Agenda 31 Episode 137 - Feb 19, 2023

February 19, 2023 – Corey and Todd are joined by Agenda31 producer Tim from Illinois.

Corey received a letter from the DMV since he filed his Writ of Mandamus (See Episode 136) for a hearing with the DMV and it was accepted by the state superior court. Todd plays some footage of Mel K speaking at the January 2023 ReAwaken America tour in Nashville, TN as well as a clip from a recent No Agenda Podcast where John C. Dvorak opines about the California DMV, licensing and Adam Curry asks who is issuing licenses from the federal government for NGO’s to be exempt from foreign sanctions. Corey tells the tale of meeting John C. Dvorak at the No Agenda meetup in 2016 in Hollywood where cops were triggered by his comments and JCD gave him a couple challenge coins. See A31-113 Episode for more.

Corey explains that the Framers set up the United States Constitution to be stronger when there is an adversarial struggle about its content and that due to the arguments and adversarial nature of our system of laws, the republic is stronger. In that spirit, Tim takes Corey to task on overall strategy, and interpretations of the 14th Amendment as it applies to United States and state citizens, riffing off of Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the 2010 McDonald v Chicago 2nd Amendment SCOTUS ruling. Tim asserts that Thomas does not see a difference between United States citizens identified in the 14th Amendment and state citizens identified in Article IV Section 2 Clause 1. That Thomas sees the governments over the years have strayed from the core principals seeing the Constitution as a living and fluid document, which Thomas disagrees with. Corey asserts that the federal government can technically violate a US citizens’ rights because the 14th Amendment only protects federal citizens from one of the several states violating their rights. Todd asserts that because all the DMV’s (and courts for that matter) have a Federal Tax ID number and all are subsidiaries of the Federal Government and not agencies of the several states. And that when we consent to waiving rights by getting a driver’s license we are no longer a state citizen, we are federal US Citizen, governed by the “DC Swamp” as Mel K called it.

Corey and Tim seem to strike an accord around the application of the definition of United States in that while Corey as a 4-2-1 California state citizen (via California Code, Government Code – GOV § 241) is also a citizen of the United States, those are the states-united, not the federal government United States, which as CA Commercial Code 9307h states, exists in the District of Columbia . . . which is where the Federal Government can be as tyrannical to its subjects as it wishes. Everyone declares they are a United States citizen when they get a driver’s license… it’s a requirement… and Corey and Todd are asserting that this is one major instance when you consented your rights away because the DMV (with a federal tax id) is referring to a citizen of the federal government, not the nation or the states-united, which is what Corey is averring he is under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

Mel K at the ReAwaken America Tour in Nashville, Tennessee January 2023. Clip played on the Agenda31 Episode 137 begins at the 12 minute mark. The entire speech is well worth watching, it’s outstanding.

Uncle Scam Cartoon at the River Cities’ Reader

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/who-knew-about-these-firsts-issue-1006

A31-137-SCOTUS-McDonald-v.-City-of-Chicago-SCOTUS-Publication-2010

Links sourced in the episode:

CA Commercial Code 9307h

(h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

California Code, Government Code – GOV § 241

The citizens of the state are:

(a) All persons born in the state and residing within it, except the children of foreign public ministers and consuls.

(b) All persons born out of the state who are citizens of the United States and residing within the state.

Prior Supreme Court Cases Sourced

> Van Valkenburg v Brown 1872

Texas v White 1868
>> With Notes

> McDonald-v.-City-of-Chicago 2010