Blood Money - The Pickletarian Revolution, Vem Miller interviews Brandon Joe Williams about his latest lawsuits

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 14, 2025 - Blood Money

01:38:54

The Pickletarian Revolution, Vem Miller interviews Brandon Joe Williams about his latest lawsuits

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Just like being able to mine Bitcoin in 2008 or 2009.
	Getting early access to mining the Gaju Mars now allows you to mine the greatest number of Gallagheries and benefit most from being part of this movement.
	We want to share that with you.
	We want the whole world to be part of this.
	We want everyone who cares about our future to get on board and take this from a movement to a reality.
	We want to see an economy for the people, by the people.
	Now join us.
	Put your fingerprints on humanity's story.
	Our history.com, select the mining package that's right for you, and get started today.
	Thank you.
	All right, guys, welcome to the latest episode of Blood Money.
	Today we have one of our favorite guests, Brandon Joe Williams.
	How are you doing, sir?
	Yo, what's up, guys?
	Hello, hello.
	Man, it's great to have you on the show.
	You know, we've been um, I think this is like their your fourth or fifth time on the show, Brandon.
	Before we dive into uh the case at hand, man, was there any updates you wanted to give us?
	What have you been up to?
	What's where where are you at with your research?
	I guess uh late here in summer of 25.
	Uh Did I show you guys my my reply filing on the last on the last show for the MX appeal?
	No, no, we haven't seen that.
	No, we talked about uh your findings with the here.
	I'm gonna add you here.
	Uh, you're we're talking about your uh findings with the slaughterhouse case, but this is Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	So, so if you go to Williams and Williams Law Firm dot com and you go to current and previous litigation, and you scroll down, these are all of the various cases.
	So you can kind of see the whole timeline.
	Like if you look at the earlier cases, they're really awful.
	Barely barely hanging on, and it's pretty pretty bad.
	Uh and then as we get into the newer cases, you can see the the changes, the polish, the realizations.
	You can kind of see everything throughout my entire uh research timeline, basically laid out uh in a linear timeline, right?
	Could I could I set this up real quick?
	Because I think I was there when you first did the original version of this amex.
	So this is for the Amex, what is it, the black card where you have basically unlimited funds.
	You want to give us a little bit of background to it?
	Yeah, so so every time you use your credit, so uh if you go to UCC 3-104, this is what defines what US currency is.
	US currency falls into two different categories.
	Category number one is an unconditional promise to pay.
	Uh category number two is an unconditional order to pay.
	Uh the unconditional promise to pay is called a note or promissory note.
	And if you look at what's in your pocket, uh it has the word note right on it.
	Federal reserve note.
	You can see it.
	I have a $2 Federal Reserve note right here.
	So the way that uh a note breaks down is you have the creditor and you have the debtor.
	And if you'd like to find out who the debtor is and where they're where they are in terms of a Federal Reserve note, they're gonna go to UCC 9-307, which is literally entitled entitled Location of Detour.
	You're gonna go down to subsection H and you're gonna we're gonna find out where it who is the debtor first.
	It's it's it's this person called United States.
	Uh, you can see that on the Federal Reserve note, the front face of the instrument, and then we're gonna find out where is that person that debt tour located.
	That person, uh, the United States is located in the district of Columbia.
	And for those who are pretty new to this, the reason why I keep using the word person Is because if you look at the legal definition of the word person, it always includes various types of what's what's called legal fictions.
	For example, this one's from the tax code.
	Uh I like this one the most because it's not too vague.
	It's also not too much.
	Sometimes if you go into uh transportation, the title on transportation, I forget which title, 49, I think it is.
	Uh if you look up the definition of person there, it goes on and on and on for half a page.
	Uh if you look up the definition of the word person in, let's say Title 8, it's it's it's very, very, very short.
	Uh, I like this definition because it's right in the middle.
	It's not too much, it's not too little.
	It gives us a good idea of what we're looking at.
	And this is typically what you're looking at when you see the word person.
	The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.
	So then we're gonna go to my case law section on my case law resources section on Williams and Williams.
	We're gonna type in Federal Reserve.
	And we're gonna look up a case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals here in California where California's at, uh, a bunch of other states too, but California is a part of the Ninth Circuit.
	John L. Lewis versus United States of America.
	This is from 1982.
	Uh the justice in this case, or the the panel of justices.
	It's actually three, I believe it's three justices total, and then one justice gives the final opinion, but there's a panel of three that came to the final opinion that was given by the single judge.
	Uh that panel of judges slash the judge who actually said it says the following.
	Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the federal tort claims act, but are independent, privately owned, and locally controlled corporations.
	This is the actual Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saying this.
	It's not me, it's not some website, it's not free manofheland.net.
	Looks like it was made in 1996 by a 92-year-old insane white guy.
	This is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saying this.
	So what is a Federal Reserve note?
	You have one party, which is called United States.
	That party is located in the District of Columbia.
	They are unconditionally promising to pay an independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporation called Federal Reserve Bank or Federal Reserve Banks.
	And that is the legal structure of what's called a Federal Reserve Note.
	The word note means promissory note, promissory note means an unconditional promise to pay.
	So what is U.S. currency?
	U.S. currency falls into, again, I'll repeat the beginning of when I started talking.
	U.S. currency falls into two different categories: an unconditional promise to pay, which is called a note, and then there's another class called an unconditional order to pay.
	Uh outside of UCC, the UCC, typically an unconditional order to pay is called a bill of exchange.
	In you in the uniform commercial code, an unconditional order to pay is called a draft.
	So I just use the term draft.
	You can see that term here.
	An instrument is a note if it is a promise and a draft if it is an order.
	That is our that is our definitional breakdown, breaking down the two classes of what is called U.S. currency.
	Federal Reserve notes is a subclass of a subclass.
	So it is a type of note.
	People believe it's the only kind of note.
	Absolutely not.
	There are a billion trillion different kinds of notes.
	You can even manufacture your own.
	If you follow UCC 3-104 and you have all of these points, you can manufacture your own notes legally.
	And then there's a way you can actually get other people.
	You can actually sue and force people to accept those.
	We're not going to get into that probably on this show.
	But the whole point I'm trying to make here is we have two classes of what of what would classify as U.S. currency.
	And they're both defined right here.
	An instrument is a note if it is a promise, and a draft if it is an order.
	There's a million different kinds of notes.
	There's a trillion different kinds of notes.
	And there's also a trillion different kinds of drafts.
	A Federal Reserve note is just one teeny tiny drop inside of an immense and endless ocean of possibility.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Makes a lot of uh sense.
	So, in terms of the Amex lawsuit now, you're suing for them to have you recognize your uh your instruments or so with that said, if you if you look in UCC3, you'll see the word issuer.
	We're gonna go to the definition section of article three, uh, which is uh three-103.
	We're gonna type in issue.
	So issue comes from three one oh five issue of instrument.
	Issue means the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer.
	We're not gonna get into all these various definitions because it just takes forever.
	Uh maker or drawer, the the person who made it or the person who is the person who you're supposed to be paying is the drawer, right?
	Whether to a holder or non-holder, we're not gonna get into that.
	That's just the person in possession of a note or bill that is either payable to them or payable to bearer, which I'm not gonna get into all that right now, but that's as best as I'm gonna explain that right now for the purpose of giving rights on the instrument to any person, right?
	So if you look at your receipts, when you when you do credit card transactions, look at look at your receipts.
	Every single time you do any transaction, coffee, dinner, gas, get a receipt printed or emailed to you, and then look at it, you're gonna start seeing this term issue or issuer or initial issue or primary issue.
	You're gonna start seeing that term every once in a while.
	It's not gonna be on every receipt.
	I'd say in my life here in Los Angeles, I'd say like maybe 15% of the time, I'll see this term right on the end right on the receipt.
	So what happened was every single time you use your credit card, you are manufacturing an unconditional promise to pay, which in itself would legally classify under 3- uh 104.
	So when you produce that unconditional promise to pay, it in itself is US currency.
	So the whole basis of my entire lawsuit is where is all the currency that I am manufacturing going, and why is it that I'm not able to use that currency and apply that currency to the final bill?
	Meaning, if I buy a coffee for seven God knows what anymore, a Federal Reserve notes would be the promise.
	The the fact that I'm unconditionally promising to pay seven Federal Reserve notes, that promise that I just made in itself and by itself is also an unconditional promise to pay.
	And if we go back to UCC 3-104, it doesn't say Federal Reserve notes.
	That's not the definition of US currency.
	Um, the definition of U.S. currency is an unconditional promise or order to pay, a fixed amount of money.
	Uh the the Federal Reserve note is just one type of this larger umbrella.
	One type of a million types.
	When Brandon Joe Williams uses his credit card, he's he's producing an unconditional promise to pay.
	It's a Brandon Joe Williams note.
	That note would still fall under this exact same definition of Article 3, Section 104.
	It is US currency.
	You are manufacturing US currency every single time you get a loan, every single time you use your credit card, uh debit cards.
	Uh debit cards are interesting.
	So debit cards, I don't know if it would fall under this one, an unconditional order to pay.
	I imagine it would.
	So debit cards would be this other type of currency, an unconditional order to pay.
	So checks are also unconditional orders to pay.
	So what that means is the check itself by itself is cash, has monetary value.
	Even if it doesn't have a even if there's quote unquote no money in your bank account, it doesn't matter.
	That's irrelevant.
	The fact that it's an unconditional order to pay means that the instrument itself has the monetary the monetary value of whatever that order might be.
	So if I have one penny in my bank account and I write you a check that unconditionally orders the bank to pay you six Federal Reserve notes, that check is still worth the value of six Federal Reserve notes, regardless of its redeemability.
	And the way that you can also see that is if you look up what a qualified endorsement is.
	We're going to look up what without recourse.
	And people say, oh, that's a fraudulent check.
	You're committing bank fraud.
	If you don't write this on it, yeah, fine.
	Sure, you could probably get, you know, you could fight that.
	It's a rebuttable presumption.
	But if you, in financial transactions, without recourse disclaims any liability to the subsequent holder of financial instrument.
	Thus, endorsing a check and adding without recourse to the signature means the endorser takes no responsibility if the check bounces for insufficient funds.
	You could write a check for $400 trillion.
	If you write without recourse on it, there's not a fucking thing they can do about it.
	You can have 42 cents in your bank account.
	The check itself is still worth $400 trillion.
	That's mind-blowing.
	That's mind-blowing.
	So you're trying to have them, I mean, these are the laws.
	So you're trying to have them basically uphold these laws.
	And you've submitted an initial filing.
	Obviously, what do they do with that?
	Take us through this journey of how you wrote the initial case, what it was saying, what the amended filing says.
	Well, that's pretty rough, but we can do that, I suppose.
	Here's the initial case.
	So here's the original complaint.
	Now, this is rough.
	This is super rough.
	This is back in February of 24, which I know that might sound like, oh, that's not very long, Glover.
	That's about a year and a half.
	Yeah, in Brandon years, it might as well be 1923.
	Okay.
	So just just bear with me on this, right?
	So uh we have this long introduction.
	Um, we have some stuff here.
	I just really don't even want to get into all this.
	For some reason, I thought the best way to handle this would be to break it down into teeny 80 bitty little bite-sized pieces.
	So you can see each individual line item.
	I I was trying to cut it up into teeny itty bitty tiny little things.
	So the reason why is because when they answer the complaint, they have to answer each individual numbered item.
	And I thought this would be the best way to address it to make them so they because if you put a whole bunch of things in one line, they can say denied to the whole line because one item inside that line is denied.
	So I was trying to avoid that by cutting it up into teeny itty bitty little things, so they couldn't just say denied because there was one little teeny part of it that was denied.
	Um you can see there's some of it's informational, some of it's educational, some of it's what actually happened.
	Um if you go down here, you can see I'm just kind of like trying to build out the picture, basically, of the whole the whole kind of bird's eye view, right?
	Um it's kind of all over the place a little bit.
	It's it's uh just a lot, and it's just kind of all over the place, frankly.
	Um so you can see the docket on this.
	We go back and forth and back and forth, and I barely know what I'm doing.
	I'm about I'm about maybe two months into litigation.
	This is probably my second month.
	Wow, like ever doing like first like basically I'm brand new to the game, essentially, right?
	So uh you can go down, you can see uh I had a dismissal and some other stuff, and and tried to kind of you know put in some uh they did a motion to dismiss, and then I'm trying to fight that, and um they went on a whole thing here where they attached all this stuff trying to um uh slander me, which is hilarious.
	You can see here.
	This is where they call you sovereign or whatever, yeah.
	And they took they took m huge.
	This is an intern who did all this, so she's she's retarded.
	Uh Brianna Bowers, her name, and I hope she uh I hope she sues me for defamation for using her name.
	I would just absolutely I have the hardest cock for months.
	Um but she went on here and she uh posted all this stuff thinking that was gonna be and and what's funny is is that what's amazing is it actually worked, um, which is amazing to me.
	I just you know, which is why I went to appeals because the thing is is that this has it's all irrelevant, basically.
	I mean, obviously I would have handled this differently now.
	I I handle every I've gone through so many different evolutions, so many different changes, so many different adjustments, so many different things that I'm like trying to figure out the the fastest and simplest way to say things, but while at the same time giving the information.
	I think at first, with a lot of the stuff, a lot of these filings, um it's just too much.
	That's really the issue, right?
	I think I think that's the issue that most of us have.
	Um the issue that most of us have is it's just too much, just way too much.
	Uh a lot of irrelevant stuff, way too much.
	Um we sort of spew like a fire hose.
	I think that's pretty normal.
	I see that uh like everywhere, basically.
	Like as so when people first start this process, it's like you're kind of throwing everything in the kitchen sink, basically.
	Yeah, you know, um like I don't know in your case.
	I filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
	This is what you're supposed to file when you amend the complaint after the initial like the first I think 20 or 28 days, I forget the local rules.
	You can amend a complaint without filing a motion for leave.
	Um, but this was way after that that timeline had ended.
	So to file an amended complaint, you have to file a motion for leave.
	Motion for leave just means you're asking to do something outside of the normal rule sets of what you're allowed to do.
	Basically, you're asking permission.
	Yeah.
	Let's just keep it that simple, right?
	So Joey was helping me write a lot of these.
	Joey Kimbrough.
	I didn't start writing my own stuff.
	Um I would write everything, and then Joey would help me kind of edit it and like clean it up.
	And so uh we were kind of working together.
	Like you can see, here's a motion for reconsideration.
	Um, and if you look at some of my newer filings, it looks a lot different.
	That's because I wrote all the the meat and potatoes, and then Joey would help me clean it up and add case law to it or whatever.
	So it wasn't until my appeals, my Amex appeals, or no, it wasn't until my SBA appeal opening brief.
	That's the first time I wrote and filed something without literally any assistance at all whatsoever from anyone, which was um that was let's see here that was filed in 42025.
	So that um so I probably started writing this you know four weeks before this point, five weeks, so maybe like mid-March of this year is the first time I wrote something from scratch,
	every word, every period, every comma, everything without any tips, upgrades, questions, concerns, absolutely not a fucking thing.
	Totally solo.
	Prior to that point, I I would write everything in like a numbered list, and then I would get Joey's feedback and help to polish the turd, basically, shall we say, right?
	So without Joey's help, I I wouldn't have really done a lot of this, right?
	Obviously, I've said that a million times.
	So the annex case was dismissed.
	Um without prejudice, obviously.
	Uh they didn't specify either way, which was part of my appeal.
	There was no specification, and there was no signature on the final order.
	So it was like it was like sloppy as all hell, basically.
	It was like just absolute shit.
	Right.
	Um, so I put all that in my appeal, obviously.
	Uh so the the reason the main reason why I was dismissed.
	If we go to the the complaint, uh if you scroll down the page, you'll see I'm talking about all the stuff, talking about all the stuff, and then I talk about sending in 1099 A's 51, 50.
	The IRS 1099 A form is an unconditional order to pay.
	Uh the IRS 1099A form is a bill of exchange.
	When I wrote this way, way back in February of 2024, I thought this was true.
	It's not true.
	The 1099A form is not an unconditional order to pay, it is not a draft, and it is not a bill of exchange.
	Um they grabbed on to this, they didn't say that.
	Um, but they grabbed the the judge grabbed on to this part and dismissed the case based off of this part.
	There's a bunch of there's a lot of things in here, but he just he saw that and that was enough, and he just dismissed it based off of those two points.
	And he didn't say, he didn't say the 1099 A form is not a bill of exchange or unconditional order to pay.
	He just said like very vague, like, you know, they're just documents, and he didn't give any real specifics of anything.
	He just said they're just documents, they're not money, they're not currency, whatever, the sovereign citizen, whatever.
	A lot of the same stuff that the um The defendant was saying, which is uh American Express, right?
	So I filed the appeal, and um the first opening brief, this was still uh feels like a hundred years ago, basically.
	The opening brief was filed in October of 2024.
	So from February to October, we were fighting in the district court, and then in on October 11th is when I finally um got into appeals and I filed my opening brief.
	And opening brief is literally just that.
	It's an opening brief for the appellate court.
	And I have my various concerns.
	What are the facts of your case?
	Various facts.
	Um I I went from a very big kind of all over the place complaint, and in my opening brief, I tried to bring that way, way, way down to like one specific concern, which is that every time I use my credit card, it produced an unconditional promise to pay, and I have no idea why they're they're making me pay with federal reserve notes at the end of the month.
	It makes no sense.
	The initial unconditional promise to pay that was produced when I use the credit card should be used as the currency to discharge whatever it is that I'm trying to purchase.
	Or I can give you federal reserve notes, but then you're just gonna give it right back to me because the I still want the original value of all the notes that I was creating every single time I used the account.
	That's the whole thing.
	Like all the other stuff, you guys can just kind of throw out.
	Um, you know, I'm new to this, I apologize, but that's really the only real concern that I have here.
	And even in and even in October, I still wasn't very good at explaining that.
	So I was trying to explain it essentially the whole year of 2024.
	I was I was studying, I was learning, I was uh I was grinding, I was answering questions, talking to people all year long.
	And by October, by the time I filed this opening brief, if you read this opening brief, it's it's not terribly convoluted, it's a lot better than the complaint, right?
	Um in the appeals court, they filed a motion to dismiss.
	Um you can see that here, motion to dismiss.
	Uh I filed a response to the motion to dismiss.
	You can see that here.
	Um they file a reply to my response, which is the way it works.
	It's a three, it's a three, it's a it's a ping pong ping is how I think of it.
	That's just I just made that up, right?
	So if you if you file a motion, ping the other party has the opportunity to file a response, or we call it a response in opposition.
	That's the pong.
	And then if the originating party wants to file a reply, that is the ping.
	So it's motion response, reply.
	That is the that is the functional years as to how a lawsuit works.
	You nobody can that's it.
	Once the reply is in, and and the the reply is considered optional.
	The response is is not really.
	If you don't respond to a motion, they just they just approve the motion.
	That's the way litigation works.
	If I file a motion and you don't file a response, my motion is granted.
	It's that simple.
	If I file a motion and then you file a response, I now have the option to file a reply to that response if I desire.
	So they're trying to have it dismissed, basically, and you're you're writing them back about why they shouldn't have it dismissed.
	That's correct.
	And if you go in here, you can you can read the motion, then you can read the response, and then you can read the reply if you want to.
	What is this because uh sort of things they're telling you?
	And what are you seeing in response to stop the motion to dismiss?
	So if you go to the motion, it says here the appeal should be dismissed.
	Stem from the theory that he with his trademark sent money to American Express in the form of documents that he asserts are the equivalent of cash or currency.
	American Express extended credit to Mr. Williams, which he believes he already paid for with the documents.
	And they're referring to the 1099-A because that's what Judge Fitzgerald latched on to.
	Mr. Williams then sent the parcels, believing American Express would accept them as payment since the parcels contained special endorsements.
	So either, and you'll see me hammer them really hard in the appeal reply.
	But, you know, for a long time, I thought that they were pretending to be stupid.
	But over time, I've started to sort of realize and think that I think they're actually all retarded.
	And that's been a kind of a weird uh shift for me.
	So when they're digging their heels in and saying, oh, you just sent a piece of paper as opposed to acknowledging what that paper is and the legal significance of it.
	They just act really dumb.
	And you can see this this one, I think was filed by an intern, but you you'll see it goes from an intern all the way up to a senior partner who graduated Harvard in 1992.
	So it went from the very very bottom all the way to the very, very top of a huge monster law firm.
	And then at that point, you see some of the arguments and stuff start to shift.
	But the the basic underlier of all of their arguments is he's crazy, he's a sovereign citizen, and it's vapor money theory, basically.
	Without any real specifics, just just very general, very vague, just horse shit, basically, right?
	Um so you can see here, you know, the court should dismiss this appeal for Mr. Williams' failure to timely file.
	This has been their huge thing that they've been going on.
	This has been their the spinal cord of their entire defense.
	They say that I was one day late on the appeal, and they go to extensive lengths to try to justify why.
	And and and this is basically the core of their entire defense.
	Mr. Williams was a day late, and they go on this fucking Oregon trail worth of horseshit to try to explain why my appeal was one day late.
	Thank Christ.
	The the judges didn't didn't like that.
	They said, no, he's not.
	They said, we don't think he's one day late.
	They said they said, but you we're not gonna approve your motion to dismiss.
	We're gonna force you to file in an answer to his opening brief.
	But we're gonna allow the defendant to bring up this whole one day late thing again in his answering brief.
	That's what this order says.
	Okay.
	So no to the motion, but you can bring it back.
	You need to file an answer to the opening brief, but bring back if you want to bring back those claims that you brought in the motion to dismiss, bring them back, but in the answering brief.
	That's what the order says.
	So that's exactly what they did.
	What they did.
	So they filed in uh uh they wanted an extension of time, which is always approved.
	The first the first time you file an extension for time, it's always approved.
	I mean, it's just just no question about it.
	So it was two months went by, and then bang on July 30th, We get the answering brief.
	And this is the answer brief to my opening brief.
	So again, we have the ping pong ping.
	So my opening brief was the ping.
	This is the pong.
	And then you'll see my my optional reply, which is the final ping, is the last thing filed, right?
	Um, but if we go back.
	Uh let's see here.
	Where is the answering brief?
	Here it is.
	So this answer brief is when you see the big dog starting to come in more.
	Stephen J. Newman.
	This guy.
	This is when this guy starts to get more involved in the case, right?
	And he has a very extensive history.
	You can see he was Harvard, 1992, Magda Com Laud.
	Uh he was a member of the Heart the Harvard Crimson.
	He's got articles, PR press releases.
	Uh worked with the gov government stuff.
	You can see government stuff, truth and lending, co commercial cases, all sorts of stuff.
	Very, very, very, very rich, extensive career history.
	Uh, up against one stupid fuck who wears the mantini on the internet.
	This is the guy they had to bring to the table.
	Wow.
	Fucking hilarious.
	So, all right.
	So you're basically no, uh, is it now like you're in a waiting pattern to see what the judge says?
	I'll explain it.
	I we'll go over this very rapidly.
	So here we go.
	Now all of a sudden they're starting to get serious.
	We got we got table of contents, we got cable, all his cases are bringing out.
	Oh, we gotta really bring it out now.
	We're gonna make it a little real professional, real good, right?
	And then he I assume he, because the the writing style changes dramatically in this in this answer.
	So I know it's not Brianna Bauer, who graduated from fucking uh law school in two two years prior.
	This is not her anymore.
	This is the big dog has finally come in.
	So now we've got the big dog energy, Mr. Newman.
	I'm assuming, is writing most of this.
	Uh litigation is motivated by sovereign citizen ideology.
	Um we start to see more of that.
	Um they kind of you can see in this in this particular filing, they move away from personal attacks, and they start to adjust more towards uh they start to straighten up in other words, meaning uh now all of a sudden that they're in the appeals court, they can't act like complete pieces of shit anymore.
	And I've seen that many times, by the way.
	You get into the appeals court, and all of a sudden these cocksucking pieces of shit, all of a sudden they start taking it more seriously, uh, which I find fascinating, so it's a good thing to know.
	So it becomes more formal, it becomes more structured, it becomes more litigious, it becomes less shit throwing, right?
	Um and basically again, if you read through all of this, um, you know, we have sovereign citizen, we have he's full of shit, we have vapor money, we have all these things, but the core core thing that they're trying to lean on, and you can see that um probably half this entire answering brief is spent trying to justify why I was one day late filing the appeal.
	I am not kidding.
	Probably half this entire document.
	Um you can see here um uh this whole section is trying to do that.
	I mean, literally, like all of this, All of this is trying to do that.
	All of this is trying to do that.
	Wow.
	All of this is trying to do that.
	All of this is trying to do that.
	All of this is trying to do that.
	Thank you.
	All of this is trying to do that.
	Wow.
	And then it ends right there.
	So probably maybe even more than half.
	Maybe even 70% of this entire document is stitching together pieces of cloth from all over the universe, trying to justify why I was one day late on my appeal.
	Wow.
	Everything else is really easy to fight, and it's kind of horseshit.
	So I come down here and I file my and and right before I file this answering brief, or I'm sorry, reply brief.
	So again, ping pong ping.
	Ping was the opening brief.
	Pong was the answer brief.
	Ping is now the reply brief to answering brief.
	And that's it.
	That's the end.
	There's no more filings.
	There's no more arguing.
	There's no more clarifying.
	You can set up a hearing if you want.
	You can do other things, but in terms of the written filings, this is the last possible filing in on that particular back and forth activity.
	Now, right before I filed this, is when I created my rebuttals to the term sovereign citizen and the term vapor money theory.
	Both terms were used in the answering brief.
	So in my reply brief, I respond to both of those terms using my brand new beautiful short powerful rebuttals to those two terms, which is here, which is a lot of what we went over in the last uh in the last show.
	And then we have here uh the response on vapor money theory, and I have all of the Supreme Court cases breaking down the promissory note draft bill of exchange system, the legal tender cases, um just tons of really powerful uh quotes from Supreme Court cases in terms of the structure of our monetary system and how it got to be this way.
	And then we get into the UCC, and I break down all the different areas and sectors as to how our financial system works, and then after that's done, we define this term vapor money theory, which is an ignorant attempt at describing our current currency system as something more than being composed of unconditional promises and orders to pay, in accordance with how those are defined in UCC 3-14.
	This term is a very depressing and sad attempt to degrade a monetary system with a long and rich history, both in case law and without.
	This is an attempt essentially to gaslight people and persons who are attempting to use the actual law for...
	Found in case law and in various state adopted commercial codes, typically close duplicates of the model UCC.
	This term attempts to derail any attempt at applying the commercial codes by making use of those codes appear to be frivolous.
	This term is a term of massive degradation and shows deep ignorance and maybe even contempt for our negotiable instrument monetary system as well as the law.
	This is a quote.
	No, this is me.
	I'm I'm I'm making this based off of all the information that I presented above.
	This is my definition.
	Well, for those aware of the functionalities of negotiable instruments, which is well articulated in Article 3 of the model of UCC, the term vapor money theory is offensive, as it is a generic and ignorant attempt at invalidating all of UCC Article 3 and the entire legal basis behind legal tender and the operation of unconditional promises and orders to pay.
	Now, the way that I've set this up is I've presented all this evidence.
	And then based off that evidence, I've manufactured this definition.
	Now, if if Amex does not fight back and try to reply against this definition, this definition activates as the definition in this court case.
	That's based off of the rule of evidence 301, which I'm not going to get into.
	But it's basically that simple.
	If they don't rebut this in some way, this becomes the definition for the case.
	Wow.
	And then at that point, I begin on a point by point rebuttal of each individual section that I felt needed to be replied on in the entire answering brief.
	So then I go through each section and I put the original text that they put, uh, Mr. Newman probably, and then I put my rebuttal below that.
	So you can see each individual section of the answering brief as being rebutted or clarified in each of these various points.
	And then we go all the way down to the bottom, and this is kind of where I started getting kind of pissed.
	Because now, mind you, I filed this case in February of 24.
	Uh this reply brief was filed in August 10th, 2025, and the case has literally gone nowhere.
	We're not even on the first yard line yet.
	So by this point, I've started to get a little irritated.
	And you can see that here in the closing.
	It's incredible what the honorable justices have to put up with them with litigation.
	If I had to continually correct people, of which I can't tell if they are simply playing dumb or are actually ignorant all day long.
	I think I would lose my mind.
	Going through this process has really opened my eyes to the kinds of stuff that the courts have to go through.
	And I have had quite a change of heart in relation to judges because of this.
	You must have nerves of steel.
	I thank you for your service.
	Mr. Newman is playing dumb in the area of negotiable instruments.
	But then all of a sudden, when it comes to stitching together a 50-mile string of quote unquote logic in order to justify how the final judgment shouldn't be on a separate piece of paper, meaning that's why I was one day late.
	He's all of a sudden become Dick Tracy.
	This is ridiculous and shows bad faith.
	According to Mr. Newman's own section of the STEPTO website, Mr. Newman specializes in commercial trials and litigation, insurance and reinsurance, financial services, financial regulatory compliance and policy.
	Under his education tab, it says AB, Harvard University, 1992, MagnaCum Law, you know, blah, blah.
	So we are to believe that Mr. Newman, with his extensive history and knowledge, doesn't know anything about the basic functionality of negotiable instruments.
	There are only two possibilities here.
	Either he is telling the truth, which means he should retire from his profession in eternal shame.
	Or I can't believe you wrote this judge.
	This is great.
	This is the Ninth Circuit.
	This is like this is like a whole panel of senior justices going to be looking at this, right?
	Or he is misleading this court.
	If the latter is the truth, he puts Harvard to shame, the bar to shame, Amex to shame, and this court to shame.
	This should be a sanctionable activity because I am here having to play daddy and supposedly teach this grown man who is behaving like an infant or person of unsound mind.
	This is unacceptable behavior in any court, let alone the appellate level of the Ninth Circuit, which addresses justiceable controversies for approximately two 22.25% of the GDP of the entire United States of America.
	Maybe Mr. Newman sold his soul at some point.
	Maybe the spark associated with practicing law has faded over the years.
	But that's not my problem.
	And it certainly is not the problem of this court.
	This isn't a nursery Or daycare center.
	Also, I would like to bring it to the attention of the honorable justices looking over these filings.
	If you yourselves have credit cards or active loans, the complaint that I have here applies to your personal situations as well.
	Each and every time you use your credit cards, a promissory note, which is exchangeable for Federal Reserve Cards via the Federal Reserve discount window using the provisions of 12 USC 412 is produced.
	You may be curious, just as I am as to where all these notes are going and what is happening with them.
	Did you agree to donate them?
	Are they considered abandoned?
	The original contracts have no provisions to explain this.
	American Express National Bank has had direct Federal Reserve discount window access since 1994, according to the Federal Reserve's own database lookup system.
	All your loans and mortgages operate the exact same way.
	The original notes are used as a collateral security to quote 12 USC 412 to fund your loans, and you are given very little or no consideration for those highly valuable instruments.
	Your quote 1% cash back, end quote on purchases is probably what these institutions deem as the consideration needed to hold together a quote unquote contract under the UCC.
	If you are not as disgusted about this as I am, I don't know what else to say.
	I hope this can be seen as a real problem.
	And I hope that I may have my case as rough as it might be, gauged on the merits and not thrown out procedurally, meaning one day late because fucking Newman's a cocksucker.
	You can see from even just the evolution of my original case and this appeals case that I am putting in literally thousands of hours attempting to put together massive sections of case law, study local rules and rule sets, memorize the uniform commercial code, etc.
	I hope this can be evidence that I am here in good faith and not looking for the easy path.
	I truly know that I have been grossly wronged by having produced valuable negotiable instruments and having them secretly stolen from me, placing me in a peonage called debt slavery condition.
	Each and every honorable justice reading this is in that exact same condition.
	And I hope my voice could be heard on this subject.
	I will never stop fighting until it is.
	The relief I hope for from this most honorable court is the ability to go into discovery in order to find out what happened to all of my initially issued unconditional promises to pay.
	I have already offered the applee a settlement that requires absolutely no out-of-pocket expense on their behalf, which is the MX Centurion black card that I never have to pay for.
	And all of the unconditional promises to pay that are created on the account are automatically endorsed with a qualified and special endorsement.
	So I would give them, I would give MX power of attorney to endorse all the instruments using a qualified and special endorsement.
	So what that means is I would have a centurion black card with no limit, and they never even send me a bill.
	I could go up in the mountains in California here, buy a 37 million dollar mansion off of Justin Timberlake, swipe the black card, and they're never even going to send me a fucking bill.
	That's what I'm talking about here.
	It requires I offered them a settlement that requires absolutely no out-of-pocket expense on their behalf.
	And that's 100% true.
	So I feel as though we will reach a settlement before that can of worms prior to that can of worms being opened.
	Thank you for your time.
	And that's it.
	This is the end.
	Everything has gone to the court.
	The last time I had an appeal that went into the court, I think we waited like four or five or six months to hear back.
	This could be the same thing.
	I don't know.
	So give me the odd, like the choose your own adventure of where this goes now, right?
	Obviously, they could dismiss it.
	They could move forward into discoveries tip.
	Play that through for me.
	The way this works is the appeal court will give their final opinion, that final now, what's so powerful about this is that final opinion becomes case law.
	Case law is made at the appellate or supreme court level.
	So this level that we're at with this document is case law level.
	It's the first level of case law.
	What that means is if you have a case in the district court, um, like for example, my initial case, which was dismissed, that creates what's called persuasive authority.
	Persuasive authority means it's something you can look at if you want to.
	Um, but it doesn't, it's it there's no there's no obligation to follow what happened in the case, but it can be referenced.
	It can be, hey, look, this happened over here, you know.
	Umce you get to the appeals level, now the final opinion they're going to give on this case becomes case law for the ninth circuit.
	So if you look up uh uh circuit appeal appeals court map, and this is what the map looks like.
	Um these are all the different circuits.
	Now, this is not for state court, state court is different.
	Um, this is for federal court.
	So you have state court and you have federal court.
	What we're looking at here is is we're only referring to United States district courts, which is the same thing as saying federal courts.
	So the federal courts have the districts, the district courts, which is where I started with the MX case, and then from the federal district court level, which is the ground floor, you move up into a circuit appellate court.
	The first circuit, second circuit, third circuit, fourth circuit, um, fifth circuit, sixth circuit, seventh circuit, eighth circuit, ninth circuit, and then tenth circuit.
	This is this is the way it it runs.
	And as you can see, in terms of population, and in terms of um amount of work, and in terms of amount of litigation, and in terms of amount of people in commerce, you can see the ninth circuit is probably by far the largest.
	It accounts for 22 over 22% of the GDP, so 25% almost of all of the commercial activity running through the court system is in my ninth circuit.
	All of this is the Ninth Circuit.
	And there's even other islands, you can see them down the bottom left.
	I think that's Guam.
	And I don't know what MP is.
	Um, but it includes islands too.
	So it's Ninth Circuit is fucking monstrous.
	In fact, it's ridiculous.
	It should be broken up into smaller.
	I think California should be its own circuit, practically.
	Um or maybe just California into that, or I don't know, anyways, I don't know.
	But it's a lot, obviously.
	You can see just from this map, it's insane.
	Like New York is just the second circuit, it's just this, it's just this little area.
	Yeah, it's it's New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
	It seems like it was based on old populations and stuff before California became so crowded.
	Maybe, yeah.
	I don't, you know, the the yeah, I don't know.
	Anyways, so looking at this graph, and then that's how I ended up in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
	Um so the opinion of this case, which a possibility they won't even say anything.
	There's a possibility that they'll just say denied or they won't say much of anything.
	At that point, it wouldn't become much of an opinion because there's no information.
	But if they give an opinion that actually has information in it and actually has clarification as to why and how they're coming to the opinion that they've come to, that opinion would then become essentially law.
	Case law is essentially law.
	It's not persuasive authority for all of the district courts in the entire ninth circuit.
	And then it would become persuasive authority for all of the other circuits.
	Do you see how that works?
	Yeah, no.
	I mean, you would think that they're going to do everything possible to come up with some kind of opinion that's going to stop all these other individuals from trying to use this method.
	I mean, at least that's where my mind goes.
	I mean, what's your thoughts?
	Uh no, because if if they if they go against all of these Supreme Court cases that I've listed, then I would just simply go to the Supreme Court.
	If they and I would tell the Supreme Court that they're um uh abusive discretion.
	Abuse of discretion.
	Um if it's unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly wrong and warrant reversal.
	So if they do that at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals level, that gives me the gasoline that I need to try to push the case up into the Supreme Court.
	Now, if this if the case goes to the Supreme Court, at that point, it's 10 times worse for everybody for for them.
	I mean, I could wipe out the whole banking industry at that point.
	Because if you if you go to the Supreme Court level, the opinion at the Supreme Court level then becomes case law for all appellate circuits and all district courts in the entire country.
	So this whole map, it would become law for this entire map at that point.
	Wow.
	So I mean, what are the possible outcomes you you envision?
	I don't need I don't need case law.
	All the case law is already there.
	I've already listed it in the in the reply brief.
	So people are like, oh, you're gonna create you're gonna create uh, you know, uh case law.
	You're gonna create um, what's the what's the term called?
	Not presumption.
	Uh you're gonna create uh precedent.
	You don't need it.
	There's already there's already so much fucking precedent.
	You just look through this this reply brief.
	There's there's mountains of precedent.
	We don't need any more precedent.
	I don't need a fucking thing.
	They just gotta do basically what the precedent says they're supposed to do, which is give you and people say, oh, Brandon, they're just not gonna do it.
	And oh, Brandon, people have come before you and tried this.
	No, they haven't.
	I've never seen anyone, and I've had a lot of things sent to me list even one of these cases.
	Shavi Railroad, FDIC versus Philadelphia Gear Company, Swift versus Tyson, that's a big one.
	People talk about that one a lot.
	Uh uh Juilliard versus Greenman.
	Perry versus United States, which is uh uh right after the the emergency banking act 1935, and then the entire UCC Article 3.
	I mean I I've never seen anyone structure anything, even like if it was a football field and and there's a hundred yards, I've never even seen like one yard of the way I've presented this.
	So So no, no one has ever brought this before.
	No, this has never been seen before.
	No, we don't need precedent.
	I don't need any precedent.
	I don't need anything.
	I don't need a fucking thing.
	In fact, I'm I'm I've got more guns and bullets and explosives than I even know what to do with.
	I am a walking Rambo.
	I don't need I'm telling you, I just we nobody needs any more fucking case law, I promise.
	I mean this is like a nuke level shit.
	So you know.
	No, I don't, I don't think anyone's ever brought anything like this.
	I don't think the courts have ever had to deal with anything like this.
	Um the stuff that I've seen is garbage, and and no wonder they threw it out.
	It's trash.
	So people think, oh, you know, the courts are just are gonna do this and they're gonna do that, and they do that.
	No, it's it's the courts are just the referee, they can only referee on that of which that's brought into the courts, and and everything I've ever seen burned in the courts is just complete, complete trash.
	I mean, just uh awful.
	Like even if a judge wanted to throw you a bone, it it just you can't throw a football 90 yards.
	He would need to throw the football 99 yards to throw somebody a bone.
	If you throw someone, if you throw if if the judge threw someone a bone that's 99 yards long, the opposing counsel is gonna say, what the fuck?
	You're obviously not being impartial here, right?
	A judge can give you a yard or two without it becoming too much of a problem, but he can't give you 99 yards.
	That would be impartial.
	That would be that would be massive violations of the canons.
	So I mean, what do we what do they do though?
	Because this is like a can of worms that like you see, if they let you get into discoveries, you could pretty much.
	I mean, if you go to the there's no way in hell ever in a billion trillion fucking years that any of this will ever go into discovery.
	They they will they Amex will file for bankruptcy and shut their doors before they would let me into Discovery.
	Never gonna happen.
	Ever.
	They'll just give me the black card.
	Really?
	Never gonna there's no way the people will literally be like killing themselves if I get into discovery.
	There will be bodies, so I'm not kidding.
	I mean, take me through the discovery journey of why it's such a third rail for everyone.
	I would have literally like 1200 questions, and I would be like screaming at the top of my lungs, and I I would be filing motion after motion after motion of contempt if they don't answer my questions.
	Like, I would be the most vicious horrifying thing they have literally ever seen.
	Like I would be putting attorneys in prison left, right, and center.
	I I would put it up, I would put the attorney in prison for contempt, or I put the the MX worker in prison for contempt, and then I would create a whole bio on that person, their family, how I destroyed their family, I destroyed their children by putting them in prison, and then the next person that came in for the deposition, I would slide an entire manufactured bio of how I just destroyed the life of the last guy who was here.
	He's behind bars now, and I have a picture of him literally in a fucking cell in an up it.
	And I'd be like, if you don't want to become this motherfucker, you're gonna answer my questions.
	Do you understand?
	Like, I would literally be the the worst night literally, I would be like like some kind of death animal that like came out of the ground.
	It's never gonna happen.
	They're never gonna let it happen.
	It's never gonna happen.
	Wow.
	It's it's just it's just totally never gonna happen.
	They're gonna they're gonna quietly they're gonna quietly and silently have me sign an NDA and we're gonna have to go through that word by word and clarify exactly what every all the NDAs I've ever seen, it's all the same template.
	So I don't think they even know what the fuck's on the NDA.
	We're gonna tear that NDA limb from fucking limb every goddamn sentence.
	That'll take months, and then by the time that's done, uh they'll they'll issue the black card.
	Out of these 1200 questions, though, give me some examples of questions that they just uh there's just no way out for them that they're cornered.
	Well, like for example, uh what what system is used to transact?
	So I would want an entire flow chart.
	So so I have a credit card and I put the credit card in the machine, that creates an unconditional promise to pay from Brandon Williams.
	Now, by the time it hit the account, it's already been converted into what you guys call US dollar.
	So on the account, is it is it on the account as Brandon Joe Williams notes, or do you guys already go to the Federal Reserve discount window or Fedwire and convert that note into Federal Reserve notes and then place the Federal Reserve notes on the account, and then depending on that question, I want to know every single step.
	Like, for example, if it is converted into Federal Reserve notes before it's placed in the account, I want to know every single computer system that it goes through.
	I want to know the name of every single person that handles that.
	I want to see every single computer screen, every single form.
	I'm gonna have a thousand questions for every single one of those forms.
	Let's say there's a note exchange form to go to the Federal Reserve discount window.
	I'm gonna have questions about every word, every box on that whole form.
	So there might be two or three forms just to explain one teeny tiny little part of it.
	I'm gonna spend two, three, four weeks, and then if they don't answer my questions, I'm just gonna be slamming them for contempt and just nonstop motions to put them in prison for not answering the questions.
	Well, it's just it's just like if you don't answer my question, I'm just gonna start.
	I just I just flip into like Satan mode and just start putting you behind bars incessantly.
	And if I can't, and if I can't put you behind bars, then at that point I'll start building out a PR slander campaign privately with my own money.
	I'm gonna hire a private investigator, they're gonna be following you, I'll be building out, and then I'm gonna build exposes.
	If you're doing anything at all whatsoever, just like what you do, there'll be whole I will I will, if you don't answer my questions, I'm going to do everything in my power to try to get you to kill yourself physically.
	Oh my god.
	Yes.
	Well, that's why I say there is no way in hell.
	And and maybe they want to see if I'm bluffing.
	I'll let the guy go under discovery.
	Let's see what happens.
	Within six seconds, they're gonna know that there's gonna be a settlement talks within literally six seconds.
	So because they've taken your negotiable instrument lawfully, they have to let you know every step of what they're doing with that.
	They have to disclose that.
	So am I correct that because they're using it?
	I want to see every document, I want to see every endorsement.
	I want if there's a phone call that someone made to the Federal Reserve uh to give additional information.
	If I find out that's part of the system, I want to get a copy of that phone call.
	We're gonna subpoena the Federal Reserve to get copies of that phone call.
	I want every definition of every single word of every single form.
	Because I don't understand the words of the definitions in the form, stop everything.
	We're gonna spend a month just on this one form.
	I'll be in discovery for the rest of my life.
	Because it's all fraud, right?
	That's the logic because the more you dig, it's illegal, it's fraud, it's against their own laws, and which is probably it's not it, it's it's so It's not actually the fraudulent point,
	the only point of like real actual fraud is that there's no clear communication that every single time you use a credit card, it's producing an unconditional promise to pay.
	That's the same value in law as Federal Reserve notes.
	Everything else that they do from that point forward with all those notes and all this stuff, if they presume those notes are abandoned, there's nothing in the original contract that explains how they came to that conclusion.
	But everything that they do with it and they swap it and they put it over here and they collateralize it, that's all legal.
	Illegal or legal?
	Legal.
	Legal.
	Okay.
	They follow all their rules perfectly.
	The only the only part that's in my opinion, fraudulent, is they don't tell me that, but every time I use it, it's producing an unconditional promise to pay.
	And then when I found out and I start asking about it, and I'm like, I want that.
	I want that applied to my account, and they're not talking to me and they're treating me like I'm crazy.
	That's when now this has become fraud.
	Interesting.
	Wow.
	Because if I give you a power attorney, and it allows you to use a special and qualified endorsement to automatically negotiate these notes as a payment for the account, they can they can do all the same shit that they've been doing.
	They can do all the goofiness and collateral securities and moving everything and then shifting everything all around.
	I don't need to worry about it, and they don't even need to send me a bill, and I can just get a black car, and I can just buy hairier jets, and then set them on fire live on YouTube.
	Mm-hmm.
	laughs laughs laughs laughs You know, that's kind of my plan.
	My plan is to get the black card to get a uh some kind of you know $50 million jet, fly it somewhere, and then set it on fire, shoot it and blow it up live on YouTube.
	I wanted to do that with a Lamborghini, man.
	I think that would be the coolest video, you know.
	So and the whole point of doing that is because it would break the internet and it would bring essentially everyone on the planet's eyes and awareness to the issues that I'm trying to bring to people's awareness.
	The whole point is to the whole point of that craziness of burning a $50 million jet is to bring awareness to these various concerns and these various legal situations.
	Fascinating.
	Fascinating.
	So, and if they just do a dismiss dismissal without reasons that gives you grounds to take it to the Supreme Court, which you would present it to the Supreme Court yourself, obviously.
	Yeah, my SBA case, which is the other one, I'm gonna take that one to the Supreme Court.
	You have 90 days from the dismissal to file into the Supreme Court.
	It's called a writ of Sir.
	And um, I've been studying, I've been very slowly.
	It's a lot.
	I've been studying other writs of Sir Shiorari that have been accepted by the Supreme Court.
	And I've been preparing myself to write mine in the SBA case, and then by the time the MX case rolls around, if they do deny it, I'll I'll have already gone to the Supreme Court once.
	So it'll be my second time to bat at the Supreme Court by that point.
	So the chances of getting picked up by the Supreme Court gets seven to eight thousand submissions a year, and they pick up like 70 to 80 cases, so it's like one percent chance.
	So the chances are not great, but I'm still gonna I'm still gonna swing at it.
	What happens though if they dismiss in the Supreme Court doesn't pick it up?
	It's just an old man.
	That's that's the end.
	That's the that's the that's the that's the last saloon at the edge of the earth.
	What do you do then though?
	Uh I've already got plans for that too.
	I've got a whole stack of of statements that at MX sent me.
	Uh I'm gonna endorse all of them, put a cover letter on it, send it to them, and start the whole cycle back from the back at the at the beginning of the train track.
	So you can keep doing it and do it and doing it until it gets to Supreme Court.
	So if it takes two years to get all the way through to the Supreme Court, and then it gets denied, I'm gonna restart the whole train, start at the district court level, go through the appellate court again, and then go to Supreme Court, and then if that doesn't work, I'm gonna go all the way back to the beginning again.
	Gotcha.
	You were um jumping topics here.
	Unless there's more to say about this topic.
	No, I thought I'd uh you were very excited about equity a couple of days ago.
	Tell me what's going on there.
	That's all a joke, bro.
	Oh, you were that's all that's all total joke.
	You're joking.
	Yeah, dude, that's so funny because the only reason I haven't brought that up is two people uh texted me because they know you and I talked.
	They're like, What's your boy Brandon saying it?
	I think they took you, I think they took you seriously.
	I don't know how the amount of stupidity on my shit is just like it's literally like upsetting, like I've been actually like upset the past few days.
	Uh-huh.
	It's so fucking like the amount of retardation is so overwhelming.
	I'm actually gonna do a debunk video probably this weekend.
	Okay, I'm gonna be debunking a lot of things, um, including equity.
	So wow, yeah.
	Do you want to give us a little preview of what's good, what were you gonna work on?
	Uh people are are people think I don't know who's teaching all the stuff.
	I don't know what the deal is, or it could just be that people just don't understand what the fuck they're talking about.
	Um, it's it's all in the private and it's in the the judges chambers and and uh and there is no docket uh you know, and it's it's a far superior uh uh uh thing, and it's it's all complete bullshit.
	And I ask them, I'm like, what have you seen?
	What have you done?
	And and no one gives me any oh I've been building this thing for nine months, and I'm like, well, what is it?
	Where what are you gonna do with it?
	I don't know yet, I don't know yet.
	I'm very confused about it, but I'm very excited about it.
	And it's like it's insane.
	It it it the the subject of equity has has always upset me, but it's something that I didn't want to talk on because I didn't want to get into it and study it and try to figure it out.
	But the the amount of horse shit on this subject is so unbelievable, and and and the lengths that people will go to to defend it and justify it, it is it is like stock home syndrome, like complete advanced, like padded room psychosis.
	Wow.
	And it and I'm very concerned about it.
	It's actually very, very concerning because the people who defend it defend it so aggressively and violently.
	It's like it's literally just unbelievable.
	Like I I am I the past three or four days, I've been fucking with it and making jokes and saying equity is a flashlight, a flesh light.
	That was my big thing.
	I said equity is a fleshlight, and I started making flesh lights with the word equity across it, and I started put because I said it's just this thing that you just fuck and it just feels so good, and you just you make it's like, oh yeah, I'm gonna fuck my fleshlight and boba bit.
	But you're not doing anything.
	I I had one guy, I've had all these conversations in the past few days, but I've had conversations about equity for years, and I've always hated it.
	Um but but recently it really I snapped.
	It it broke me.
	It's it's so it's so bad, it needs to end.
	This nightmare needs to end.
	And I'll be doing a breakdown debunk video.
	There's a bunch of other things too that I contributed to.
	I didn't contribute it to the equity.
	I contributed to a lot of other things with 1099, we're gonna debunk that.
	Five star passports, we're gonna debunk that.
	The term sovereign citizen, we're gonna debunk that.
	There's a bunch of other things that I contributed to very heavily that I feel partially responsible for a lot of the stuff being out there.
	But the equity conversation, I've never could I've never talked about it, and I've never contributed to that conversation at all.
	So I feel I feel I I want to stab equity through the fucking heart.
	Like I feel like equity is like a vampire.
	And I want to kill it.
	It does have some usage.
	It does have some tools.
	And I'll be explaining all of that in the debunk video.
	But it is not this backdoor side door secret thing.
	I had one guy who was like, uh oh, yeah.
	He's like, oh yeah, what you do is in the public, and what I do is in the private.
	And he's acting like, you know, what he's doing is so superior.
	He's like, oh, yeah, I don't need courts and this and that.
	He's like, I'll just send you letters, and then you'll have a default judgment.
	I'm like, okay.
	So you send me three letters, I have a what you call a default judgment.
	And I take a video of me shitting on the papers while flicking you off, and I send you the video.
	Now, what are you gonna do?
	He's like, Oh, I'll enforce it, I'll enforce it.
	I'm like, how are you gonna enforce it?
	And he goes on this like long comment.
	And I'm like reading it, and I'm like, there's no enforcement here.
	So I'll ask you again, how are you gonna enforce it?
	And he goes with this long comment and he goes, and at the end, he's like laughing.
	He's like, oh, well, it's just different.
	It's just different than the way you would handle it in the public.
	And I'm like, if you send me documents and I shit on them on YouTube live for the whole world to see, there's nothing you can do.
	If you're not if you're not willing to litigate, you can't do anything.
	And he's like not getting it.
	He's like defending it, and he's like excited about it, and he's like making fun of like litigation, and it's like he's not realizing that he literally, when he's writing, he looks, he looks psychotic.
	And and and it's it all comes from it, all stems from this idea that equity is easy, it's the easy way.
	Which is which is complete bullshit.
	It's literally like it's literally like a virus in this movement.
	It's it's it's literally a psychotic virus.
	Equity, equity was merged with law like a hundred years ago after the emergency banking act, I believe.
	And the few tools that are important, like injunctions and stuff that were part of equity, got merged in to the courts, and now equity and and law operate together on the law side, you have a jury on the equity side.
	You can have the the judge can be the one to give the final opinion without having to use a jury.
	That's it.
	And you have a few tools that are inside of equity that I'm gonna be going over in the debunk video, and that's it.
	It's not it's not a whole separate path.
	People are like, oh, chancery courts.
	A few states have chancery courts.
	It's not it's not relevant.
	Equity is available in any of your local courthouses.
	You don't need to go to a chance for court to access equity.
	Equity is available in every single court system in the entire United States of America.
	It's not, it's not this.
	You don't even need to write equity on a lot of the documentation.
	You can just simply, if you use something like an injunction, it's an equity, it's a tool of equity.
	An injunction is a tool of equity.
	You don't say, oh, uh, as per equity, I'm now uh no, you're just a motion for an injunction.
	I need an injunction.
	The injunction could be like um, I'm in my home.
	There's a uh uh uh eviction, uh, I need to get a few more documents together.
	I need two weeks, and the motion for an injunction is to stop them from evicting me for two weeks while I collect together all the information that I need to file into the case.
	Judge approves it.
	That that was an equity tool that was used, but it's not it's not an end all it's just it's just injunction is just and you can get a permanent injunction, like for example, uh a restraining order.
	Restraining order is like an equity type tool, but it's just equity is just a few tools in your toolbox in this big huge tool chamber.
	It's like you walk into a whole like walk-in closet full of tools.
	Equity is is one drawer inside of one cabinet, and somehow it became the whole closet through some sort of like elaborate delusion,
	and it's it's literal complete psychosis because you you take them and you physically walk them into the into the closet, and you say, Look, this one drawer,
	tiny drawer or medium-sized drawer is equity, and then there's all these other things, and they go, No, there's not, no, there's not, and they go on this tirade about chancery courts,
	and they go and they just they defend it, and it it from my perspective, what it seems like is it's like they're so they have such low self-esteem that they're so terrified of having to actually litigate and become professionals in every area of litigation that because their self-esteem is so low,
	they've been they they've somehow someone I don't know who there's certain names that have come up.
	I don't have any verification as to who's who and whose names or books or I don't know where this information is coming from exactly that says, oh no, it's easy.
	You just handle it in the private, you just do you just do an injunction or you do these kind of various uh buzzwords, and then they they they oh look, you know, whatever.
	And they they believe that they don't need all the tools in the in the closet, and they believe it can all be handled in the private equity is the answer, but then you but then you ask them what they would do in these certain situations, they have no idea that they've obviously never litigated.
	I have one guy who I mean, so many, we're gonna go through a bunch of the comments in the in the in the debunk video.
	One guy was like, oh yeah, I have a trust, and I'm gonna use equity, and I'm gonna go in there and I'm gonna use equity because equity is trust law, and I'm gonna use the trust, and then I'll handle it in the private.
	And my response was the first thing they're gonna do is they're gonna say that in order to represent a trust in the court system, you have to be licensed by the bar.
	You have to have a bar license.
	And he said, No, no, that's not how it works, they're not gonna do that.
	And I was and I'm sitting here and I'm like, bro, these people have no clue, and they will defend this thing to the death.
	And like I've been like losing my mind over the last week.
	I I feel like there's this gigantic like tree roots of death that are like all underneath the ground.
	And I've just they've kind of popped up here and there, and I've noticed it, and I've been like, it pissed me off, but I never like thought too much about it.
	And in the past week or two, I realized there is this Entire hellish demonic substructure under the ground.
	And that demonic, hellish substructure is called equity.
	And it is literally psychotic.
	And I am I am absolutely fucking furiously fucking pissed about it.
	I am broken by it.
	I'm sorry to laugh.
	I'm sorry to laugh.
	I'm broken by it.
	It is like it's like a psyop.
	I'm not getting it.
	It's like a fucking PsyOp.
	It's like some operation paperclip shit.
	It's like MK Ultra for the for the sovereignty movement.
	Yes, there is an equity.
	Yes, there is tools.
	Yes, there is.
	But it's like the the importance of it is gonna come down like four hundred billion levels to where it's supposed to be.
	Yeah.
	That's what's gonna happen.
	And I'm gonna be the one to do it.
	I'm not putting up in that.
	I've blocked blocking people has always been one of my favorite daily activities.
	Since the very very beginning.
	I have blocked so many people over the past three or four days.
	I started to not enjoy it, and that's when I got really pissed.
	And that's when I started posting all of those crazy posts as religious posts.
	Because I I started to dislike blocking people, and that's when I got so fucking angry.
	I was like, no one is gonna take my love for blocking people.
	I will I will bury people alive before I will allow people to take my sexual enjoyment of the block button.
	Okay.
	And so I decided I was like, I am losing my mind.
	I am getting so fucking angry.
	I need to flip this and do something like fun, crazy, ridicule.
	I need I need to, from my own sanity, I need to flip this, and that's when I started making those at like four in the morning.
	Oh wow.
	I started making these rapture uh uh sarcasm rapture posts.
	And I was I was laughing so hard, bro.
	I was laughing so hard, I was like in tears.
	I was sitting on my beanbag chair writing these things.
	I was in tears.
	I was laughing so hard, bro.
	So we are last uh episode we spoke about the slaughterhouse uh case and your findings.
	Is there any updates on that for uh before we go on to our next topic?
	Uh no, I don't think so.
	Okay, okay.
	You feel pretty good about it still.
	I mean, it was uh that was a huge revelation for people uh that are interested in checking out that episode.
	It's almost a two-hour long episode, episode 301.
	Uh just chock full of amazing information.
	Yeah, um, no, I mean, the that information isn't going anywhere.
	Um as far as I'm concerned, the slaughterhouse cases is the absolute dead center of the entire American culture.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Do you want to talk a little bit about my case?
	I could tee it up a little bit, and you know sure.
	I still have it here.
	I mean, I was kind of ready to go on that at the very beginning of the of the of the show.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, we you know, we we freestyle it here.
	It was uh this was hour and a half of amazing information, so how could I say no?
	But over the last 30 years, we have seen the value of our work diminish and the price of real assets like land and homes increase to the point that for most people under the age of 40, the hope of owning their own home has been lost.
	The response of governments around the world to the 2008 global financial crisis and COVID was to defer the cost of these events to the future.
	They did this by printing money, in effect selling our futures to pay for their bad decisions.
	This is corporatism, not capitalism.
	Money printing didn't hurt those in power, nor those who supported them, because they had real assets, property, shares, and businesses that rose in price to match the inflation of money supply.
	But for most of us around the world, it sold our future for a fraction of its value.
	In response to this, a mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.
	He wanted to create a currency that could not be printed on command, thereby devaluing our labour.
	A currency that could be traded electronically between people without intermediation, allowing all of us to participate fairly in the economy.
	But if you tried to buy your groceries with Bitcoin, you'd stand at the checkout for at least 10 minutes, probably hours, waiting for the transaction to process, and the fee would cost you more than the carton of eggs and bag of apples.
	Bitcoin's limitations meant that it stopped being considered a currency in 2016 and was instead called a store of value.
	But it opened the door for someone to create a genuine currency that nobody controlled, but everyone could use.
	That someone is us.
	We created the Gaju Maru blockchain and the Gaju currency.
	The Gaju is real money you can use, whether that is to buy a loaf of bread, pay for a haircut, buy a t-shirt, in fact, buy or sell anything.
	It is a currency for everyday use.
	On Gaju Market, anyone can buy and sell any legal goods or services, just like you would on eBay, but at a fraction of the cost.
	Like Bitcoin, Gajuus are mined on a computer.
	Unlike Bitcoin, mining Gajues does not require specialized equipment, nor huge power supplies.
	During our protected rollout, you can mine this on everyday computers, like the ones that sit in your home doing nothing for most of the day.
	We are working to get millions of people like you to mine the Gaju Maru and be rewarded with Gajus that you can then use as real money.
	At the end of 2026, the Gaju Maru will open to public mining.
	By then, we will have brought together millions of people like you to mine the Gaju Maru.
	This will create such powerful combined computing capacity across so many millions of people that the Gaju Maru can remain highly decentralized, enabling an economy for the people by the people.
	To make all of this possible, we offer a variety of mining packages that combine all of the software and services you need on our website, gaju mining.com.
	The software is simple to install, and there is a step-by-step guide that will get you mining and participating quickly and easily.
	You can buy those packages now.
	You can start mining the Gaju Maru and being rewarded in Gaju's now.
	Select a suitable mining package from the Gaju Mining.com web store.
	Install and activate the software on your device and start mining today.
	This is an opportunity to be part of a movement to restore our humanity, our dignity, our sovereignty, creating a better future for everyone.
	For the first time in thousands of years, you will directly benefit from your work, your ideas, without being taxed by intermediaries or needing permission to be part of the global economy.
	We believe that capitalism is I win, you win, we all win.
	Not I win, you lose.
	That's corporatism.
	We refuse to pursue venture funding that would demand we play the corporatist game and chose instead to grow this movement by giving everyone the opportunity to benefit from their contribution to the movement.
	Just like being able to mine Bitcoin in 2008 or 2009, getting early access to mining the Gaju Maru now allows you to mine the greatest number of gajus and benefit most from being part of this movement.
	We want to share that with you.
	We want the whole world to be part of this.
	We want everyone who cares about our future to get on board and take this from a movement to a reality.
	We want to see an economy for the people, by the people now.
	Join us.
	Put your fingerprints on humanity's story, our history.
	Be a leader in the economic emancipation of humanity.
	It's simple.

▲