All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
59:55
FETZER DENIED the Right to Trial by Jury by the US Supreme Court! - Ron Avery
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The End
The End
All right.
Welcome back to Search for Lawful Government with Ron Avery here at republicbroadcasting.org.
And it is December the 6th and the year of the Lord 2022.
Well, it's official today that Dr. Fetzer has had his petition for rehearing in the U.S.
Supreme Court denied.
And I thought it would be interesting today to kind of compare what is going on right now in the U.S.
Supreme Court Uh, the types of oral arguments they're having compared to what they could have been having had they, um, granted a writ of certiorari, uh, to, uh, Dr. Fetzer, uh, to appeal his, uh, the Fourth Court of Appeals in Wisconsin, uh, their opinion, uh, and their ruling, uh, for, uh,
affirming a summary judgment against him in Wisconsin.
In what is that county?
Anyway, it's the capital where the capital is.
It's not Dade County.
I'll run across it somewhere.
Anyway, so I thought let's just go ahead and get to it.
And to start with, and we'll just take a gander at what is going on.
Okay.
Yesterday, now this isn't today, so this is all recorded.
But it's fresh off the website for the Supreme Court of the United States.
It's a two hour, two hours and 21 minutes.
We're only going to listen to about the first five minutes.
This is 303 Creative LLC versus Elenis.
So what has happened here is I'm going to take a look at this transcript here.
And what has happened is, I think this is the cake baker, you know, and this gay couple, this sodomist, wanted them to make a cake, you know, and have the decorated, you know, celebrating sodomy.
So, and the person didn't want to do that.
They didn't go for that kind of stuff.
And, uh, so, uh, they didn't want to do it.
And, uh, so they got sued and I guess the, uh, uh, he was ruled, they were ruled against creative LLC was ruled against.
And so they're appealing it here and have appealed apparently lost all the way or they wouldn't be appealing here at the Supreme court of the United States level.
So let's listen to a little bit of this stuff.
And see how this might compare to a case that Fetzer filed with the Supreme Court.
Here we go.
We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 21-476, 303 Creative, LLC v. Alanis.
Ms.
Wagoner?
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Lori Smith blends art with technology to create custom messages using words and graphics.
She serves all people deciding what to create based on the message, not who requests it.
But Colorado declares her speech a public accommodation and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience.
This court rejects such government-compelled speech.
In Hurley, the court considered a very similar issue, asking two questions.
Is there speech and is the message affected?
That test is easily met here.
Colorado agrees Ms.
Smith creates speech and the law undeniably affects her message.
She's not asking this court to create new law, but to apply its precedent.
Colorado first says this case is about a sale.
It's not just about a sale.
The state forces Ms.
Smith to create speech, not simply sell it.
Next, Colorado says it can compel speech on the same topic.
But Ms.
Smith believes opposite-sex marriage honors scripture, and same-sex marriage contradicts it.
If the government can label this speech equivalent, it can do so for any speech, whether religious or political.
Under Colorado's theory, jurisdictions could force a Democrat publicist to write a Republican's press release.
Colorado's last resort is to argue that it can at least compel the same expression.
But even the same expression can mean different things.
Like a black sculptor who carves a custom cross to celebrate a Catholic baptism, but not an Aryan church rally.
If the government may not force motorists to display a motto, school children to say a pledge, or parades to include banners, Colorado may not force Ms.
Smith to create and speak messages on pain of investigation, fine, and re-education.
I welcome this Court's questions.
Counsel, would you spend just a few minutes on whether or not your case is ripe?
Sure.
This court has considered pre-enforcement challenges before, and in those contexts, it has looked at the facts.
This is one of the strongest pre-enforcement cases I think that this court has considered, in that the parties have stipulated every message that Ms.
Smith would create has a unique, customized message, and that it celebrates a wedding.
I'm through.
It's also difficult to imagine a scenario where there isn't a more aggressive enforcement history by Colorado.
Ms. Smith's speech has been chilled for six years.
She has been unable to speak in the marketplace.
She's ready to do so today, and she's ready to post her website statement today, which makes this case ripe.
Ms. Wagner, unless you're not through with that, sorry.
I'm through.
Thank you.
Can I give you a hypothetical?
It's not really a hypothetical because I happen to have two clerks in my chambers this year who are engaged.
So in looking at this case and preparing this case, I looked at their websites.
And so the hypothetical is about like, I'm going to call it the standard website.
They both have their names on it, the date of the wedding, a picture of the couple.
Then there are a bunch of places that you can click to.
And one is, um, The schedule of events, and the other is travel and hotel arrangements, and another is favorite things to do in town while you're here, and another is registry.
So that's what most websites look like, yeah?
And they're not particularly ideological, and they're not particularly religious, they're not particularly anything, all right?
And then there's a tagline, just like the tagline in this case, about sort of Who created the website or whose graphics and design and typefaces and so forth were used in the website?
And so one of them says, I'm going to substitute a woman's name just to not advertise, but one of them says, made by love with Amber by made with love by Amber, right?
It's actually bigger than the 303 tagline.
So I guess what I want to know is suppose Amber wakes up tomorrow morning.
And says, you know what, I don't want to do those websites anymore for same-sex couples.
Could she do that?
In terms of creating new websites?
No, you know, like she's providing these templates and she has all these designs and typefaces and that's what people use when they create their own website because they give her the date and they give her The list of hotels and so forth.
So, can Amber wake up and just say, no more gay couples?
She can't say no more gay couples, but a speaker does have the ability to decide not to speak under the law.
But I think the hypothetical that you're mentioning is assuming that it's a plug and play website, essentially, that the website is already made and that the speech creator isn't making any additions to it.
No, no, no.
I mean, you know, just like I mean, I have to think that you're OK.
I think we've heard enough of that.
Just to get an idea of the kind of stuff that went on yesterday at the High Court of the United States and You know that kind of sounds Yeah, I'm there they may have a claim and all that but let's compare that to Dr. Fetzer's kind of case and and what that would mean Kind of sound like it.
Here's Dr. Fetzer's question to the United States Supreme Court.
May rules of summary judgment vary throughout the states, allowing the Wisconsin judiciary to conduct and affirm a non-jury trial under the pretense of a summary judgment proceeding, the process of which violates all the rules of summary judgment in Texas.
Depriving all Wisconsin citizens of their equal rights to a trial by jury and due process under the 7th and 14th Amendments and further allowing a Wisconsin judge to determine the validity of major national events like a mass shooting through unsound summary judgment methodology.
Now, I believe you can get your teeth into that and that affects a lot of people.
In fact, it's not just affecting sodomists.
This is affecting every citizen, sodomist or not.
I even think a sodomist ought to get a fair trial and not a bogus summary judgment following bogus rules of summary judgment in Wisconsin.
And the other one, I don't think we're going to hear the other one, the other one.
I'm just going to mention it.
Let's go back to where I was here.
To go to the other one is, let's go back one here.
That was, now the other case they heard yesterday was called MOAC, which is Malls of America Corporation, Mall Holdings, LLC, versus Transform Hold Company, versus Transform Hold Company, or Holdco, LLC.
And this is about some kind of a lease transfer thing.
And I'll give you a little taste of this thing.
And we'll hear argument next in 21-1270.
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, because of the harsh consequences of designating a procedural prerequisite jurisdictional, this Court requires a clear indication from Congress before it will treat a limit as such.
Nothing in the text, structure, or context of Section 363M suggests, much less clearly reflects, that Congress intended the absence of a stay to deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction.
To the contrary, the text explicitly presupposes the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, including to reverse or modify a sale order.
The provision merely limits the remedial consequences of such a ruling And then only if there was no stay.
Transform's few appellate decisions concerning an earlier rule of bankruptcy procedure do not provide a clear indication of jurisdictional character.
None of the cases Transform cites are from this court, and none actually designated the rule jurisdictional.
Because the requirement of a stay is not jurisdictional, it was subject to waiver, forfeiture, and estoppel, each of which applies here.
Transform assured the Bankruptcy Court that it would not invoke Section 363B to defeat MOAC's appeal because Transform did not believe Section 363M applied.
And Transform was right.
The order under review did not authorize a sale under 363B.
The asset sale had already closed.
Rather, the order authorized assumption and assignment of a lease under Section 365.
With no additional payment to the debtor.
It does not defeat any Congressional limit on the Court's power to hold Transform to the position it took in the Bankruptcy Court.
Finally, Transform's alternative argument that the leases transferred deprived the appellate courts of jurisdiction to review the assignment order is confused on multiple levels.
It wrongly assumes that Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction is solely in REM, which this Court has rejected.
But even if it were, this court has made clear that the transfer of the res does not deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction, whereas here the transferee is a party to the proceedings.
I welcome the court's questions.
I understand you'd like to get to the jurisdiction, non-jurisdiction question, but I think I've almost had my fill of that.
Could you just take a second to explain what provision you rely on to challenge the lease assignment?
We argue that the assignee did not satisfy adequate assurance of future performance.
Yeah, I understand that.
And that's 365B1C and also 365B3A.
So the Bankruptcy Code requires, it's very protective of mall owners.
Congress was very solicitous of them and it provided that both in order to assume and to assign a shopping center lease, the debtor and the assignee would have to show that there would be adequate assurance of future performance.
And that required specifically showing that the assignee had the same financial wherewithal Well, I think we've heard enough about this.
Don't you know that just affects a whole lot of people?
1991, and the district court held that that was not met.
As a practical matter, what would the difference be?
Well, on remand, we believe that...
Well, I think we've heard enough about this.
Don't you know that just affects a whole lot of people?
The assignee, whether the assignee is healthy as the one that held the lease beforehand in shopping center leases, mall leases.
I mean, that's some really powerful stuff.
Doesn't it reach out and really touch every American?
I mean, come on.
There is something wrong here.
The idea that these two cases have some kind of powerful merit over a guy that's been
Obviously cheated out of a trial by jury, and found guilty of defamation, and then they bring in the jury to then hear about what a terrible guy he was, and actually hear about all the suffering of the defamed.
Uh, and then find him, uh, owing, uh, $450,000 without really a trial finding him, uh, guilty of defamation, but just this bogus, flimsy, worthless, uh, fraudulent, uh, summary judgment.
And there's no way anybody trained really in law would believe that that summary judgment against Dr. Fetzer was legitimate.
And after the break coming up, we're going to compare directly the rules of Wisconsin summary judgment with the rules of summary judgment in Texas, which are sound, believe it or not.
And we'll talk about why they are sound in Texas and why they're not sound in Wisconsin.
And then the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't think that every state in the Union should have trials by jury under the Seventh Amendment?
And that everybody can have a Federal Second Amendment right, but not a Federal Seventh Amendment right?
This is crazy!
I mean, it's gone!
We'll be right back after this.
We'll be right back.
Homeowners, if your lender has gone out of business or sold your transaction to another lender or servicer, you may be the victim of a wrongful foreclosure resulting in the loss of your home.
If you've already lost your home, are in foreclosure, or even in good standing, you can challenge the mortgage transaction's illegal issue and your property can be restored to you, and your foreclosure can be stopped or reversed and the mortgage transaction declared unenforceable.
State laws, U.S.
title codes, the Uniform Commercial Codes, and U.S.
Supreme Court rulings have upheld that defective mortgage documentations can reverse or stop foreclosures and enforce property title claims in favor of the homeowner.
We are having successes in stopping the process of foreclosure, the enforcement of the foreclosure judgments, the sale of property and evictions after the sale.
We are not attorneys and we don't give legal advice.
We are a professional team of legal researchers providing forensic mortgage audits and expert witnesses.
We have the knowledge to produce the evidence and enforce laws regarding your legal issues.
We've been in business for 12 years without a complaint.
Consultations are free and we provide a free title search to confirm if your mortgage has legal defects.
Please call 855-253-3748.
855 the number 2.
Keep it today!
Extendivite testimonials on Amazon are very informative.
Here's just a few.
Amazon customer, five stars.
Honestly, this stuff works.
Nick, easy to take capsules.
For those who can't handle the liquid drops, easy to take Extendivite capsules do the same job.
Karoka Fam.
Works great.
Like Xtendivite very much.
Seems to work as advertised.
Thanks!
Arlene.
Five stars.
Love this product, Xtendivite.
Terry W. Five stars.
Can't say enough.
Great product.
Freya.
Five stars.
I just ordered another.
To get your ExtendoVite today, go to ExtendoVite.com.
That's X-T-E-N-D-O-V-I-T-E dot com.
Or call us at 1-877-928-8822.
1-877-928-8822.
Extend your life with ExtendoVite.
Corporate media dominates the American opinion.
Finding independent voices that counter this avalanche is becoming increasingly difficult.
With the endless corruption running rampant throughout our government, independent voices are needed more than ever to battle the offensive against our freedoms and liberties.
As a listener of RBN, no one understands this concept better than you.
Now it's up to you to do your part.
The time has come for you to take action and begin broadcasting the truth to hundreds or thousands of people every month.
Sound impossible?
Quite the contrary.
With pointed slogans from LibertyStickers.com, you can reach countless sleeping Americans unaware that they live in a real-life wonderland.
LibertyStickers.com has a huge inventory of political bumper stickers and messages that reflect the truth about our government, our politicians, and the future of America.
With so many in stock, there's one perfect for you.
Visit us today at LibertyStickers.com.
Again, that's LibertyStickers.com.
Do your part.
Your voice is important.
Let it be heard.
Let it be heard.
It's all right.
As long as you lend a hand.
You can sit around and wait.
It's going to be all right as long as you're in his hand.
And that's right.
And we are going to be victorious.
In fact, we are already victorious.
The tyrants are going down.
This is God's kingdom.
And it has a king.
And there ain't nothing all these people can do about it.
All these tyrants and criminals cannot change that.
They can't alter it.
They've had it.
The New World Order, these so-called New World Order folks are finished.
But anyway, I want to move on now to what I was talking about, and I'm going to talk about this summary judgment, what the purpose of it is and the use of it, and then what the difference is between the Texas Correct version and the Wisconsin Horrible version is.
So first of all, we're going to talk about the summary judgments themselves.
The judicial principle of judge and jury, and how that works, and anybody that's served on a jury, the judge tells the group to be picked from this very thing.
That juries determine the facts, and judges apply the law to the facts.
If the adversaries, now they don't tell you the rest of this, but I'm going to tell you this.
If the adversaries agree to the facts, there is no need for a jury.
Well, that does make sense, doesn't it?
If the adversaries come to court and they agree on what the facts are, then the only thing that needs to be found and determined is how the law applies to it.
And a judge can apply the law to those agreed facts.
There is no fundamental right to a summary judgment.
If you file a summary judgment and it gets denied, you can just continue on to a trial by jury.
Now, there is a fundamental right to a trial by jury.
You cannot be deprived of that without breaking the law in America or anywhere else.
Everybody deserves a trial by jury anywhere in the world.
The movement who files a motion for summary judgment is not at risk of losing a fundamental right, for if it is denied, they may proceed to trial by jury.
The non-movement who has a motion for summary judgment filed against them is at risk of losing their right to a trial by jury.
For if it is granted, they will never see a jury to prove their claim or defense unless it is reversed.
Hence, the summary judgment process must proceed in a manner that will preserve the right of the non-movement To a trial by jury, no matter what.
And now, I'm going to read the summary judgment methodology used in Texas, the correct version.
OK.
The judge must find the agreement to facts in the following manner.
And just generally said, a judge, again, cannot find facts or determine them.
All he can find in a summary judgment is agreement or disagreement.
So number one, place the burden on the movant to show there are no material facts issues in dispute.
Two, accept all facts supporting evidence favorable to the non-movant as true.
Three, indulge all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the non-movant's facts and supporting evidence.
Four, resolve all questions in favor of the non-movement.
Five, if the movement disagrees with the non-movement's facts, the judge must deny the motion for summary judgment immediately.
Six, if the movement agrees with the non-movement's facts and can show all elements of a claim or defense, The judge may grant a motion for summary judgment while having fully protected the right of the non-movement to a trial by jury.
For even with a jury, the non-movement would still lose.
Okay.
That makes some pretty good sense, doesn't it?
And now to hear the Wisconsin summary judgment methodology.
Uh, and I think I'll wait till we get back because I don't think I'm going to have enough time to, uh, to cover this.
There are six items, but it's kind of lengthy.
So I'm going to wait just a few minutes and talk about two, uh, also, uh, the, these two cases that we heard from the Supreme Court oral arguments that were conducted yesterday at the United States Supreme Court.
Uh, and I believe there was only two of them.
Both of them lasted about two and a half hours long.
But the first one was, I guess it was some kind of website maker, not a cake maker that had these... Well, I think we're going to take a break here real shortly, so that works out real good.
I didn't want to get into that anyway.
So we'll be right back after this.
We'll be right back.
You are tuned in to The Republic Broadcasting Network.
Visit our website by going to republicbroadcasting.org.
Have you been looking for a trusted long-term storable food company?
We have a solution for you.
Simply Clean Foods is dedicated to providing the best quality food you can buy next to fresh from a farmer's market.
Our line of resealable fruits, vegetables and meats are suitable for everyday use and you won't have to worry about throwing away valuable groceries ever again.
Our food is completely GMO-free and our stringent quality controls plus testing for heavy metals makes us unique in the storable foods market.
Simply Clean Foods' primary focus is to bring clean food to people all around the world and change the way we look at freeze-dried food in our daily cooking.
When you purchase from Simply Clean Foods, not only will you be receiving high-quality food, but you will also be supporting veterans in need across the country and those who are affected by natural disasters.
Go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Long-Term Food Storage in the Rotating Sponsors Banners to support RBN.
Simply Clean Foods.
Do it today.
Tune in Saturday mornings, 8 to 10 Central, to the Alternative Media with your host, Farron.
If you've not been listening, this is some of what you've been missing.
2,000 mules, like you like to say occasionally, Farron, in your face.
They might have a set of lactating mammaries available that could provide milk for their adopted children.
Listen, news media all pulling off this gigantic fraud.
Rhino, neocon, cubs.
There's this wonderful thing called Vote With Your Feet.
Moves California.
I am a conspiracy factualist and everyone else is a reality theorist.
Hundreds if not thousands of ships came out of nowhere.
Give me liberty or let's give you death.
Any excuse to go and kill yourself for this fraud of a government.
This goes back a hundred years.
When they come for your gold, give them a lead.
And when they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.
And God help us all!
Are you one of the millions of people who feel like there is a dark cloud hanging over their heads whenever they're using pharmaceutical drugs?
For some, the short-term relief can turn into an opioid addiction nightmare.
Have you ever wondered why CBD oil is a billion-dollar industry?
It's because it works better than opioids and is actually healthy for you.
However, CBD oil is stripped of all other helpful compounds found in the hemp plant.
According to neuroscientists, the whole hemp plant, otherwise known as hemp paste, is even more effective than the chemically processed CBD oil.
Are you ready to take back your health?
You can try hemp paste for the price of a cup of coffee by going to rbnhemppaste.com.
and ordering a trial pack of happy packets for $5 with free shipping.
That's rbnhemppace.com.
I like that bluesy sound, right?
I like it.
Anyway, now that you've heard the Texas, believe it or not, good summary judgment principles, following what they should be in order to protect a person's right to trial by jury, protect the non-movement Now you're going to hear the Wisconsin Summary Judgment Methodology and see if you like it as well.
See where the flaws are.
And see, this was not something that Dr. Fetzer drew up himself.
This was taken from Dane.
It was at Dane County in the prosecutor's office.
He wrote these things down and it was used in his petition.
So here it comes.
Number one, the burden is on the non-moving to prove there are genuine material fact issues in dispute to win their right to a trial by jury, which they already have and which should be preserved by the judge.
Well, OK, let me modify this a little bit.
I've expanded that personally, but what is said.
The essence of this is said by the Dane County Prosecutor's Office in Wisconsin, and that's the very county he was tried in.
They say that the burden is placed on the non-movement, so I'm just saying what that actually means.
Okay, two, the judge must verify that the movement has stated a claim.
The judge must determine if there are any material fact disputes.
Four, if there is a material fact dispute, the judge verifies that the movant has made a prima facie case with their proof.
In other words, the judge goes to work for the movant, even after it's been shown, even after he discovers there's a dispute, a fact dispute.
Well, he should have denied it right then.
But anyway, it continues.
Five.
If the movement has established a prima facie case, the judge looks at the non-movement's facts and evidence to determine if there are any fact disputes or inferences from undisputed material facts.
Well, that's convoluted.
That's going right back then and looking again.
And then he's saying that inferences cannot be drawn just from the non-movement's facts and evidence, but must be only taken from the undisputed material facts.
So the judge makes inferences dependent upon the movement's agreement, which is absurd.
Okay, six.
The judge may weigh the facts and take either party's facts and evidence as true.
And what does this mean?
This means that this is the rule in Wisconsin.
inadmissible, irrelevant, or non-existent, and grant a summary judgment while denying the non-movement's right to a trial by jury.
That's it.
That is really it.
So, and what does this mean?
This means that this is the rule in Wisconsin.
This is how they do summary judgments in Wisconsin.
And I'm gonna tell you what that is.
This is not a summary judgment methodology.
This is straight out a non-jury trial.
You don't get a summary.
See, under these rules, there ain't no such thing as a summary judgment in Wisconsin.
There's only a trial by jury and a non-jury trial conducted by the judge, where the judge finds both fact and applies the law.
He finds the fact and the law.
But see, in that condition, you have to waive your right to a trial by jury.
Dr. Fetzer didn't do any waiving of a right, and even had he done so, they can't They can't conduct a non-jury trial and then turn around and call it a summary judgment.
If they conduct a non-jury trial, they have to call it a non-jury trial.
They can't call it something else.
So anyway, I just I just find that astonishing that the Oh, I find it criminal.
I mean, this is just more I'm going to tell you what the biggest evidence for The notion that Sandy Hook did not happen is the James Fetzer trial.
It's way more kangaroo court than the Alex Jones case.
This is over the top, and the fact that the Fourth Court of Appeals went on with it in Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court also affirmed it, And now the Supreme Court of the United States is joined in the war against Dr. Fetzer by depriving him of a right to trial by jury.
And they all know better than this.
They all know it.
Any real lawyer that knows what any of this is about knows that this is fraud to the bone marrow.
There is something way wrong with Sandy Hook to do these kinds of trials.
All of this has happened and there has not been a trial by jury regarding any lawsuit coming out of Sandy Hook.
That's the strongest evidence I've seen yet to prove that Sandy Hook did not happen.
I think this is absolute criminal, dissolved, tyrannical government in full operation.
And if we don't get starting on making lawful government in this country, we have had it.
Because this one is dissolved, and they use it to beat us senseless with.
If you think you're going to reform a tool that is presently beating us senseless, I've got bad news for you.
Let me tell you, our forefathers knew how to create a lawful government, and we do too.
We can do it.
That government that is up there now is dissolved, has no authority whatsoever.
We owe no allegiance to it, and they have no authority to exercise power over us.
Well, anyway, after that, I'll take a call now.
James from Vancouver.
How you doing?
You there still?
No.
I'm here.
Yeah, I'm here.
They couldn't use the jury because then the jury would have found out the facts.
There was no massacre at Sandy Hook.
I was going to say another thing where you'll get summary judgment is in a case of strict liability.
And that's where they don't have to prove mens rea for the crime.
An example would be Hillary Clinton's 33,000 emails that she sent on her private server to share United States secrets with the enemy.
That would be a strict liability offense.
Yeah, you know, this is, see this is, and most people don't know this, defamation is a pretty difficult thing to prove.
There's a lot of common law, years and years of it.
Well, this is actually a defensive thing.
Yes, well actually see that liability is part of the defamation.
All of that stuff would have to be proven.
Right.
Well, defamation is not necessarily criminal.
It's probably more civil.
It's a tort.
Yeah, it's a civil tort.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Right.
Right.
So, uh, but I'm just saying that, uh, uh, while you're reforming the legal system there, you might want to take some of these guys that are sharing state secrets and getting away with it because that law is, um, A law of strict liability where if, for example, you go through a red light, you're not going to get a jury trial for that.
They're just going to throw the book at you because the judge will decide.
They'd still have to prove you ran the red light, wouldn't they?
If they could prove you ran the red light, you're right.
So you're right back to what kinds of things can you not have a trial by jury on?
I don't know.
I think even in those cases, you can have a trial by jury unless you waive it.
Because I've done that.
I've sat in a trial for a speeding ticket.
So you can get it for anything.
You know, it's interesting.
I studied law 20 years ago in England.
And at that time, they were talking about abolishing the juries.
All Oh, they're still talking about that.
They're still talking about that.
The British have abolished the grand jury.
I think 1933 for some reason or 37 something like that.
There's no more grand jury.
Well, anyway, I'll let you go.
Well, thank you, James.
Well, that is an interesting thing you brought up because, uh, Uh, and guess what the biggest instrument is being practiced today that is dispensing with trials by jury is the summary judgment.
Uh, and this is admitted to.
Yeah.
The jury is there to protect, to protect the, um, uh, everybody, uh, everybody concerned because the jury is, uh, uh, people that have a common sense and, um, They're there, like you say, to determine the facts.
How can you apply the law if you don't know what the facts are?
And you're just going to let one gangster tell you what the facts are?
Yeah.
The judge is there to make sure the law is followed and to tell the jury you're right what the law is.
And if the judge doesn't do that properly, now you can file for an appeal.
That's right.
That's right.
Anyway, okay.
Thanks for calling, man.
I appreciate that.
Oh, you're welcome.
All right.
All right.
Lark from Texas.
You're up next.
How you doing?
Yeah.
Good to hear you.
Good to hear you.
I hate to bring this up.
Okay.
Cause you know, I've been beating it.
Yeah.
I've been, I've been beating that horse apparently for, you know, I don't know, a dozen years just on this network.
Yeah, this is the communitarian law, right?
Yeah, now here's what I want to just say, and I'm going to try to be brief, okay?
We're going to have to examine some things, okay?
Number one, we've got a new host on this network.
His name is Mike Gaddy, and he's a revisionist historian of sorts.
But you know something, we need to talk about this thing called Constitution.
That's the first thing.
We got to talk about how this country was conceived and so forth and so on.
We have to also understand the implications of what has occurred since the bankruptcy of the federal government in 1933 when we had a whole slew of communists take office In the FDR administration, which led us into World War II.
Yes.
Under false pretenses.
Yes.
We also need to understand what happened since 9-11 and what it did to law enforcement in this country.
This was more than 20 years ago.
That's right.
Okay?
All law enforcement in this country was brought under the rubric, the aegis, the umbrella of the NSA.
Yes.
And so what they are important… That's unlawful right on its face.
I mean, you want separate law enforcement organizations to investigate one another, not joined all together.
Well, the fact is the federal government is in receivership to its creditors.
They haven't come out of receivership.
During the midst of the so-called Civil War, the war between the states, There was an issue called General Orders Number 100, the so-called Lieber Code.
Now this man was the preeminent international legal scholar in this country at that time.
He was conscripted to join the Lincoln administration in the rank of a major.
What was he?
He was a college professor, okay?
There is no evidence that I've ever been able to find anywhere That this General Orders number 100, which was issued during a time of war, which brought us under martial rule, under the law of necessity and international law, has ever been rescinded.
That means that we still live in a martial ruled society.
Okay?
Which allows them to basically forego a lot of the so-called protections and the rights That Americans hold dear and have been for ages.
However, we've never examined the particularities as a people as to what's caused this shift.
Okay.
Like in the Fetzer case.
Okay.
It's never been discussed.
It has to be discussed.
I mean, I have spoken to a number of lawyers over the years.
Okay.
People that have been supporters of this network.
Yes.
Well, I'd like to say, too, that people have said that the Emergency War Powers Act, it was never rescinded after the Civil War.
And if all we had to do was go back and declare the peace and the end of the war and all of that, that everything would straighten out.
And there's a lot of other things that people talk about that, you know, you're under the corporate system.
And so as if you could go back and just tweak this thing a little bit, you could end up with the lawful government that was intended.
And I'm saying that is it doesn't matter what kind of beast was created.
The beast is unlawful.
And the thing that it was created from is dissolved and not there.
So we've got to get on a footing that has a clean slate.
Because if you don't, you're always playing in their court and you never win in their court.
Well, and of course, they use our own language against us.
They themselves are arguing for a clean slate.
That tabula rasa.
Oh yeah, but no, they're not exactly.
They're saying they're going to have a transformation.
They're going to just have a transfer from here to there.
All of that.
They're not certainly not saying that the thing is dissolved and gone and they need a new thing.
They say that what they have now is lawful and what we're going to have in the future is even better.
OK, hang with us, Lark.
Mark with you about that.
American Freedom News is your daily website that will keep you fully informed on what both the good guys and bad guys are doing in the information war in which we are all engaged.
Fed up with the lies of the fake news media and the censorship of big tech giants?
American Freedom News is the solution as we provide truth and knowledge on all the vital issues of the day.
American Freedom News believes in America first.
The establishment wants us split into numerous hostile groups rather than uniting in a common cause against the corrupt oligarchy that is plundering America and the world.
Many more Americans are waking up and realizing they are the victims of the ongoing Great Replacement and Great Reset.
But the malevolent forces trying to systematically destroy America can and will be defeated.
Be fully informed by reading American Freedom News, the best news and information site on the Internet.
Go to AmericanFreedomNews.us and find out for yourself.
That's AmericanFreedomNews.us.
For the past 14 years, it's been my privilege to host the National Intel Report on RBN, to offer a platform to interview exceptional guests to provoke critical thought and examine evidence, whether real, fake, or somewhere in between, and allow our audience to call in and participate with your input and questions in order and allow our audience to call in and participate with your input and questions in order to help us all reach an educated decision Our world has changed.
It's now been turned on its head, real is now considered fake, and mainstream fake is now pushed as real, rather than any clear thinking, consensus, or rationale.
Those few remaining beacons of light, the ones still shining through the mainstream media lies, propaganda, and deception, are being viciously attacked at every level through attempts at censorship, threatening advertisers, jailing hosts, and even killing journalists brave enough to speak the truth to you.
We are in a war for our very freedom and existence, and through these despicable acts, freedom haters, collectivists, and communitarians have shown they will stop at nothing to blot out these last few beacons of light.
Truth is becoming increasingly more difficult to unmask, just as the term unmasking itself is spoken by those usually anonymous sources.
They promote their lies, wishing to mask the truths by ignoring it, vilifying it, or conspiratorializing it into a black hole abyss.
Regrettably, RBN has reached the tipping point, and through internal audit and actuarial review, it has now been determined that the only life raft of survival to this network is to go the way of PBS, that being audience-supported.
Like a cornered animal, the left with veracity is pulling out all the stops with every effort to effectively blacken our beacon forever.
Help us, folks.
Help yourselves.
Don't let our light stop shining.
Our motto has always been, because you can handle the truth.
It's time to review your budget, folks.
If you want the truth to keep flowing through RBN, go to republicbroadcasting.org and become a regular monthly donor of 30, 40, 50, or 100 or more a month and ensure you keep the truth flowing.
Music.
A dying flame You're free again Who could love And do that to you All dressed in black You won't be coming back
Well save your tears You got years and years The pains of 17 years I needed that.
Okay.
Lark is still there.
We got two and a half minutes or so.
Well, I'm going to leave you plenty of time to summarize.
We can't, we can't really delve into this with the limited amount of time, but I'm going to tell you, you know, even, even attorneys today, Are specialized and, uh, they're placed in boxes.
The fact is you just can't know what you just don't know.
Okay.
Right.
And, uh, uh, the truth is, is, is the big difference between a country lawyer.
Okay.
That's a damn good lawyer with a good reputation.
He's handling divorces and issues over property and bankruptcies and, Disputes between business people and so forth and so on.
And the attorneys and the large firms with offices, not just in this country, but in foreign countries that serve as the council for these multinational corporations.
It's not the same thing.
Those people know about communitarian law, but that country lawyer does not.
Okay.
And so we can't, we can't fight if we don't know, What the enemy knows, you know?
Yeah.
Now, is this a really strict law?
Is this like a communitarian law books or is this just kind of like a system?
It's, uh, you kind of learn kind of the basis of it.
I, I think that I don't think this stuff is hard and fast like that, but it's just their mentality.
It's a, it's a communitarian mentality that, uh, that goes wrong.
Yeah, go ahead.
The answer is found in EU law.
It was more than 70 years in the making.
It's based on case law that they borrowed from the communist countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, married with the case law of the Western countries.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, do they have a book of statutes?
A volume upon volume of communitarian statutes, or is it just a perversion of both common and common laws?
Yes, they do.
Where would I get communitarian law?
You can start at websites like Lexology.
Okay, but you've got to follow the prompts by just familiarizing yourself with a key communitaire or what's known in English as communitarian law.
It is the model legal undergirding for everything that we're seeing rolling out in the communitarian world.
It affects the law of every nation state, which is now no longer sovereign.
Thank you, Lark.
I agree with you.
And that's all for today, though.
We'll see you all next time.
We'll see you all next time.
We'll see you all next time.
Hello, I'm Dr. Leonard Horowitz.
I was right 30 years ago when warning the world about threatening lab virus outbreaks, AIDS, and Ebola.
I was right 20 years ago when FBI Director Robert Mueller made me a suspect in the Anthrax mailings because I warned the Bureau before the CIA's biocrime and Cipro sales psyops happened.
I was right about COVID-19 being an AIDS-laced mutagen planned to resurge this fall to excuse officials' profitable depopulation globalization agendas.
And I was right about the only safeguards being antioxidants and holy spiritual sustenance.
Vitamin C, D, Zinc, Chlorophyll, Oxygen, and Oxy-Silver especially transmits the frequency resonance to neutralize the expanded function bioweapon.
OxySilver is a double superconductor of the healing power of love.
It is the first nutraceutical invented to amplify prayer power and the faithful, loving intention of your heart.
Buy, try, and stockpile OxySilver through HealthyWorldStore.com.
You're listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network.
▲
Export Selection