Questions and Answers:

Are you licensed?

There are three specific cases which created the requirement that you be licensed to “practise law” (“practise” is the old spelling they used to use for the word back in the 1800s in the Courts because that is the original English common law spelling. It wasn’t until the early 1900s before you start seeing it spelled as “practice”).

Here is a section from Corpus Juris Secundum which covers all of the various cases covering the privileges that have been given or denied for 14th Amendment persons (in comparison to those rights of State citizenship for white people): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nszmzxl5mzgiqjy3s6ifk/Pages-from-16C-C.J.S.-1204-to-1283-Privileges-and-Immunities-Equal-Protection.pdf?rlkey=c03hsvpj01eh3clcld5mgsb3u&st=k5nr8y66&dl=0

I will list each individual case here then the direct quote from each case that established the world we live in now where everyone thinks they need to have a license to practise law:

Neb.—State ex rel. Ralston v. Turner, 141 Neb. 556, 4 N.W.2d 302 (1942)

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not grant the right to practice law; nor is the right to practice law in the courts a privilege or immunity, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

N.C.—Baker v. Varser, 240 N.C. 260, 82 S.E.2d 90 (1954)

"The plaintiff in his brief contends that the action of the defendant Board of [Law Examiners] denied him due process of law and the equal protection of the law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Even if that question were presented for decision, the Supreme Court of the United States in Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 83 U.S. 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 (quoted with approval in Re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 14 S. Ct. 1082, 38 L.Ed. 929) held that the right to practise law in the State Courts is not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

Utah—Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d 325 (1943)

“An attorney’s right to practice law in the state courts is not a ‘privilege’ or an ‘immunity’ of a United States citizen within the fourteenth amendment.”

So, as you can see from above, this whole situation was only applicable for the released negro slaves after the 13th Amendment who then became “US citizens” or “citizens of the United States” under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which then became the 14th Amendment), not for white citizens of the States. No one working in this Law Group has rights or obligations under the 14th Amendment in accordance with what the Honorable Mr. Miller said in The Slaughter-house Cases and Bradwell v. State. The cases requiring a license to practise law do not apply to anyone in this Law Group. So I could represent my own trusts or any other legal fiction in a court without having to have a license or Bar membership and I can also represent men and women as well.

I specifically choose not to represent other men and women for the following reasons:

1. No one can push your claims as well as you can. I personally believe that the courts should ONLY operate pro se and that each and every person should press their own claims rather than have someone else do it for you. Who knows your claims better than you? This is where all the passion went in law… passion comes from individuals bring their own claims.

2. True sovereignty is by standing on your own two feet, not having someone else do it for you. This commercial “sovereignty for a fee” thing has to die. Thankfully, it mostly has (probably because of me), but we need to continue to actively fight against that kind of mentality spreading or becoming “acceptable.” That kind of behavior or thinking is anti-American in the extreme and is, in my opinion, offensive. You should be offended that someone believes you cannot stand and speak for yourself… which is exactly why the proper term for that situation is “infant or person of unsound mind.”

The above information is mostly useful because you can represent your own trusts in court without having to have a license or Bar membership. You can use the information here in this section to do that.

The reason why I dislike the idea of representing men and women is that it comes with a presumption that you are an infant or person of unsound mind (and are thus unable to handle your own affairs). The definition of “represent” is:

1. To appear in the character of; personate; to exhibit; to expose before the eyes. To represent a thing is to produce it publicly. Dig. 10, 4, 2, 3; In re Matthews, 57 Idaho, 75, 62 P.2d 578, 580, 111 A.L.R. 13.

2. To represent a person is to stand in his place; to supply his place; to act as his substitute. Plummer v. Brown, 64 Cal. 429, 1 P. 703; Seibert v. Dunn, 216 N.Y. 237, 110 N.E. 447, 449.

The definitions, themselves, indicate there are two parties. So a person cannot “represent themselves.” That is a hilarious oxymoron. You can only PRESENT yourself, but you can most definitely represent your sole proprietorship.

Since you have your own personal US citizen called a sole proprietorship, typically the way I like to do things is that you represent the sole proprietorship in court. The courts have no way to build juries for white citizens of the State so I have no idea how something like that would even work. Eventually we will be doing more tests on that but at this point of research we are doing it this way. You HAVE a US citizen, you aren’t one yourself unless you have rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment (please see the Treatise on the Word “Person” page for more information about this subject).

We are both attorneys-in-fact as well as attorneys-at-law. We are attorneys-at-law when we are representing trusts or other legal fictions (or men and women, if we ever decide to do such a thing) and attorneys-in-fact when we work privately. Black's Law 4th Edition does a great job of delineating the differences between an attorney-at-law and an attorney-in-fact: “-Public attorney. A name sometimes given to an attorney at law, as distinguished from a private attorney, or attorney in fact.”

Are you a member of the Bar?

If I was a 14th Amendment person then yes, if I wanted to practise law then I would need to get a Bar membership. But since I am a white citizen of a State, the 9th Amendment covers my right to practise law, legally. US citizens have no right to the 9th Amendment as it has never been incorporated via the Incorporation Doctrine.

Are you practising law in California?

The Courts pretend as though the sole proprietorship and the owner are the same “person.” The case law on this that I have found gives no reasoning as to why that is and the case law is not from the Supreme Court but from some lower courts. This is a presumption that has, basically, never been challenged (even though it could very easily be challenged).

The original white State citizen class never included legal fictions and still doesn’t, even to this day. This was clearly communicated by the Honorable Stephen Johnson Field in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court 1869).

So, the Courts falsely believe that a white citizen of the States representing their sole proprietorship is not, in fact, “practising law.” But, in fact, I am. I’m a white citizen of California representing a 14th Amendment business called a sole proprietorship.

I can legally practise law in all 50 States as well as any US territory or insular possession, if I so pleased.

How is it legal for you to give legal advice?

My 9th Amendment covers that. I’m not a US citizen or 14th Amendment person. Any man, woman, child or legal fiction with rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment has no access to the 9th Amendment due to it never having been incorporated through any statute or the Incorporation Doctrine. Personally, I think it’s legally impossible for Congress to Incorporate the 9th and 10th Amendments into the 14th Amendment class. This is why I think they have never even spoken about it or entertained the idea.

Is anyone in the law group residents of a state or is this law group, as a legal fiction, resident in a state or territory of the United States?

No and no. Brandon was born a white citizen of Indiana, not as a US citizen. He is now a white citizen of California due to a change in domicile. Brandon has never been a resident of California, Indiana, or any other State of the Union.

Here is the definition of a “resident” from the Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (Chapter 19):

Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizens of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.

As you can see from the above, the term would only apply to 14th Amendment persons, not to white people who are citizens of their respective State.

This law group is not considered a “person” in accordance with the laws of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition. It is only considered a “person” when interfacing into the United States but it has never been naturalized into the United States or the continental United States (“United States” is typically defined as “anyplace under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress,” whereas “continental United States” also includes all of the Republic States. Another way of saying “United States” would be “the District of Columbia and any of its possessions”).

“Naturalization,” when it comes to moving around legal fictions, is done by simply saying that a legal fiction has a particular nationality. Just verbalizing it or writing it down someplace makes it a reality. You can see that clearly at 8 USC § 1101(a)(23), which I will quote here:

The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Typically, for litigation purposes, Brandon’s US citizen named BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, which is a sole proprietorship, is naturalized into California as a resident for purposes of convenience in litigation.

What is the legal structure of this law group?

A trust that was born in the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition. It has never been naturalized into the United States or the continental United States. The laws of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition do not recognize legal fictions as “persons” or “people,” so legal personhood does not really exist unless interfaced into another body of law, such as the United States.

So trusts and other legal fictions are treated the same way as the USA treated them prior to the advent of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886): the citizenship was based upon the trustee’s citizenship.

Are you violating any laws by only employing white citizens?

Absolutely not. We have no rights or obligations under the 14th Amendment. The laws regarding “equal protection” are only applicable via obligations derived from the 14th Amendment. Only our sole proprietorships, trusts and other legal fictions have rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment. Myself, as a white citizen of California, may not use the 14th Amendment for absolutely any reason. If I wanted to use it, I would need to do it through my sole prop or one of my many trusts.

As white citizens of your respective States, it is obvious how that changes your relationship to the Federal Constitution. But how does it change your relationship with your State Constitution?

This is a PHENOMENAL question. Thank you for asking it.

Brandon is a citizen of California, which has two Constitutions: one from 1849 when it first became a State of the Union and one from 1879, after the advent of the 14th Amendment.

The 1849 Constitution was impossible to find in an easily readable format back in 2023 when I was looking for it online, so I went to the big law library in downtown Los Angeles and got a copy. Here is a link to pull up so you can compare it to the 1879 version (which is easy to find online): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oeurk77btqeufk5ib0k0f/Original-1849-Constitution-of-the-unincorporated-California.pdf?rlkey=fbf8ocfl8nzopl590tu9t4xnq&st=708sx9c7&dl=0

So you can see when it comes to voting in Article II, Section 1, they changed the term “white male citizen of the United States” to “native male citizen of the United States.” But the main issue there is that the term “citizen of the United States” massively changed with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment. So this is quite confusing as to what they are referring to.

That voting section is even more confusing today because that above section has been changed over the years to now only state: “(a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote” in Article II Section 2. This is an obvious piece of evidence that shows that the 1879 Constitution has nothing to do with a white citizen of California who has no privileges or immunities under the 14th Amendment.

One of the most alarming differences is actually in Article XII of the 1879 version: this entire section about corporations and the allowing of corporations to sue and be sued and be treated like natural persons. This is entirely inapplicable to the State citizen class (corporations were never added in as State citizens), as already covered in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court 1869).

Over the years since the original 1879 version, Article XII has become about “Public Utilities” and the points about corporations have mostly been moved to the California Corporations Code. But again, this is all evidence that none of this has absolutely anything to do with a white citizen of California.

Article I, Section 17 is so strange in the original 1879 version… take a look:

Foreigners of the white race or of African descent, eligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, while bona fide residents of this State, shall have the same rights in respect to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, transmission, and inheritance of property as native-born citizens.

I’m not even sure what to make of that… it almost seems to make sense. But that terminology is the terminology from the Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment. But this clearly shows a separation between white citizens of the State and resident citizens of the United States. Over the years this has become even more vague and is, in the most “modern” form of this Constitution, simply: “Noncitizens have the same property rights as citizens.”

Now compare that above bolded original quote to Article I, Section 21 of the original 1879 Constitution:

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revolted, or repealed by the Legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all citizens.

This almost seems to say “all non-whites of all classes shall be the same and there shall be no sub classes amongst the non-whites. All non-whites shall be equal in the eyes of the law.” I don’t know how else to look at this because this is essentially the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in text form, which had absolutely nothing to do with the white citizens of the State.

Then, the most alarming part of all, would be Article I Section 7 in the newest version of the 1879 Constitution, which talks extensively about the 14th Amendment. White citizens of California have absolutely no rights, privileges or immunities under the 14th Amendment in accordance with Bradwell v. State and The Slaughter-house Cases.

Given the above points, it is a complete and absolute impossibility that the 1879 California Constitution has anything to do with me at all. It violates so many of the major points of white State citizenship. The only Constitution that would legally fit with my citizenship class is the 1849 California Constitution. This is the only Constitution for my citizenship class.

Do you have experience in actual litigation?

Please view our Current and Previous Litigation page for more information on all the cases we are currently working as well as all previous cases. Upcoming cases are typically not talked about until filed and stamped by the court. By the time the case is ready to be served is when I post it on this website.

Are you supporters of law enforcement?

Law enforcement falls into two separate categories: police and sheriffs. Sheriffs were the first original Constitutional law enforcement and you didn’t see city forces (“police”) until Boston in 1838 and New York in 1844/1845. Then you didn’t see an official “State” police force until Pennsylvania in 1905.

Police operate under the presumption that the State has policing powers under the 10th Amendment. This presumption, to my knowledge, has never been challenged. This presumption is patently false. It can be disproven with almost zero effort by simply pointing to Article I Section 10 of the Constitution and saying “why isn’t the State using gold and silver coins?” Also, the State is run by US citizens who have their citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Then, for the final crushing blow, the State is listed as a business on Dun and Bradstreet and has an EIN number.

The actual truth of the matter is that “State of California” is an “organization” as defined in 8 USC § 1101(a)(28), is a “person” as defined in 8 USC § 1101(b)(3) and is a US national and US citizen in accordance with 8 USC § 1401(a). “State of California” is actually a US citizen and, as such, has absolutely no right to the 9th or 10th Amendments at all. So the police force is sitting on top of a very loose 20 feet of soil that anyone could come along and almost effortlessly undermine… shockingly it has simply never happened.

The truth is that “State of California” and all other incorporated versions of the States are US citizens under the 14th Amendment and everyone working in them is also a US citizen or someone with rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment. This is exactly why they are allowed to use legal tender, such as Federal Reserve Notes, rather than gold and silver coin which is REQUIRED to be used by the Constitution.

Article I Section 10 says: No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

So how did we end up with this confusion? Well if you read the Legal Tender Cases, 78 US 682 (US Supreme Court 1870) you will find that they issued those obligations under the District of Columbia because the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the Constitutional definition. So it makes perfect sense that “State of California” is a US citizen and only deals with or interfaces with US citizens. This is exact how Federal Reserve Notes and other negotiable instruments are being transferred as currency in the State, despite Article I Section 10 being clear that this is impossible.

So, in essence, it’s completely legally impossible that the police can even exist. The only way they can exist is by ENSURING that you have rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment at the very beginning of an interaction with you. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE TRAINED TO BE SO OBSESSED WITH IDENTIFICATION WHEN THEY CONTACT YOU. They MUST ensure you have a nexus into the 14th Amendment before they can interface with you. By providing something like a driver’s license or passport, you are proving that there is a 14th Amendment nexus which then now allows them to interface with you.

Police legally operate under 4 USC § 72. They operate as though they are in the District of Columbia and they have to ensure that you also operate in the District of Columbia, legally, before they can interface with you. This is exactly the entire basis of their “qualified immunity.” They only have qualified immunity when interfacing with those persons who have rights and obligations under the 14th Amendment. They have no immunity when they are interacting with people with foreign allegiance or white people who are citizens of the States. This is the basis of both diplomatic immunity for foreign citizens and sovereign immunity for white citizens of the States.

So the police are not long for this world… they are basically a fraction of an inch away from oblivion. Oblivion would be as simple as someone pinning a lawsuit between 2 points:

1. Article I Section 10 and the usage of gold and silver coin (if they say they are a “State” under the 10th Amendment then they are ALSO forced to use gold and silver coins in tender of payment of debt)

2. The 10th Amendment (they are not a “State” within the Constitutional definition in accordance with the Legal Tender Cases so how do they have the 10th Amendment? That’s impossible!). Plus, even if they did have the 10th Amendment, that Amendment says the PEOPLE or the State… so their silly presumption is that the 10th Amendment powers apply only to the “State” and not to the people? THE PEOPLE ARE THE STATE!

If they say they have the 10th Amendment (which they don’t), then they are forced to use gold and silver coins. Those two above points come as a PACKAGE, you cannot separate them out and have the 10th Amendment without gold and silver coins.

If one single person won a case in this way at the appellate level of a State, the entire police force would instantly vanish. If someone won this argument at the Supreme Court level, the police would vanish everywhere in the entire country besides the District of Columbia and the US territories and insular possessions (such as Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.) These are areas that do not fall under Article I Section 10 or the 10th Amendment but these are areas where Congress can do basically whatever they want because those areas are not under Constitutional constraints.

The sheriff’s office, on the other hand, is Constitutional in nature and is not sitting on 20 feet of quicksand.

Another really fascinating point is that Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (US Supreme Court 1884) only applies to 14th Amendment persons. This is the case that allows State and Federal prosecution without a grand jury (such as a State prosecutor or Federal prosecutor pressing criminal charges via the California Penal Code, Title 18, etc). It has no application on a white citizen of a State. So things like the California Penal Code as well as Title 18 in the Federal USC have no application on a white citizen of the States. You can only prosecute them by putting together a grand jury of other white citizens from that same State and general locality. This essentially castrates the police entirely and this is exactly why their “qualified immunity” begins and ends with the 14th Amendment.

Police are no different than the Southern Slave Patrols that roamed the South back at the height of slavery. This is exactly the basis of the Black Codes as well because there was a loophole in the 13th Amendment… here I’ll show you:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

And this was the basis for the Black Codes: “let’s just make a whole bunch of new laws and then once the released negroes violate them then we can still enslave them via the 13th Amendment.” They created vagrancy “laws,” loitering and all sorts of other random things in order to bypass the new 13th Amendment. This resulted in mass arrests and a reboot of slavery with a new face. The same brand of slavery that exists even to this day. These criminals were then “leased” for slave labor. It’s the exact same clothing with a slightly more pretty box. They are no longer “slaves,” they are “criminals.”

So, with all that said… now I can answer the original question: “Are you supporters of law enforcement?” Well, it’s become a difficult question to answer because the police are operating off of these Hertado v. California based penal codes. But the main issue is that no one knows that. Not a single person has even the slightest of clue as to how this works. So we essentially have this country full of these armed and uniformed robots that are born and bred to think their penal codes are the actual laws. They have never stopped to question why they have been indoctrinated to always confirm identification first.

We do not hate law enforcement, nor do we think they need to be entirely obliterated. They are 100% legal under certain circumstances. First, they are 100% allowed in the District of Columbia and any US territory or insular possession. Nothing that I have said so far in this section applies to those areas of exclusive territorial jurisdiction to Congress. The only other way they could continue to operate within a State would be under the decree that they are not allowed to interface with white people in any way due to the presumption that they would be or could be white citizens of the State rather than 14th Amendment persons. They would also have jurisdiction over anyone who is a resident and working on their 5 year naturalization time described in the Naturalization Act of 1802. During this time of residency, the Federal government and US citizens would have jurisdiction over them. A resident is essentially under the 14th Amendment until they complete their residency and fully integrate as a white citizen of the State, wherein they would then lose the 14th Amendment entirely and gain the full 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment (both are only partially incorporated) as well as the 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th Amendments (all of which have never been incorporated into the US citizen class).

So the real issue here is not necessarily the police… it’s just simply ignorance. Because if even a small handful of people understood the above information, the police in all 50 States of the Union would vanish within almost no time. It’s not a war against the police, it’s a war on ignorance and a lack of understanding of our legal system, our financial system and the Constitution.

Are you scared of being attacked by the government for any reason?

No. All men and women of this law firm can only be charged by a grand jury of white citizens of their own State. No Federal or State agency or police force may bring charges upon us because Hertado v. California does not apply and we do not need the Incorporation Doctrine to flex our 5th or 9th Amendment rights. We also have the full rights of the 6th Amendment so not only can we only be prosecuted by white citizens of our State but we also have the right to have our jury selected from citizens of the State and district where the crime occurred. The Incorporation Doctrine never incorporated either of these rights into the 14th Amendment class so they do not enjoy these protections (which is fully covered in Hertado v. California).

Are you political or a supporter of politics?

Politics is essentially just a show that is designed to get everyone to place their hope and support in some other person or group then to mechanically betray you. It is this endless cycle of hope-trust-betrayal. It is designed to crush your soul by getting you to invest yourself in it then it uses every drop of life that you inject into it as a weapon right back at you. The more you put into it, the more you put your own life and the lives of others at risk.

People have no business being involved in politics, only persons do. These various codes and governmental agencies have no bearing on people… only persons.

“Politics” in America could be defined as: “the continued efforts of the negro to have the remaining points of the Bill of Rights incorporated via the Incorporation Doctrine.” Everyone is essentially running around playing that game without anyone knowing that this is the game they are playing. The Incorporation Doctrine is this dangling piece of food hanging over this endless treadmill. That treadmill is called “politics.”

States issue some new code or bill, which only applies to persons, that limits the way in which guns can be owned. Then those persons are split into two teams… one to try to overturn this new rule and the other to try to keep it. This is “politics” in a nutshell and white people who are citizens of a State should not be wasting their time with such banality. Somehow the white race was lured into playing this completely asinine game which has stopped them from being the natural trustees of the Constitution… which is their rightful throne in this country.

All this yelling and screaming from gun rights groups, civil rights groups, and everything in between is all entirely irrelevant. It could be summed up as “negroes attempting to help themselves and other negroes be treated the same and gain the same protections that are offered to the white man.” In a way, the Civil War never really even ended. And any white man behaving in such a silly way doesn’t even see that these games are not for him and have absolutely nothing to do with him.

So no, we are not supporters of politics. Politics is entirely irrelevant because we are white citizens of the States, not negroes released from slavery from the 13th Amendment and then given trash citizenship by the 14th Amendment.

Are you involved in various societal campaigns such as Black Lives Matter or climate change organizations, etc.

No. Almost all of these groups are simply fodder for persons. Left-leaning groups such as Black Lives Matter and right leaning groups such as the National Rifle Association are all only and exclusively for persons and people have no business being involved with them. People do not need to do any work to keep or gain the 2nd Amendment as their access to it has nothing to do with the Incorporation Doctrine.

The concern of the Nation of The Amnesty Coalition is the basic education of words, terms and phrases. Our group and goals are ultimately an aspect of “social justice” in their own right. These various civil rights groups and other “social justice” groups are, in essence, just an exhaustive series of requests by negroes for more rights or freedoms (or other groups attempting or succeeding in taking away rights or freedoms from the negroes).

We are not interested in banging on any particular “drum” or yelling and screaming for any particular “cause.” Even our desire to eliminate the 14th Amendment will be achieved through calm, fun education… not yelling, screaming and upset. We are never going to “ask” to gain any freedom or right… we have the unabridged 9th Amendment.

We simply want to be the greatest source of educational material available on the planet involving the subject of the definitions of words, terms and phrases. We will not be involving ourselves in various groups.

We are open allies of the micronation called Slowjamastan and the sultan’s application of 18 USC § 11 is quite impressive in our eyes. We do promote the activities of Slowjamastan and Brandon Joe Williams is an Ambassador of Slowjamastan. You can view more information about the micronation of Slowjamastan at https://www.slowjamastan.org/. You can see pictures of myself with the Sultan and Chief Boarder Patrol in Slowjamastan down farther on this page.

We do not support any violent, angry or antagonistic groups, regardless of what they say they stand for. Even the antagonism found on www.onestupidfuck.com is all in good fun and is simply a style of engagement and branding. The PRODUCT of my faux antagonism is added fun and camaraderie in the group itself, not hate and anger. Our message is one of true peace and solidarity, not one of divisiveness and bloodshed.

To view more information about The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition, which is our foreign government arm of all my research, please visit https://www.theamnestycoalition.org.

Are you intending on creating an industry of people who are pro se litigants?

With the advent of the 3.0 Contract Killer Course, we’ve pretty much already arrived at this goal. The entire course revolves entirely around the preparation and execution of litigation. It gives the basic background you will need of citizenship and negotiable instruments in order to begin putting together litigation to get yourself into discovery and transform into the Boogieman by asking all the questions they would rather die than answer. So I would say that “industry” has already arrived.

And now, with the research breakthrough in May of 2026 on how we can now practise law legally without a license, this whole thing is about to explode open and tear the seams right out along the way. This train is simply going to get bigger and faster until the 14th Amendment has been crushed, burned, buried and forgotten.

Is it true that you are developing your own lexicon (vocabulary) for BAR Cards?

Oh yes, and this is the peak excitement in my life! The following terms are a part of our exciting new lexicon! I truly hope to see more and more usage of these terms in court cases used around both the United States of America and the United States! (please feel free to take and use these as much and as often as you want). I will add more here as we develop more terms.

Irrelevant billables - This term is in honor of how Bar Cards always produce so much irrelevant trash to file into the docket in an effort to bill their client their hourly fees. They will come up with all manner of worthless crap to file in to the case. They start talking about wild generalizations, crazy assumptions, ridicule, or anything else their creative billable-centric minds can come up with. Like starving animals… they become VERY resourceful!

The Bar Card Shuffle - This term is pretty similar to the above term and describes the wild writhing that a Bar Card does in an effort to try to deflect or upset the opposing counsel when they realize they have absolutely no clue about any real actual aspect of law and they have suddenly been jarred awake by a pro se litigant that is about to make them look like a real infant or person of unsound mind.

Hearsay for Hire - Means that most Bar Cards will say almost anything for a bit of cash.

Is Brandon or anyone else a CPA as well as attorney-in-fact?

Yes, Brandon is a CPA. But keep in mind that “CPA” typically means “Certified Public Accountant.” The word “Public” in that context means “government employee.” So I am a CPA but I am a Certified PRIVATE Accountant.