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” (even though there is hardly an agreement as to what “practise law” means and there is technically no specific license above and beyond a BAR membership):

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, 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 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 BAR Card 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 BAR Card. 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 “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’re a negro or legal fiction subjected to the District of Columbia (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 attorney-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.

Are you practising in State of California?

It depends on who you ask. I have not, specifically, represented any of my trusts or any other people or persons in California… but I could if I wanted to. I choose not to when it comes to men and women and, if needed, I could represent any legal fiction I want to. The problem is not that I’m legally barred from doing it, I just simply prefer not to. I prefer to work as a white citizen of California representing my 14th Amendment person called a sole proprietorship. To me, this is the simplest way to operate at this time.

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 have 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.

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.

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?

YES! Enthusiastically. The problem of law enforcement is a very simple problem of a lack of clear and precise definitions. There are plans in the works to take some of the donations given to us and build out really amazing (and funny!) free educational material for law enforcement. Law enforcement wants to have law and order, and for that we salute them.

The basic purpose of the Sheriff’s Office is “to keep the private populace calm, orderly, free of terror, etc. To improve the overall relations in the society by preventing and snubbing those who harm and annoy others and to pave the way and assist those who improve the society by their actions. To exercise the superior jurisdictional authority in an effort to keep the society productive, growing and cohesive.”

The basic purpose of the police is: “To grease and improve the lines and flow of commercial activity by assisting and regulating commercial flow.”

The basic purpose of the courts is: “to take the information collected for them and presented to the court to locate the truth and publish it. This would include the elimination of the sources of lies.”

These basic purposes are simply missing basic definitions (and their COMMERCIAL implications) such as:

1. Motor vehicle

2. Traffic

3. Commerce

4. Corporation

5. Driver

The list goes on and on.

Anyone complaining about law enforcement should, in the same breath, be willing to produce the necessary educational material to assist all law enforcement in doing a better job.

Law enforcement wants to feel that they are doing something of value for the society by providing a structure. This is entirely possible by a simple adjustment in definitions - no different than adjusting an engine to make sure it runs right.

Law enforcement was never supposed to REPLACE our desire and ability to defend ourselves. Law enforcement was never supposed to be the sole source of FORCE in the society. It was supposed to be a supplementary arm of the society that assists us in having a group of overwhelming force to suppress and eliminate elements of the society that are deemed as dangerous or parasitic to the society as a group.

Law enforcement is an important and appreciated aspect of society. Thank you for your service.

Are you political or a supporter of politics?

Absolutely not. Politics is often weaponized in today’s world and needs a major cleanup. Politics often comes down to creating contention in the society in order to control the society. We do NOT support the current political climate in America and we believe it needs a major cleanup. We are not supporters of either “side” of the political equation, regardless of what it may seem, and we do not donate or vote for either “party.” Both parties lie and do not take the time to educate you on the most basic of aspects such as:

1. How the “United States” has multiple definitions and one of them means: a corporation located in the District of Columbia

2. How your passport is issued to your sole proprietorship because the sole prop is a US citizen while you are not if you are white and are either born in a State of the Union or naturalized into one

3. How the tax system and the IRS only have to do with people involved in public office in the District of Columbia

4. Basic knowledge of securities and the monetary system of America (meaning negotiable instruments)

5. How you think you have a “motor vehicle,” while that actually means you are in a commercial activity

6. THE BASIC DEFINITIONS OF WORDS

We believe that any “political” entity that is not talking about and sharing the above information, for the benefit of mankind, is not a friend of mankind and has particular and specific motives… often uncommunicated. ALL OF THOSE MOTIVES STEM FROM A SCARCITY MINDSET AND WE DO NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE SUCH BEHAVIOR.

We are entirely at peace in relation to 18 USC § 11, but we will not and cannot ignore or sugar-coat the dangers that our current political scene openly displays to us. We are at peace, but we also do not kiss snakes.

Why don’t you use a title of nobility, such as “esquire,” like many lawyers do?

The term “esquire” was explicitly prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The use of the title of “esquire,” is an antagonistic jab that lawyers that operate in the foreign corporate Federal zone (District of Columbia) use against the unincorporated independent nation States of the United States of America.

The term “esquire” harkens back to our original desire to disconnect from England. It is viewed, erroneously, as a term of honor… but in actuality it is a term of combat. An “esquire” is an agent of the Crown. To be honest, we do not look at that idea as something necessarily negative at this point in time, but we simply do not use the term based out of a respect and adherence to the Constitution.

After the 14th amendment created the secondary citizenship type: Federal citizen (US citizen), it allowed the foreign lawyers to use the title “esquire” in the new incorporated zone.

Using titles of nobility in the unincorporated 50 original States is illegal and thus not something we will involve ourselves in. “Esquire” is a mark of an officer of the court.

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

No. 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. We feel that almost all groups, both on the “right” as well as the “left,” have way too many unspoken political prejudices.

Many of these groups breed hate and, regardless of the intent of the group itself, there is the apparent product of the group. Those products are visible and we will not permit those products to be excused away. 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 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?

Oh yes, definitely. We intend on helping every single man or woman in the United States of America to operate pro se in the court systems. This is the true peaceful revolution that many have looked for and few have found. We will have a standing army of people who are excited to help the court systems enforce true law and order in our countries.

As a child you looked at the police, fire dept and other aspects of government through glory-washed eyes. You saw a superhero. You saw someone through the eyes of ideals that only the innocence of a child can muster.

Well, our desire to be superheroes has arrived. And we’re going to get rich in the process. Life really doesn’t get any better than this!

Even the BAR Cards are going to love this one. We’re the best marketing program they have ever seen because everyone that we are suing is going to run to them and this marketing doesn’t even cost them anything. So as much as we like to joke and jab at the BAR Cards, they love us.

There will be an entire free course that will be made and released on how to operate pro se. We will have that done as soon as possible and it will change the world. That course will be required learning for all pro se clients.

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.