OA525: Insurrectionist Mounts Sovereign Citizen Legal Defense, Hilarity Ensues

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:16 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 525. Oh, what a nice number. Ah, I just, I love that combination of fives.

0:01:21 Andrew: Yeah. It's palindromic. Yeah, it's a multiple of

0:01:27 Thomas: That permutation of fiv- nevermind. No, that's a good, solid number.

0:01:28 Andrew: Five. I bet there's a math term for math palindrome, you know, numerical.

0:01:38 Thomas: Ooh, yeah. A technodrome. Yeah.

0:01:40 Andrew: Yeah. Thunderdome. That's what they call it.

0:01:41 Thomas: Yeah. Thunder drum. Yeah.

0:01:45 Andrew: Oh, we're getting so many.

0:01:46 Thomas: But we get to just enjoy

0:01:48 Andrew: We're going to get so many angry emails. Yeah it's

0:01:48 Thomas: The majesty that is 525. It's just a good all around number. I love it. We've had a lot of those.

0:01:55 Andrew: An American number. It feels that way.

0:01:58 Thomas: All right. Well, are we going to talk Garland now? Because that was the end of the last episode was we kind of had a little bit bit of daylight on that. So, um, you've had to wait a few days, but for us, it's been minutes. Uh, what have you learned?

0:02:07 Andrew: Yep. For us, it's been minutes.

0:02:14 Thomas: Yeah. About Merrick Garland about mayor as we call him.

0:02:14 Andrew: Yeah. Still do Not have a copy of the complaint, but the press conference was announcing that the DOJ is filing a civil lawsuit against Texas over SB8. And uh we still do not know the the grounds or reasons therefore, I imagine we'll be breaking this down uh on Friday's episode. Um, this is, you know, just one of those if is if it is a blockbuster, you know, maybe we'll have to do a special, record, who knows, but um uh probably by the time you're hearing this uh you will know that the suit is in effect. Uh, but it will not require kind of emergency action because, you know, quite frankly, I think it would be very, very difficult. I'll clap my good friend mayor on the back if he can find a way to get kind of urgency, injunctive relief in the next couple of days.

0:03:07 Andrew: I don't think that's likely given the procedural history to date. So, yeah, But

0:03:11 Thomas: Yeah. So every, I know you don't have all the details and yet I have 75 questions for you. Um, you tell me, you feel free to cut me off when, when you're done taking questions, but but how does this go? What does it mean to sue a state civilly? I just, just on the bare bones, like what does it means when the DOJ is suing a state civilly

0:03:32 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. So what I imagine is happening is that uh it is a suit for a declaratory judgment, right, declaring Uh, that the law is invalid, uh. One of those grounds may be that it is ultra virus, right, we've Talked about that in the past, but but there are are various ways that you can uh sue the Texas state legislature, uh, or the the state of Texas itself, and say, uh, you, uh, Did not have The authority Or, you, yeah, yeah, you suck, uh, which they do, uh, and by that I mean the government, god, sidebar.

0:03:33 Thomas: Exactly. Hmm. Hmm.

0:03:59 Thomas: Suck. Oh yeah. Oh, absolutely. Oh for sure. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think we've fallen into that at all, but just in case, you know, I think people have posted stuff like screw Texas, you know that Texans, blah, blah. And it's like, we want to make very clear on this show that we love, especially everybody on the left in Texas. And, uh, there's a ton because it's a big state. That's the thing we, we fail to grasp. I think oftentimes I've always said that California, I think as the most Trump voters, um, even though it's blue state, like we, We I think we often think of little tiny blue states is like, oh, those are the good guys. And then the red states are the bad. It's like, OK, yes, the people in government, the people in power, that's who we're focusing our ire on. The Republicans doing this.

But but like, yeah, Texas is a huge state with a ton of Democrats and not only that, a tonne know, people of, you who may need reproductive health services and anybody on on any side who needs those services, who needs that healthcare, I'm in favor of them getting that healthcare. And this is, it's terrible for everybody. So it's not about, you know, we're on this

0:04:06 Andrew: Like Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And

0:05:08 Thomas: Show firmly not rooting for anybody to have bad outcomes for political points. I just want to, yeah.

0:05:12 Andrew: And let's add, even if we didn't care about and love people who live in Texas, Stacey Abrams did not flip Georgia blue by wandering throughout going like, well, you know, what a right wing shithole we live in, right? It was OK. They have taken us for granted. They don't realize how many of us there are here. And let'S make our voices heard. And those efforts are underway in Texas. So let's not undercut them. Anyway. All right. That's what I know and don't know, which is mostly what I don't know.

0:05:25 Thomas: Serves you right. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Uh-huh. Because it's so weird when when you talk about DOJ suing Texas civilly, I'm like, do they want, do what they want to pay out? Like give us money or something, you know, like it's just a weird thing.

0:05:52 Andrew: Yeah. Declaratory judgment is what they want.

0:05:55 Thomas: Okay. And, then I, I guess the next thing I would ask if you don't mind is what, when you, when he asked about trying to get an injunction or whatever, who's the next court in is it the DC circuit circuit court or something like, okay.

0:06:05 Andrew: Yep. This will be this will be filed in the it could be filed in any U.S. district court, but this will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. And then immediate appeal will be up to the D.C. Circuit and then up to our good old Supreme Court. So.

0:06:21 Thomas: Yeah. And, and you say it because of the history, lower courts are likely to be like, well, we don't have law anymore because the Supreme Court effed us. So we're just whatever. Or is it, if you write it differently enough, like if, if, if mayor, if they're taking it on in a way, maybe that is there a way to do it in a nuanced way way that could get you a fresh look?

0:06:44 Andrew: So yes and no. One, right. Of the things we've talked about with respect to the Supreme Court shadow docket is that those actions do not have precedential value, right? So there is no determination of anything on the merits. On the other hand, right, courts do tend to take into account, right, the fact that the Supreme Court refused to enjoin SB8 from going into effect is kind of a de facto determination that like appellants were not did not demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits prong. Right? Right. And so what you would. Yeah.

0:07:13 Thomas: Yeah, okay. But in this extreme circumstance, if the circuit, DC Circuit Court, if you're listening, could they do thing like the famous Kennedy thing during the, I think it was the Cuban missile crisis, where they just ignored the one message from Russia that they got that was all threatening and just pretended it. Remember that? Like they pretended it didn't happen. And can we just do that? But with it, look, it's extreme times. Can the D.C. Circuit Court be like, well, there's no precedential value in that shadow dog a thing. We didn't even see it. We haven't hear about it. We don't know about it. Let's just rule like, you know, we're still lawyers who and judges who want to, like, have a constitution and stuff. Let's rule that way and, you know, make the stupid Supreme Court have to shoot this down again. What

0:07:26 Andrew: Yeah, and they are.

0:07:39 Andrew: Yeah,

0:08:03 Thomas: Do you think?

0:08:04 Andrew: They could. Yeah no, they could. And my initial reaction to that is that there is a long standing and I mean, you know 250 years long standing desire by lower court judges not to get overruled, right? Like that's sort of the benchmark of how you determine whether whether you're doing a good job.

0:08:21 Thomas: Hmm. Well, in this day and age, though,

0:08:26 Andrew: And and and and that's right. I mean, that's what I was going to say is I wonder if there isn't almost kind of a a reverse dynamic now of like, yeah, you know what? Like, that'S right.I'm going to rule according to the law. And if Neil Gorsuch hiding behind a per curiam opinion, you decides to overrule me, so be it.

0:08:26 Thomas: God, it'S almost the inverse. Yeah, I hope so.

0:08:48 Thomas: Yeah.

0:08:48 Andrew: You know, I'll my chances. I could see that happening.

0:08:52 Thomas: Yeah, if you or a loved one is on the DC Circuit Court, please do that. Yeah or just do it either way. Yeah God come on. It's just especially because it's a shadow docket thingy, you know where it's like come on it'd be one thing I already rooted for some hardball. I can't even remember what the case was, but a few months back where I was like, well, I in my opinion, judges who want to still have, you know, the Constitution and so forth and the rule of law should just keep making the Supreme Court do this. That's my personal opinion. Like when there's a clear. Oh, it was the religious thing, the last thing the Supreme court ruined, you Know, one

0:08:55 Andrew: Yeah. Email us openarguments at gmail.com. Yeah

0:09:28 Thomas: Thing ago.

0:09:28 Andrew: Also on the shadow docket. Yeah, so yeah, good point.

0:09:30 Thomas: Oh, it was. Yeah.

0:09:31 Andrew: Yeah Tandon

0:09:31 Thomas: So that's my Personal view. And you don't have to sign off on if you don' t want to. That these circuit courts, if they are, you know, right-thinking people who actually still believe in these things that are definitely in the Constitution, should just keep making the Supreme Court do it.

0:09:34 Andrew: Versus Newsome. Yeah that

0:09:48 Thomas: Hardball, come on, can we get some hardball?

0:09:50 Andrew: Is hardball and I am here for it. So let's get to our actual show.

0:09:53 Thomas: Right. Well, let's get to our actual planned segment for the day, which is sovereign citizens, Andrew's favorite topic. I love the joy I hear in your voice, Andrew, when you talk about sovereign citizens. So I'm here for it. What are they up to now? What are those rascals up to?

0:09:57 Andrew: Yeah.

0:10:10 Andrew: Well, this involves the case of one Pauline Bauer, or if you go by the way she pleads it, Pauline Bauer. Only you would have to try and pronounce the dashes and colons and stuff that she puts in her name.

0:10:23 Thomas: Oh, yeah. You'd have to get out of, like, a Morse code thing. Like that kind of thing.

0:10:29 Andrew: I don't know. How does one pronounce in a name the backslash or the colon? It is colon Pauline dash space colon Bauer dash executor.

0:10:36 Thomas: Yeah. I think you just say the sovereign citizen nutjob formerly known as Pauline Bowers.

0:10:48 Andrew: Oh, I like that. That's good. OK, so the sovereign citizen nutjob, formerly known as Pauline Bauer, is a one six insurrectionist. As far as I can tell, she did not breach the Senate floor. She did breach the Capitol building. Right. So not milling around outside and then goes home was part of the surge into the Capitol, but did not breach the Senate floor and did not engage in violence. And so part of this, I'm going to giggle and make fun of sovereign citizens because that's the only thing that brings me joy in this life anymore.

0:10:49 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Oh, God.

0:11:17 Thomas: It really is.

0:11:19 Andrew: But the lesson here is the following. Pauline is charged with one felony, 18 U.S.C. 1512, which is obstruction of an official proceeding, right? That's what everybody who who was a part of the insurrection, all 500 plus defendants get this felony charge plus four misdemeanors. This, right, is two counts of 18 U.S.C. 1752 A1, which is entering and remaining in a restricted building disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building for the U.S.C., 51 0 4 E disorderly conduct in the Capitol building and then 51 0 4 E parading, demonstrating or picketing in a a Capitol building. So those four misdemeanors are nothing. Right.

0:12:02 Thomas: Hmm.

0:12:02 Andrew: Those are fines. The felony for everybody. These are the plea deals that every single person has been offered. If you did not breach the Senate floor and you did not engage in violence, you are getting probation. OK, yeah,

0:12:16 Thomas: No insurrections for at least two months. Is that the probation?

0:12:20 Andrew: Look, we can argue and I have argued here and I I have argued on cleanup on all 45 as to whether that's a good idea or not. Right. And certainly I would like to see everybody involved with this, you know, locked up with the key thrown away. But realistically, right there are now I said five hundred. I believe at last count there's six hundred different. Yeah. You cannot have six hundred trials. You would never be able to do business in D.C. ever again. It Right. Would clog the courts beyond all bounds. So I get that you've got to plead these people out. And I'm OK with the bright line being?

Violence or actually physically on the floor in the well of the Senate. Point is this. If Pauline Bauer were a normal, run-of-the-mill, delusional Trump supporter, she would be getting probation. Because she is a batshit crazy sovereign citizen, she has already spent some time in prison and can look forward to more of it in her future. So the lesson is this. If you have friends who are involved in the sovereign citizen nutjob movement, not only are going to get the secret benefits that they think they're getting, but it's going to be much worse for them because the stuff they are saying is abject nonsense. Nonsense. We're going to dive into some of that abject nonsense

0:12:43 Thomas: Mm-hmm. Boy,

0:13:45 Andrew: Here in this episode.

0:13:45 Thomas: So you're saying putting some like punctuation in your name didn't solve it. Didn't just you get wiped off the system. They can't trace her. She's free to go. Didn't work.

0:13:55 Andrew: Very, very weird. I learned more crazy stuff that sovereign citizens do. Do you know that they sign with their thumbprint in blood? I did not know this. Now I know this, so So, it's, oh

0:14:08 Thomas: That sounds hard to do. You got to keep your blood around It all. I got a pad full of blood to just in case you guys sign something. Is that the grocery store, even sorry, can you sign this? Uh, there's no place on, the yeah, what about the digital ones where it's like you gotta sign the terminal, you know, kind of thing, like, uh, hold on, like, do you have a blood pen version that I can use, they actually just leave a bloody something

0:14:23 Andrew: God, oh, yeah, and I think, and, and I swear to you, I swear to you I'm not making this up. I swear I'm not making this up, I think like the reformed version, right, like that's like the orthodox version, and I think the reformed version, they're okay with signing in red Right. Yeah. But. All right. So let's tell the story of Pauline here. Insurrectionist one six indictment issued May 18th, was arrested on May 19th and then was arraigned Zoom. Right. Because, again, covid everything else. And waived her right to counsel. But nevertheless, the court decided to appoint federal public defender Carmen Hernandez, put a pin in that she is my hero, as standby counsel. On that 6-11 arraignment, quote, Ms. Bauer was removed from the video proceeding due to her inability to show calm and decency to the court. Now, qualm was a new word for me, Q-U-A-L-M.

0:14:35 Thomas: Yeah okay yeah no, yeah, of course, yeah that works Well, calm. I mean, I know qualms, and like having qualms with something, right? Or, like, or is that a different word?

0:15:39 Andrew: No, it's the same word.

0:15:40 Thomas: Okay. But, but showing calm and decency, that's an interesting construction.

0:15:45 Andrew: Yeah, I have never seen it used that way before.

0:15:46 Thomas: Hmm. Vocabulary lesson.

0:15:48 Andrew: There We go. So her inability to show calm and decency to the court. That meant now we were doing this via Zoom, but now you must appear in person before the court, so 10 days in person. She lives in Pennsylvania. She's got to get out to D.C. and appear in-person. And that also got rescheduled from the 18th to the 21st. So now we're in person. And Ms. Bauer was placed on standard conditions of release. And then the docket just says, defendant refused to accept conditions of release, defendant held in contempt to 3 p.m., case recalled, and defendant still refused to answer the questions presented by the court, defendant remanded to the U.S. Marshal Service and held without bond, initial appearance continued to tomorrow, which would then be via Zoom call, right? Defendant held without bond that night, her non-lawyer, right, the a standby lawyer, Carmen D.

0:15:49 Thomas: I love it.

0:16:46 Andrew: Hernandez, files really a heroically great memorandum of law regarding contempt, okay? So this is, I said, it is titled as a memorandUM. It is not a motion because there is no motion you can make here. But it says the court should lift the summary contempt order and release Ms. Bauer as there is not compelling reason for imposing the immediate remedy of detention. And then it goes through and it says, look, this is a person and she may have some extreme religious beliefs at the hearing. She stated she was making a, quote, divine special appearance as a free living soul and a woman. She cited several passages from religious scripture as the basis for her statement.

0:17:32 Andrew: Ms. Bauer also sought to read a document into the the record. The court accepted the document, indicating that it would enter it into the record, but rejected Ms. Bauer's request that she be allowed to read the 37-page document during the hearing. There's no question it was cut and pasted into her motion to dismiss, which we're going to get to. Upon information and belief, that document sets out various references to God, citation to Bible passages, and constitutional amendments as the basis for Ms. Bowers' statements to the court. Um, Carmen, the public defender here, um, is using everything in her power to get the court to lift the contempt order, and so on, that very next day, June 22nd, it works. The

0:18:08 Thomas: Wow. Well how do you feel about that exactly?

0:18:10 Andrew: I Feel like is somebody doing their job to the best of their their professional Ability. Right.

0:18:18 Thomas: Sure. That's always nice.

0:18:19 Andrew: And and I love to see that, even though. Right, she's doing it on behalf of an insurrectionist, Trump supporting crazy person, sovereign citizen, who, by the way, Pauline, the way Pauline thanks her lawyer, her non lawyer, Carmen D. Hernandez, for uh getting her out of prison, uh, is to file a motion to quote fire the actors. Um, it is a, because again these things are titled nonsensically, it says notice, cease and desist, Carmen Hernández, esquire, and know this, be it known by all concerned parties, known and unknown, Carmen Carmen D. Hernéndez Esquirer does not, has not, and will not be representing nor re re-presenting the vessel Pauline Bauer, addressed by the court in this case, Carmen D. Hernandez.

0:18:54 Thomas: All Right Oh I Get Exhausted Just hearing this crap, I mean, can you imagine these people's personal lives? I'm a big fan of the show What We Do in the Shadows. We've been re-watching the first two seasons to get ready for the third season that's out. There's a something called an energy vampire, Colin Robinson, and that this person is an energy empire, this is just, you talk to this person for a minute and you just, you fall asleep, like you just, I can't handle this anymore, I.

0:19:30 Andrew: So the way in which she repaid her lawyer was by moving to have her fired. And I'm just saying that it says, notice, correct the record, fire the actor.

0:19:41 Andrew: So uh yeah, uh, you think, uh, uh, that public defenders are, uh, overworked, underpaid, underappreciated, uh, there we go, but, you know, uh, Carmen is still doing her level best. Right, like she she filed a status report, uh, that said, uh, Pauline Bauer has asserted her right to to represent herself in the instant case. I was appointed to serve as standby counsel. The United States, has given me discovery, right, because can. The discovery was procured by means of USAFX, which is a password-protected cloud-based file-sharing platform used by the U.S. Attorney's Office. And it consists of 11 videos, including including body cam footage from the Capitol Police Department from January 6th. Counsel has sent an email to Ms.

0:20:27 Andrew: Bauer advising her of the discovery production. However, the videos themselves are too large to email. And and again, this is, hey, you've got to do something so that this person who is not my client and hates me with, the righteous passion of a thousand sons, gets these videos because she wants to represent herself and she's entitled to see all the evidence that the that the government is going to array against her. And so ultimately, you know, a protective order was issued and and the videos were transmitted to Pauline, who, of course, you knows, displays zero gratitude whatsoever for For anybody's role in the process. Yeah. I should say the court is basically erring on the side of letting Pauline just file whatever she wants. Right. It's, there are already 57 docket entries. Right, like it is just, and fully two thirds of them are just nonsense, like things that, because the way that electronic filing works is you first categorize what the thing is. Right. So is it a complaint? Is it a motion? Is it a memorandum? Is that an exhibit? Right. Because none of it is anything.

0:21:09 Thomas: Boy.

0:21:48 Andrew: Right. The courts just. Yeah.

0:21:49 Thomas: Just Like A Misc Like Yeah, yeah.

0:21:51 Andrew: The court just kind of has to be like, I guess we're going to construe this as something. I don't know.

0:21:57 Thomas: It should all be exhibits, and it should just be exhibits of, you know, how bad shit this person is, that's

0:22:05 Andrew: It that would would. Well, that's this show.

0:22:08 Thomas: How I Would Categorize It. None of this could be interpreted as actual, like, legal anything, motions or anything. What? This show is brought to you by Paint Your Life. Folks, I love talking about Paint Your Life. Look, things are opening back up, especially if you're vaccinated, and maybe I've taken a trip. It was fun. I was vaccinated, still wore a mask, all that, of course, but trips are happening. New memories are happening, and now that we can get out and travel and take trips again, we want to celebrate some of our favorite times by turning our new memories into art. That's where paintyourlife.com comes in. What, what a great idea for a gift for birthdays. Do you need me to list all the reasons you got to give people gifts? Because I will. And then I'll add my favorite one. Birthdays, anniversary, wedding, getting a gift for you for fun, for no reason, a self gift. That is my favorite one, and if you are thinking it must be too expensive, not so. It is actually very affordable, the quality is amazing, and there's no risk.

0:22:14 Andrew: No, of course not. All

0:23:08 Thomas: Here, let me tell you how it works. You get a professional hand-painted portrait created from any photo at a truly affordable price, or you combine photos of people or places you love into one painting. Choose from a team of world-class artists and work with them until every detail is perfect. It's user- friendly Family Platform makes it easy to order custom-made, hand-painted portraits in less than five minutes. It's fast. You can receive a portrait in as little as two weeks. That send any picture, yourself, your children, family, a place, oh, by the way, a pet. I love that. Get some pets going on. I love the pet photos. It makes the perfect gift, as I've said, and it will be cherished forever. We still have our Paint Your Life portrait of Lydia and Phoebe. Be, that's going to be hanging up forever in our house. I love it.

0:23:53 Thomas: So I think you should try it too. At paintyourife.com. There is no risk if you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded guaranteed. And right now as a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting. That's right. 20% Off and free shipping to get this special offer, text the word OA to 64000. That's OA to 64000 text OA to 64000 paint your life. Celebrate the moments that matter most. Terms apply available at paint your life.com slash terms. Again, text OA to 64,000. This show is brought to you by Xchair. If you've ever been behind the wheel of a high performance sports car and you realize how much better a car can be, you'll never want to settle for a regular car again.

0:24:41 Thomas: I feel the same way about my Xchair from the moment I first sat down in it. I understood why many consider Xchair to be the finest office chair in the world. Indeed, folks, I am sitting in my X chair right now and I love it. Can your current office chair give you a massage while you're working? Mine can. Can Can your current office chair heat up or cool down? My X chair can. It's all in the LMAX massage and temperature regulation, exclusively designed and made for X chair. And once you fill the customized report of X chairs patented, dynamic variable, lumbor, or DBL, back will never be happy in another chair again. Take my advice. Try Xchair for yourself, risk-free, for 30 days. Once you realize how much better your chair could be, you'll never go back. I promise. Go Go to XchairOA.com now.

0:25:26 Thomas: That's the letter X, chair, O-A, dot com, for $100 off your order. Xchair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort. Xchair OA dot com.

0:25:40 Andrew: Of course not. All right. So now has filed what the clerk has graciously docketed as a motion to dismiss. It is titled Notice Challenge Jurisdiction. And instead of using the actual caption, it says United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Color of Law Agency, so named, District of Columbia Circuit, DUNS number XXXXX277.

0:26:13 Andrew: I'm going to talk a little bit about a related thing, but I could not find what they even think that means. Right.

0:26:10 Thomas: Is that she Just invent a numbering system of her own for courts For okay.

0:26:23 Andrew: Oh, no. Like the DUNS is a data universal numbering system. It is provided by Dun & Bradstreet. Right. And it is the way you look up publicly traded companies. Right? Right. Why she. Of course, it's a court, but, you know, it'S actually a secret corporation. And so she has Dunn's number XXXXX277. Where she gets that from, I cannot I just can't begin to imagine. And then it says doing business as federal court. And the caption is, yes,

0:26:29 Thomas: All Right Wasn't This a court Though, huh? Yeah Okay DBA For tax purposes, yeah.

0:27:00 Andrew: The United States of America, DBA, USA, say a corporation acting as government versus capital Pauline Bauer. And we have already discussed that, you know, the capital letters means your corporate straw man. I have not seen these this terminology before. She refers to Pauline Bowers in capital letters as the vessel vessel, right?

0:27:00 Thomas: Uh, so fun.

0:27:25 Andrew: Like I am the gatekeeper at the end, the colon Pauline dash space colon Bauer as the executor So I thought I would take you through it.

0:27:23 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, this stuff really is like a mind virus. Isn't it amazing? It's like malware that gets in someone's brain, and it's just, they think there's all these things that don't exist. Ah, it's fascinating.

0:27:45 Andrew: They. Yeah. Yep. Begins with miscitations on the first page. It says notice. And it says USC 18 space space 2076. Now, I mean, that's backwards, right? It's 18 USC 2076, as every Opening Arguments listener knows.

Knows, but it says clerk is to file, whoever being a clerk willfully refuses or neglects to make or forward any report, certificate, statement, or document as required by law, shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than a year or both, and then a citation to what should be 18 USC 2071, whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, documents, files deposited with any clerk or officer the court, shall be find her in prison not more than three years or both, um, so that is essentially threatening the court with, you know, if you don't file my crazy thing, then, uh, that's a crime, never minding that the thing that they're, that the crimes that they're quoting are willful refusal to file documents that they are required to file by law.

So, you know, the way the sovereign citizen logic works is, see, if I make this threat, then you'll allow me to file it. But if you didn't allow me to file it, then you would be committing a crime. But of course, the real answer is no. If they didn't allow you to file it, then there's no legal duty for the clerk to enter it. So it's just, yeah, um, we, we start, that's page one of 114, um

0:28:40 Thomas: Yeah prolific.

0:29:18 Andrew: Um

0:29:19 Thomas: Isn's, you know, these sovereign citizens, they're prolific, they, you get a lot done done written right.

0:29:22 Andrew: Yes. But They, they Also make judicious use of the control V and control X, right? Like It Is, I can, I can prove to you, because there is a cut and paste error, uh, in the middle of one of her rants that is hilarious, um, But, yeah, just so folks who maybe didn't listen to all of our previous Sovereign Citizen episodes. It begins with, I, me, Pauline from the House of Bauer, I swear to God it says that, challenge the court's jurisdiction over me, a living woman, one of we the people, creator of capital G government. My status is clearly defined in my notice of special appearance that has already been filed as a free living soul. Oh, by the way, every other word here is capitalized.

I can't keep, right, as a capital F free living, capital S soul, sui juris, just solely an ambassador of Christ, attorney in fact, I demand that this be a constitutional court of record, that's not a thing, that there will be no capital P presumptions, assumptions, no tacit agreements, no waiver of rights, no subversion of rights, no hearsay, no lawyering, I like that one, or a tournament from the bench, I do not plead with the court, I do not plead guilty, I do not plead not guilty, I declare

0:29:29 Thomas: True. Yeah. Oh. Ma'am.

0:30:34 Andrew: I am counting on you to be an honorable man, and I must ask you, are you claiming your authority over me from your oath of office? Are you claiming to derive your authority over me? Are the United States of America's statutes, codes, ordinances, bylaws of a corporation? Please list the authorities where you exercise dominion over me. May I have written confirmation that all requirements have been met and are up to date? Um, I, I, I'm not gonna go any further, I, I, what I

0:30:49 Thomas: This is a Wendy's, gosh, up To date. Yeah, can you show me your permit, court, where's your latest health inspection or something, I don't know, uh

0:31:11 Andrew: I one of one of the fundamental misconceptions that sovereign citizens have is that if you say something to a court, that they have to answer it, and if they don't answer it in exactly the way that you say that they have to answer it, that they've conceded to it, um, that's not the case, that's not at all the case, and, and, you can see this right, like in sovereign citizen encounters with law enforcement, where they'll be like, all right, I demand that, you know, the authority over, and then, like, in comes the pepper spray.

0:31:25 Thomas: Then You win Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah.

0:31:46 Thomas: Taser.

0:31:46 Andrew: Right, like because that's the way the law works, um, we have talked about, um, some of this idea that, like, uh, capital letters mean you were straw man. There's, we did a great Law'd Awful Movies on this. So if you didn't see that, go, go back and watch that. But again, the idea is a kind of, like, National Treasure, like the secret shadowy cabal has set up these elaborate rules. But if you, if you know them, then, like, that's a gotcha. And, like, never minding the fact that they've pledged, you know, millions of lives as collateral, you know, for the bankrupt government, to, over, like, if you do the right things in the right order, they have no choice but, but to say, ah, you got us. So

0:31:47 Thomas: And Then they just dissolve

0:32:35 Andrew: Yeah, it

0:32:35 Thomas: And, like, melt, ah, and then they unlock the chamber behind the court that's like the secret, it's so weird, what, oh man, these people.

0:32:44 Andrew: So then we have, and again, I read you one paragraph, uh, page four begins, I, me, Pauline from the House of Bauer, I'm the only executor of my minor estate, the state has been incorporated to serve the debt money system of bondage, so, I, so just rest assured, I'm going to link this in the show notes, if you want to read people, like, cosplaying Game of Thrones in court, like, you can do that, they're right roughly 50 pages of this nonsense, um, throughout this hundred and fourteen page document. The next thing we have are sections. And this is clearly just cut and paste from some GeoCities web page, probably with, like, flashing purple backgrounds that will say Maxim of Law.

Right. And we'll have random citations. So for and I'm just picking one here literally at random. Maxim of law, disparata non debent jungi, unequal things ought not to be joined. Quote, the recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says the code is complementary to the common law, which remains in force except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. End of quote, the prosecution is holding the people in bondage with no evidence, only presumptions, assumptions, and hearsay, as to syllogism, all 12 presumptions are rebutted by me, Pauline from the House of Bauer, you're saying what, let me

0:33:26 Thomas: Sure.

0:33:40 Thomas: I

0:34:16 Andrew: Try and break that down. A little bit.

0:34:17 Thomas: Just Passed Out.

0:34:17 Andrew: So yeah. No. Good.

0:34:18 Thomas: Actually, during that I Just lost

0:34:19 Andrew: Passing That's a good idea. So so the 12 presumctions are not outlined, they are not rebutted, they are not explained, they're not, there's, I don't even know what the 12 presumptions are. The Uniform Commercial Code, which sovereign citizens love for reasons that I cannot fathom, applies, as one might imagine, only to those who are engaged in the transaction of commercial goods. Showing up an at insurrection party is not a transaction for the sale of goods.

0:34:19 Thomas: My brain. Just Really.

0:34:46 Andrew: So the UCC just doesn't remotely apply here. And and I, I remain at a loss why they seem to love to grab that.

0:34:56 Andrew: They do it even to the point where, like, for example, in the great Canadian sovereign citizen opinion of means versus means it appears in Canadian sovereign citizens literature. And the Canadian court had to be like, American Uniform Commercial Code does not apply in Canada. All right. So we got that. We got, we got nine we pages of just random quotes called from websites with bizarre kind of citations to authority that, that aren't authority. Then hereby invoke and stand upon all my natural rights given by my God, which are written in the documents listed below. These and all others are universally known as the supreme law of the land. I was somewhat surprised

0:34:55 Thomas: Well. They love that UCC, that's their favorite thing.

0:35:13 Thomas: Okay.

0:35:45 Thomas: How

0:35:45 Andrew: By this list. So first off, how many documents do you think are on this list?

0:35:50 Thomas: I don't know, a million, I have no idea, or one, it's either one or a hundred three, okay.

0:35:52 Andrew: Yeah, it's 20. Well, right. It's 21, which which hit me as like one of those weird number, right? Like I expected it to be right. Either just the Bible, right? Or like 11 pages of stuff, up, right, like 21 is like just the number of, like, wait where did you get, so it is the Holy Bible, KJV 1611, God's laws are superior law, um, that's not a book, but whatever, um, I, of course, like, of course somebody doing this would be a 1611 only, you know, uh, the, the, by, by God, if the Bible written, if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough For us, right Followed by 1215 Magna Carta 1606 First Charter of Virginia 16

0:35:56 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

0:36:31 Thomas: I Was that's funny, I was gonna say Magna Carta was the other thing, they also love it's the UCC and the Magna card are my two those are the ones I remember, and the Bible, obviously, for, like, they, they think those, like, like Trump everything, but the UCC is so out of place there, isn't it?

0:36:42 Andrew: Yeah, it is And by the way The UCC, not on this list Right, so On this list is MagnaCarta, the first charter Of Virginia, 1620 Mayflower Compact, 1628 Petition of Rights, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, uh, it's been so long since, uh, high school, yeah, AP US, I don't remember what the Grand Remonstrance was, a 1689 English Bill of Rights, 1765 Declaration of Rights in Congress at New York, 1774 Declaration of Writes in Congress at Philadelphia, 1775 Declaration of Arms, 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rates, 1776 Declaration of Independence, 1777 the Articles of Confederation, even though they were abrogated. So that's interesting. 1783 Treaty of Peace, 1787, the Northwest Ordinance. At this point, it feels like they have stolen, you know, a history crib sheet. Right.

0:37:04 Thomas: Yeah.

0:37:41 Thomas: How would you decide what has kind of supremacy, or you know, like, what, what on a given issue, where do you go first, and what has the last word among these documents?

0:37:47 Andrew: That's an awesome question. Yeah. No answer to that. Interestingly enough, We then have 20 pages of just quoting from the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which, by the way, is on that list, right, the 1948 that Universal Declaration of human rights. But it's just like cut and paste with occasional bolded parentheticals, but but not for everyone. So, for example, Article 7 says no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one should be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. And then in parenthesis, in all bold and with a whole bunch of caps. There is excessive torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment in our jails and prisons. See 1971 Stanford

0:37:57 Thomas: Yeah. Sure. See?

0:38:41 Andrew: Prison Experiment. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

0:38:47 Thomas: The Stanford, that's the, okay, okay, you had me. There's absolutely like terrible conditions in our prisons. And then you cited a thing that has been debunked and actually didn't have to do with our prisons at all. That's cool.

0:39:01 Andrew: It has nothing to do with the charge against you, which is being a part of the 1-6 insurrection. Yeah, Article 8 says no one shall be held in slavery, slavery, and then the the capital bolded parenthetical says, what about the prison industrial complexes role in human trafficking and racketeering?

0:39:04 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. What about it?

0:39:19 Andrew: There are contracts and contract, the S is a dollar sign, and bonds that require prisoners to fill the beds of jails and prisons, human warehouses, some jails are even owned by county judges, it, this is, ma'am, this is a Wendy's moment, right? So scroll through all of that. That takes you to page 21. Then we have the quotations from the Bill of Rights. And that takes another 20 pages. I mean, it's just insane. In the middle, we have the definition of jurisdiction. Juris means right law plus diction means words. The words you use determine which of the three jurisdictions you stand. Man, we are not well educated enough through government public schools and its public propaganda educational system. We learn only what they want us to learn. And because the overwhelmingly vast majority of government leaders are bar association members, why are we not taught the language and jurisdictions differences of law?

0:39:33 Thomas: Yeah.

0:40:12 Thomas: Turns

0:40:12 Andrew: Why are we Not taught the law?

0:40:13 Thomas: Into a rage against the machine song.

0:40:16 Andrew: It is. Yeah, I lack words. Words. Um, so Then, uh, once we're, we're 43 pages in, um, get to something I did not know and I had to learn. And so by God, I'm sharing it with you. And that is, um. There is repeated references to, uh. This is, this is now page, um, 37, um, but 36 to 37, it says, um, this action, and it means the issuing a birth certificate created a trademark slash copyright infringement and unlawful conversion of given Christian born name converted to birth capital N-A-M-E-S names and bonded their attached QSIP, C-U-S-I-P, numbers attached to the SESTY KV trust, all

0:40:19 Thomas: Is this good law? No, not good law.

0:41:08 Andrew: Look alike, sound alike names, a constructive fraud. It was a fraud created by powerful and corrupt groups of controlling men. Uh, so my birth certificate, uh, with its own unique QSIP number, is also dead and me reading it. Yeah.

0:41:21 Thomas: Wow. I don't even know what to say To that. Oh,

0:41:23 Andrew: Right. You, you reading that, are like, "All right, kill me now." I read that and I go, "Wait, what the, the hell's a QSIP?" I right? Swear to God that I'm telling you 100% of the truth. CUSIP stands for the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. So all stocks of registered U.S. and Canadian companies, anything that is publicly traded, as well as any commercial instruments, and U.S. government and municipal bonds, any publicly traded bonds, all receive a unique QSIP number. Now, I say CUSIP number, it is alphanumeric, right? So there are letters in there. But CUSIP is nine characters long. Guess what else is nine character long?

0:42:10 Thomas: You're social, sure.

0:42:11 Andrew: Yeah. So here's the thing they do. Now if you just type your social security number, you can go to a public CUSIP lookup, You go to any right? Public financial house, right, you know, go to Fidelity, go to wherever, right down in Bradstreet, you can type in a CUSIP number and look up the instrument, right? So, example, like it's really easy to find Amazon's CUSIP number and then you go to a CUSIP lookup. You type in that nine digit number and all of sudden it pulls up AMZN. OK, but But but here's the thing. They have this elaborate process whereby you transform your Social Security number into the CUSIP number and then you you restrict the search only to the bonds. Right. Because remember, they're saying your your birth certificate bonded you to the cabal of international Jews that bailed out the bankrupt economy. So, instead, because the game would be up if you typed in your QSIP number and it pulled up Amazon. You'd be like, well, I'm pretty sure I'm not Amazon.

0:42:57 Thomas: Of Course, Yeah. Uh-huh.

0:43:13 Thomas: Yeah.

0:43:13 Andrew: But what you do is, because you're only searching government municipal bonds, it pulls up an impenetrable character, right? Right. It's like, yeah, your bond number zero six four seven, which comes due on, you know, January 23rd, 2078. And and since that's still confusing, you're like, aha.

0:43:14 Thomas: Uh, Yeah. Wow. Do They send Sell 100 year bonds. I thought they're just 30 year T-bills or whatever. I

0:43:36 Andrew: Well, yeah. But you see, my point is that, no, that would be a real bad investment right now.

0:43:40 Thomas: Think I Would buy a hundred year bond. Unless You're

0:43:44 Andrew: Um, but,

0:43:45 Thomas: Really into your Descendants. Oh, show is brought you by Blinkist. Do you ever just want to be a better version of yourself? A more confident, knowledgeable you? The fastest way to do it is to get learning. And if you're listening to OA, I imagine you like learning. This is not a show for people who don't like learning, you maybe you want learn about new topic, or skill, or revisit one you learned in the past, or get up to speed on something everyone one is talking about right now. That's where the Blinkist app comes in. Blinkists takes top nonfiction titles, pulls out the key takeaways, and puts them into text and audio explainers called Blinks that give you the most important information in just 15 minutes. Use Blinks to learn about topics like philosophy, history, and science, or dive into psychology, health and nutrition, or personal growth.

0:44:32 Thomas: You've got thousands of titles and 27 categories of the world's best knowledge to choose from. And if you're more of a podcast person, they have you covered with Blinks for Podcasts called Shortcasts. Blinks has the wisdom from top nonfiction bestsellers and podcasts packed into powerful 15-minute reads or listens all in one app and right in your pocket so you can learn anytime, anywhere with Blinkist. I've said it before, but I like Blinkists because no matter how many books I'm reading, and I am reading books, you can always get some more in. There are so many books in the world. There're too many books. I would argue too many, but if you want to try to catch up on a few that you may not have otherwise gotten to, Blinkist is a great way to do that. There are some things where, you know, there are some books, maybe you want to read the whole thing for sure. There are some books where you're like, eh, I just want to get the main takeaways from that.

0:45:19 Thomas: So I know what's going on. I know What people are talking about and that's what I use Blinkists for. I think it's great. So books like What Happened or Fire and Fury, I don't need to read those, but I do want to hear the Blinks. I do want To know what was in them and I did so you should do the same. Right now, Blinkist has a special offer just for our audience. Go to Blinkist.com slash opening to start your free seven-day trial and get 25% off a Blinkist Premium Membership. That's Blinkist, spelled B-L-I-N-K-I-S-T, Blinkist.com slash opening, to get 25% off and a seven-day free trial. Blinkist.com slash opening.

0:45:56 Andrew: But yeah, so that's the way, that's the way the CUSIP thing works. They, they use your Nine digit social security number for you to look up a municipal bond, which is then identified as a bond and they'll go, see, you type in your Social security number and you pull out a bond that proves that you are bonded to the state. Yeah,

0:46:02 Thomas: That's so Great. Yeah.

0:46:12 Thomas: Bonded To the state. I'm trying to think what that does, that even make sense. I mean, I know none of this makes sense, but just for fun, We're, we're Playing A Game here.

0:46:25 Andrew: Well, again, the idea. Yeah.

0:46:27 Thomas: We're enjoying, you know, we're Stepping into the fantasy world. Does If I were, a but if there are a bond with my name on it, that means I was issued, I am, I like collateral for someone who Paid money For Me, okay.

0:46:27 Andrew: Yeah. The. Yes. Yes, yeah. That's exactly right. You are pledged as collateral via your birth certificate to the shadowy cabal of international bankers. That means Jews who bailed out the bankrupt U.S. economy when we went off the gold standard. And yeah. And so you can recover your bond. Right.

0:46:40 Thomas: Sure. Uh-huh. Gotcha. And Don't think That's how That works. That's Even If I were used as collegious, hypothetically, I know we just, we're in, we're in Narnia here, we're just going for Fun. If I were a collateral for a bond, I don't get to be like, "Ha, I have now become self-aware of my collateralness and I get, I get the money." You, that, doesn't work. I'm still collateral Like if my house became self-aware tomorrow, it can't be like, "Give me the mortgage money." You're the collateral.

0:46:59 Andrew: Yeah, no, it's It's. It's definitely Not. Yeah. No.

0:47:22 Andrew: Uh, No.

0:47:32 Thomas: You don't get the money. Am I wrong?

0:47:35 Andrew: No, you, you're, you're a hundred percent correct. So, I mean, it is, it is turtles all the way down, but um um I really like the last part and and again this 114-page, we could do uh 100 episodes on this but um the last point is that I think it's the eight elements of a contract. This is very clearly cut and pasted from some other idiot's website. And I can prove that because there's the bottom of page 50, which says, and we're going to talk about the eight elements as well. But element one says, "parties competent to contract." Then it says the party should be of the same kind, being either legal fiction actors or natural living men, women, allowing more and then capital P page than two parties, but never a mixture of these kinds in their respective jurisdictions. Now, it is very clear that what they've done is copied off of another plea.

0:47:41 Thomas: Oh,

0:48:29 Andrew: They deleted the page number that rolled over because the sentence, the clause makes sense as allowing more than two parties, allowing more page than two party does not make. Right. This is just the page number from the bottom of the document that they have they've copied and left in as an artifact. So, yeah. So this is this is a cobbled together mishmash of of other people's arguments. But but would you be interested in knowing that there are apparently eight elements to a contract? Right.

0:48:59 Thomas: Okay.

0:48:59 Andrew: Because I've been teaching you. Yeah.

0:49:00 Thomas: Consideration. Yeah.

0:49:02 Andrew: Offer, acceptance, consideration.

0:49:02 Thomas: Offer, acceptance.

0:49:03 Andrew: Three.

0:49:04 Thomas: Yeah, that's three. Let's see. International banking people who are probably probably Jews. What are the other considerations? Gems of some kind, magic incense. You got to burn incense during it. Gosh, that's a lot of elements. What more could there be?

0:49:04 Andrew: Yeah, I.

0:49:21 Andrew: All right. Here's what they are, according to according to Pauline Bauer.

0:49:23 Thomas: Those are my guesses. And a firm handshake at the end. That might actually be one of them. Yeah.

0:49:28 Andrew: Yeah, we'll get there. We'll get their one party's competent to contract. The party's contract should be competent, being of the age of consent that that is true of sound mind.

0:49:34 Thomas: Okay. I mean, that is kind of like an assumption of contract law, right? It is not like a, you know, because you said that you teach that actual law, there's three things, but actual law also includes needing people to be competent, right? Okay.

0:49:42 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. But also, this is wrong. So, so let's do the wrong part. Not disqualified from contracting by any law to which she or he is subject. A flawed capacity may be due to minority. Okay, that, that, that is true. You are 17, all of your contracts are voidable, right? Doesn't matter who they're with, what they're for, for whatever reason. There's one tiny exception, but, uh, but they are voidable. Uh, so, you know, your 17 year old signs up for, uh, you know, a, uh, a cell phone plan or, you know, whatever. And the company is trying to tell you it's going to be thousands of dollars to cancel it. Nope. Again, don't take legal advice from a podcast, but it will be nothing. Contracts signed by those under the age of 18 are voidable at will. Lunacy. I love seeing those words. Idiocy, drunkenness or dissimilarity of kind.

0:49:55 Thomas: Yeah.

0:50:43 Andrew: Kind. Um, I want to say this to you, uh, if you try and get out of a contract by saying, oh man, I was so drunk when I signed that thing, uh, the other party's gonna be like, cool, no, drunkenness is not an excuse to contract. Uh, you do not get to void a contract because you were drunk when you signed it. Um, dissimilarity of kind is the thing that I read to you before, and it says the party should be of the same kind, being either legal fiction actors or natural living men and women, but never a mixture of these kinds in their respective jurisdictions. Think about what that means, right? I agree, like, you've got to do some, you know, secret Dakota ring here, but a legal fiction person is a corporation, right? What this is saying is if a corporation signs a contract with a person, that that contract is invalid. Bananas, right? I did. Yes, people can sign contracts with, with a corporation. All right, so that's element number one, parties competent to contract, that's wrong.

0:51:40 Andrew: Two, free and genuine consent. The consent of the party should not be obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or mistake. Again, partially correct. A contract may be voidable if there is a material misrepresidentation. It is voidable if there's fraud, but fraud is hard to plead and prove. Undue influence or coercion is a a a partial equitable defense. But, you know, if if your boss says, hey, you know, you really ought to think about, you know, taking clients out to the ballgame and getting, you know, season tickets so that, you know, and you understand it be on your own dime, but, you know, that'll help you really present a good forward face to clients, which, by the way, things like that get said to lawyers all the time.

0:52:29 Andrew: And then you buy that, and then you try and revoke that contract and go, you know, to the Orioles. And you're like, hey man, I was told that this would be a great way to do clients. But like, you know, you're thirty-seven and one hundred and fifty-nine and no one wants to come to the games, and I really feel like I was bullied into getting this by my boss, and so I want out of this contract, and the Orioles are going to be like, that's really cool, send us the, the money. Um, so uh, the statement, if consent is obtained by any of these means, the contract is not valid or legally lawfully enforceable, not true. Uh, three, I love this one, this is the liar liar version, full disclosure. When negotiating a contract, full disclosure is the step of providing all material information or telling the whole truth about any matter which may influence the, which may influenced the decision making of the other party or parties before they decide to enter into a contract. If either party fails to make full disclosure, the contract is null and void. Could

0:52:55 Thomas: What?

0:53:08 Thomas: No. That's Definitely not right Yeah.

0:53:26 Andrew: You imagine that, right? Like, yeah.

0:53:27 Thomas: That would be a cumbersome process. We have to tell everything about everything in their world that could possibly influence

0:53:28 Andrew: Yeah. So what things might what things might go into your mind here about influencing your decision. This is

0:53:35 Thomas: Yeah and Sorry, what contract are we even talking about? I've lost, I've the threat on that, no. I know, but like, vis-a-vis the argument here in the court, what contract is this person referring to? The artist formerly known as, whatever that person's name was, so

0:53:44 Andrew: Any contract. So Yeah. The artist formerly noticed Pauline is talking about the contract to agree to be represented by the, the United States government or whatever. Right.

0:54:03 Thomas: A thing that doesn't even come close to existing

0:54:04 Andrew: That does not that does not come close to existing. But but all of these subcomponents. Right, are just there. They're wrong when you think about them for a moment. Right? So then we have valuable consideration. OK, we've talked about that before. Contract is unenforceable if it has insufficient or unequal consideration without agreement. I have no idea what that sentence would mean. So consideration does not need to be sufficient or equal. It just needs to be present on both sides. And the contract, by definition, is an agreement. So I don't know.

0:54:05 Thomas: Yeah yeah Yeah.

0:54:45 Thomas: And

0:54:45 Andrew: So when you say the consideration could be unequal if they agree to it, well, that's what the contract is. Where are we? All right. Next, certainty of terms. The terms must be fully disclosed, agreed upon. It must be certain and fixed. Any subsequent variation of terms must Be agreed. Also not true. Right. And and hilariously, the proof against this provision comes from the UCC itself. Right? The UCC allows you to set requirements contracts, right, to say, hey, I'll buy all the popsicles you can create. Right. I will ship you all the chairs that I make over the next month. Right. Like a requirements contract is not a fixed term. And yet it's a valid contract under the uniform commercial code that these people supposedly revere.

0:55:31 Andrew: All right. Meeting of the minds. You would you would think that would be correct. But no, of course, they have their own bizarre definition of what meeting of the minds is. They say a meeting of the minds, consensus ad idem, occurs between the parties when they recognize each other, understand their mutual obligations and agree. No, meeting of the minds means.

0:55:50 Thomas: Engaged in a heartfelt kiss at the end, yeah.

0:55:52 Andrew: Yeah, they they interpret the same thing the same way. That's what Meeting of the Minds means. Meeting of Minds occurs between living men, women and lawful matters and between legal fiction actors, actors in legal matters with Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction. A contract must be either lawful or legal. If one party to a contract makes a, quote, signature as an accommodation party to illegal fiction person, while the other party makes an autograph for a living man or woman, the parties are of unequal kinds and the contract is null and void. Uh, yeah.

0:56:13 Thomas: Okay. Okay. Yeah. Sure So if so if anybody doesn't do the magical bloody thumbprint thing, then, you know, then they don't actually have a meeting of minds, is that kind of where they're getting at?

0:56:24 Andrew: Yeah yeah Yes, and uh, you anticipated paragraph seven, autographs or signatures. Lawful written contracts between living men and women must carry the wet ink autographs of the parties comprising living identification, such as a thumbprint, but more often living standing is recognized by an unambiguous declaration with the handwritten wet ink autograph, including the prefix "by" and or the words "all rights reserved" and without prejudice written below. Legal written contracts between legal fiction actors must carry the wet ink signatures of the parties as an accommodation and

0:56:58 Thomas: Autographs Okay. When you sign a contract, Andrew, do you, do you sign and then write "all rights reserved" right underneath it?

0:57:09 Andrew: I put my thumbprint in blood on it. Absolutely, it's got to be wet ink. Um, I thought

0:57:10 Thomas: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Again, I just want to watch one of these assholes go to the grocery store. I just wanna see what happens. Need your receipt.

0:57:17 Andrew: Yeah. Oh. My God.

0:57:19 Thomas: Oh God, and then 10, 10 minutes, no, that's modest, an hour of lecture, thumbprints, signings. Oh, the fiction known as me didn't needs the receipt from the fiction known as Safeway or something, you know. Just

0:57:19 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.

0:57:32 Andrew: And number eight, privity of contract. Again, that's a real thing, but they're wrong. A contract exists only between the parties. No third party can obtain rights contained within a contract or buy or sell a contract without the express permission of the original parties. Not true. You can be a third party beneficiary of a contract between two other people, right? Right. I can say, I am selling this to you and you are to, you know, deliver the proceeds to Thomas Smith. Right.

0:58:01 Andrew: Yeah, it Privity involves the legal of rights. Again, this is a 13th century Saxony thing, which these people love. To be in privity with another party is to have a defined legal relationship. So it is a legal term. But of course, they're they're using it in a nonsense manner. Manner, um, we're done, we're done on the contracts, we're only halfway through this, but uh, I do love, I just want to end with this, uh, which by the way does not meet the criteria just set out for for contract, but uh, it says, "I, Pauline; semicolon Bauer, comma, comma," uh, ordinarily I would think that would be a typo, but who the fuck knows, right? "Instruct you to to discharge this entire matter with extreme prejudice."

0:58:01 Thomas: Yep. I love that contract. That's my favorite kind.

0:58:54 Thomas: Ooh.

0:58:54 Andrew: Extreme prejudice. That's that's great, Arnold Schwarzenegger has to like come by and shred the document. And

0:58:56 Thomas: Yeah. Well, again, none of this is valid. None of this exists in her mind, but also they can dismiss it with extreme prejudice. What would extreme prejudice mean then?

0:59:01 Andrew: Right. Extreme. I, dismissal with prejudice means they can't bring it again, dismissal with extreme prejudiced means

0:59:11 Thomas: No, I know. But like in her mind, what this isn't even a court, you know, like this is a nothing. So what does that even? All right.

0:59:12 Andrew: Yeah. No, oh, I don't I, yeah. Yeah. I That's a real good question, um, and and I hope you get like some kind of energy drink when it, you know, like, here you go. Have a Red Bull. Extreme prejudice. "Award the penalties for the crimes to be paid to me in compensation and damages for bringing false charges and arrest against my soul, plus a charge of one dollar per minute, or one thousand four hundred and forty dollars per day, from date of first indictment to date of my dismissal and release. Take notice!" With an exclamation point. This is my fee schedule. You have ordered off my freedom menu. There is a cost. I wish I could say I was making that up.

0:59:56 Andrew: I am not. You have order off my Freedom Menu.

0:59:56 Thomas: You have ordered off my freedom menu. That's

1:00:00 Andrew: There Is A Cost. So, yeah, if we don't have some patron names that say you have ordered off my Freedom Menu next week, I will be a little bit disappointed. Point it. But there you go. Pauline Bauer, sovereign citizen nut job, and will be spending time in prison because she is woefully misinformed.

1:00:00 Thomas: Fantastic. That is phenomenal.

1:00:18 Thomas: So this is not going to work. Prediction.

1:00:19 Andrew: No, not

1:00:19 Thomas: I know God on a limb here. It could be an Andrew's wrong in the future, but not going TO work.

1:00:25 Andrew: Going to work.

1:00:26 Thomas: All right, it's your your funeral. Anyone want to take the other side of that bet? I'm going to sit this one out, you know, but maybe one of our listeners.

1:00:34 Andrew: Yeah, it's good to be agnostic.

1:00:37 Thomas: Yeah, I'll be a third party just to adjudicate the whole thing.

1:00:42 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:00:44 Thomas: Now it's time for our Hall of Fame patrons. First time with a new methodology. Here's what I'm going to do. Now, we only have three days left in this month, because the first one we did the old ways, and so I thought I could just divide it into four, anyway, and only, and, and skip the first people because we read them last week, but I didn't want to do that, just in case the first, um, grouping had something, they changed it to this week, you know, in, in good faith, you know, thinking they're, are getting a shout. I want to make sure to do that.

So what we're going to do is we're going to tackle, I divided into thirds, and we're gonna tackle the first third on this week. And then probably in October, we'll divide it into fourths, or I guess I'll have to do the math. It could be five some months, but, uh, but there you have it. So, and I'll start us off. Here we, we go. The under the new world order, here, thank you to Amy Stephens, your friendly neighborhood letter carrier. Salty Seattle driver on YouTube shows you where your turn signals and headlights are. Leftists own gums to support root canal mitigation, not ineffective private insurance. I'm making warrant officer money now, so I can pay you assholes more. I love that. Dr. Faustus, has you or a loved one been hurt by shady seafood? Call the law offices of Habeas Porpoise today. Today, Matt Dunlop, I moved to Kazakhstan and all I got was kumis and beshbarmak and a warm welcome. Interesting. Atomic Penguin at AtomicPenguin7 on Twitter. I can't believe the first six Atomic Penguins were taken. That's incredible.

1:02:15 Andrew: Yeah.

1:02:15 Thomas: Joseph Vigiano. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico now. Yeah, good call. Where did that go? Update on that sometime, Andrew. Drew. Statehood. What the heck? Dr. Scooplittle. Heather T. Now 50. Still fantastic. Now here's something we hope you'll really like. Just waiting for my university census date so they can kick us all back online. Comedian Aaron Trahan at Comedienne AET, formerly AKA at Game Jumper X. Hand woven night safe reflective scarves by KellyWova.com. Wow. Nifty. Trains are the most fuel-efficient way to move cargo in the world? That thing in the attic, the fat Jedi eating cake and drinking Emperor's Brewery beer in the Death Star canteen. No, for real, what are our chances of fixing our judicial system before November 22nd? Or sorry, before November 2022? Ooh, not great.

1:02:23 Andrew: I agree. I agree Oh, Yeah, not

1:03:11 Thomas: Liberals own guns too. Support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. I'm Matt, and I get no welcome on Cogdiss. Hi, Matt. Now here's Spiro. Agnew and the Ancillary and Pernicious. Wow. Okay. So that was a coordinated effort.

1:03:12 Andrew: Great.

1:03:24 Andrew: That's that is some exceptional use

1:03:27 Thomas: So glad that I decided to read these. Ateo, support Decarcerate, working to end mass incarceration in Arkansas. Decarserate.org. Why is everyone obsessed with how long the Patreon Hall of Fame is? Girth is more important than length. So good. Social Justice Alchemy. I agree with that. 69%. Andrew and Thomas can read your name in 15 minutes or less while supplies last. Tell Morgan, Gautam's son, and Zach Bloom. And there you have it, Andrew. Your turn.

1:03:27 Andrew: There and Thank you to Ray to Pizza School. Asks, what do call an expert witness that is actually just a short-legged dog? A terpsy corgi. Corgis are so cute, though, but, uh, livebaseballscorecards.com. Legal Eagle is so handsome. California employment, work accident, or litigation questions? Call or text attorney David Nitka, 310-776-5879. Again, that's attorney David Nitka, 3 10 7 7 6 5 8 7 9 The Smiths, praise be unto Hamilton. Do take DNS advice from our live streams wisely. Move to Florida in the, the teeth of the pandemic's fourth wave. Please don't elect an O'Toole. Three appointees by an imbecile were enough. I love that. Horse one, Gaifa, Icelandic, boss mare, runs the pasture and tolerates no dissent. Sweet as pie to people. Rest in peace, Brandon Bernard. We must abolish the death penalty. Budget botanist, maybe last weekly plant. Well, not really. Wolfia, type of duckweed, and has the smallest flower in the world.

1:04:05 Thomas: Yeah.

1:04:53 Thomas: It'll be a monthly plant

1:04:54 Andrew: Yeah. PSA, contact your financial advisor if the duration of your Patreon list reading lasts longer than four hours. Yeah, we're we're helping you out. Budget botanist on Fiverr.

1:04:59 Thomas: Now. Which is good because I'm sure you'd run out of plants pretty soon. How many plants could there be, you know? Yeah. There'd only be like 20 plants max.

1:05:07 Andrew: Yeah, Sparkle Donkey Tequila, the world's best tequila in the world, see the history at sparkle donkey.com New book, "The Greatest Gift of All: A Logical Path from Religion to Humanism" by Mark McClain, out now. I thought about making my name shorter so it wouldn't take up as much of your time, but then I did a gender fluid multi-class dual wielding blade lock fighter 2RR enchantment. Lay line text, players can't gain life, damage can't be prevented. Nail the black, nail the blue and black ones, and, well, move on.

1:05:37 Thomas: Well, we already covered that one. It's one of the ley lines of blood or something. I don't know. It's one of the red ones. It's a ley line. We'll move on.

1:05:38 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, just get the clown owning vaccine, you clown owning clown horns. 75% of Tulare County DA's have less than two years experience and they're doing felonies, some are only provisionally licensed. I like my pork streaks paired with at Casa Agria and at Emperor's Brewery beer. As a Texan, I don't have a joke this week, just a hearty F Texas and F SCOTUS, Adam Borchoff, Lee Sharp, GDT says in Cockburn we pronounce it Coburn, oh good to know, Thomas Kleberg, Ben Gazi and the buttery males, uh, buddy freaking Guyerson, storm the fort teaser for Hall of Fame shout outs, Supreme Court justices should have 18 year term limits and so should Conrad Michaels, uh, no coin if this firm has ever failed the bar exam, and of course Conrad Rad Michaels. I'm going to read it every week, no matter what.

1:06:27 Andrew: That's that's just part of rules. Like. I don't that idea.

1:06:27 Thomas: Oh, And why not just do the top ten every week? Because, you know, they're the top tens. So thank you to Adam Costa, Teresa, David in Brooklyn, Sam Donow, Mitchell, HowIsThereNoSpiderLoki, Michael, sorry I got nothing this week week after the SCOTUS decision. I agree with that 100%. Sam Buck and Conrad Michaels. Well, that was fun. I like that.

1:06:31 Andrew: All right.

1:06:44 Andrew: Conrad Michaels. Yeah I like it.

1:06:47 Thomas: Good stuff. Works for everybody.

1:06:50 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:06:56 Thomas: And now it's time for T3BE Extreme Porked Exam. Obviously, Andrew's effing with me edition. Let's see if I talk myself out of the right answer yet again.

1:07:05 Andrew: All right. So this is another Black Acre question. The last, last, uh, Black Acre question for a while, um, this is, oh, the owner of Black Acre wanted to get rid of Black anchor uh and move somewhere warmer, but she still wanted to preserve the landscaping on the beautiful property. So oh draws draws up a deed of conveyance to her daughter, A, and the deed states the following: "To A, for a so long as she does not remove any of the trees or flowers, comma and if she does, then I have the right to re-enter." A accepts the deed. Uh, then a couple of years go by and she's like, "Yeah, you know what, like, that large oak tree, that's got to come down." So she has it removed. At the moment she has it removed, what interests in the property do O and A have in Black Acre?

1:07:55 Andrew: And I'm going to cut to the chase. You asked, did you talk yourself out of the right answer? And answer is, of course, you talked yourself outof the rightanswer.

1:08:04 Andrew: You did a great job narrowing it down to the only two plausible answers. A is that O has a right of entry and A has a fee-simple determinable, or O has a right-of-entry and A is a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. It requires you to know the difference between those two things. And here's the difference. A fee- simple determinable shifts. So you are absolutely 100% correct that fee simply is what you you call when you just convey all of the property to somebody, then you are said to own that property in fee simple. You don't have any obligations to anybody else for any other thing.

We know that you can convey property without conveying it in fee simply. You can convey it subject to a whole bunch of conditions, which we have here. When you have a condition that executes automatically, that is a fee simple determinable, and it It does not require any behavior on the part of that person. So if I say, Thomas, I'm going to give you my house so long as you never use it as a church, then what I have is if you use it as a Church, then the second you do that, the you have is a fee simple determinable.

1:08:24 Thomas: Yeah. Right. Yeah!

1:09:28 Andrew: And the moment that you violate that condition, the property reverts to me and I own it in fee simple.

1:09:36 Thomas: So then I have nothing?

1:09:38 Andrew: Yeah. Well, you you you have the you have the determinable interest so long as you have not violated the condition. But if you violate dilate the condition, automatically reverts back to me. What makes this a hard question is that this is written in fee simple determinable language, but then has the comma with the right of entry on it. So you have to know. So it says 2A, for so long as she does not remove any of the trees or flowers. And then if it had just said that, then A would have been correct, right? Actually, it probably should say O, fee simple, A, fee simple determinable. But when she adds on, and if she does, then I have the right to re-enter. Well, that takes it from being an automatic reversion to you get to choose it. And so you could imagine in this situation, O goes, all right, you can take out the one tree. I have the rights to reenter here, but I'm going to waive that right. I'm not going to exercise it.

1:09:50 Thomas: Really? Uh-huh.

1:10:24 Thomas: Gotcha.

1:10:35 Thomas: Right. Yeah, that was my reasoning on B and C. So at least that much held up.

1:10:37 Andrew: Yep. Yeah. No, that's exactly right.

1:10:41 Thomas: But what's interesting is take away that one sentence and then B and C are maybe still in the ballgame. Like you lose all rights and you're just what? Somebody's on this land trespassing essentially?

1:10:41 Andrew: You.

1:10:53 Thomas: So if it's written that way, like take your church example, it's written so that you're like, I give you this, I bequeath you, so long as you never turn this into a church, end of sentence, then the minute I turn that into a church, I have lost all interest, there's no period of me having anything else, I just have nothing, you lose nothing.

1:10:52 Andrew: Yeah, yeah.

1:11:11 Andrew: That is you. You get nothing.

1:11:15 Thomas: Interesting. Well, Well, that's nice.

1:11:15 Andrew: Yeah yeah. Automatically transferred back. And I think been a long time since I've done real property. I think on a fee simple determinable, that condition coming into play is called a possibility of reverter, right? And so think about the difference in the language there, right, a reversion, right automatic triggers goes back to you, as opposed to a right of entry, which is the other tail of a condition subsequent, right. Right. So what you need to know here is that if you use the language of both, the law will prioritize the condition subsequent. We'll say, OK, yeah, you say for as long as you do not remove comma. And then if she does, then I get a right of reentry. Then and then they say,OK, well, then, despite the fact that you've used the language at both, we're going to interpret that as condition subsequent squared.

1:11:32 Thomas: Okay, yeah. Mm-hmm.

1:12:11 Thomas: So I got it right. So, got it wrong. Talked myself out of it, as usual. What's interesting, though, is it ends up being for okay reasons. Like, all right, so it was a little tricky. I guess, yeah, subject to a condition. I just didn't think that, yeah. Okay. All right. Fine. So, determinable. Remind me one more time what the fee simple determinable means, okay.

1:12:36 Andrew: Determinable means that there is an actual objective determination that is made and at the moment that that condition is triggered, it reverts back to the grantor, to the person who gave it to you in the first place. So when I say, give you my house so long as you never use it as a church, the minute you use it as a Church, it reverses back to me.

1:12:52 Thomas: So, What right, what interest did A have before the tree was removed, in this question? It,

1:13:04 Andrew: Yeah, no, that's a great question. And it's still called a fee simple determinable, right? She never, A never owns the property in fee simple, right.

1:13:12 Thomas: Is, okay. Right. Yeah, I got that.

1:13:18 Andrew: Right. She's not given, you know, if you think of your rights as a bundle of sticks. Right. The O held back a stick. Right. And gave all the rest. And so you cannot say, oh, yeah, I own this property and feel simple. I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

1:13:18 Thomas: She's Not giving all the sticks. Yeah. But It's

1:13:32 Andrew: You say, yeah.

1:13:32 Thomas: Just interesting That fee simple determinable seems to mean two different things. Then it Could Mean. Go okay.

1:13:36 Andrew: No, no, no. Are correct. And leave this in. Um, it is, I said, cause I was thinking about it, uh, but what she has prior to cutting down the tree is fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. Yeah. I, I messed that up. So that, which proves how hard this is.

1:13:50 Thomas: Okay, so I, so You're That D is what D

1:13:54 Andrew: Yeah. I'm saying D is the correct answer. Yes.

1:13:59 Thomas: Is the correct answer, but also the the the um, person's rights were fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, both before and after the tree was removed.

1:14:11 Andrew: Yeah. That's what you call there. That grant, right? It, it, it

1:14:16 Thomas: Okay. So It didn't, so, so A's rights Didn't change necessarily, it only changes once O decides to take it back. Then It would go from something, you know, basically fee simple subject of a condition to nothing if she Takes it Back, okay. So, I, in a sense, I was even, even right insofar as I said that D sounded like what she had before the tree was removed. It was what she had before the tree was removed, the Trick is Well,

1:14:19 Andrew: Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. Exactly right. Exactly right.

1:14:42 Andrew: It's just what she has after the tree is removed as well. Yeah, that's exactly right.

1:14:45 Thomas: All Right, well, I blew it as usual. Uh, let's find out if anybody else did much better, which I'm sure they They did.

1:14:52 Andrew: Well, Thomas, this week's winner is Christopher J. Morigo on Twitter, who writes, Thomas talked himself out of the right answer again. That's true. The answer is D, because A still has a, he says, few simple, but he means fee simple subsequent to condition, until O shows up and takes affirmative action to assert there, fixed the bar's diversity problem, right of re-entry. Pithy got the diversity question right, got the analysis correct, and, you know, took a little shot at you. So congratulations, Christopher J. Morgo, on being this week's winner. Everyone, let's give them a follow. That is at IndicusMT, I-N-D-I-C-U-S-M-T, on Twitter. And congratulations, Christophers, on becoming this week'S winner.

1:15:39 Thomas: Right. Well, that's our show. That was fun, you know, indulging Andrew's favorite passion, which is people who are so wrong about the law. It's hilarious. I enjoy it every time. Thanks for listening. We'll see you on Friday.

1:15:50 Andrew: Until then

1:15:55 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

1:16:29 Clip: www.openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com/groups/Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki, follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Arguments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.