Dear Mrs. Swanson, this email is in response to your public records request regarding the traffic stop that occurred on June 27th, 2026. Our office conducted a search for the requested in-car dash camera footage. We determined that the associated video file is unavailable due to data corruption and cannot be recovered. As a result... No video exists that can be produced in response to your request. You also requested any recorded telephone conversation between yourself and any members of the Sheriff's Office concerning this incident. After reviewing your request, we have determined that no responsive records are available for release. Routine administration telephone conversations are not maintained as a public record and any temporary recordings that may have existed are no longer available pursuant to this agency records retention practices. Additionally, portions of your request sought internal communications regarding the incident. After review, we have determined that no responsible records are available for disclosure. According to this office, consider your request fulfilled to the extent responsible records exist. Respectfully sign that office. All bullshit. Like I said in my last video, that kind of pisses me the fuck off. But the sheriff... actually emailed me today, says to Mr. Swanson, it comes to my attention that you have published multiple videos across social media platforms discussing your recent interactions with this agency and making allegations concerning the conduct of the Sheriff's Office and its employees. We have reviewed these videos and believe they contain statements that are misleading, inaccurate, and harmful to the reputation of this agency and personnel. Accordingly, you are hereby directed to immediately cease publishing additional content regarding this matter and to remove all existing videos, posts, and related content referencing this incident from any social media platform or other public forums within the next 72 hours of receiving this notice. Failure to comply may result in office pursuing all legal remedies available under applicable law, including seeking injunctive relief, and any appropriate action. Nothing containing this correspondence should be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies available to the office. Govern yourself accordingly. Respectfully signed, the sheriff. I sent that to my lawyer. He told me ain't nothing they can fucking do. He told me I could post this. How you gonna fucking tell me to govern myself accordingly and threaten me? As a sheriff of this county. I'm going to be posting the sheriff here soon. And we're posting the county here soon. I'm actually really pissed off about all this. But. There's the update. Like I said we're going to go talk to the sheriff. Here soon. I don't know exactly when that's happening yet. But. Yeah. So that's the update. Fuck you sheriff.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m up in arms: attorney licensing is a fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court in Schware v. Board of Examiners says law practice can’t be licensed by any state. A state supreme court only issues a certificate, not a license, authorizing “in courts” practice as part of the judicial branch. Bar cards are union dues, not government licenses.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
Pay attention we should be up in arms how dare they fool the people all these years ATTORNEY LICENSING IS A FRAUD! There is no such thing as an Attorney License to practice law. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT held a long time ago that The practice of Law CANNOT be licensed by any state/State. This was so stated in a case named Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) and is located for all to read at the following pages in volume 353 U.S. pgs.238, 239 of the United States Reports. Here is a quote from that case: "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection [353 U.S. 232, 239] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 5 Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 . Cf. Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551 ; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 . And see Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13. A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165 ; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 319-320. Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 . Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular church. Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 ." [Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), emphasis added] Another case which bore this out was PDF Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). In this case the opinion of the court was that "The practice of Law is an occupation of common right." Where some confusion may start is when one doesn’t understand that a state supreme court only issues a CERTIFICATE, and that is not a license. All a certificate does is authorize one of those dirt-bags to practice Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the state judicial branch of government. [Please see NOTE 1 below to see that there is no judicial branch of government as we have been led to believe all our lives] A plain truth of fact is that Attorneys are ‘foreign agents’, the same as Federal Agents from the bowels of hell known as WASHINGTON, DC, and can only represent wards of the court; infants and persons of unsound mind. [The reader would be surprised to find out that according to them, we’re all of unsound mind that is; we’re considered incompetent to handle our own affairs.] [Please see NOTE 2 below for a reference in a law dictionary which explains this concept Further, as a CERTIFICATE IS NOT A LICENSE then it also gives no power to anyone to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM. The state bar association is not a government entity. The state bar ass…is "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION" and their "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE either. All that card is – is a "UNION DUES CARD" like the Actors Union, Painters Union, Electricians union etc. Did the reader know that there is no other association, not even DOCTORS, who issue their own license. All other licenses are issued by the state or local municipal corporations . Any one can ask their state Attorney General if the members of the BAR are licensed by the state or any other governmental agency. The reader will find out in short order that the state doesn’t issue licenses for Attorney’s and that said attorneys are NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
We need more of this. https://t.co/9CKI9b8hEr
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript captures a courtroom-style exchange centered on a Keene, New Hampshire ticket case, framed by a post-video commentary praising a pro se participant’s questioning technique. The sequence begins with Speaker 1 highlighting the individual (referred to as a sovereign or un-barred claimant) who challenges the proceedings and observes that the judge is defensive rather than authoritative, urging viewers to note the voices and questions.
Key moments and claims:
- The conversation opens with a question about whether the corporation that issued the ticket is within New Hampshire. An objection is raised (Speaker 2) arguing that the speaker cannot offer a legal opinion, and Speaker 0 notes the lack of bar credentials of the person being questioned.
- The questioning continues with practical inquiries: how many tickets per hour are written by the witness (the meter maid), and what the witness’s hourly pay is for appearing (Speaker 4 answers $25/hour). This is framed by Speaker 1 as a potential conflict of interest, since the witness is being paid to testify, implying non-standard status for a public defender-style cross-examination.
- The witness is asked if they are a cop or deputized; they respond no. This prompts Speaker 1 to declare that the witness is not law enforcement but is testifying for the city, raising questions about legal liability for the court, the executive branch, and the judiciary.
- The questioning probes the identity of the complaining party (Steve Keene) and whether there is a victim. The witness cannot identify a victim, and when asked if there is an injured party, the witness responds unclear or nonresponsive. The judge and DA appear unsettled by this line of questioning.
- The examiner asks whether there is a victim in the matter and, if so, who it is; the witness responds that there is not clear information. The examiner criticizes the witness for not being an attorney or paralegal and proceeds with questions about the nature of the city as a municipality and as a corporation.
- The prosecutor objects to several lines of questioning as improper for a lay witness, while the judge sustains some objections. The examiner emphasizes that the city of Keene is a municipality and questions ownership of the parking space by the city, to which the witness responds that the city owns the space but cannot explain how ownership was established.
- A pivotal moment occurs when the examiner asks whether the city of Keene owns the parking space and if the corporation is within New Hampshire. The witness again defers or cannot answer certain legal questions, prompting further objections and the assertion that a part of the video may have been cut to exclude the portion where the examiner argued about the municipality’s corporate status.
- The exchange continues with questions about evidence, such as whether there is footage of the meter blinking or other corroborating proof, and whether the witness possesses any evidence beyond the claim that the meter was blinking. The witness admits lacking direct evidence beyond the claim itself.
- The cross-examination culminates with a motion to strike the witness as incompetent, which the judge overrules on the basis of expertise; the dialogue notes that the questioning challenges the prosecution and court officers and that the city may be a corporation, a point that appears to influence the subsequent resolution.
- In the closing portion, the vehicle cross-examination continues, and the judge grants the motion to dismiss, concluding that the motion to dismiss is granted with thanks.
Overall, the transcript documents a high-impact, assertive cross-examination by a pro se participant that challenges the witness’s qualifications, the status of the city as a corporation, the existence of a victim, and the sufficiency of the evidence, ultimately leading to a dismissal of the case.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So it is your opinion that the
Speaker 1: Alright. This video was shot to me in the DM. Shout out to the person who shot it to me. Shout out to the person the creator who put this up. This is probably one of the best examples I've seen of a sovereign, somebody who's not bar certified standing up for their rights.
Now I want you to really pay attention to how she's asserting her questions and how it throws everyone else off. They don't know how to deal with it. This is a textbook way of learning how to behave and to question and to hammer and to keep them going. Listen to how the judge is not being authoritative. He's being defensive.
Pay attention to everybody's voice and the things that they say.
Speaker 0: The corporation that you ticketed is within the state of New Hampshire. Yes or no?
Speaker 2: Your honor, objection. She can't give an opinion on a legal matter.
Speaker 0: Well, he didn't pass the bar. How can
Speaker 1: Alright. So right off the bat, he comes with an objection saying that she can't give an opinion on a legal matter. I believe that she's educated enough to where she can. The judge sustains it, but her answer in response to the DA was pretty good too. He didn't even pass the bar.
So she's throwing in some jabs while she's doing it. Still a good job, but keep paying attention.
Speaker 0: Can he give any opinions on action sustained. I don't even know how to meet with my prosecutor before I'd be up here.
Speaker 3: Do you have any questions about this?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead. So you said you write tickets for the city of Keene. How many tickets per hour do you usually write?
Speaker 4: Maybe the average amount of tickets is like 30 a day.
Speaker 0: How much are you being paid for this appearance?
Speaker 4: I'm getting my normal hourly rate.
Speaker 0: So what is that?
Speaker 4: $25 an hour.
Speaker 0: $25 an hour.
Speaker 1: Boom. And already we got action. This meter maid is so not used to being asked questions like this. She actually answered the question of how much she's getting paid to testify. That is, come on, conflict of interest.
They're being paid to testify. I bet you the the the DA is screaming inside of his mind right now, wishing he can object, but he can't. Why? Because she's not acting like a normal public defender. She's acting like one of us, questioning the things that should be questioned that public defenders won't question.
Speaker 0: Are you a cop or a deputized?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Boom. We got more action. So she just admitted that she's not even a a law enforcement, but is getting paid to testify. Think about the legal liability that that has on the court, the executive branch, and everybody who's running the courts.
Speaker 0: Who is the complaining party in this incident?
Speaker 4: Steve Keene.
Speaker 0: Objection. Nonresponsive. That's not a human being. So is there a victim? And if so, who is it?
Speaker 5: I don't know how to object.
Speaker 2: This is in front of me.
Speaker 1: Boom. She hits on another point. She says that there's where's the injured party? The DA goes, and he didn't get caught on the the captions, but I'm pretty sure he said this is the government. So what he's saying is that they know they're getting caught with their pants down, that this is a good question that public defenders never ask that they're not ready for.
Speaker 0: There has to be a victim for there to be any there has to be cause, and there has to be injury. I'm not really referring to that. Well, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to this knife. Can I finish, please?
Speaker 1: Oh, look at this judge being a good boy asking, please. Isn't that great? How often do you see that? Why? Because she has them worried.
Now pay attention to this next move right here. This move where he grabs his ear, I believe he's signaling to the DA, but pay attention and watch.
Speaker 3: Yeah. This goes to her motion to dismiss, I think. So I'll let her ask a couple of questions related to that. So the objection is oral for now. Go ahead, miss Riemann.
Do you like to repeat the question, please?
Speaker 0: Is there a victim in this matter? And if so, who is it?
Speaker 4: I have no idea. I don't understand what you're asking.
Speaker 1: Oh, this video is so great for so many reasons because not even the meter maid understands the full ramification of the question she asking, not the weight of the question she's asking. And it's so great because I bet you the DA and again the judge are sitting there like, oh, this is killing us. But if for those of you who know, you know the weight of the question she's asking.
Speaker 0: Is there a victim in the matter that we're here for today?
Speaker 4: I don't believe so.
Speaker 0: You don't believe that there's even a victim, but you believe okay.
Speaker 5: I object. She's not an attorney. She's not a paralegal.
Speaker 3: Okay. And But I I I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: Hell no. The judge don't disagree. And let me tell you why. Because a paralegal or a lawyer would know better than to not ask these questions on the record. They are being asked, and she is proposing questions that are bringing real problems to the table, and they are nervous.
They don't know how to respond. We need floods and floods of this kind of litigation from litigants that are pro se or soy juris. This is how you need to be questioning everything. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Actually, what is the city of Keene?
Speaker 1: And then, boom, she hits them with a dynamite question, the the the kill shot. And let me tell you why, because they know that the city of Keene or wherever is just a municipality, which is a quasi corporation. Now they're getting into for profit problems.
Speaker 2: Person and officer that she has the capacity to answer that legal question.
Speaker 3: I agree with the objection. That objection is sustained.
Speaker 0: And do you have any evidence besides your claim that the meter was actually expired today? Well, that's not an evidence. That's she's just claiming it again.
Speaker 3: Answering your question. Anything she answers is technically evidence.
Speaker 0: Did you hear my question? Because my question was Yeah. Do you have any evidence besides your claim that the meter was actually expired?
Speaker 4: Other evidence? I I I don't understand.
Speaker 0: Was there a picture? Did you take a picture of the meter blinking or are you just claiming that it was blinking?
Speaker 4: I claim that it's blinking and
Speaker 3: it But
Speaker 0: do you have any evidence other than that?
Speaker 4: No. Okay.
Speaker 3: No. Okay.
Speaker 0: Do you have any evidence that I was operating the car?
Speaker 4: It doesn't matter who's operating the car. I've got evidence the car was parked there. I I don't understand what you're asking.
Speaker 0: Do you have any evidence that I was operating the car?
Speaker 4: No. No.
Speaker 0: Do you work for a corporation?
Speaker 4: I work for the city of Kane.
Speaker 3: Move on, please. The objection in the move.
Speaker 1: Alright. So if you notice right there, the the camera feed stops. So if this was filmed by the court, they cut a part of it out because she objected and wanted to say that that was part of a municipality, which is a corporation. She's nailing it. And the fact that that part was cut out of this video shows you everything that they don't want you to see that kind of information.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is the city of Ken a corporation?
Speaker 4: I don't believe so.
Speaker 0: Alright. I move to strike her testimony because she's incompetent to testify because she doesn't need to know that.
Speaker 3: Overrule. You've asked her questions, she can't answer. That's not necessarily uncommon. She's So that's overruled. It's an expertise.
Speaker 0: Does the corporation you work for, which is the city of Keene, own the parking space in question?
Speaker 4: I believe they do.
Speaker 0: Well, how did they come to own it?
Speaker 4: I have no idea.
Speaker 3: I've reviewed your motion and I'm not sure I understand how the question was relevant even to your motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it is your opinion that the corporation that you ticketed is within the state of New Hampshire? Yes or no?
Speaker 2: Your honor, objection. She can't give an opinion on a legal matter.
Speaker 0: He didn't even pass the bar. How can he give any opinions on I the don't even know how to go to my prosecutor or be up here. Alright. I'm done asking questions for her and I'd like to call the state as a witness. I mean the city of Keane as a witness.
Speaker 3: This isn't your time to call. Maybe you can do this.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I'll do that when I can. I've rushed my question. And it seems to me can I answer? I can't answer that ever?
Yep.
Speaker 1: Man, this is gonna be my favorite video of all time. She did such a great job. This one should be the poster child for what to do in court, and I'll let the rest of it play out, but great work.
Speaker 3: The vehicle, it wasn't just her, it was her and Mr. Cooper that came in to detest the ticket. While it may not make sense for someone who wasn't the person who parked the car to come in and detest the ticket, but I also don't have the ordinance here that tells me who the properly chargeable person would be for the pardon me. So I can't say that the state is not burned in this case. So the motion to dismiss is granted.
Thank you. Thank you.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
Do a Freedom of Information Act on your name and request it from the county administrator. Easy payday or easy payback your choice. https://t.co/MlfCt5D1JN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes a strategy for people having problems with law enforcement: file a Freedom of Information Act request with the county manager for any communique regarding your name, including emails or any entries in the NCIC system or state bureau of investigation records mentioning you. Send the request to the county manager or assistant county manager stating, under the Freedom of Information Act, you're requesting any communique regarding your name. The response should be a file dump showing what the FBI has entered, or what’s in the NCIC system about you. If you find false information, request its correction. If they ignore you, you sue them in federal court. The NCIC national database is governed by the FBI, and it’s a federal crime to use the NCIC system to submit false information. Lawyers may downplay it as casual talk, but it’s described as a very serious offense; most false NCIC-entry cases are settled quickly and quietly to avoid public scrutiny.
Speaker 0 advises to file a FOIA request for any communication regarding your name, with the county, the state bureau of investigation, and NCIC systems. When you receive it, examine for false information and request corrections; if there’s no response within days (ten suggested), you sue. This is presented as a federal crime and a violation of federal law and state statutes. The speaker mentions ongoing litigation in Cherokee County, North Carolina against the sheriff and others for false NCIC entries, and urges people nationwide to pursue accountability, citing a personal grievance with Dustin Smith, a candidate for sheriff in Cherokee County, including an alleged incident where his wife faced an arrest warrant for second-degree trespass after being told there were civil papers to pick up, leading to property removal and stolen items, with the trespass charges later dropped and expunged.
The discussion pivots to the founders: the last resort is emphasized, citing The Federalist Papers number 28 by Alexander Hamilton, about when representatives betray constituents and the people have no recourse other than self-defense. The Declaration of Independence is cited about abuses and usurpations, the right to alter or abolish a destructive government, and the right to revolution and to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is described as not just about hunting or self-defense but about securing freedom; the government cannot tell people what guns to have to resist tyranny, and peaceful gun ownership includes machine guns in the context of a right to bear arms, with peaceful not equaling harmless.
Speaker 0 concludes by urging viewers to use FOIA to obtain documentation, pursue lawsuits for false information, and notes that public servants’ communications are not private, including text messages and emails, and that defamation per se laws can apply. The goal is to hold public servants accountable; a 10% turnout of suing viewers could deter abuse, and the speaker emphasizes willingness to go to trial rather than settle, even at personal cost. Speaker 1 ends with the words “Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is for anybody out there. I mean, I mean, literally anybody out there who's having any kind of problems out of a law enforcement agency.
Speaker 1: Do need to
Speaker 0: file a Freedom of Information Act request with the county manager that you're in. And the Freedom of Information Act request needs to be regarding any communique on file, emails, or anything that they have in the NCIC system or with your state bureau of investigation mentioning your particular name. Okay? Send a request to the county manager or the assistant county manager saying, under the Freedom of Information Act, I'm requesting any communique regarding my name. And they'll send you a a a file dump.
They're gonna send you, you know, we got it on a little SD, you know, little SD card. So it's gonna show anything. It's gonna show anything that the FBI has entered in you. It's gonna show anything in the NCIC system that they've entered about you. And if you find any false information there, send a request or be corrected.
And when they ignore you, you sue them. You sue them in federal court. It's a it's against federal law. The NCIC national database is governed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It's a it's a federal crime to use the NCIC system to submit false information.
Now lawyers wanna approach it like, well, it's just it's just, you know, cooler talk, staying around a cooler talk. It's not. It's a very, very, very, very, very, very serious offense. And if you do your research, you'll see that most cases regarding false NCIC entries are settled quickly and quietly because they don't want people to know that they use they abuse the system nationwide. Okay?
So I'm advising anybody out there, what you need to do is file a FORA request. Any communicate regarding your name, and the county you're in, the state bureau investigation, NCIC systems, file a FORA request and request that information. When you get it, you'll see what they have. If they have entered any information in any database about you that's false, send a request for it to be corrected. And when they don't, when they don't respond within x amount of days, ten days or something, you sue them.
Okay? And this is this is a federal crime. It's against the code of federal regulations. It's in the it's in The US code. It's even against the state statutes.
They can't do this. They can't. They're not allowed to do this. So, it's what I'm in process of doing at Cherokee County, North Carolina is suing the sheriff and some other people for entering false information in the NCIC system. And I want people nationwide to get this information and start holding these oath break breaking shitbags accountable, like Dustin Smith, who's running for sheriff again in Cherokee County.
And I promise if I'm alive and living here, he's not gonna be sheriff because I'm gonna tell everybody what this shitbag did. He's a lying, oath breaking thief of a scumbag. He lied to my face. He told me my wife had civil papers to pick up at the Sheriff's Office. And when she showed up, it was a warrant for second degree trespass that they arrested her for.
Took us off the property, let everything that we had be stolen. They said, they're not even gonna take a police report because it was abandoned property. And then the trespass charges were not only dropped, but completely expunged off of the record. You can't even get a copy of the warrant. Well, we have copies of the warrant, copies of the bond, and some other stuff.
So I'm telling you what to do to hold these people accountable if you'll get online and you'll see lawsuits that have been settled over false NCIC entries. This is a very serious issue. And it's time to hold these people accountable. You know? We we don't.
Our founders taught us the absolute last resort. This is, The Federalist Papers number 28, written by Alexander Hamilton. When the representatives of the people betray their constituents and the people have no recourse of action, to resort to that original right of self defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government. So that's the last resort. We don't tumultuously run to arms whenever there's a an injustice or a slight injustice.
The declaration of independence teaches us that when a long train of abuses and usurpations produces invariably the same outcome, which is to reduce them under absolute despotism, then it's their right and their duty to throw off such a government. But we owe it to our founders to exercise all judicial processes, all legislature processes that we can use to correct the problem. And when the courts and the legislature and the executive authorities don't respond to protecting the rights of the people like the declaration of independence says that they're supposed to do, You know? That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Then there's the next part of the declaration.
That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it's the right of the people to alter or abolish it. And the abolition of a government destructive to the rights of the people necessarily entails the right of revolution, and the right of a revolution necessarily entails the right to keep and bear arms. And it's asinine to think that the government can tell the people what guns they're allowed to have to resist government with when it comes to tyranny. Tyranny is not allowed to tell the people you can't have machine guns. RPGs, a t a t fours, land mines, grenades, you can't have that to resist us with.
No. You're only allowed to have pistols and shotguns. Now the second amendment ain't about hunting, and it's not about self defense. It's about securing the state of freedom. And the only way that you could do that is if the right of the people to keep a bare arms is never infringed upon.
They have unfettered access to keep their arms anonymously and carry them where they wanna go in a peaceful manner for whatever purpose as long as they're peaceful doing it. And peaceful doesn't mean harmless. Thus, the machine guns. Peaceful people with machine guns aren't harmless. Okay?
And the government needs to know that people peaceful with machine guns does not mean that they're harmless. So I'm giving you some information here, how to sue these people. If you do if 10% of the people that watch this video sue your local government when you find false information, the exorbitant cost of how they're abusing these systems would go away almost immediately. Okay? So and if you want to, you like, we're my wife and I, we don't care about money.
I live in a in a fucking shack. I'll I live in this I live right there in that compost bin if I have to for the rest of my life to make sure that justice is served on these shitbags. So we go into trial. If y'all wanna get a paycheck, this is how you do it. We're not getting a paycheck.
We're going all the way to trial with these people. I don't care what kind of money they they if they want me to compromise my morals when it comes to standing for justice, they better come with such an insane amount of money on a settlement that I just I realized that the amount of good that I could do with this amount of money is gonna far outweigh the amount of justice that would be served for these ship bags that swore an oath to uphold and defend our constitution and violated every day that day they show up to work. So we ain't we ain't taking a settlement. We're going to trial, but I'm telling everybody out there in America that if you see this video, that's how you do it. File a FOIA request for any communicate regarding your name.
If you find any false information in those communicators, if you find anywhere where those public servants have said something about you that is not true, that's defamation per se. There's all kinds of laws that you can go after to get them. They're public servants. Their text messages are not private. Their emails are not private.
Just file a Freedom of Information Act request. Get the documentation. Go through it. And when you find what we did, sue them. If you wanna see justice served and these people go to prison, then hold out and don't take a don't take a settlement.
If you want some money, this is how you get a paycheck. Then you can take the money and invest it in some other stuff and turn it into more money and help more people. I don't care what you do with it. Take the information and do something with it. You know, Sam Adams was Sam Adams made a really great beer, but he made an even greater founding father.
And he said that it doesn't take the majority of people, but rather an unrelenting minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom inside the hearts and minds of their fellow mankind.
Speaker 1: Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark.
Spark. Spark.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
I like this kid. People need to read the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states what we must do. https://t.co/EeKtERXRWG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hunter Howell announces that it is time to abolish the government, saying he might be arrested for what he’s about to say and citing the Declaration of Independence as his source: “When a government becomes destructive to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.” He references needing a good lawyer and mentions turning up the heat this year, specifically telling people that it’s time to abolish the government. He promotes a five-a-month subscription, instructing viewers to click the link in his bio or in the comments, and states that people should subscribe now.
He then promises to provide three clear and concise examples of how the government has become destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
- Life: Bombing Iranian civilians.
- Liberty: Gen Z is no longer able to buy homes or find jobs; his generation cannot imagine how hard it will be for younger generations.
- Pursuit of happiness: No justice for the survivors of sex trafficking and the Epstein survivors, the heroes who endured abuse by predators; there was not only no justice for them, but there was concealment and protection for the predators.
He reiterates that, according to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people to abolish the government, and he expresses resolve to act rather than wait around. He ends by sending love and urging others to do something.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll probably get arrested for what I'm about to say, but fuck it. No one else will say it, so I will. My name is Hunter Howell, and it is time to abolish our government. And before I'm arrested for saying that, I need to give a source. My source, the Declaration of Independence.
Word for word, here's what it says in the Declaration of Independence. When a government becomes destructive to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it. Real quick, before the FBI comes breaking down my door for this video, Purple Popular Show, I'm gonna probably need a good lawyer because I'm gonna start turning up the heat as I promised I would this year and specifically tell us it's time to abolish our government. So five a month, link is in my bio. You better fucking click it now.
Link in bio or comment link or comment show. It's five a month. Subscribe now. I'm gonna give three very clear and concise examples of how our government has become destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life.
Bombing Iranian civilians. That's pretty destructive to the right of life. Liberty. Gen Z is no able no longer able to buy homes or find jobs. My generation can't even imagine how hard it will be for the younger generations than myself.
In pursuit of happiness, no justice for the survivors of sex trafficking, the Epstein survivors, the heroes that endured all of that from the abuse of predators. In fact, not only is there no justice for them, there was, concealing and protection for the predators. So damn it, that's my source. Declaration of Independence says that it's up to us, the people, to abolish our government. And I'm not gonna sit around much longer, and you shouldn't either.
It's time for us to do something. Sending you my love.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see the federal income tax as extortion, enforced by fear. There’s no law forcing individuals to pay tax on their labor: Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan (1895) struck direct income taxes; the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax hit corporations, not people (Flint; Redfield). The 1939 salary tax and SSN branding claim turn you into federal personnel. The 16th Amendment allowed taxes on income, not a universal wage tax. My paycheck isn’t voluntary tribute.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
The federal income tax is straight-up extortion—government agents with guns and badges shaking down everyday Americans for a chunk of their hard-earned wages. 💰🔫🏦 Here's the brutal truth most won't tell you: There is no law that forces the average working American to pay personal income tax on their labor. The Supreme Court already slammed the door on it in 1895 with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (157 U.S. 429), ruling that a direct tax on income (especially from property or earnings) was unconstitutional unless apportioned by state population. Boom—struck down. The Court made it crystal clear: you can't just hit individuals with a direct grab on their natural right to earn and own property. Then came the sneaky workaround: the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 11). This wasn't a personal income tax—it was an indirect excise tax slapped on corporations for the "privilege" of doing business in corporate form. The Supreme Court backed it up in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (220 U.S. 107, 1911), calling it an excise on corporate privileges, measured by net income. Black's Law Dictionary nails it: excises hit "manufacture, sale, consumption... licenses to pursue occupations, and corporate privileges." Not you, the individual. The Court doubled down in cases like Redfield v. Fisher (135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing... The individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Fast-forward—they started creeping it onto federal employees with the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, a supposed "temporary" measure to tax government salaries. It never went away. Now the claim is that getting a Social Security Number magically turns you into "federal personnel" or a tax chattel under some hidden contract—tying you as surety to the public debt scheme. That's why they dodge producing a clear statute forcing the average private-sector worker to pay: exposing it would blow the lid off the whole SSN/taxpayer status game. Bottom line: What started as a corporate privilege tax got morphed into a direct levy on your wages through regulatory sleight-of-hand and fear. The 16th Amendment (1913) only allowed Congress to tax incomes without apportionment—it didn't magically make wage taxes constitutional for everyone or turn labor into taxable "income" in the old direct-tax sense. Wake up: Your paycheck isn't voluntary tribute. It's taken at gunpoint by a system that pretends it's law while hiding behind corporations, privileges, and federal "status." Time to question the whole racket. 🚨
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax.
Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors. You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers. They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud.
Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law.
Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know. And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign.
Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation.
Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax.
Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country.
Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers.
Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us.
Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it.
Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913?
Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot
Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy. Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction.
Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax.
Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors.
You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers.
They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud.
Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law.
Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know.
And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign.
Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation.
Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax.
Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country.
Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers.
Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us.
Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it.
Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913?
Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot
Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy.
Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction.
Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes are not.
Speaker 6: This small booklet includes the constitution of The United States, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence. This is document that every citizen should read. It's a document which freed an entire nation. This is the Internal Revenue Code, and this document and it the unlawful application of this document by the Internal Revenue Service has enslaved the nation that this document attempted to free.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
"It was never legal in the first place" https://t.co/fkmYvQyd7e
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 outlines a stance of widespread tax resistance among Americans who deem the government corrupt and unrepresentative. He states, “there were so many people, mostly American patriots, who said, I don't care what the consequences are. I will not continue to pay taxes to a corrupt government that doesn't represent me.” He claims the IRS is already down “25% from last year.” He then criticizes those who have “never worked a day in their life but yet wanna make rules for the rest of us,” arguing they “overdo themselves and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”
He describes consequences of the government’s actions as not only crashing the economy but creating a scenario where people “have a choice” between basic needs and paying taxes: “Keep a roof over your family's head or pay taxes. Feed your children or pay taxes. Live a little bit like a fucking human being or pay your fucking taxes.” He asserts that many will be unable to pay taxes this year, and those who “just up and decide fuck them and file exempt on their fucking forms” will “totally overwhelm the IRS,” including “those 80,000 gun toting Nazi motherfuckers who have been harassing us for years.” The message implies a public record of asking the IRS for the law that states a wage earner must pay taxes, and claims they cannot provide it “because it was never legal in the first place.”
He elaborates that “when you work and somebody gives you money or some form of compensation, that's not profit. That's an exchange, and it was never intended to be taxes.” The consequence, he says, is that “the government's gonna self destruct. It's gonna totally overwhelm the system.” He uses imagery to argue that people should resist, saying, “let those motherfuckers try driving their car with no gas in it.”
In closing, he invites audience participation: “If you like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah and a fuck you to their paperwork.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To the matter is there were so many people, mostly American patriots, who said, I don't care what the consequences are. I will not continue to pay taxes to a corrupt government that doesn't represent me. So IRS is already down 25% from last year. But you see, the one thing with people who've never worked a day in their life but yet wanna make rules for the rest of us, they always overdo themselves and kill the goose that laid the golden egg. So in addition to crashing that economy, they've created a situation where people have a choice.
Keep a roof over your family's head or pay taxes. Feed your children or pay taxes. Live a little bit like a fucking human being or pay your fucking taxes. The fact of the matter is so many people are not going to be able to pay their taxes this year that the people who just up and decide fuck them and file exempt on their fucking forms is gonna totally overwhelm the IRS, including those 80,000 gun toting Nazi motherfuckers who have been harassing us for years. Let's face it, folks.
We all know publicly we've asked the IRS for the law that states a wage earner has to pay taxes, and they cannot provide it because it was never legal in the first place. When you work and somebody gives you money or some form of compensation, that's not profit. That's an exchange, and it was never intended to be taxes. So the government's gonna self destruct. It's gonna totally overwhelm the system.
And in reality, let those motherfuckers try driving their car with no gas in it. If you like what I'm saying, give me a hell yeah and a fuck you to their paperwork.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see private prison contracts lock in 90–100% occupancy, turning inmates into occupancy units tied to quarterly earnings. Prison gerrymandering inflates rural districts by counting incarcerated people as residents who can’t vote. Pay to Stay fees bill inmates for confinement, creating carceral debt after release. Together, bed quotas, gerrymandering, and fees form a closed loop that treats human lives as revenue, not rights.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
Private prison companies have embedded contractual bed quotas that guarantee 90-100 facility occupancy, allowing them to sue states when crime rates drop. This creates a perverse incentive system where companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic view incarcerated people as occupancy units essential for quarterly earnings. Meanwhile, prison gerrymandering artificially inflates rural district populations while inmates are charged Pay to Stay fees, creating an inescapable cycle. Bedclothes Contractual Demand for Human Inventory Behind the language of “public safety” and “corrections,” there is a blunt commercial reality: private prison contracts literally guarantee a steady supply of human bodies. Bed quotas built into these agreements commit states to maintain 90–100 percent occupancy or face financial penalties. If crime drops, if communities actually heal, or if courts divert people away from cages, the state can still be billed as though the cells were full. In that structure, a human being is no longer a citizen with rights but an “occupancy unit” whose presence or absence directly affects quarterly earnings. The contract doesn’t just rent steel and concrete; it demands a predictable stream of human inventory. Layered onto that is the quiet arithmetic of prison gerrymandering. Incarcerated people, often taken from urban communities, are counted as residents of the rural districts where they are caged, inflating population numbers and political representation in those areas. Those same people usually cannot vote, cannot choose the officials who benefit from their presence, and cannot exercise any real voice in the place they are counted. Their bodies become population padding, used to secure funding and political clout for districts that do not actually serve them. On paper they are residents; in reality they are confined resources. At the same time, many systems impose “Pay to Stay” fees, sending incarcerated people a bill for their own imprisonment. Daily charges for room, board, medical visits, or basic services stack up into debts that follow them out the gate. Someone who has just lost employment, housing, and community ties is then saddled with carceral debt that can damage credit, invite collection actions, and, in some cases, lead to further entanglement with courts for failure to pay. The message is unmistakable: not only are you a unit of inventory while confined; you are also a revenue source long after the door slams behind you. Taken together, bed quotas, prison gerrymandering, and Pay to Stay form a closed-loop extraction cycle. Contracts demand full beds, political maps count captive bodies as assets, and financial policies turn time in a cage into an invoice. What is sold as a neutral “justice system” functions instead as a commercial apparatus that requires a steady intake of human beings to sustain itself. The more this logic is normalized, the easier it becomes to forget that each “bed filled” represents a life suspended, a family fractured, and a set of rights quietly converted into someone else’s profit stream.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript argues that private companies running prisons have a financial incentive to maximize inmate numbers, to the point of suing the state or locality if occupancy drops. The claim is that the profit motive creates pressure on law enforcement to arrest more people and to demand strict enforcement, because a safe city would reduce profits and jeopardize contracts. Private equity owners, and publicly traded prison operators, are described as viewing facilities as occupancy units rather than housing real criminals, with a “bed quota clause” in contracts ensuring jails stay 90–100% full. If crime declines, the companies sue for lost profits, exploring the idea that tax dollars are weaponized against public safety to meet quarterly earnings.
The discourse suggests the jails and borderless ownership are a “foreign embassy of corporate greed,” with symbols like county jails and state seals described as misleading. The firms named include GEO Group and CoreCivic, along with security and facility managers such as Serco and G4S, depicted as having no local skin in communities and aiming to harvest beds rather than ensure sovereignty or public safety. The police are portrayed as turned into “delivery drivers for a global supply chain of incarceration,” and the constitution as a lease agreement, with towns becoming occupied territories where occupancy matters most.
A second major claim is about “prison gerrymandering.” Under the Census Bureau’s usual residence rule, the bureau is said to refuse to fix the rule in 2026, resulting in inmates being counted as residents of rural districts where private prisons sit, not of their home communities. The effect is described as phantom constituents—prisoner populations that boost rural political power and funding while the prisoners themselves cannot vote. The result is a redistribution of political influence from urban areas to rural districts, incentivizing politicians to block reforms and maintain bed quotas, since population counts affect legislative power and funding.
The text asserts that more people locked up correlates with greater political leverage for certain politicians, not because of representing the people behind bars but because of representing the capacity of the system. Even as some states purportedly push back, a majority are accused of continuing the practice, especially in Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, where urban communities’ political influence is allegedly diluted by the presence of incarcerated populations.
Finally, the “exit” is described as the private prison economy’s pay-to-stay model: upon release, individuals are billed for confinement, sometimes daily costs, leading to debt that prevents reentry into society. If there is missed payment, warrants may be issued, sending people back to jail for being unable to pay. The “Texas two-step” is cited as a tactic to divide profits from medical liabilities by creating two entities—one for profits and contracts and another for medical lawsuits—allowing the profitable shell to continue while victims’ claims are often constrained. The summary portrays a closed loop in which the private justice industry profits from every stage of incarceration, with medical neglect lawsuits navigated to bankruptcy, and the bill ultimately paid by taxpayers. The overall narrative closes by labeling the system a harvest that sustains itself as long as there is profit in the pulse of a prisoner, signaling phase three is complete and asking, “Who’s next?”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I'd like for you to tell me how it's legit that we have private companies running our prisons, literally, with the incentive to make money to the point where they'll sue us. They'll sue the state. They'll sue the town if we don't put enough prisoners in jail. So if we do a good job and keep all of the crime off the streets, we're gonna get sued by these companies. Picture that pressure environment.
Now do you see why that trickles down to the police and they're so enforceable and why they need your ID? That's step one to throwing you in prison. That's what this is all about. That's why it's all about let me see your papers. Right?
We did another huge dig. Let me give you the quick results and another TTS.
Speaker 1: Look at the sign on your local county jail. It has your county's name on it. It has your state's seal on it. But in 2026, those symbols are a lie. You are looking at a foreign embassy of corporate greed, and you are the one paying the rent.
Right now, across this country, we are witnessing what the Minnesota attorney general is calling an unconstitutional occupation. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a court filing. Under Operation Metro Surge, thousands of federal agents are flooding into local streets, not to make you safer, but to satisfy a contract. You see, the private equity firms and global REites that own these facilities, companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic, don't see criminals.
They see occupancy units, and they have a fail safe. It's called a bed quota clause. These contracts signed by your representatives in rooms you weren't invited to guarantee that these jails stay 90 to 100% full. If crime goes down, if your neighborhood actually gets safer, the company doesn't celebrate. They sue.
They sue your state for lost profits because there aren't enough human beings in cages to meet their quarterly earnings report. Think about that. You are paying a peace penalty. Your tax dollars are being weaponized against your own safety because a safe city is a breach of contract for a billionaire in a different time zone. And don't be fooled by the American flags in their lobbies.
These are publicly traded shells. Your local justice system is being managed by international investment funds and foreign entities like Serco and g four s. They have no skin in your community. They have no interest in your sovereignty. They are here for the harvest.
They've turned your local police into delivery drivers for a global supply chain of incarceration. They've turned your constitution into a lease agreement, and they've turned your town into an occupied territory where the occupancy is the only thing that matters. The word on the street is that the jails are suing the states because they aren't keeping up with the occupancy. The word on the street is right. The house is empty, the bill is due, and they are coming for the raw material to fill the beds.
Welcome to the invisible occupation. It's time to ask, who actually owns your city? Now let's talk about the ghosts in the machine. Let's talk about how they steal your vote without ever touching a ballot box. In most of this country, when you are locked in a cage, you are legally transformed into a political phantom.
Under the Census Bureau's usual residence rule, a rule the bureau is still refusing to fix in 2026, you are no longer a resident of your home, your neighborhood, or your city. You are officially counted as a resident of the rural district where private jail sits. This is prison gerrymandering, and it is a mathematical hack of American democracy. Think of a tiny rural town with a population of 2,000 people. Now drop a 5,000 bed private prison into its center.
Overnight, that district's population grows by 5,000 residents. That town suddenly gets more state funding. It gets more seats in the legislature. It gets more weight in the halls of power. But here is the catch.
The prisoners cannot vote. These are phantom constituents. They are human beings used as population padding to give rural proprison politicians an artificial boost in power. It is a literal transfer of political influence from the urban streets where these people were taken to the rural corridors where the corporations build their cages. It creates a cycle of rot that is impossible to break.
The more people a politician helps lock up in their district, the more political power that politician gains. They aren't representing the people in the cells. They are representing the capacity of the cells. They are incentivized to fight every reform, block every early release, and protect every bed quota because if those beds go empty, their political career disappears with the population count. While 19 states have fought back to end this theft, the rest are still running the scam.
In states like Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, your representation is being diluted by a population that is legally silenced. They aren't just stealing years of people's lives. They are stealing the democratic voice of the communities they left behind. It's a system where the cage doesn't just hold a body, it holds a census count that keeps the machine running. You think you live in a one person, one votes democracy?
Not as long as the phantoms are being used to balance the books. Phase two is complete. They've occupied your town. Now they've stolen your vote. You've seen the occupation.
You've seen the political theft. Now look at the exit or the lack of one. In the private prison economy of 2026, freedom isn't served. It's invoiced. Imagine you've finished your time.
You walk to the gate, ready to start over. But as the door clicks shut behind you, they hand you a bill. This is pay to stay. In 48 states, the jail can charge you for the cost of your own cage. Sometimes 50, sometimes $100 every single day.
You walk out with $20.30, $50,000 in incarceration debt. It's a debt you can't pay because with a record and no credit, you can't get a job. And because you can't get a job, you can't get a house. In some counties, if you miss a payment on your prison rent, they put out a warrant. You go back to jail for the crime of being unable to pay for your last stay.
It is the perfect closed loop system. The company gets paid by the state to hold you, and then they bill you for the privilege of being held. But what if they hurt you while you're inside? What if the medical care provided by private equity backed giants like Wellpath or Corazon is so shoddy you leave with a permanent disability or you don't leave at all? That's where they perform the Texas two step.
As we saw throughout 2024 and 2025, these companies use a legal loophole to split into two. They put all their profits and contracts into a clean company and dump all the medical neglect lawsuits into a death company. Then they file for bankruptcy for the shell, wiping out thousands of claims for pennies on the dollar. The families of the dead get nothing. The company, under a new name like Yes Care or Taeham, keeps the multimillion dollar contracts and moves on to the next county.
It's a system designed to ensure that once you enter the orbit of the private justice industry, you never truly leave. You are either a unit in a bed, a phantom on a census map, or a debtor on a balance sheet. The jails are suing the states for empty beds. The medical companies are dancing through bankruptcy courts to avoid accountability, and the bill is being sent to you, the taxpayer and the target. This isn't justice.
This is a harvest. And as long as there is a profit in the pulse of a prisoner, the machine will never stop. Phase three is over. The cycle is complete. Who's next?
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
DATACENTERS: Mason, MI – February 2, 2026 Jason Dye addresses the City Council regarding data centers (http://WTPN.news). He accuses the Mason, Michigan City Council of failing in their duty to protect and serve the city's residents. https://t.co/097mYThcWZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jason introduces himself as Jason We The People, living at 1776 Boulevard in Freedom City, Michigan. He asserts a confrontation with the city council, insisting his name and address are his Fifth Amendment/constitutional rights and quips that the council’s bylaws cannot trump constitutional rights. He proclaims he doesn’t have to share information and suggests he could sue the city under 42 USC 1983, using it as his middle name in a combative line of defense.
He discusses the Fifth Amendment takings clause, claiming it pertains to public use and argues that a data center is not public use, stating it should be a park or an old folks home instead. He asserts the takings clause is not complicated and urges the council to understand it.
Jason attacks the council’s loyalty, asking how it feels to be a Benedict Arnold to the people and notes that no one supports the data center. He asks for those who do not support the data center and inquires about any questions from the attendees, claiming that Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder can see the issue.
He questions remedies for forever chemicals and accuses the council of poisoning the land, suggesting foreign money might be involved and referencing Whittler being in trouble over that.
He calls for FOIA requests to obtain every nondisclosure agreement from any council member, mayor, or city official, arguing that while the contents may be hidden, the existence of these NDAs would be revealed, creating potential conflicts of interest.
Jason then asks about who is coming in to install underground generators, noting that large power lines are being installed and implying that a decision has already been made. He closes by presenting a list-like summary of “your people” and wishing them well, signaling a confrontational stance toward the city’s decisions about the data center.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, my name's Jason. I live at 1776 Boulevard. We're here to talk about tonight.
Speaker 1: Jason. Yeah. What's your last name and what's your address?
Speaker 0: My last name is Jason We The People and my address is 1776 Boulevard. Let's see. Freedom City.
Speaker 1: Freedom City in what state?
Speaker 0: Michigan.
Speaker 1: So I know you're making all that up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A 100% because I don't have to tell you anything because it's my Fourth Amendment right. You know what that is? I think you need to learn the Fifth Amendment right. I don't care about your article.
According to article six clause two, you're Trump.
Speaker 1: City council, you have to give your name, your proper name, and address. You're not allowed to speak.
Speaker 0: So do you think your bylaws trump my constitutional rights? Because that's the way it's looking here. You think your little bylaws here trump all these people's constitutional rights. Remove me so I can sue the dog shit out of the city. Do it because I'll make sure you don't get no data center.
Try me. 42USC1983, baby. That's my middle name. You want that name too? Now, back to this fifth amendment's takings clause.
You can't use no takings clause, Einstein. Guess what? That's for public use. You understand that? You know what public use is?
Sure ain't a data center. It's a park, an old folks home, something like that. It's a fifth amendment. It's really not that complicated. You should look into it.
By the way, how does it feel sitting up there being a Benedict Arnold to all your people out here? Not one person supports this. How about this? Everybody up here has been asking, who supports the data center? How about this?
Who don't support the data center? Any other questions? Is there any other questions? Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder can see this one together. What remedy do you have for the forever chemicals?
You don't got none. So now you're poisoning our land. Is there any foreign money involved in this? I'm pretty sure there is. Ain't Whittler in some hot water over that?
Also, nondisclosure agreements. Bad bad news. I want everybody in this room who lives here to FOIA request every single nondisclosure agreement from any council member, mayor, anybody in this city. You need to foil who has one. You won't be able to see what's on it, but you'll be able to see who has one.
And then at that time, we got a real conflict of interest, don't we? I think we would. Next thing, who who are you having come in here that's putting these underground generators? Oh, you're not. You got these big old power lines going in right now that everybody's talking about.
What's that? I mean, have we already made our minds up? Seems that way. Well, anyway, here's your people. Have fun.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
People need to start signing every contract differently. UCC 1-308 or without prejudice All rights reserved. Without recourse https://t.co/SKF06Sz6lj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a view of a “public trustee” that acts as the real governing authority and construes individuals as fiduciaries and trustees who must perform by their own consent and through a supposed ignorance of how the law operates. The core claim is that people consent to being placed in this fiduciary/trustee position, and that this consent, together with our lack of understanding of legal mechanics, authorizes the trustee to monetize any instrument created from an ordinary application we make in daily life.
According to the speaker, every application we submit—for example, for a cellphone, a house, a car, an electric bill, or a landline—functions essentially as a power of attorney. They argue that by submitting these applications, we authorize the public trustee to create securities tied to what is described as our “minor account.” The trustee then operates this account in our absence, leveraging the power of attorney that we ostensibly granted.
The speaker ties this mechanism to a broader claim about financial and legal instruments being generated from ordinary consumer requests. The implication is that these applications convert ordinary demands (like utilities or purchases) into instruments that can be monetized or securitized by the trustee, with the individual appearing as creditor in this framework.
A key part of the argument hinges on the assertion that this system arises because birth registrations were not accompanied by a aligned will or a letter of intent. The speaker emphasizes that, at birth, the registration process did not include a directive (a will or letter of intent) that would counter or redefine the authority the public trustee claims over, thereby enabling the trustee to operate behind the scenes in the absence of the individual’s active participation.
In sum, the speaker presents a narrative where a public trustee claims authority through a combination of consent, ignorance of legal operation, and the lack of a will or letter of intent tied to birth registration. This framework is said to allow the trustee to monetize instruments created from everyday applications and to manage what is framed as securities in a minor account, with the individual largely not participating in or aware of these actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's the thing. They are the public trustee in reality. They construe it to make us the fiduciary and trustee to perform by our consent and ignorance of the operation of law. Does that make sense? And we consent to be in that position and our applications authorizes them to monetize whatever instrument is created from that application whether it's an application for a cellphone, an application to buy a house, an application to buy a car, an application for your electric bill, an application for your for your landline.
All those applications is essentially a power of attorney and they use that power of attorney, you as the creditor, authorize them to create securities that are of your minor account and they operate that account in your absence. Because mom, when she did the birth registration, never aligned a will or a letter of intent to that registration.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
This is 🔥🔥🔥 Take notes, bookmark it and share far and wide. More information they don't want us to know. https://t.co/0MoqWT26e2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes a courtroom incident where the judge read a letter and later accused him of violence in the courtroom. He says he asked the judge who wrote the letter and claimed he cannot represent his father because he is not a licensed attorney. He counters that he has never heard of an attorney’s license and even contacted the licensing commissioner, who offers driver’s licenses, mortgage licenses, and real estate licenses but no license to practice law; when asked to produce a license to practice law, the judge grew angry and said nothing. He asks if the court is a court of record for the third time and the judge goes quiet; other attorneys stand nearby as if unsure what’s going on. He tells the judge he doesn’t want to talk to the attorneys because the judge is the one keeping his dad in jail, not the lawyers. He insists on a record of whether this is a court of record, and when he does so, the panic button is pressed and bailiffs drag him out of the courthouse. His father is brought in and told, “Russ, we’ll let you go if you promise not to do it again.” His father hadn’t seen him since age 10 and didn’t know he was present. After his father is released, he resolves to dedicate his life to combining that experience with his spiritual knowledge.
Speaker 0 then asserts that the system is purely financial: they treat your body as a warehouse, file liens, and monetize it using the General Services Administration (GSA). He claims they file a bid bond, a performance bond, and a payment bond with standard forms 93, 94, and 95, and then make you pay commissary. He describes receiving a CID number, being placed in a trustee program, and doing work, with everything financed through what he calls their private system, the Court Registry Investment System. He states you pay for everything, including attorney’s fees and court costs.
Regarding exits from court cases, he claims you can stop a case by sending an affidavit of questionnaire to the judge and attorneys and asking under penalty of perjury whether they have a financial interest in the case. If they answer yes, they must recuse themselves; if they answer no, you have perjured yourself, and the IRS will imprison you. This, he says, is how to stop court cases.
Speaker 1 responds with astonishment and disbelief, noting that people are being “traded like cattle” in jail and humorously remarks about future nicknames, calling the speaker “my cousin Vinny.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And brought gave the judge that stuff, and the judge comes out sweating going, who wrote this letter? I will not allow violence in this courtroom. And I go, judge, what violence? And he says, you can't represent your father. You're not a licensed attorney.
And I go, well, sir, that's strange because I have never heard of an attorney's license in my life. In fact, I even called the licensing commissioner. They offer driver's license, mortgage licenses, real estate licenses, but no license to practice law. I asked them for it, and they don't have it. So if you could show me your license to practice law, then I will be able to determine whether I'm a licensed attorney or not.
And he got super angry and said nothing. And I said, sir, are we in a court of record today? And he was dead quiet. Meanwhile, all the attorneys are like standing next to me like, hey, you little kid. I don't think you know what's going on.
Like, why don't you come outside here and talk to me? Like, you don't know. And I just look at him and I go, look. Hey. I don't have a like, he's the one keeping my dad in jail, not y'all.
So I don't really wanna talk to you guys. I'm trying to get this settled. And I asked the judge, sir, for the third and final time, is this a court of record? I want it on the record that the judge is not responding to my very simple questions if this is a court of record or not. And when I do that, he clicks the panic button underneath the desk.
The bailiffs drag me out of the courthouse. They bring my dad into court, and they go, Russ, we'll let you go if you promise not to do it again. And my dad hadn't seen me since I was 10 years old, and he didn't even know I was there. So he was just all like, yeah, judge. I promise.
Like, yeah. I won't do it again. And and they and they release him. And I was like, I knew this was real. And so once that happened, I I I dedicated my life to figuring out a way to incorporate that knowledge with the spiritual knowledge that I already knew.
And so you're definitely correct that it's actually purely financial. They actually consider your body warehouse goods and file liens and store your body in a warehouse, and they monetizing it using the general service administration. They file a bid bond, a performance bond, and a payment bond with the general service administration standard form 93, 94, and 95. And then they get you to pay commissary. Right?
And they make it all it's all money. You have, like, a little you have a CID number. I had a threw me in jail one time for revealing this knowledge. They gave me a little, like, a debit card. They called it a debit card, and they named me I was part I was part of the trustee program.
Right? So, like, the trustees, and I was doing work and all that stuff. And and you you had to pay for everything. You know? There's always attorney's fees, court costs, all these things, and they trade it on their private system called the court registry investment system.
And so if you wanna get out of a court case, just send a affidavit of questionnaire to to the judge and to the attorneys and just ask them under penalty of perjury, do you have a financial interest in this case? Yes or no? If it's yes, you must recuse yourself. If it's no, then you've perjured yourself. The IRS will find out about it, and you will go to prison.
That's how you stop court cases.
Speaker 1: Man, guys. I mean I mean, come on, man. You you can't tell me you're not impressed right now. And also appalled. How many of y'all's jaws dropped when you found out that we're getting traded like cattle or whatever you wanna call it in jail?
And also, we got we got we now, man, I'm a you I'm a get by the time this live is over, you're gonna have 10 nicknames. We got my cousin Vinny over here.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
It should be multi-generational wealth, not debt. Glorified slavery right in your face. https://t.co/C1GWtDtTPQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that a fifty year mortgage is a mathematical scam designed to normalize multigenerational debt because the system is broken. They state, “Fifty year mortgage is a mathematical scam. They are trying to normalize multigenerational debt because the system is broken. Do the math.” They illustrate with a standard example: “On a standard $400,000 loan at 7%, a fifty year term means you pay over $1,400,000 total. You pay three times the value of the house.”
The speaker exposes what they call “the dirty secret they hide in the amortization schedule.” They claim, “For the first twenty five years, 90% of your monthly payment goes to interest. You build almost zero equity. You are a glorified renter paying the bank while you pay for the repairs.” They question the timing of promoting this scheme: “Why push this now?” The answer, according to the speaker, is that “if they don't, the bubble bursts.” They argue that “Institutional investors hold billions in inflated real estate,” and if prices drop to affordable levels, “the elites lose money.”
The speaker contends that a tool was invented to “keep prices artificially high by enslaving you for half a century.” They attribute the push to “the official pushing this is an heir to a real estate dynasty.” The broadcast personifies the motive, stating, “This isn't public service. It is a bailout for his rich friends paid for by your life.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fifty year mortgage is a mathematical scam. They are trying to normalize multigenerational debt because the system is broken. Do the math. On a standard $400,000 loan at 7%, a fifty year term means you pay over $1,400,000 total. You pay three times the value of the house.
Here is the dirty secret they hide in the amortization schedule. For the first twenty five years, 90% of your monthly payment goes to interest. You build almost zero equity. You are a glorified renter paying the bank while you pay for the repairs. Why push this now?
Because if they don't, the bubble bursts. Institutional investors hold billions in inflated real estate. If prices drop to affordable levels, the elites lose money. So they invented a tool to keep prices artificially high by enslaving you for half a century. The official pushing this is an heir to a real estate dynasty.
This isn't public service. It is a bailout for his rich friends paid for by your life.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
Are you still paying on your credit cards? https://t.co/Z2FwiZL1qr
Video Transcript AI Summary
People are waking up and understanding that banks operate fraudulently under the Federal Reserve, and money has no value. Your signature gives value to agreements under the corporation. Given this, the speaker questions whether people are still paying credit cards, suggesting that money could be used for more important things. When you understand you're the creditor and banks are operating fraudulently, it's hard to make payments. Nassara is coming soon, and the old system will fall so a new one can be implemented to restore financial freedom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So now that people are actually waking up and understanding that all these banks, everything have been operating fraudulently, under the Federal Reserve and the criminal syndicate that created it, money has no value. Literally no value. Your West signature is the only thing that gives value to any agreement under the corporation. And knowing that the sorrow is coming, I'm just curious. Like, are you guys is anyone honestly still paying credit cards?
Like, that money could go to so many more important things. And then when, like I said, when you actually understand that you're the creditor and the banks are operating fraudulently, it's very hard to to make those payments, if you know what I mean. But I'm very curious on where people are at. Nassara is gonna be coming soon. Absolutely.
This old system's gonna fall. It has to so we can implement the new one, and we can actually get some of our financial freedom back. Amen. But drop a comment.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
We only answer to the crown. https://t.co/exlYSg5B6i
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ron DeSantis attempted to remove Disney World's self-governance due to their "child grooming stuff," but Disney World responded by claiming they only answer to the Crown. Disney World is allegedly admitting they are owned by Britain.
The land Disney World is on is reportedly owned by the Crown, making Disney World a tax-free sovereign district since 1960, exempt from taxes and federal statutes as an apolitical charity.
After Disney started "pushing woke stuff," Ron DeSantis moved to remove their tax-exempt status. Disney World then invoked a clause from the British Bill of Rights dating back to 1692. This clause states that Britain maintains sovereignty over any territory of the crown until the last descendant of King Charles III has died.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hope you saw this story, Jeremy, but basically, Ron DeSantis tried to take away Disney World's rights of self governance since they're pushing all the child grooming stuff lately. And Disney World came back and was like, uh-uh. Not so fast. We only answer to the crown. And this is just almost hilarious if you know what's going on because they would never ever admit this unless they were forced to in a situation like this.
But they basically admitted, like, you don't have jurisdiction over us because we're owned by Britain. So for those of you who are, like, confused by this, apparently, the land that Disney World is on is owned by the Crown. And so since, like, 1960, Disney World has basically been a tax free sovereign district, you know, exempt from taxes and anything to do with federal statutes. And they basically claim to just be like an apolitical charity. Now Disney does a lot of charity work so that they can be tax exempt.
Then they started pushing all this woke stuff, and so Ron DeSantis was like, alright, guys. You wanna get involved in politics? Then let's do politics. We're gonna take away your tax exempt status in Florida. But then Disney World came back and pulled out this clause from the British Bill of Rights, which is a royal clause that dates back to, like, 1692.
And it says that, essentially, Britain has sovereignty over any territory of the crown until the last descendant of King Charles the third has passed. And
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
The Cestui Que Trust Act of 1666. State Nationals Rock https://t.co/0HiTibR9b7
Video Transcript AI Summary
Your birth certificate and Social Security card exist because of a trust account attached to them. Both are banknotes from the American Banknote Company. Judges are aware that we are trading on a stock market and make a retirement called net retention.
The county clerk files a bid bond (SF-24), then a performance bond (SF-25). This paperwork goes to the Department of Physical Services to get money from the trust attached to your birth certificate and Social Security card. A payment bond (205a) is also filed.
The court registry investment system takes these bonds and trades them. The judge gets the highest percentage, followed by the prosecutor, county clerk, and even the defense attorney. This system started on January 6, 1966. When they retire, these officials receive checks as the bonds mature and trade. Judges have an interest in finding people guilty because they make more on the performance bond if the person goes to jail.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you know that your birth certificate and your Social Security card are directly a result of this? This without this, you don't even have that. So let me tell you. Your birth certificate, your Social Security card are both from this, and it still exists because there's a trust account right here. It's attached to your birth certificate and social, and I'm gonna prove it to you right now.
Here's a death certificate, American banknote company. Here's a birth certificate, American banknote company. Both of these are mine. These are family members for the death, and this is my actual birth certificate. So it is a banknote.
Why is it there? It's there because of this. See, judges know something that they can't tell you, and this is where good judges are are gonna need compassion from us, we the people, and this is why. The judges are fully aware that we are trading on a stock market. They make a retirement called net retention.
Now I'm gonna show you how the net retention work. The county clerk files a form. It's a bid bond. It's called the s f 24. Let me show you.
S f 24 bid bond. Bid bond. That's the form. The county clerk files this. The county commissioner, do we have any bonds today, miss county clerk?
Yes. We do. These are them. After that's filed, there's another bond that's called the s f 25 called a performance bond. County clerk files that next.
This is the paperwork the county clerk files. This paperwork is going to the Department of Physical Services to get that money from your trust. The trust attached to this and to this banknote company certificate right here. And here's the final one. It's called a payment bond.
It's called a 20 5 a. County clerk files this. The county clerk knows because they filed these forms. You would think, but they don't know. No.
They don't know. You see this right here? This system, court registry investment system, they take those bonds, and they get to trade them. They split a percentage. The judge gets the highest percentage, then the prosecutor, then the county clerk, she gets a cut.
And finally, the defense attorney even gets a cut of the person's bonds that are traded on the stock market that come from his Social Security card and his birth certificate. That all started from this back in the year 01/06/1966. Now I don't know about you, but citizenship and citizenry is starting to look a lot like something I'm wondering about. I don't know. What do y'all think?
Just saying. So this is what happens. When they retire, the prosecutor, the county clerk, they start getting checks. They get checks when the bonds mature in the trading too. When it trades, it makes money the entire time.
So the county clerks are stacking up money. The judges are stacking up money, and they have an interest in finding people guilty because they make more on the performance bond part. They don't get the performance bond unless the person goes to jail. See a conflict of interest here. That's why I say they know it's evil.
But what can they really do about it? Considering the corporation won't cut them no breaks. So have compassion. Let's change the world state.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve come to realize that my existence has been turned into a financial instrument without my consent. From birth, I was listed as an asset, with my name in ALL CAPS representing a legal entity owned by the state. Every financial transaction I make triggers this hidden trust, benefiting others while I struggle. The system profits from my identity, treating me as a dead entity in law, yet alive enough to generate revenue. Now that I understand this manipulation, I recognize my true value and the need to reclaim my identity and knowledge to dismantle this system.
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
YOU ARE THE COLLATERAL — THEY TURNED YOUR LIFE INTO A SECRET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT You were never a citizen. You were inventory. From the second your feet hit Earth, they converted your existence into an asset on a global ledger. Your birth certificate created a secret trust. A Cestui Que Vie account. Your name, written in ALL CAPS, became the Strawman — a fake legal entity separated from your living being. The state owns that entity. The bankers trade it. The courts use it. The prisons profit from it. They created this trust without your consent. They profit from it without your knowledge. They control it without your access. EVERY TIME YOU: Take a loan Pay a fine Get arrested Sign a mortgage Register a car …your hidden trust is triggered. THEY get paid. YOU pay again. Your house? Already paid from the trust. You pay again. Your car? You don’t own it. The state holds the real title. A $100 ticket? Can trigger a $10,000 withdrawal from your trust. THE SCAM RUNS DEEP. Your mother unknowingly declared you a ward of the state by signing the birth certificate under her maiden name. You were listed as "born out of wedlock" — a legal trick used to seize custody of your legal identity. The courts see you as a dead entity in law — but alive enough to generate cash. That’s why they can jail you, fine you, sell you. Your body is yours. Your identity is theirs. Your Strawman feeds them. Judges, politicians, bankers — they know the code. They settle debts, build infrastructure, and fund operations — with your trust. And while they trade your value in secret markets... You struggle to afford the life THEY already cashed out on. THIS IS WHY THEY FEAR AWAKE CITIZENS. This is why they bury legalese in silence. Why they never taught you this in school. Why they treat knowledge like contraband. The truth? Your trust earns millions. You get pennies. Because you were never supposed to find out. BUT NOW YOU KNOW. You are not a debtor. You are the ASSET. And it’s time to shut the machine down. They declared you DEAD. Time to declare YOURSELF ALIVE. Knowledge is the kill switch. Use it. Let it burn. 🔥
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
@Phantom2Phlyer 1776 is when America was founded but the Brits were here way before that. https://t.co/cUgyKjy1gw
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
This guy lays it out very nice. You're going to want to bookmark this one. https://t.co/o6cilR18oK
Video Transcript AI Summary
When you sign a promissory note or bill of exchange, you're essentially providing cash equivalent, allowing banks to use it as collateral. Your house or car is not collateral; the signed note is. By not claiming your assets, you unknowingly agree to pay more than necessary. If facing foreclosure, take action by claiming the deed of trust and the note, asserting your rights. The banks only have authority if you don’t claim your assets. Educate yourself on the legal process and don’t expect free help; take responsibility for your situation. Stand up for your rights and learn how to navigate the system effectively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 1813l1 I think it is, it even explicitly says when you give someone a bill of exchange a note or something of the sort it is the same equivalent as cash. Cash. That means they took that note and they got paid. That is cash. The moment you signed that promissory note, that bill of exchange or whatever, you paid your home off, your car, whatever the purported fraudulent as loan was stated to be for.
What's occurring is a currency exchange. You're giving them a note in exchange for credit. They have access to credit, federal reserve notes, you do not. You need that because that is what is circulating in society. In exchange for your promissory note or your bill of exchange or whatever negotiable or non negotiable instrument you give them.
You can easily see from UCC 3104 what a negotiable instrument is. And from 12 USC 181301, you can see that a bill of exchange or a note is the equivalent of cash. So comprehending that and being able to articulate that, you put them in a in a position where they have to honor what's going on. And if they don't act in accordance, they're committing blatant fraud, extortion, treason, coercion, deprivation of rights under the color of law, conspiracy, the racketeering, you name it. You have to be able to sue them and get what's yours.
But they are doing a currency exchange. They're taking your note in accordance with 12 USC 412. They're taking your note, your bill of exchange as collateral. The house is not collateral. The house is not collateral.
The car is not collateral. The collateral is the security. The piece of paper that you sign that you think is just a piece of paper is actually cash. It's worth the same amount of money that literally is written on its face aka the face value. So if you have a note for 1,000,000 you just gave them a cash item worth $1,000,000 and then you turned around and made payments to these bozos because they tricked you.
And by tacit agreement, silent acquiescence, you agreed to pay them double, and you abandoned all of your money, all of your securities, all of your bonds, all of your assets. Don't believe me? Look it up and prove me wrong, but that's what occurring. So how do you fix this? If you're in a situation where they're trying to take your home, they the bank themselves is foreclosing on you, and then they're trying to buy the home and say that you also owe them money, that's because they're taking advantage of your ignorance.
File a lawsuit against these fucking bozos. These guys are garbage as fraudulent traitors. Majority of them are either foreigners or they're just treasonous fucking traitors. Your house is paid for. Your car is paid for.
Everything is paid for. Anything you're paying for, you're double paying for. Okay? Everything's been paid for already. 12 USC 1813lone.
UCC 3104, negotiable instruments. Acceptance for value, UCC 3409. Final expression of a contract when you send them back your administrative process and you're saying these are the new terms. UCC 2 dash 202. Common law, fraud, contracts, it all runs everything highlighted in UCC 1 dash 103.
Discharge upon payment UCC 3 dash 603. Discharge when you simply say, this is for full satisfaction, UCC 3 dash 311. If you come in and you're trying to say this is offer and acceptance and you've accepted my contract, UCC 2 dash 206. How do you form this contract? Which, affirms that this contract has been formed in the ways you can form contracts, AKA offer and acceptance, mailbox postal rule, things like that, UCC 2 dash 204.
So in summary, you paid for everything. Everything. Everything is actually already paid. Your note, your bill of exchange, your signature. Your signature just acts as an authorization of issuance of credit.
You have a trust. The Treasury and the IRS are supposed to do the right thing, but they corrupt pieces of shit, so they don't. You have a trust. Your Social Security number is not your Social Security number. It's the social that was given to you by a third party company called the Social Security Administration.
That Social Security number is an identifier. It's the mark of the beast. It identifies your legal person, your straw man, your ins legis, your trust, your individual, your person, whatever fictitious ass title you wanna give it. It's not a man. It's not a woman.
It's a creation of law. So claim your assets, people. Wake up, please. This is just getting it's like, what the fuck is really going on? I have to tell you.
But if you're dealing with a mortgage, claim the deed of trust. Claim the deed. Claim the note. Move it into your trust. Follow UCC lien on everything, and now they don't have any authority to claim anything.
Why are they able to foreclose on your home? They're able to foreclose because they have authority and standing. How do they have authority and standing? By the deed of trust and the note that you have failed to claim. When you claim and own the deed of trust and the note and say you've added it to your UC 1 or your UC 3, and it's now a part of your entire asset structure or your trust, they don't have authority.
They don't have, quote, standing, end quote, in any way, shape, or form. They don't have the proper capacity. So the only way they can win at that point is if you willfully allow them to win. If you don't respond, if you throw a tantrum but you don't present your paperwork correctly, that is literally how they will win. So we're at that time, peeps.
If you're gonna stand by, complicitly, and just allow shit to happen, the fuck out the way. If you really wanna stand up for your rights, you're gonna really have to stand up for your rights. They ain't playing games. They're not giving you guys any cake walks, poppers and broke people and all these people saying help me help me. I have rights when you don't know fucking shit.
You don't know how to read a book. You don't even know how to draft an affidavit, but you're delusional as shit into thinking that you're do everything and you can't even read a fucking book, go sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. For my real ones, actually reading, studying, learning, Keep pushing forward. These people are shady as fuck. Shady as fuck.
As I said, I'm a keep on leading by example. I'm not going anywhere. I want all the fucking smoke. These bozos think that they can fuck with my shit. They got another thing coming straight up.
I'm taking everybody to town. I'll I'll I'll list off the list again just so these fucking people know who I'm coming for. Riverside County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol, Chase, Wells Fargo, SoFi, Rancho Water District, and Christia. Christia, I'm gonna fucking make an example out of you, bitch. You think you can just use my shit without my permission?
K. Southern California Edison, Spectrum, AT and T, Department of State and Anthony Blinkton's old treasonous ass. Janet Young and the secretary of the Department of Treasury. Secretary of State Shirley Weber, Gavin Newsom. Congress rep Darrell Issa, who just sits by and allows all this shit to happen as a treasonous fucking traitor.
All you people are gonna have your day, and I'm gonna make sure you have your day. But, yeah, if anybody needs some assistance, tap in. Do not come to me asking for a 100% free assistance. I will block the fuck out of you. I will literally fucking obliterate you via text and tell you you're incompetent, stupid, and need to shut the fuck up if you come to me asking for a 100% free help.
That's why your dumbass is in this situation because you're fucking stupid. You think shits are handouts, you refuse to learn, and you're still circling back looking for free hand me down as fucking excuses. You're a pauper. You're not adding to the fucking world. You're literally a slave mentally and physically.
So either wake the fuck up and read or shut the fuck up and get out the way. Peace.