All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2023 - Blood Money
01:00:48
6 Billion Slaves - Blood Money Episode 81 w/ Attorney Todd Callender, Esq
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, what's next?
I'm going to be a little bit different.
proof of their oath of office.
This includes Lloyd Austin, Merrick Garland, Pete Utinichich, and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Thus far, these individuals have failed to provide proof of their oath of office.
Without proof that they have taken an oath to their office, their office is unconstitutional.
Please join us for Blood Money Episode 81 with Attorney Todd Callender, the attorney who could prove that key members of our government are illegitimate.
All right, we're on the latest episode of Blood Money, and today I have a very special guest, Attorney Todd Callender.
And Attorney Todd Callender is going to tell us about some of these incredible lawsuits he has going and his fight in what's become known, honestly, as the COVID-19 scandemic pandemic.
So how are you doing, Todd?
I'm doing great. I call it COVID-side, by the way.
It's kind of, yeah, a combination between genocide and COVID, resulting in the, you know, Mass casualty event that the owners of this world are after.
Before we started recording, you started telling me about your incredible history, how you were actually working with the Pfizer's of the world at one point until you realized what was really going on.
Could you tell us a little bit about your background and frankly how you got involved in this holy mess that we're going through right now?
Sure. So back in the mid-1990s, my family acquired the intellectual property rights to a needle-free mass vaccination device.
And it was before the thing had even been made into a proper product.
My job in the family was to get this through the FDA process, and we searched around the world and found out that Cuba does more vaccinations than any other country per capita.
So I applied to the U.S. government.
It was an enemy nation at the time, and I applied to see if we could go and do business with Cuba, and I got a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department, State Department, and Commerce Departments all agreed.
I think the DOD too. For me to be the first U.S. licensee to do business, to go to Cuba and do business with them in order to conduct a clinical field trial.
So I spent three years in Cuba managing a clinical field trial for this mass vaccination device.
And as part of that process towards the end, The whole event had the propensity to open trade with Cuba, really.
It was the first time they could agree on anything.
I brought the WHO into Cuba, I brought Pfizer into Cuba, and a variety of these other characters because they were involved in the clinical field trial.
I've been in this business for a long time.
My family still is.
The company tests a lot of the same quote-unquote vaccines that are being delivered.
And so when this whole thing really started in 2020, I knew that these shots were experimental because we've been testing them.
And I knew that they were going to unleash these on the military in particular.
And I knew that all of the test animals in the studies had died.
Wow, wow. I mean, when you're describing these events in terms of bringing Pfizer into Cuba, the word you used, you said, I brought these monsters into Cuba.
And that almost sounds like somebody that at the time did not know that they were monsters, but now in retrospect, you realize that that was, you know, I wouldn't say a mistake because you didn't know, but you realize that these people are monsters.
Tell me about that evolution of how you came to that conclusion that we're dealing with monsters.
Well, I didn't really have the opportunity to understand that until it was 1999 or 2000 or so, and we were at the end of our clinical field trials.
The WHO came to observe them, and that was fine.
But I also was asked to introduce Pfizer to the top levels of the Cuban government because I had developed those relationships, and three executives came from Pfizer, and I met with them, and the The conduct was really shocking to me, the way that they were treating these other people in their midst.
And I was actually really appalled by it.
And it was the first indication.
Could you be more specific in terms of conduct?
Are you talking about the way the Pfizer executives were treating people around them?
Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.
The denigration of the Cubans and the locals that they were interacting with, it just blew me away.
I didn't know people could actually be so disgusting.
And so any event, I made the introduction and then I just had nothing really to do with them again.
It was really quite appalling to me.
And so that was my first indication.
I just want to dig into this one a little bit more.
I mean, are you talking about, you know, people having a superior attitude like they're down upon?
So they're coming in there, you're arranging this meeting, they have a privileged meeting and they're basically acting like assholes more or less.
In advance of that meeting, there were regular Cubans around and we're in the Hotel Nacional and they were effectively mocking them, making fun of them for sport, acting like they didn't speak Spanish and just being really disgusting.
For no reason. No reason whatsoever.
So it's kind of like a superiority complex, looking down at people, looking down at people like they're serfs.
Taunting them. Taunting them.
That tells you a lot. I mean, that tells you when they're looking down at the little people like that.
I mean, that's the communication one-on-one right there, you know?
That's right. It was a good indicator, and I was at the end of my project, so I really didn't have anything from there on to do with it.
But it was an indication as to who these people really are.
And, you know, as you go through the years of observing their studies and things of that nature, it doesn't dawn on you that all of this is in furtherance of a completely different objective than we What we think.
We are all under the impression vaccines are to help people and save people.
And what I've come to find through this journey is they're not.
They're designed to injure and kill people.
And the reality of the situation is they are making people sick.
You look at the incidents of autism, for example, in 1969, I think it was one in 10,000 or maybe one in 100,000.
Now it's one of 38 boys.
The only thing that has been persistent throughout there is the increase in number of shots, childhood vaccines.
And, you know, we were testing Gardasil, amongst other things, in Africa and India, and I saw the results of those, and these things were extraordinarily dangerous.
In fact, if you go to the original laws that enabled for immunity, The vaccine manufacturers back in 1986, you will find that Congress made specific findings that the reason they had to grant immunity is because 20% of the people receiving these things were getting injured and there was no way for the manufacturers to be able to survive the lawsuits for damages.
And so our Congress in 1986 gave them immunity.
So as you start to develop this whole scenario, this paradigm, it becomes more and more clear that the common element here in everybody's injury, their morbidity and mortality, are the shots themselves.
And so we understood that in 2021, when Secretary Austin started talking about getting everybody in the military 1.4 million service members, An experimental shot, an experimental gene therapy, that means gene modification shot, where all of the test animals died.
I couldn't sit by, and so I was in touch with some retirees.
Genocide, I mean genocide. There's no way to look at that.
That's what this is. You know what I mean?
That's right. And we had very good indications how dangerous these shots were, and so did the DOD. They'd been studying them for 20 years.
Operation Warp Speed had been in existence since 2016.
This was not new. They pulled it off the shelf.
There was an excuse.
Quick question there. I mean, Donald Trump's definitely gone around and talked about Operation Warp Speed, how great it was.
Was he just not in the know that it was going on for three, four years prior to...
Man, I wish I could tell you the answer to that question.
I'm not in his head. But what I can tell you is that the World Bank was financing COVID-19 PCR tests in 2017 and 18.
COVID-19 wasn't named that until March of 2020.
This whole thing was a setup, and it was carefully planned, including the militarization of public health, such that on March 20, when President Trump declared the national emergency, a public health emergency of international concern was declared almost at the same time.
That had the effect of suspending not just our constitutional rights, but that declaration suspended everybody's human rights globally, pursuant to international agreements, specifically the 2005 International Health Regulations.
Upon one declaration of one man in the WHO. And we've never gotten them back, Ben.
We've never gotten them back.
And so today we sit in the midst of military, medical, martial law.
It has not changed. Any rights you think you have are gone.
This is, I mean, this kind of reminds me of the Patriot Act, to be honest.
It is. This is a very similar point in history.
It almost feels like one is predicated upon the other.
Exactly right. They pulled it off the shelf.
The Patriot Act, you know, they didn't draft thousands of pages of law and then just, you know, within days of 9-11, you know, the attacks.
They didn't just write that.
It had been sitting there for ages.
There are think tanks that do nothing but write legislation in preparation for whatever is going to happen.
And I think that if you look at, for instance, the Gulf of Tonkin that kicked off the Vietnam War, it was a fraud.
It never happened. So what stops us from believing the rest of these are frauds?
A great example.
You know, are you kidding me?
The mortality rate was nothing, but it was blown up in the news as though this was, you know, the next flu of 1912 or whatever it was.
It's absurd, but they used it as a predicate to roll out these experimental shots.
And when I sued the DOD, I had indications that these were gene modification shots.
And it was at some point later that I discovered that there's separate regulations for biologics and gene therapy than there is for investigative new drugs.
That led me to a case called Molecular Pathology versus Myriad Genetics, 2013 Supreme Court case, the holding of which is that the synthetic product of gene modification belongs to the patent holders.
In other words, according to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the people that got the shots now belong to the patent holders.
So I said to the court in Robert V. Austin, it's in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals right now, that that violates our 13th Amendment.
You don't get to own people.
We outlawed it in 1865 after the Civil War.
Wow. I can't believe, I mean, so the legal definition is they own people at that point once they've had this.
Yes, it is a patent.
That's precisely the case, is that the synthetic product of gene modification, meaning the people that got the shots are now owned by the patent holders.
The law is fairly clear on this, and I wish it weren't so, but these are clearly gene models.
In fact, go to the case, Molecular Pathology vs.
Myriad Genetics 2013, go to page six, halfway down with a sentence that starts with, it is also.
And it holds that use of mRNA in particular will create the patent rights and the ownership interests of the synthetic product of that gene modification.
It's in the case. There is no case that's overruled, no legislation that's happened since that says that is not so.
Wow, wow. We're going to get back to that because that opens up just a plethora of questions in terms of the ownership of people that are taking these vaccines.
A lot of juicy questions there that I want to ask.
But let's continue with this story in terms of, you know, you're talking to people in the DoD.
It sounds like there's good guys and bad guys.
There's people that are concerned.
Yes, that's right. The population control mechanism.
Their alarm bells are going off.
They're coming to you asking for advice and help.
Tell me a little bit about that, how you kind of started to see both sides of our government.
Well, you know, the military, I'm a former military.
I was in the Army for a short period of time.
Loved it. My law partner, David Wilson, is a 30-year veteran as a JAG officer.
And when this whole fight started, there was a bunch of us just kind of threw in together to fight because we knew what this was going to be about.
We also understood that the military was the first target.
The Secretary of Defense started talking about compulsory shots.
I think it was in May or June of 2021.
We understood the danger to our military.
Without our military, if they were wounded by these shots, you know, then our nation would be in jeopardy.
And so we spoke with a number of people who shared those concerns in the military, some active duty, some retired, retired generals.
And we said, you know, we got to do something about this.
So when the mandate became apparent and it was announced that they were actually going to mandate this and authorize the use of force, by the way, Ben, Authorized and use of force if you did not take it.
That's right. Use of force was authorized and that was the straw that broke Herbio Campbell's back.
We filed suit the day before the mandate actually happened.
On June, I'm sorry, August 24, 2021, the mandate happened and we all of a sudden had thousands and thousands of service members.
I mean, it was crazy how many people were calling us.
Get me out of this thing.
And we figured we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 presumptive plaintiffs, according to our research, to join the class.
We filed a temporary restraining order, later a preliminary injunction.
Some months later in a setting hearing, we were dismissed for no apparent reason.
And what we later came to find is that Article III courts, in fact, may have been suspended by the Declaration of the National Emergency.
We appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Where we sit now, throughout this process then, We have alleged throughout the entire time that these gene modification shots are unlawful because they violate the 13th Amendment at the end of the day.
And never once, mind you, never once has the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, or the FDA denied that.
DOJ represents those other three defendants.
Never once did they deny this allegation.
And the reality is the 10th Circuit can't answer this well.
There's no good answer to this question.
Is it true that there's a new species that are owned by the patent holders as a result of these shots?
The shots that were mandated in the military?
So, like, basically, we're talking about, I mean, the 14th Amendment is gone at that point, more or less.
Is that the 14th or the 13th Amendment?
It's the 13th Amendment.
13th Amendment. Slavery's fine.
We're back... 1860, basically.
1865. Yeah, that's right.
The 13th Amendment came in 1865 and outlawed slavery.
What is slavery? It's the ownership of other people.
That's what we're talking about here.
We outlawed owning other people in 1865.
And yet, here's this loophole in the law that says if you genetically modify them, they may not be people anymore.
Define people. Is that homo sapiens?
And this is a new species as contemplated by our government in the NASA Langley research paper sent to you from 2001.
It says this new species shall be called Borg, B-O-R-G. It's on page two.
So theoretically, we have a new species.
The vaccinated people are genetically modified substrata of Homo sapiens.
In fact, our government calls them Borg.
Wow. I had no intention of this interview going in this direction because I really wanted to get down to the lawsuits that you have in terms of certain members of our government not producing their own stuff.
The whole cabinet. The whole cabinet.
So if we're going to get to that, that's going to be really interesting because we might have a completely illegitimate government.
That's right. Mr.
Callender is going to tell us. But these things you brought up bring up a lot of questions.
One of the things that we've been fascinated with over here at Blood Money is our law, right?
And how they're trying to create all these different sexes.
Now, we're by no means, none of us are lawyers or attorneys, but some of the things that we've heard is that one of the reasons they want to create all these sexes It's true, right? So you're basically creating slaves out of...
Once you're not men or women, you have no constitutional protections, hence and therefore you're basically a slave.
Very well stated.
Let me give it to you in a straightforward example.
If you have a dog, And you shoot it in the head and you kill it.
Did you commit the crime of homicide?
And the answer to that is no.
Homicide is the unlawful taking of a human life, defined as homo sapiens.
If you kill somebody who is not a homo sapien, did you commit the crime of homicide?
The answer is probably no.
If you look through all these papers I sent you as it relates to human augmentation by the Ministry of Defense in the UK and Germany, and in our case, Cyborg Soldiers and the 2001 NASA Langley Research paper, you will find that they refer to these quote unquote super soldiers or symbios, or Borg as the case may be, as property, chattel property.
Not people, not humans.
So I think your supposition is probably right.
So basically, it seems like there's a movement here in order to create, like, essentially get rid of all the laws having to do with people not being slaves.
They can't get rid of that, right?
That's international law.
It's, you know, for instance, the Convention on Human Rights, for example.
All of these are international law, meaning treaty obligations.
They can't just get rid of those.
All of these countries agreed to them.
They're ratified by the various legislative bodies.
So rather than getting rid of that, they just changed the target of the laws or change or exempt the targets of these laws.
So if you're not a human, do you enjoy human rights?
And the answer to that question, based on what you're saying, is probably no.
No, no. All right.
So that's one important detail that I think is very...
The fact that you are an attorney of your stature and you're telling us what we've discovered through our interviews, that the minute you're not man or woman, you're basically nothing.
You're slave. You have no rights.
We don't know. That's very interesting.
We don't know the answer.
So, through fraud, basically, they're not coming straight up and telling you to give up your 13th Amendment rights, but through fraud, through deception, people are basically falling into this, whether it's taking the jab and becoming this patented new thing that is not man or woman, or calling themselves whatever cisgender, this, that, taking out the man or woman.
These are basically ways of essentially losing all your rights.
Well, not to mention the declaration of a national emergency which suspended the Constitution.
So the, or significant portions of it, as demonstrated by the J6 protesters, right?
There's something called speedy trial, due process rights, law against unlawful detainers.
None of those, not even habeas corpus, was afforded to the January 6 protesters because the Constitution was suspended.
You don't have to question whether that happened.
You can see it for yourself.
The answer to your question, and it's a really astute point, Is that you must look to the definition of a human in order to understand, or the definition of people as described in our laws, to understand whether the law applies to it.
None of these have been tested since.
All we know is there are things such as GINA, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, And it actually contemplates, hey, you don't get to discriminate against somebody if they have different genetic traits.
Well, how would somebody have those different genetic traits?
Is it possible with this gene modification?
And I would lead you into my question in front of the U.S. Attorney right now, which is that we found all of the cabinet, including Secretary Austin, have defective oaths of office, which are required under 5 U.S.C. 332.
What does that mean? If it was a defective oath of office, Then everything that person did officially is void ab initio.
So to your point about fraud...
When you say defective, what does that mean?
What does defective oath of office mean?
It means that within 30 days of being appointed to a position, that official, that officer must do a handwritten attestation, a sworn affidavit to certain three elements that they promise to serve lawfully, defend the country, and that they're not working for somebody else.
They didn't get paid to do this.
If they don't have that notarized, it is defective.
It must be either notarized or sworn under penalty of perjury.
It is neither for any of these people.
In the case of Attorney General Garland, he doesn't even have a date of appointment.
In the case of the Secretary of Treasury Yellen, they didn't bother to do a written oath.
It is required and none of them have it.
Those that did provide it are defective, including Secretary Austin.
So what I'm getting to Is what you had said a minute ago.
The pretext of this was an order by the Secretary of Defense to take the shots.
According to what we just filed with the U.S. Attorney, Secretary Austin shouldn't have been a secretary and he didn't have the power to order anybody to do anything because all official acts are void ab initio without this sworn affidavit.
So why would they not swear an oath and go through this very simple procedure in order for their office to look legitimate?
That's a great question. Well, there are notaries everywhere.
Are you telling me they didn't have notaries all around?
I could get one online right now in five minutes.
I could literally email them and I'll notarize something in the next five, ten minutes.
So I have a theory. I was talking to my co-counsel about this, Ken Ferguson, and some other lawyers.
And if you look at the elements of treason, for example, There are certain parts of that crime you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, including, did they have a duty to the country?
Well, if you didn't swear an oath, a duty to the country, did you in fact have a duty to the country?
And it seems to me very odd and statistically impossible that the entire cabinet has defective oaths of office.
How is that? It seems to me it's a plan.
And when you are in the process of genociding your own people, would you happen to want to have such a duty to those people?
Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's almost like they know, well, there's a few things I've heard.
The karmic implications, cosmic implications of essentially, you know, putting an oath like that forward.
Sure. I don't know if that's what they're thinking about, but obviously there's illegal implications because what they're doing is pretty bad, right?
Genocide, you know, those people usually end up on the, you know, short end of a rope, right?
That's what the law calls for.
But to actually take an oath to office, you're saying that that actually makes their crimes that much worse, and hence and therefore they willfully did not take their oath to office.
So what's your choice here?
The penalty for treason is death.
The penalty for impersonating a federal officer is jail time.
Which one would you choose?
Should you get caught?
I mean, jail time sounds a lot better than hanging.
I think that's the analysis.
I think that's the analysis.
I'm speculating of course, but I can't make any sense of it otherwise.
Wow. Wow. So you're saying it's almost like one cancels out the other?
Yes. It cannot be both at the same time.
It's one or the other. And, you know, like I said, I'm speculating.
And by the way, this is in front of the U.S. attorney.
We provided them the evidence.
I encourage you to share it.
We are alleging that these oaths are all defective.
And if the U.S. attorney does not do anything with it, then the law allows us to petition the federal district court in Washington, D.C., and have the court remove them.
They are now given the opportunity.
We served this on the U.S. Attorney.
And they now have the opportunity to produce their oaths of office.
These came as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by Lisa McGee.
Just out of the goodness of her heart, she did this.
And not one of them could produce a valid oath of office.
We've pointed that out to the U.S. Attorney.
What is he going to do about it?
We haven't heard anything since.
Wow, so tell me a little bit more, and I'd like to come back to this particular topic in a second, but the good guys, bad guys, tell me a little bit about that.
How is it that our government seems to have been infiltrated by a lot of bad guys, while it seems like there's some good guys in place that are still, you know, bringing these topics of issue to the forefront and raising their concerns and wanting to, you know, do away with the corruption, tyranny, genocide? Well, I don't know which good guys you refer to, but it's not hard to pick people out these days on which side you're on, starting with forcing these shots on others.
Anybody that was coercing or forcing or paying people to take these shots Now, they had knowledge or should have had knowledge as to the danger of this and the fact that these were experimental shots and that the informed consent laws apply.
These arise from the Nuremberg Code that resulted from what the Nazis did experimenting on people in World War II. Everybody knows that.
You don't give people experimental anything without telling them first that it's an experiment.
And yet, we had our own government forcing people to take these shots.
They were giving orders to service members, to soldiers, take these shots or lose your job.
There were exemptions in the law for all of these service members if they wanted to get out of this, aside from failure of informed consent.
AR 4562 is a law that says that if they have a religious exemption, a religious problem with it, they don't have to take them.
Not one of those was actually allowed in any of our clients' cases.
In the end, 400,000 service members stood up and said, no, we're not taking your experimental shots.
And that's what stopped the government.
The same thing applies today.
There are for sure, there's good people in office carrying a badge and a gun and wearing a uniform, and those people have to understand the paradigm, which is that you are probably working for somebody who is a complete fraud and has no reason or basis or color of law to be in their position.
If you follow their orders, you're a mercenary.
If you swore an oath to the Constitution, then pick your side, right?
Most people join the service, either military or police, because they cared about the country and they cared about people.
Well, here's your opportunity.
Enforce the law. And the law says if these guys are impersonating federal officers, go and arrest them.
Wow. I mean, how do you embed this much, like, treason within our government?
This much? I mean, really, you're embedding, like, Hitlerian genocidal-type folks that clearly know what's going on, but how do so many of these people infiltrate our government to the point where— Because they're appointed.
They're appointed. I mean, look at—yeah, it's kind of a joke.
There's no elections. They're sea-lections.
The people that are proffered for both parties are predetermined.
And they're already corrupted.
They know what they're gonna do, right?
They know that they're bought and paid for.
Selections rather than elections, you're saying, right?
Selections rather than elections.
That's exactly right. They're put in place, and you find this globally, right?
This isn't just the United States of America.
Since we filed this RIC Guaranto, we've had people from all over the world saying, yeah, we foiled our leaders, our political and decision-making leaders, and found the same thing.
They're also defective. They're non-existent.
So this is a global thing.
And by the way, the COVID side was a global endeavor.
It's a giant criminal enterprise designed to depopulate the planet.
I don't think that even is hidden.
You look at the 1994 Cairo Populations Accords.
They said we've got to reduce the population by 95%.
Why do we not believe them?
Yeah, yeah. I mean, you got so many clues to that.
I mean, they're pretty much- Clues? They wrote it down.
What clues? I mean, Bill Gates is saying that, you know, vaccines are going to be used to control the world's population.
I mean, I don't know how you look at that and like, I mean, vaccines are supposed to heal people.
So theoretically, that would increase the world's population.
Shouldn't we take him at their word?
Right? I mean, I don't know if you saw Kamala Harris.
She said something at some point.
You know, these are not FDA-approved vaccines, so make sure you roll up your arm and stick one in.
You know, they're laughing at us.
This is just a big joke to them.
And, you know, the masses are so stupid.
I'm sorry. Or maybe it's not stupid, but apathetic.
Apathetic. You know, take some time.
And blind. And blind.
I mean, how much do you need in your life?
You're seeing your neighbors have myocarditis.
You're seeing people pass away.
I mean, how much crap do you need before you wake up and you realize, you know what, maybe these little battles, like race little battles that they put in there in order to keep us distracted, black, white, trans versus heterosexual.
I mean, all these little things that they put And people are so preoccupied with that crap, they don't realize they're being made into literal slaves.
That's right. It's mind-blowing.
It's exactly right. Mind-blowing on a biblical level.
This is something where you're like, holy shit, they actually did this?
Yes, they did. And the question is, what are we going to do about it?
Are people going to persist in their apathy and then just walk along and march to the guillotine?
Is that what our plan is?
Or are we going to do something about this?
Because we have the law on our side.
These people are committing genocide.
That's illegal. These people are killing and injuring others.
That's illegal. These people are impersonating federal officers.
That is illegal. So I'm sorry.
How effective have the courts been in all this?
Because it seems as though the courts kind of want to turn a blind eye to a lot of horrible things that are happening in our country right now.
So this is one of the problems and why I had mentioned that on On March 13 of 2020, President Trump made a declaration of a national emergency.
It seems to me that a lot of the courts, the federal courts, are saying that provision of the Constitution may not be applicable to the current circumstances.
Effectively, Article III courts may not be in session on the items that relate to that.
So they're just refusing to opine.
They say that the subject matter is not justiciable because There's a national emergency.
The Constitution is effectively suspended, or at least parts relating to this.
So the courts are going, well, what are we supposed to do, right?
And by the way, you know, just when Biden says that he removed the national emergency or the public health emergency, two days later they declared a new one.
Monkeypox was declared and stays in place.
Look, it took decades For our legislatures, globally, to create this cattle shoot, it's a box canyon of laws, so that when this one declaration is made by this one person, in the case of the United States, the Secretary of Health, all your rights disappear, and they are supplanted with something you can find in 42 CFR Part 70 and 71.
They're substitute, quote-unquote, rights.
They're actually privileges. Your rights are gone.
How is it possible Churches were closed.
What happened to freedom of religion?
But liquor stores, they're open.
You can have a choice of Target or Walmart, but mom and pop shops got closed down.
All of that is unconstitutional.
All of us stuck in our houses, false imprisonment, also unconstitutional, and yet it has happened worse.
We've tolerated it. How and why?
I'm going to get kind of deep here and probably a little controversial, right?
We've done a lot of content in terms of the essence of how our legal system is built.
Like the bar, for example.
You have one bar which has always struck me as a little bit odd.
There's no competition. It seems like a monopoly there, you know?
And that's always bothered me because once you follow why certain things happen In the courts that do not reach a point of justice, it's hard to avoid the fact that you have essentially a monopoly controlling the entire legal profession, right? And then it gets further complicated than that, right?
Because when the framers of the Constitution, first, you know, three branches of the government, it wasn't supposed to be that there's two branches of the government that are occupied primarily by lawyers, bar agents, right?
So you have your legislature that is often 60 to 75%, you know, Lawyers.
Then you have your legal branch, which is all lawyers and judges, right?
So that, to me, just seems like imbalance.
That seems like it's hard to keep the different...
Because weren't the legislature...
Isn't the legislature supposed to keep the judicial branch in check and make sure that all these unconstitutional, unlawful things don't happen?
But how effective can you be when it's, you know, both those branches are primarily filled with lawyers?
Yes. I think the lawyers...
That seems odd. No, it's a fair point, but I want you to understand something.
When I took the oath of my profession as a lawyer in 1995, I swore my oath to the Constitution of Colorado and the U.S. Constitution, not to a bar association.
So, not everybody is barred in the sense that you speak of it.
I didn't make any oath to any bar association.
But it is true, nonetheless, that I think there are too many lawyers and that this system has become grossly, just gross, actually.
Let me put it to you this way. When I took the exam, the bar exam, which is what it is, I think there were 270,000 volumes, that's books of law, in being at that time across the United States.
In other words, legislating every feature of human behavior.
It's insane. It's absolutely insane.
And why does one do that?
Well, don't tell me we live in a free country.
If there's that many laws governing your conduct as a human being, Then you're not free in any sense of the word and I would challenge you to go to a variety of other countries and see how big their law libraries are.
They're substantially smaller.
So to your point, I think the checks and balances in our government have just been really faded away and they always come as a result of exigent circumstances.
Every constitutional right you think you have It has exemptions, exemptions that arose from exigent circumstances.
You made reference to, for instance, the Patriot Act is a very good example.
Oh, we're going to suspend everybody's constitutional rights or Fourth Amendment rights to search and seizure by virtue of the Patriot Act.
We're going to have these secret FISA courts.
Don't worry about it.
It's an exigent circumstance.
So I think that over the years, starting probably in 1913 or so, we've lost control of our government and the people who really control it are the ones that control the money supply.
And I think you will find that across the planet.
Yeah, yeah. Federal, I mean, all roads seem to go to the federal.
They do. Well, they do. I mean, if you can print money out of thin air, and people will agree to that as a medium of exchange, then what exactly could you not buy?
And my point is that they own governments.
They own militaries. They now own God knows how many people.
They got the shots.
What don't they own?
What couldn't they own?
Why do we agree that that funny piece of paper, that debt instrument, has any value?
But we do. It's kind of absurd.
Yeah. And you know, one of the things that's led to is as we get into this conversation about our rights, laws, you know, there's, and I'm sure you might not agree with this particular movement, but there's this whole state national movement where people are essentially writing notices to the government saying that I'm no longer part of your corporation because You know, I've realized that what U.S. citizen actually means is that I'm living in the 10 square mile radius of Washington, D.C., and I'm employed by the federal government, hence, and therefore, I'm not living that life.
And I'm now notifying you that I'm no longer part of that system.
I mean, is that something that you even entertain as a viable model?
Does that sound insane to you?
You do. You think that there's a liability?
Well, I think we have to.
I think we have to opt out of this system.
They've demonstrated that this is a fraud.
Why would we continue to partake in a fraud?
You know, you have elections, that's kind of a joke.
Look what happened in Arizona, for example.
You got the Secretary of State who refuses to enforce the law and somehow becomes the governor.
I mean, this is a joke.
So I've seen three different models for people that are removing themselves or opting out of the system, all of which share one commonality that I very much like, and that is, you don't get to use me as collateral.
My birth certificate It's not going to collateralize your debts for the rest of my life.
I'm revoking it. I'm taking it back.
And I think, you know, as I understand it, Ann VanderSteel is a friend of mine.
She said that there's some 25 million people that have gone through this process.
Good. There are other alternate systems of governance that are popping up.
And in the original days of this country, states competed for citizens.
They weren't prisons like we have today.
And I think there's better models.
I know some guys that are working on some things like that.
In Texas, you're seeing indigenous rights are coming to the forefront.
Indian nations, they are competing for citizens as well as they should.
What's the point of a sovereign, right?
It's to protect your citizens.
And when you stop protecting them and you start persecuting them, it's time to go.
Always keep enough money to bribe the border guards, is one of my clients said.
Wow, wow, wow.
I mean, it's amazing that an attorney of your stature actually sees some value in some of these things.
You know, it's that, it's the birth certificate where, you know, and it seemed that the pattern here seems very similar.
It's like, it's not like they're telling you that if we inject you with this thing, you are a patented piece of property, hence you become a source.
They don't tell you that. When you're born, they don't tell you that your birth certificate means once your birth certificate is issued, It means that the government has stake in you, that the government has ownership in you.
They're not telling you that that is a form of slavery.
That's right. So it seems like all of their power has been attained through different fraudulent acts, and fraud is never admissible in court, right?
Well, it's admissible as evidence.
You know, but you can't use it, right?
You can't use it to enforce a quote-unquote law, and this is exactly our point.
It's why we filed the writ quo warranto, and my fear is that our U.S. attorney is not going to do anything with it.
Even if we go to a federal court in Washington, D.C., they may not do anything with it.
What choice are we left with other than opting out of the system?
If you can't get redress, For an ongoing fraud against the entire country, and they refuse to say, no, it's not a fraud.
Here's my valid oath of office, right?
Not one of them has done that.
Wouldn't that be great if they did?
Here's the valid oath.
My apologies. It didn't happen.
So what choice are we left with them other than to say, well, I'm not going to participate.
I'm not going to use your courts.
There are arbitration proceedings.
There are Sharia courts. People opt out to use alternate systems.
Some people leave the country.
Frankly, I did so myself.
I've lived outside the United States for my adult life.
Yeah, yeah. It's absolutely insane.
And one of the other patterns, I mean, the reason I wanted to bring up all that stuff about the Birchiff to get Washington, you know, how Washington, D.C. makes you a citizen living there, quote unquote, that, you know, it's not really the rest of us living in the rest of the country.
It's because of the nature of the fraud and how essentially they've tricked us into all this stuff, right?
And so, You know, when we're talking about the future here and kind of essentially America 2.0, is this something that happens gradually in terms of people opting out of one system, realizing that, you know what, this is a slavery system.
I want to go over here where I have my common law rights.
They can't mess with me.
They can't mess with my land.
They can't take my children.
You hear horror stories from CPS because, you know, the government has one-third interest in your child due to that birth certificate.
Is that really just a kind of a gradual transition that happens for many years to come and eventually people realize that, you know what?
No, I don't think so.
I don't think so. Thanks to you and some other people just like you that are helping Americans, people around the world, understand the true paradigm that we are living in the midst of a giant criminal enterprise.
Good people will reject that.
Good people aren't going to put up with it.
And, you know, when you see all these people coming across the border, Michael Yom is a friend of mine.
He's down in the Darien Gap showing people coming out of the jungle trying to get here.
A lot of those good people.
I mean, I think most of those are people that are trying to come to America because they really do think it's better.
So imagine where they came from.
This is better. Well, why is it better?
Because we have the Americana spirit, and what we've got to do is take those people, turn them into Americans, and take our country back and say, no, look, we're not putting up with the fraud.
No, you don't count.
No, you don't get to make this law, and particularly to those people in uniform.
Military or badge and gun, either way, you took an oath.
Did you take an oath to office or to the Constitution or to the person who's issuing these orders, the person who cannot produce their legitimate oath of office?
And I've talked to, I don't even know how many, hundreds of people in the military, other places, law enforcement say, I had to take an oath.
I had to use an affidavit and a notary to do it.
So I'm sorry, you're taking orders from who?
So it's really up to us.
It's up to us.
What are we going to do, right?
There's nobody coming to save us.
So get off your couch and do something.
Yep. And you know, one other crazy thing I want to point out here, right?
What I've noticed in studying the fraud that they put before us is they seem to want to tell us exactly what they're doing.
Yes, that's right. Right?
Now, if you kind of want to turn on CNN and think you're getting real information, You'll never find out about this stuff.
But in terms of them creating the slavery system, them owning, having a stake in your children, them basically having you be essentially an employee of Washington, D.C. when you're not even an employee, the whole thing's a fraud.
But they're telling you they're committing.
It's not like they're hiding this.
So when you talk about the individuals that are committing treasonous acts that did not take their oath to office, is that a way of them telling us?
It's almost like this. When you read about Satanism and stuff, the Satanists want to tell you what they're doing or omit things in order for there to be this karmic, I guess, absolving of their sins.
Is that what's going on?
Where they're basically telling you, I'm not taking an oath because I'm a treasonous piece of shit.
They haven't hidden any of this, especially if you look at the UN conventions on, for instance, Agenda 21, the agenda for the 21st century, what has turned into Agenda 2030.
They tell you that anthropogenic climate change is the problem.
And for that reason, humans got to go, right?
It's in the 1994 Cairo Population Accords and 1992 Real Climate Accords.
They made those findings.
It's not like they're hiding this.
They wrote it down. So the answer to your question is yes.
Now the question is, what are we going to do?
But are we going to abdicate that?
Or are we going to stand for ourselves and say no more?
I'm not going to be a part of your system.
I'm not going to follow your orders.
And what bothers me most is that we have people In office, properly and officially, who have an obligation to enforce the law as it is written.
These people are breaking the law.
Go and do your job.
So what are the steps?
I mean, for somebody that's sitting here right now, having listened to this interview, you confirmed a lot of concerns that I think a lot of people have, right?
And you've confirmed it on a legally justifiable way where you're explaining how a lot of fraud's committed, how they're trying to kill us all, how they're making people without their knowledge through fraudulent means into essentially slaves' patents, their patents.
What do you tell the people in terms of actionable items of how you could actually Reverse this tyranny, take down some of these bastards that are basically not even working for our Constitution.
What are the actionable steps for people out there?
What did they used to do in the early days as reflected in the Bible?
They banished them. They cast them out.
These people should be cast out.
Cast them out of their offices, cast them out of your lives, refuse to provide them any goods or services, shelter, housing or refuge.
What have they done to humanity?
They have destroyed it. They have tried to make us extinct.
Why do we help them in any way whatsoever?
Cast them out. Everybody has a personal opportunity here.
When you see You know, these vials of whatever this poison is they're putting in, they're loading on an airplane.
Don't load the airplane. Don't fuel the airplane.
Refuse to drive it. Everybody has a personal responsibility.
You're talking about chemtrails.
Sure, why not?
Whether it's chemtrails or whether it's the shots that they flew around to give to people, it doesn't make any difference.
We all have an ability and a personal responsibility to say no and stand for our morals.
Look at the train in Ohio that spilled over full of toxins.
That didn't have to be lit on fire.
Somebody could have said no. And by the way, they could have stopped that for something like 40 miles before it happened because all the warnings were going up.
They could have just simply stopped the train.
But everybody's advocating personal responsibility, right?
What are they afraid of? To do your job, the one that you said you would do?
I mean, and that applies to everybody who really did take their oath of office and wrote on that affidavit, I swear to defend the Constitution.
So where are you?
I'm sorry, you took the job, you got paid.
Where are you? Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely.
I mean, it seems like our government, all of our quote-unquote leaders, I mean, there's an epidemic of cowardice there, corruption, they're enriching themselves.
Frankly, when I was working in Hollywood, I mean, I've heard all sorts of stories because for, you know, for some reason, people open up to people that are like, quote-unquote, Hollywood producers.
You know, I've been hearing all about The depopulation agenda, tunnels, their escape routes, all kinds of stuff.
I mean there's genuinely a class of people that think that whatever calamity that happens they're going to be eating caviar underground and you know and believe it or not you hang out in certain circles and they actually invite you to these things.
There's a there's a way to get into these things where when the calamity happens you can have a key to this thing where you'll be safe underneath the ground and my question becomes I mean What, like after nuclear war, after carnage, you think you're going to inhabit the earth?
And for what? Like, for what reason?
Genocide on, you know, like 95% of the population, that's all of a sudden going to lead to some utopia?
I mean, it sounds like the dream of a complete, utter sociopath.
It is. That makes, like, Hitler seem like, I don't know, mildly, like, not a sociopath.
In contrast, it's the craziest, craziest idea.
It's Rupert. They do it over and over again.
So you look at all of the communist revolutions.
In every single case, what happened first?
The ones that participated in helping bring them to power were the first ones killed.
They're stupid.
Humans are driven by greed, sex, and power.
And money. Might as well throw that one in.
And these lieutenants, they're the ones that don't realize they're the first to go.
They're too dangerous.
They know everything. They have to be gotten rid of.
So the answer to your question is they're more stupid than everybody else that's actually going along with the program.
Because they're doing it knowingly.
Yep, yep.
Yeah. Mr.
Calendar, like, this is really amazing.
Thank you so much for this work that you are doing.
I mean, without people like you out there, we'd generally be screwed.
The fact that you've actually found this path, I mean, how did you find the path?
I mean, it's obvious you're going at these people, you know their agenda, but in terms of the oath, how did you figure that out?
Well, let me start here.
Three years ago, when I started down this path, I made a conscious decision with some other really good people, you know, that are in this fight for the right reasons.
And that was, if we don't stop this, we're not going to have any clients to represent.
We won't have anybody to insure.
We're not going to have anybody to inhabit the earth with.
So we'd better do something or we are all dead.
That was the primary motivation.
That motivation persists.
I want to have a place for my kids to grow and raise their own kids.
It's really that simple.
In terms of the oath of office, I work with a group called Vax Choice.
We've been at this now for three years together.
We have researchers. And when I went down this road suing the DOD, one of those researchers just came up with the idea.
I wonder if they have an oath of office because in Colorado we found that a lot of the people we were doing bond claims against didn't have an oath of office.
And we didn't expect to get this result.
The DOD spent nine months giving Lisa a runaround as to why they couldn't come up with an oath.
It's the first official business you do in that capacity.
It should be, you know, on the wall.
It should be framed and stamped and shown for all to see.
They couldn't come up with it.
So she started asking, holy cow, the DOD doesn't have it.
Who else doesn't have it?
And she wrote FOIA requests to all of the agencies and all of the CABA, and not one of them could produce a valid oath of office.
Two came back and said, there is not one.
The law requires it, but there isn't one.
And so it leads you on this trip of, holy cow, this is the tip of the iceberg.
How many people don't have it?
And that's what I'm asking to your viewers.
Do your own FOIAs.
Let's find out. This is a litmus test.
Are you in this for the right reason?
Should you be in the government?
That's what the statute says.
It says, restore the last people who took the oath if they don't have it.
We've got to restore people to their rightful place, and it takes humanity, it takes the people, it takes the citizens to do that.
We say no, and we cast out the ones that are fraudulent, and we bring back the ones who actually did the job and took the oath.
It's not rocket science.
Let's restore our republic.
Look, we're not seditionists.
We're not rebels.
We are restorers.
We are restoring our republic.
These are the ones, these are the fraudsters that seek to lock people up, like you and I and everybody else.
That's what the Restrict Act is about.
That has criminal law provisions.
The Department of Commerce will be tasked with locking us up.
Are we gonna stand for that?
Are we gonna stand by?
Yeah, yeah. And look what's happening with Tina Peters, Liz Harris, Coy Griffin.
You know, all people that were like, because they wanted to make sure we don't have fraudulent voting machines, because they wanted to fight the fraud, they were removed from office.
And who did that? And who did that then?
Which person, which law enforcement guy said, okay, come with me, you're out of here?
Did that guy have an oath?
Who gave that order? It comes down to law enforcement.
Without law enforcement, there is no law.
And I think the perpetrators of this understood that.
So what did they do? They co-opted law enforcement, and we should, in fact, seek whether or not every head law enforcement officer and official has a valid oath of office.
We already know the Attorney General of the United States cannot, has not, produced a valid oath of office.
He doesn't even have an appointment date on his.
If you look at it, I believe it's Exhibit M. So we have to find those who do have a valuable purpose, restore them as the chief law enforcement officers.
If that's in your county, find out.
We can find out who is who, and we can do this.
We just have to insist on it.
Well, well, it's insane.
I mean, it's like, again, like when one of the whole things with Satanism is letting people know the evil you're going to do, or creating these emissions.
And then you see what they're doing.
I mean, it's hard to say that this is not a battle between good and evil.
It is. Truly individuals that want to kill us and versus us just wanting to survive and live on this earth in peace.
Let me give you an example, right?
Where does this flow from?
If you look at the founding document of the United Nations, the founding document, do you know what that is?
I'll save you the time. It is called the Lucifer Trust.
These people are all Luciferians.
There's a Luciferian temple in the United Nations.
All of these people are Luciferians.
That is their God, not our God.
And you're absolutely right.
This is a battle for the soul of mankind.
I'm haunted by Matthew 13, 38.
We are in the wheat and tares time.
The separating of souls.
And if we can't figure that out and right this ship, Then I guess we probably deserve to be vanquished from the face of it.
This is Lucifer's domain.
Whoever takes the planet wins.
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
One of our colleagues put it very eloquently when somebody brought up that this whole COVID thing was about money.
He said, no, no, no, no.
It has nothing with money.
It has to do with these Luciferian elite wanting to inherit the earth.
They want to erase it. They want the earth, you know?
Well, let me explain something to you.
Our Department of Health and Human Services actually has a sin biodivision.
I had heard early on in my research that the same Luciferians are seeking to genetically modify every plant and animal species on the planet for the purpose of spiting God.
They are changing all animals and plants to spite God.
They are doing that now.
It's not just transhumanism.
Our own Health and Human Services has such a division.
To genetically modify everything.
Look at our meat. What are they doing?
They're genetically modifying our meat.
How many tomatoes have you seen that are genetically modified?
Corn. So when I say we've got to stop this, I mean we've got to start over, stop this, and not participate.
Don't buy those products.
Don't give them your money.
Don't shop at their stores.
Vanquish them. Yeah.
And you know what? There's going to be an opportunity coming up where you're going to have a choice between their digital currency that tracks you and basically really makes you a complete slave.
Because once you got the jab, once they control your money, you are like a slave on a worse level than ever before.
Before, like the slaves of history could run away.
You can't even run away.
That's right. Fucked if they do this, right?
That's exactly right. Unbelievable, right?
And people are willfully doing this.
You know, we got to wake people up.
Well, thank you for doing that, Pam.
I really appreciate you doing that.
It's really important. Yeah, we're trying.
I mean, we've got to get this information out.
Sir, is there anything that we didn't touch upon that you'd want to mention in closing, like websites where people could help this cause or anything else?
Yeah, first and foremost, and it goes through the communication thing.
All of a few weeks ago, our group acquired CloudHub.
That's a social media platform.
We have pledged to make sure it's not censored so you can put this content and the other lawful content up.
You know, I want to make sure it's legal, ethical, and moral.
But this is a fight for souls.
We are in that realm.
And so find God. Build your relationship with God.
It takes away the fear. And I found that with the military that when we filed suit, almost all, 99.9% of the people that came to us for help saying, I don't want these shots, had a relationship with God.
That's the key to this whole thing.
Build it. Repent if you feel like you need to and build your relationship with God because at the end of the day, that's what this is about.
In terms of websites, VaxChoice, V-A-X-Choice.com.
I do a lot of work with Truth For Health Foundation.
There are tools to help you take away the fear.
If there's a Marburg Plandemic coming, and I believe there is, you don't have to be afraid.
Dr. Vliet has lots of tools there for you to look at.
And then the name of my law firm is Disabled Rights Advocates.
Come contact us.
We do our very best to help everybody and really for the last three years we've been doing it almost entirely pro bono.
We're in this for the fight for humanity.
We really truly are.
Just an off-the-cuff question before we wrap this up.
I mean, would you be surprised if there's a bunch of lizard people at the end of this, like, power structure that are interdimensional beings?
I mean, I hear crazy stuff like that all the time.
I've yet to buy into anything because I haven't seen evidence.
But when you're talking about this level of evil, I mean, this just seems other-dimensional for some reason.
Well, I do think about those kinds of things.
And the best that I can come up with is, you know, these are the seed of Cain.
You know, going back to the biblical origins of this, Cain had no conscience.
These people have no conscience.
They're sociopaths. They don't care about you or anybody else, and that's manifest.
So I get the impression that they are different from us.
In what way, I'm not entirely sure.
But that's my best hypothesis, is that these people are probably genetically different, and they lack any empathy whatsoever.
Wow, wow. Mr.
Callender, thank you so much for showing up for this episode of Blood Money.
We really appreciate it, especially on such short notice with this incredible, you know, suit you have going on right now.
You know, for the viewers out there, if anything, our conversation with Todd Callender confirms a lot of the work that we've been doing at America Happens.
You know, with the State National University show, we've been trying to inform people about how to get out of the slavery system.
As you know on Blood Money we talk about topics like this in terms of COVID, in terms of the fraud.
And really this is very important because what we're looking at right now is America 2.0.
We could either go into this slavery system with their digital currency and all this nonsense and jabs in our shoulders and basically becoming full-on slaves to whatever their luciferian agenda is.
Or we could fight for our freedoms and really what we're trying to do here is inform people about what's really going on so we do not lose everything.
That's what it is. We're gonna lose everything if we don't do what we're doing.
So I kindly ask you, please check out AmericaHappens.com.
Check out our shows and consider donating to us because we are fully crowdfunded and that's the way we stay out of the corruption.
If you have pharmaceutical companies funding your organization, they're gonna skew the message.
We the people have to drive our own meat We'll send you our own information and that's how we get this kind of information out.
▲
Export Selection