I listened to the whole discussion in the link above and it appears to me that Sachastone runs into a familiar brick wall.

The message is:

The Law is not a Statute (I don't agree with Sachastone as to what the law is, but The Law is not a Statute)

Private Prosecution of specified treasonous criminals perpetrating many crimes including fraud MUST commence, and actual people have to actually start due process of law rolling on a first case.

Restating the Law:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

What constitutes the Brick Wall?

The Law (actual) is communicated. The intended receivers of the communication don't get it.

Sachastone asks Renee what will she do, after Sachastone clearly explains what must be done: Private Prosecution of specified criminals in a Court of Law.

Rene answers the "what to do" question with a goal of creating a mob of people who are then somehow going to do something akin to a "protest." A show of force?

A.
Private Prosecution of specified criminals in a Court of Law

B.
An angrified, fomented, Mob assembling as a show of force in one place at one time

Do you get it?

Words were said at Time: 31:35 or so...

"...again there is this genetic thing going on, this predisposition to acquiesce to power, you need to break the back of that..."

Then at Time: 36:00 or so...

"Again, if law means anything...and he (criminal in government) is claiming, he is the one who is claiming that his mandate (arbitrary power to extend State of Emergency) is based or predicated on law, no, the real law is that he has been given a mandate, a remit, to protect and to serve, with honor, ok, and not to defraud the people. Ok, the...that’s the social contract: is the sovereign, the true sovereign, which is not the God damn Queen of England, ok, that little franchise, ah, of the commonwealth, the sovereign is the living men and women of the living soil of Australia, ok, of your great Nation, and you people gave the power, gave the mandate to the government, in order to serve your interest, not to perpetrate fraud against you, not to genocide you.”

Then at Time: 37:10 or so...

"....you are caught up on a Dream Spell…"

To me, having done my own homework for going on over 40 years now, the “Dream Spell” includes the claim that obedience to power is a genetic thing, when clearly the evidence available proves beyond doubt (to me with my I.Q. nearly matching an apricot) that obedience to power is a product of efforts to brainwash generations of people with a “Dream Spell” that has an official terminology: adjustive function, reflexibly obedient.

As in:

The Six Purposes of Schooling
by John Taylor Gatto

“Now you are ready to hear the six purposes of modern schooling taken directly from Dr. Anglisse’s book.”

“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”

“How can you establish weather someone has successfully developed this automatic reaction, because people have a proclivity when they are given sensible orders to follow? That is not what they want to reach. The only way to measure this is to give stupid orders, and people automatically follow those. Now you have achieved function one.”

Recap:

1. Criminals are rioting in the blood of the innocent, and they occupy offices of a former defensive government turned offensive criminal cartel.

2. The law of the land, the common law, is where the people afford each other the power to issue each other court dates in a Court of Law whereby the people are represented by randomly selected jurors who are then given lawful jurisdiction to settle the dispute by deliberately determining fact from fiction, guilt from innocence, and restitution, redemption, from punishment.

3. The government is a free market service paid for or not paid for at the discretion of individual people who defend their right to defend themselves in any case where any enemy of their liberty foreign or domestic perpetrates aggression upon that liberty.

So the law isn’t a contract given to someone by a division of the population, a majority, a minority, a party, a corporation, a church, or any number of people with any form of bias other than a moral bias. There is no contract, those in government only have the authority of moral right as their mandate, and as soon as anyone in any office anywhere anytime abuse their power over anyone else, they confess the fact that they choose to be a criminal in the natural world where people will naturally defend against such criminal aggression in any form including fraud: if they know better.

If people are born into a world where they are told that a contract exists between The People as a whole and a group of psychopaths called The Government, and people are born into a world where they are told that blind obedience to falsehood without question is a genetic human trait, then people are born into a world where a Dream Spell is cast upon them and they are then step by step (lie by lie) taken out of an otherwise natural existence with natural rights and brought by fraud, by threat of aggressive violence, and by aggressive violence into a counterfeited world where some nebulous Contract was signed by everyone in wet ink (or blood) to give absolute power to a bunch of psychopaths.

That Dreamscape was exposed:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

So...to whomever may still be capable of reading more than a sound bite of information, the narrative offered by Sachastone isn’t the whole truth, at least not from my point of view, but clearly the advice to return to Private Prosecution of specified powerful criminals in a Court of Law apparently failed to pass through the Brick Wall or Dream Spell, and those who are intended as the receivers of that message are instead going to return to the hamster wheel and run the thing until the bearings fly off.

Time will tell.