Time 1:45:00 or so…

“We are elected officials.”

Ahhh, did you not hear the witness testimony? Elections are rigged, do you really claim that the election that moved you into that seat wasn’t also rigged? You have faith?

Time 1:44:56

The speaker admits that he is a “law maker” not a “judge” in a “Court of Law.”

Oh, so your unbiased, non-partisan, judicial capacity as “law maker” can’t inspire you to call up someone – with all your pretentious power – to move along the impotently slow wheels of justice with a phone call to the anointed Secretary of State or the infamously unjust Justice Department, and you can’t adjudicate the matter because you are not a “judge” with a black robe?

Before a Jury in a Court of Law the prosecutor (private individual) states the case against the named defendant who is moved by a grand jury to that invitation to defend against the indictment.

If anyone in the government has an involvement in the process, it is to aid and abet, lend support to, work with, and work for the prosecutor (private individual) who is typically a victim in the case, and therefore a witness to the crime, since he was at the crime scene being victimized by the criminal who was also at the crime scene perpetrating the crime.

Crime happens.

Criminal harms victim.

Victim takes the case to the grand jury.

The grand jury in a self-evident, ongoing, currently happening, treasonous crime, swiftly stops taking a shit, uses the toilet paper to write an indictment in shit, and ensures that the indictment swiftly moves to the accused with the offer of a swift court date, before even more people are pulled into the meat grinder grinding away at all of our prosperity for posterity. Chain of custody is thereby not broken.

Did the crime happen?

Yes.

Did the witness move the case to the grand jury?

What? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, where is my cheeseburger.

Time 1:44:02

One can hear the confession of White Wash emoting from the speaker asking the witness if the witness sent the witnesses' witness of a crime to “law enforcement” or “the department of justice.”

Ah...are you serious “law maker?”

Criminals are assaulting people, robbing people, and perpetrating treasonous election fraud, and here is a witness describing the crime in progress.

Remember when people had brains enough to call for help?

Oh, my, a crime in progress? Really? Well, my dear fellow, why don’t you mosey off to the police and let them know? Silly goose, wasting 3 minutes here speaking to me, and I’m just a measly ole’ “law maker.”

So...hold on, I can save you the trip, rather than waste my time calling the “justice department,” or your time with a stupid and servile suggestion such as that, I’m going to let you know that hey, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, they too are in on it, so they will take your complaint, just like these people up here on this high and mighty podium, and file it in the round file.

Your time is up, get back to work, or look for another job since you have no job now, and pay your taxes. I hear that there are a lot of openings in the government contractors contact tracing, you know rats. Yup, rats, and that is what you are doing. You are ratting on the government, and rats don’t like rats ratting on each other, so bend over.

Time: 39:23:

The speaker claims that Article 6, Section 2, of the Constitution of 1789 – the Supremacy Claus – and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, along with Article 4, Section 4, are justifications for doing something.

His argument is flawed in my opinion, because his “Official Truth” is that a republican form of government is a government where the people are given the power to elect their masters. In other words the subjects of this arrangement are given permission by their masters to pick who will be their masters.

If you don’t think that this guy is saying that – not exactly – then please apply the actual law to his, or your, interpretation of the facts that matter in this case.

If you want you can use my analogy where the abused child asks the abusive parent for permission to declare independence, also known as so-called emancipation as in an Emancipation Proclamation. Think for a minute. What about a Declaration of Independence is not sufficient enough to state the facts that matter in the case, so much so that instead of a Declaration of Independence, instead of the child taking upon self-evident internal authority, the child instead asks the master for permission to be what is already self-evident?

A. I am independent at birth, born with a power to discern right from wrong, and when you start fucking me up, my bond to you is broken by you, and I’m just doing the right thing here, I’m letting you know that from now until our conflict is resolved peacefully, or the hard way, I’m not taking it in the ass any more, just because you say bending over is good for me.

B. OK, I hereby Proclaim, from now on – fingers crossed – you are hereby Emancipated, according to these specific guidelines in this 12 Volume Treatise, and here on page 1,248 of Volume 13, it says, oh my, see here, it says “he shall bend over, when told.” And here, on page 1,482 of Volume 38, in reference to page 1,248 of Volume 13, it says “don’t question the order to bend over,” and on page 34,487,883 in Volume 386, it clearly says in reference to 1,248 of Volume 13, “don’t tell anyone about what happens after you bend over,” so…

There is historical precedent for this going back even before Americans adopted the common law.

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

You never saw that while bent over in Publik Skewl?

Why were your words redacted Tom?
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

[usapoliticstoday.org]

“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.

“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.”

The problem there is again Mixed War, or the usurpation of Legal Fiction Debt Collection “Courts” over and above the common law (see Bill of Rights) rather than The People having command (the power) to prosecute people in government.

On the simplest level I can imagine this is like a child that declares independence from an abusive parent. The parent says no, you must remain under my exclusive power to do whatever pleases me to you, and there isn’t anything you can do about it, unless you can prove to me that I ought to listen to your complaints. The child says: “OK, here are my…,” and the parent interrupts and says: “not now, bend over, I’m going to please myself as I see fit, and stop screaming, you will love it or get beat, OK?”