Expatriation and Secession: The Right to Exit and Build both Individually and Collectively within the Law
The Real History, Law and Potentials we CAN TAKE ACTION ON TODAY!
Your email provider may not show this entire article. Also, if you are are reading this on Telegram, or other locations, it may not display the article correctly, and may interfere with the videos. If so, read the original at Liberty Uncensored Substack.
If you’re just following, you’re only seeing a fraction of what I write. Hit Subscribe (free) and it’ll come straight to your inbox. Take our Survey.
Telegram Main Channel ///// Telegram Meme Channel ///// Telegram Movie Channel
FREEDOM ISNT FREE, IT REQUIRES VIGILANCE
This article can be read by anyone, at any level of understanding of the Law. I wrote this with the intent to cut through the fog of uncertainty about the What, Why, When, Where and How of Status Correction in Law. Of course, there is no end to the research one may engage in, and no end to the conflicts and arguments that may be formed against what I present here… but what I am providing is not just opinions of the Law or theories I’ve developed without historical truth. Rather, what I present here is based on the applied and known Laws that have constructed the world we have today, and how to leverage the Law to the greatest degree possible to liberate oneself individually and all of us collectively, from slavery.
I stand, as we all must, on the shoulders of giants. Those that broke the mold and shared insights into what has been obscured by malfeasance and deceit and coercion. Those that furthered liberty for all.
Join us in future calls:
De Jure Nationality Status Correction Telegram Channel - https://t.me/+ZiY2E7-0tGQ3OWQx
Red Amendment by LB Bork - https://redamendment.net/
The Red Amendment was written by LB Bork, I believe in 1999, and it is the most illuminating book I have come across on the issue of Status in Law and what actually was produced in the Amendments passed following the “civil war” otherwise known as The War of Northern Aggression. You can follow and get involved with LB Bork, the man who began the whole movement, here on Substack.
De Jure Nationality Status Correction Telegram Channel - https://t.me/+U4oNunaJbtUzMjVh
Join us in cutting through the nonsense that is distracting people from the clear and direct truth about the law, where we stand in it, and what we can do about it.
We are getting directly to the issue.
And we are providing the solution.
Join, listen, discuss.
Share with anyone who is tired of being a slave.
My name is Corey King. I have been conducting myself as a free man since 2013. I have lived every moment of my life since in whatever way I chose, disregarding the laws that violated the affirmed rights of the constitution.
The problem is, when you do not correct status on paper with the government, it doesn't matter whatever else you do, they will always treat you as a slave of the de facto government.
So, I've been jailed and harassed at different moments over the years.
I've been through multitudes of scams and deceiving nonsense as I've tested various theories of how to exit the jurisdiction of the false government. They all have failed to succeed.
In the past couple of years I have found my way into a group of folk that have a clearer vision and simpler solution than anything else I've encountered. I cannot guarantee this will work to protect against violence from a de facto government, but what it clearly shows is that being armored with status correction that actually works, provides opportunity for our collective action against the de facto.
I forsee both individuals succeeding in shutting down courts that practice law outside of the constitution, and mass adoption leading to the locking up of the gears of our current de facto government.
Fighting against the de facto state without the law on your side means you always lose.
Fighting the de facto state with law on your side means you must win, or the system itself is beyond correction by law.
With numerical strength, the obviousness of the massive fraud is exposed and would be impossible to hide.
I think we need to bring expatriation from the de facto state far and wide, just as much as we need to bring awareness of how to manage trusts, build local martial defenses, and provide local sustainability through cooperation.
This group (De Jure Nationality Status Correction Telegram Channel - https://t.me/+ZiY2E7-0tGQ3OWQx) is built to discuss expatriation, nationality correction, and what that means without the fluff and nonsense.
The Act above frames the situation well. The last Act of the De Jure Constitional Republic was that which expressed the right of expatriation. And the remedy to the corruption and coup of that Republic was written into the title of the Act itself.
An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.
All you have to do to understand what we are doing with De Jure Nationality Status Correction, is ask yourself…
Who is the American Citizen and who is the foreign State.
Why would they need this Act? What purpose did it serve?
The War of Northern Agression, the “Civil War”, was not a civil war. A civil war is a war between two parties within a nation, who are both part of that nation.
And, since the Confederate States had Lawfully Seceded as per their Rights affirmed in the Law of the Confederation, i.e.:
The inherent and obvious right afforded by the act of the founders of the union, who did just secede from the British Empire. The act alone sets precedent for the progeny of those men.
The literal Law set into the:
Declaration of Independence: Declares “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” and “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” and finally, “…and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Articles of Confederation: Declares that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Article 2) and “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…” (Article 3) and “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
Treaty of Paris: Declares “His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.” (Article 1)
Constitution for the United States: Declares that “We the People of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” (Art. 1, Sec. 1) and “The Congress shall have Power To…” (Art. 1, Sec. 8) and the nail in the coffin, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
South Carolina Act of Secession
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession
Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
Confederate States of America - Constitution for the Provisional Government
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Confederate States of America - Proclamation of April 17, 1861
With a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from sectional conflicts, which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare, it is not unreasonable to expect that States from which we have recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes to ours under the Government which we have instituted. For this your Constitution makes adequate provision; but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, a reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nor desirable. To increase the power, develop the resources, and promote the happiness of the Confederacy, it is requisite that there should be so much of homogeneity that the welfare of every portion shall be the aim of the whole. When this does not exist, antagonisms are engendered which must and should result in separation.
Inaugural Address of the President of the Provisional Government, February 18, 1861
In the mid-19th century, secession, as a term of public law, retained its classical meaning: the withdrawal of a political community from a prior union. Its intellectual lineage ran from Roman secessio (lawful political withdrawal to assert rights), through early modern European confederal theory, into Anglo-American constitutional thought. Under the law of nations, political societies were recognized as corporate bodies possessing sovereignty when exercising independent political authority (de facto government with territorial control). Thus, once a withdrawing polity established stable governance and foreign recognition, its status could shift from insurrectionary to international personality.
Within the American constitutional order as originally framed, sovereignty language remained dual: the people as ultimate source of authority (Preamble) and reserved powers outside federal delegation (Tenth Amendment). The prior legal instrument creating American statehood, being the 1783 peace treaty, recognized the former colonies as “free, sovereign and independent States,” establishing the states as original subjects of international law. The Constitution formed a federal government of delegated powers, but did not contain an express prohibition of withdrawal nor a supremacy clause extending beyond constitutional bounds.
Under 19th-century legal theory (especially Vattel’s law of nations), legitimacy turned on effective self-government and capacity for international relations. Secession, once successful and acquiesced in by foreign powers, was treated not as a continuing crime but as the creation of a new political fact. In that framework, recognition, not mere internal legality, was decisive in determining whether separation had matured into lawful statehood.
For those paying attention, what the above means is:
The United States of America Government was created by the Sovereign States, which were recognized as sovereign by the British Empire, individually, not as a confederacy. That means the British did not relinquish their authority to the UNITED STATES INC, but rather to the recognized Sovereign States (Nations under the terms of the Law of Nations).
The instruments that created the successive Governments restricted, explicitly and unambiguously, the powers and means of the federal government of the Confederacy.
Secession was an explicitly known, and recognized politically and Lawfully, appropriate response by a distinct peoples to their government. It is the act of defining a boundary around the distinct peoples, whether it existed before or not, and executing instruments of Independence and sovereignty. Both the internal government of the secessionists must be constructed and operational, and recognition must exist by foreign sovereign states/nations.
Only by violating the explicit right of a State to secede from the Confederation of States that composed the united States of America and by completely altering the fundamental nature of the political domain of the confederacy, and by leveraging international finance that indentured the States/union to those foreign entities, did the War of Northern Aggression succeed in refusing and forcefully denying the Secession of the Southern States.
After the War of Northern Aggression, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed only because the Northern States leveraged force upon the Southern States to coerce them into agreeing to the terms of the Amednments. They even went so far as to physically replace their political opponents in those States and emplanting puppets who would agree to anything the North demanded of them. This means, that the passing of these Amendments never occured within the Law of the Constitutional Republic.
This is expressed very obviously in the fact that, even after being defeated in war, many States refused to retify the new Amendments, and in response, the US Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, which placed the conquered States under military governance and required ratification as a condition for representation in Congress. This obviously was a violation of the Constitutional requirement based on over 2000 years of supporting Law, that “Metus causa contractus rescinditur.” A contract made under fear (duress) may be rescinded. And, “A contract obtained by violence or threats shall not bind.” Blackstone (1765).
The quorum was never met, of representatives and delegates of the people of those States. Rather, each of those States were conquered by the union of Aggressor States that composed the Union. Which in turn means that the only place these Amendments exist, is under the operative law and jurisdiction of the de facto communist government that those Amendments formed, which is a foreign government to the de jure Constitutional Republic that was built by the aforementioned documents and Law.
THE LAW OF PERSONS
Within the framework presented in The Law of Persons (1892), legal order operates through the recognition of persons as bearers of rights and duties. The treatise distinguishes natural persons (human beings) from juristic persons (organized bodies such as states, municipalities, and corporations). Juristic persons are not biological realities but institutional subjects, existing in law through recognition of their organized condition.
Legal personality is therefore status-based. Rights and capacities do not flow from abstract theory but from the recognized legal condition of the subject. The text’s discussion of status categories (liberty, citizenship, family standing) demonstrates that law attaches consequences to recognized states of being, and that change in status produces a corresponding change in legal relations.
The doctrine of capitis deminutio illustrates the governing principle: alteration of status results in the legal order treating the subject according to its newly recognized condition, not its prior one. Legal reality, in this structure, follows institutional fact once that fact is acknowledged within the legal system.
Applied at the level of political organization, the state itself is treated as a juristic person whose legal existence depends upon its recognized institutional character. When such a body’s status changes in fact and is treated as such, the law, according to the treatise’s method, operates upon the new status. The text’s argument is structural: law recognizes organized subjects, assigns legal personality based on institutional reality, and adjusts rights and relations according to acknowledged status.
The doctrine reflected in The Law of Persons operates across both collective bodies and individual persons: law recognizes the subject (institutional or natural) as a bearer of rights; legal capacity depends on recognized status; and when status changes are acknowledged, legal relations change accordingly.
In Roman law, collegia and corporate bodies functioned as single legal units capable of holding rights and property (Digest 3.4). Individuals’ legal capacity likewise followed status, i.e. liberty, citizenship, family position. Formal status change (capitis deminutio) altered legal personality so law applied the new condition (Institutes of Justinian I.16). Roman municipal corporations retained legal identity despite changing membership; manumission changed a slave’s legal condition.
Medieval canon law continued this through persona ficta, recognizing ecclesiastical and civic bodies as legal subjects distinct from members (Decretals of Gregory IX) and (Here). Personal status, such as marriage, legitimacy, and domicile, governed inheritance and civil standing.
Early modern public law applied the same structure to states. Vattel defines a nation as a moral person with rights and duties under the law of nations. The Dutch Republic’s recognition in 1648 confirmed its legal personality among European powers (Peace of Westphalia).
The common law mirrors this structure. Corporations are artificial persons existing only in law (Dartmouth College v. Woodward). Individual allegiance determined subject status and rights (Calvin’s Case (1608)).
In international practice, recognition alters legal relations. Britain’s 1861 neutrality proclamation recognized belligerent status, triggering law-of-war rights (British Neutrality Proclamation). The Treaty of Paris (1783) recognized former colonies as sovereign states. Greece’s recognition in 1830 likewise confirmed new international personality.
Across legal systems, recognized status governs legal reality for institutions, states, and individuals alike.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Many perpectives and theories exist that express inviolable truths in Law that conflict with the de facto expression of governance. The fact that a State exists, of whatever type and condition, and has both the means to enforce its governance within a clear jurisdiction and the fact that it is recognized by distinct and seperate sovereign foreign nations gives it weight in legitimacy. If the operative law of the day is that which is governed by the state, that state is, in effect, the legitimate government of a specific territory and the people of such territory according to its operative law.
Let’s set aside the argument we are expressing in this article, that we may change our status from the de facto to the de jure through status correction in Law. Let’s consider the base facts of the means of a people to structure its governance according to its own will.
Remember what we have proven above through historocity. The nature of government is the acquiesence of a people within a territory to the surrender of natural liberties for the security that comes from collectively acknowledging a source of authority that may call upon the people to be judged, to martial in defense of the collective, or to accede to the authority in whatever other ways as are defined by the social order. That governing entity may appear in innumerable ways. It may be structured into more collectivized or individualized formats. It may be more invoved in the economics of the collective or in the martial defense, or some other way(s).
At the root of the concept of government is the nature of collectives to serve their individual and collective interests by delegating authority. No government exists without the surrender of the people to its authority. It may be that a government is only representative of a small group of people that willfully uphold the authority of the government, while the larger body is not represented. That is the nature of a tyranny.
Whatever the styling of the government, the people within that jurisdiction or territory naturally and inherantly retain the right to “…throw off such Government…”, “…and to provide new Guards for their future security.” This is affirmed in the Constitution and in our blood and our history as human beings on Earth.
With this fundamental understanding, that we have the RIGHT and the DUTY to secure our people and progeny against anything that may cause such harm and deprivations, we can understand very easily, that, by whatever means necessary is not limited only to revolutions and blood in the streets, nor only through legal pathways within the operative law, but also in the exploration of every single opportunity to defy the entity that is causing harm and to act upon our right and duty to throw off the oppressor and construct new guards for the future.
For those who are accustomed to my content, you will know that I fully support the “ANY MEANS NECESSARY” path. That means that I support a multitude of organizations and systems and ideas that all aim to deconstruct, defy, or throw off the harmful entity. The infighting between pawns is ridiculous and unproductive, when the opponent is organized, skilled, and operating at a very high level of efficiency and planning. If you aren’t a chess player, perhaps imagine that you are facing an opponent that knows, with an extremely accurate probability factor, your next actions, and even the outcome of your life. Imagining that everything will just magically resolve in your favor or that some supernatural hero will appear in the sky is about as realistic as surviving a polar winter nude and alone and wihtout legs and arms.
The ONLY thing that has ever changed the status quo is leaders of men rallying the bravest of their compatriots to the very edge of the known, and charging forward with a mighty war cry. Robert the Bruce may have done that literally when he led his small army at Bannockburn against daunting odds, but we can do this today through a mutltide of means simultaneously. Sure, the berserkers need to be on the team to blunt the enemy assaults, and deny the enemy of an easy victory, but they must not be alone. They must not be left to bleed out on the modern battlefield. In fact, neither can the philospher, the political defnder, and the families of the resistance be left without the defense that the frontline berserker can provide.
In our infighting and unimaginitive expression of defiance that we have predominantly performatively practiced, there can be no victory. We are facing the novel dangers and the greatest oppression, globally, that has ever faced man, collectively. As such, we must organize more effectively and efficiently than at any other time in history, surpassing our glorious ancestors and reaching for heights yet unknown. Robert the Bruce was victorious at Bannockburn, because he knew his enemy, he knew his own forces capabilities, he knew the terrain, and he knew how to transition from a defensive poature to an attack posture gracefully in the midst of battlefield chaos. Not only did he win the field, but he won the de facto rule and independence of Scotland, which led to official recognition 14 years later. It probably seemed just as unlikely to the average Scot that he'd have victory over the Engliah, as it appears to the average American to have victory over our enemy.
This can happen. But it requires the right combinations of factors that can produce organized resistance that eventually produces an unstoppable force. Not only do we need to consider the state of affairs that exist today, but also the state of affairs at every step of the journey toward liberty, and what we will do when that liberty is achieved. We are only ever a decision away from being set on the right path.
STATUS CORRECTION
“Ubi jus, ibi remedium”
“Where there is a right, there is a remedy.”
A foundational doctrine of common law and equity, this principle affirms that anywhere wherin the Law recognizes a Right, the legal system must provide a means to enforce or protect that right. A right without a remedy is considered defective in legal theory.
In Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone states:
“It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.”
This is one of the clearest formulations in common law.
A Right being a legally recognized interest, an Injury being a violation or withholding of that Right, and a Remedy being a judicial or legal means of correction, represent the chain that resolves the problem.
The principle in action requires a few components. A competent Court of proper jurisdiction that can take action. A recognized Right that has been violated. Also, a defined remedy. This ties into equity, wherein the rule is, if no Common Law procedure or remedy exists, equity shall intervene.
So, when the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were created, as I mentioned before, they were created only by the fraud, and by the treasonous exercise of coercion against the conquered States.
You cannot have it both ways, that the States unlawfully attempted secession and then a civil war occured to quell rebellion after which they were subsumed under the same rules as if they had not seceded at all, and that the Southern States were Lawfully treated as States under the Constitution post their defeat. These can not both exist. And as such, the argument cannot exist that the Amendments were Lawfully executed.
The only logical perspective here, is that the States Lawfully seceded, as was their Right under the 10th Amendment and all the history of Common Law and the Law of Nations, and that the Northern States aggressed upon the seceded States in an act of War against a foreign Confederacy of Nations. And further, that they defeated that confederacy militarily, conquered and occupied those Nations, and illegitimetly subsumed them back into the Union, forced them to accept the terms of the Union, which was to pass into Law these Amendments that created a Communist Federal de facto government. This is the only reasonable explanation. And the fact that the Supreme Court has never since declared these facts to be true, only gives clarity to the fact that we no longer had a Constitutional Republic guaranteeing the Rights affirmed in the Constitution and the limitations on government power. Rather we have had a regime of oligarchs ruling from behind the curtain in a system that only resembled the Constitutional Republic in the fascia but that slowly converted the people ever more vigorously into ignorant debt slaves.
Each successive generation has been indoctrinated further into believing that what they are seeing and experiencing is that same Constitutional Republic of their ancestors and forebears, while their guaranteed Liberty was stripped away piece by piece.
The Law of the Republic did not disappear. Nor was it conquered. It was simply hidden behind legalese and the slow encroachment, generationally, of tyranny.
Because the Law yet exists, and because the Communist Federal system still expresses the existence of Rights, and ensures the people of its legitimacy as the Constitutional Republic it mimics, it acts only as a thief in the night. It is the deception, pretending to be the rightful government the People believe it to be in their ignorance.
And, because the Law yet exists, and the principle of “Ubi jus, ibi remedium” is as real as ever, the Communists were compelled in Law, to create the remedy. That remedy is seen in the Expatriation Act, “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States”. This Act was the last action of the de jure government before the Communist coup.
Just as the principle of remedy exists in Law, there is a principle in war that reflects this same issue. That is, that you never compeltely surround your enemy. If you do surround your enemy, they will fight all the more viciously as they see no direction to escape. Instead of taking this great risk, you leave your enemy a route of retreat. You may pursue them and continue the assault, but you allow them the opportunity to escape, and the hope of survivial.
The remedy provided by the Expatriation Act gives the path of escape, the ability to exit from the battlefield and travel to another place. That other place is none other than that which you have afforded to you at birth, within the still existent jurisdiction of the Constitutional Republic(s), as a Citizen of a Sovereign State.
When most people hear expatriation, they think of expats living in other lands and nations, like Japan or Mexico. But these expats have expatriated only from the jurisdiction of the Communist State. So, the diffrerence between these expats, and what we are practicing and sharing to the People, is that you may choose to expatriate from the Communist de facto government, and repatriate to that which you only had no Right and access to because of your contractual relationship with the Communist State. You repatriate into the Constitutional Republic automatically, upon the cancellation of participation in the de facto Federal System.
The only hindrance to your being a Citizen of the Constitutional Republic guaranteed to you in the Constitution for the United States of America, is your continued acquiescence to and participation in rebellion to that republic, by being a Citizen of the United States (Federal Communist de facto system).
Expatriation is not difficult in action.
But being an expatriate comes with terms and conditions.
Today, the union is not ruled by the Law that existed at its inception. It is subverted and hijacked.
There are innumerable people who think you can beat the system from within. They teach that you can remain in the de facto, and twist the system up in some new fashion and beat it.
It just won't work.
Fundamentally, as long as you have any contractual relationship with the de facto, you are submitted to it in status. And whether you want to be treated as a FreeMan or a "Sovereign" (impossible) or whatever else, it won't matter because they will not see you as such on paper nor treat with you as such in courts and in Law.
The only solution is to exit their jurisdiction 100%. No games. Just exit.
When exiting their jurisdiction, you must do it as the Law demands. You must then remain in that status, by never contracting with the de facto again.
This is the baseline and the process in a nutshell.
Expatriation was established by Law as remedy to the de facto takeover. It is not a pie in the sky. It was the relief valve built into the steam engine of International Communism in America.
This is remedy in Law. It bypasses everything else and goes straight for the throat. Either you exit the federal system entirely, or you are in rebellion and thus have no rights, are never considered constitutional republican Natural Man Persons, and are perpetually contracted to the federal communist regime.
Join us in future calls:
De Jure Nationality Status Correction Telegram Channel - https://t.me/+ZiY2E7-0tGQ3OWQx
Join us in cutting through the nonsense that is distracting people from the clear and direct truth about the law, where we stand in it, and what we can do about it.
We are getting directly to the issue.
And we are providing the solution.
Join, listen, discuss.
Share with anyone who is tired of being a slave.
I CHALLENGE THE WORLD TO PROVE THIS WRONG!
Freedom is a duty.
You are the only one that can act upon that duty.
Gather→Organize→Strategize→Act
LUNP Issues: December—January—February—March—April—May—June—July
You can TIP ME with $1, (Tip me $2), (Tip me $3), etc. with further value exchanges as well. Right now you can use BUYMEACOFFEE to tip a couple bucks for this article you appreciated and Get MR Zine. You can also support with CashApp, PayPal, or Crypto.
If you’re just following, you’re only seeing a fraction of what I write. Hit Subscribe (free) and it’ll come straight to your inbox. Take our Survey.
Telegram Main Channel ///// Telegram Meme Channel ///// Telegram Movie Channel Twitter ///// Instagram ///// Signal ///// Email Me
While I highly suggest operating entirely out of courtrooms, I also highly suggest getting familiar with courtroom operations and how to understand what is happening. How to Win in Court is one of the best resources I have found to understand court procedure and tactics.
After this, I suggest familiarizing yourself with The American Union, The Colorado Republic and People's Awareness Coalition.
If you aren’t using Presearch yet, it’s time to start. Get off Google and Bing, and use a search engine that serves your best interests and pays you Crypto for using it.
Dive into the content of our friends on and off Substack: Ernest Hancock, Etienne de la Boetie2, Dave Scotese, Geopolitics & Empire.
We need your help to bring it to the next level!
Blessings!
Trying to listen but I must say that the heavy breathing by a person not muting his mic is a real distraction.
When I click the telegram links it says the link is invalid or expired