The Supreme Court’s confidence game: The lie of the judicial supremacy

Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the 10 Penny Files, and welcome to the 10 Penny

Files. I'm your host, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny. The 10 Penny Files is a daily conversation

meant to inform and to educate not just to entertain. I come prepared and we let the

discussion unfold naturally with people worth hearing on topics worth exploring that

matters to your body, your freedom, or your future we talk about it here. Each day I talk

with authors, documentary filmmakers, and independent thinkers whose work challenges

mainstream messaging, we cover a wide range of topics from government politics and history,

the food, fitness, and travel, to astronomy, pets, and vaccines and health policy. We cover

conversations every single week with authors who write about faith and biblical principles.

The goal is to introduce you to topics you've never heard of before, or topics you always

wish that you wanted to explore, but you didn't know where to begin. Let our guests

show you the way with their books and their films. Join me here every day Monday through

Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern on the 10 Penny Files, as we hear from voices that have been ignored,

censored, or silenced, but truly have something important to say. Before we begin today's

episode, I just want to encourage everyone to join us, become a 10 Penny Prime member that

supports what we do and gives you a great additional amount of education with recorded

content, a monthly white paper, and a great ask some expert masterclass that we do every

month. And every month we think it's the best one until the next month. And then we

say that one's the best one. Well, this is part of your membership. We hope that you'll

join us. Go to primemembership.dr10pony.com to learn more and support our work and come

and join us. We have a lot of fun over there. So now let's get started. Today's conversation

I have two guests today. One is as Dave Howard, who is a minister, a state representative

and a state senator for 13 years from 2009 to 2022 for the great state of Montana. And

James Rigby, a retired Seattle attorney who practiced bankruptcy law and has 40 years

of courtroom experience to talk about their co-written book, The Supreme Court's Confidence

Game, the lie of the judicial review, the theft of power control from we, the people,

the book that pulls back a curtain on the courts have redefined their power and have done

all of this without voter or legislative approval. And the book really does tell you exactly

in common language. It's not just written in legal ease. It really does tell you what

the heck's going on. Gentlemen, what the heck is going on? Welcome to the 10.20 files.

Now let's all talk about that. What's going on with the judicial supremacy?

Well, I'll start like just today. Okay. I got a news thing that said that appeals court

sends a message to an anti-Trump judge by slapping down constitutionally suspect ruling.

Essentially, what this judge did was told President Trump, his ice people, what they could

have as far as weapons, they mandated whether they had to have tear gas, whether they had

body cams are requiring visible indentification for agents. Okay. And what the court did is

slapped it down. Well, how did this judge come up with this when he doesn't have this power?

And what we did is we wrote this book. Okay. The judicial supremacy, the Supreme Court's

confidence game, because they're running a confidence game. These judges are operating

way out of their territory. They don't have the responsibility. They don't have the authority.

And the problem is, is they keep still making decisions that are unlawful.

You know, I've wondered about this. You know, I think a lot of Americans have wondered about how

a unnamed judge in an unnamed jurisdiction. I remember one judge was in Illinois that did,

she was a judge over like traffic tickets. And yet because she said, Trump, you can't send people

to out of this country. You can't deport them. And suddenly, you know, he had to shut down

everything because of her. And in his first administration, it seemed to be nothing more than a

series of judges, legislative and making rulings from the bench. Let's get right to the part

of your book. And what is the confidence game? James couldn't want to tell us what that is.

Confidence game is a game that judges play. They gain our confidence and the way they gain that

is by putting on a black robe and sitting in a chair higher than where we in the courtroom sit or

stand. And then they give us a ruling. And the rulings that we're talking about here today,

there's no basis in the law for these rulings. But since we agree to perhaps too highly

respected judges, and since we agree that they are the courts, we accept their rulings. And this

is wrong, wrong, wrong. We should go back, we need to go back and look at a little bit of history

here and see what the legal history is because like frogs in a pot where the heat slowly comes up,

the American public has been boiled to the point where they don't really understand what power

judges have, what powers they do not have, and as Senator Howard said, we're seeing this play out

every week in the news. Some judges are in the president to do something. And the fact is they

have absolutely no legal authority to do that. And that's the truth right there. They have no legal

authority. Why is it that everybody believes them and that because they're a judge, they do have

the legal authority to do that. The constitution lays out our government and it lays out

three different branches. Everybody knows I think there's a Congress, there's a president,

and there's a judiciary. And the judges have the constitutional authority to make a ruling

on a case. If I get a traffic ticket and I can test it, I can go in and the judge will

decide whether or not I was speeding based on the evidence. The judge does not really have the

authority to tell the police that they can only put up their radar in certain places and they can

only use it on certain days and that they need to fly a flag of some sort from the police car when

they're doing that. Judges have no authority to make those kinds of rulings. And that's essentially

what we're seeing today in our country and not only nationally but locally as well. The judges

have are out of control, they jump the fence, they have no legal authority to do what they do. For

instance, the judges, Senator Howard just mentioned issued an injunction I think against the president.

The district courts have no legal authority. There's no law that says that the district courts can

enter an injunction against the government from doing something. If the government brings somebody

into court, the judges can say, well, that law is unconstitutional. So we're not going to enforce it.

They have the power to do that. They do not have the power to tell the government,

excuse me, how it can act and what tools they can bring to the riot. If the judges are just

totally and completely out of control, I think it would be helpful if we went back and started it

at the beginning and kind of laid this out for the listeners because what I'm saying

without the background that Senator Howard and I developed researching the book without that

background, what I'm saying sounds pretty silly. Because of course, the judge went and

got outside of his legal authority to issue a decision. We're seeing it every week and

if not every day. And answer your question when you said, how is this happening?

The reason it is happening is we've heard the old statement that knowledge is power.

Well, what does ignorance do? Ignorance is truly unlearned. We have a populace in America that is

ignorant of their own constitution. They don't know what's in it. They don't know what power a judge

has. And what happens is one like James has talked about, you go back and you start like I was,

I was a representative and I was seeing these judges do something nationally. Look at the most

egregious decision. Roe versus Wade, okay? Now, can judges make law? Well, how did Roe versus

Wade become law? It's through literally ignorance. And also to the people that have the power to

overrule this is our legislature and also in Washington DC, our Congress. Are they capable of

doing anything? I sometimes wonder. So when you're looking at this, you're looking at a process

where the judges are completely fabricating their authority. And that's true. They're fabricating.

You never looked at a con game has to lie to you. Are they can't get what they don't deserve?

They have to convince you that they have authorities that they don't have. That's what the judges

are doing today. It is nothing more than a con game. And it's because we are ignorant of the law

and our legislatures and our Congress doesn't have any backbone. And that's the bottom line right

there. Well, this concept of judicial supremacy went, when the hell of the start?

Well, it actually started as best we can tell. Actually, you can say it started in 1803.

When when Chief Justice Marshall made a decision, he made a decision on a case of

Mulberry versus Madison, then you go fast forward to like 1959. And you have a war in court

using that decision, literally fraudulently, to tell the people that because of that decision,

they now have this authority. Okay. Judicial supremacy. Now think about this. How is it that we

change our laws in our Constitution? In the Constitution can only be changed by an amendment to the

Constitution. Then how did the war in court create an amendment in their own mind and then tell

the people they have this authority? And then every judge after that claims it. That's kind of

what what is taking place. And James, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, I would. I mean,

if you go back and look at Mulberry versus Madison, what the court ruled there was that the

Margarita person before them bringing the case brought the case based on a law that Congress had

passed. The court said that while Congress that law violated the Constitution, so the court

could not rule a Margarie's favor because it did not have jurisdiction because the law

that Congress passed, the court said was unconstitutional. Period. That's the end of the case.

It's a very it's a fairly narrow ruling. It says the courts can ignore a law or should ignore a

law that Congress passes and more Congress passes a law. They have a duty to ensure that the law

is constitutional, but the judges are not bound by that. They need to investigate the law themselves.

And if they come to the decision that the law is unconstitutional, well, then it's not effective.

But you go to 1958 in Cooperbury, Aaron, what the court said was it said, well,

here's the here's the Constitutional Amendment. And this is how we interpret it. And since we the

court are the Supreme Law of the Land, that is the Supreme Court Law of the Land. Now that

court is saying that we are the Supreme Law of the Land is totally incorrect. The Constitution

says in this article six, the Constitution, US Constitution says that the Constitution is the

Supreme Law of the Land. It does not say the judges are the Supreme Law of the Land.

And in our investigation, I mean, that's Margarie's really being miscast, is being intentionally

misread and intentionally misrepresented. And that sounds kind of harsh. But in about

1970, about early 80s, excuse me, President Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Mead's wrote a paper.

And he wrote the paper on Aaron V. Cooper, rather Cooper V. Aaron. And what he said was that the

Cooper Court misread Margarie versus Madison, then it misrepresented Margarie versus Madison.

And in the Attorney General Edmund Mead's words, when the court said that they were the Supreme

Law of the Land, that the court was making war upon the people and upon the Constitution and upon

the Congress. And if you were to look at the law of treason, which is pretty harsh,

pretty harsh statute, penalties are anyhow. This is making war against the United States this

treason. And so that's what the court did in 1958. And for us, two unknown persons from

way out west of Montana to accuse the Supreme Court of treason, that sounds pretty outrageous,

and it might even be funny. But the fact of the matter is the Attorney General under President

Reagan, those are his words. And what's happened since 1958, the courts had a habit of saying

something outrageous in a case and then let it lie for a few years. And there's no blowback on

everybody ignores it. Nobody talks about it. But then in an opportune time, they will quote that

language and treat it like the foundation of the world. And it's not. The language is false.

It's totally 100% wrong. But that's where the courts are at. Now they claim their power of

judicial supremacy through this air and case. And they will decide back to Marbury versus Madison

and they say, well, it's been long respected and long followed. Well, that's a load of baloney

because it was on that point ignored until 1958. Well, 1958 probably before most people who

hear this broadcast was born. But the fact of the matter is current courts claim that there's a

supreme law of the land. That's wrong. It's insurrection is his treasonous. And those are very

harsh words that again can sound comical. But the fact is that they don't have that authority.

So Senator, do you want to talk here? Well, the key thing is is this. What they use is great words.

Okay. They use things like precedent. That's what James was talking about. Let me pull precedent

down to something that every one of us that is listening can understand. Let's say that you have

a preacher who quotes. He tells you that he's quoting the truth. That he's not quoting the Bible.

He's quoting another preacher. Okay. And then that preacher quotes another preacher. But they never

quote the Bible. In all of these decisions, Marbury versus Madison, the Warren court, all of those,

they never quoted the Constitution. Never once. They quote another case. That gives them the

ability to circumvent the Constitution because most people listening to it are not learned enough

to know what they're doing. They're lying to us. And they're doing it because they either have a

political agenda or some other kind of agenda. I mean, what could possibly be the agenda that's

judged, trying to tell the judge. I tried to tell the president of the United States how ice is

going to operate and even what equipment it's going to have. He doesn't, you see, he knows that's a

lie. If he doesn't know it's a lie, he shouldn't be on the bench. He's supposed to be an expert

of law. You see, that's why this is the worst con that you've ever seen in your life.

And for our Congress and our representatives in states, not to represent the people and stand

up for this is egregious. And we should unelect them. But I think the general public, I'm just listening

to this conversation through the eyes of just John Q public, somebody's got, you know, a college

degree in marketing or as an engineer or is maybe just graduated from high school and didn't even

go to college, that they're listening to this. And I think that most everyone thinks what the Supreme

Court says is the way it is. And that's why every time that you have a difficult case and it doesn't

go your way and you make an appeal, you appeal to the next court and the next court and the next court.

And when it ends and if it gets to the Supreme Court and they're willing to hear it, which I've

always thought was really a dicey thing that they get to pick and choose what they think is worthy

of hearing, but when they get to the point of hearing it, whatever their decision is, that's the

final say with no like, okay, this is the final to say, but how does that play up against the

Constitution? That nobody ever asks that. It's just that they make the decision and then that's

the law. And I think that that's the way we interpret that is my interpretation correct in the way

that I view it and at the bottom line is that interpretation wrong. In reality, how it's supposed to

really work is a Supreme Court judge is makes a decision on the law and the Congress has to change

and this and the president has to sign it. Otherwise, nothing's changed. You see what we don't

understand is that and this is why everyone should read this book is the fact is this, the Supreme

Court's like a a referee in a baseball game, but he doesn't have the authority to enforce his call.

So if you had the legislature in the outfield and the executive batting and it looked like it was a

foul ball and the judge who would be the referee says that's a foul ball, he has to get agreement

with the president and the legislature before it becomes a foul ball. He has no authority.

And you know, I mean, right from the beginning, what it is, what it was at Hamilton stated in

Federal 78, the Constitution gives the judicial branch neither force nor will, but merely judgment,

merely judgment. What is this judge doing? He's trying to pump out of one ice.

And you know, I mean, why in Trump has access to hundreds, if not thousands of attorneys?

He's got his personal attorneys, his business attorneys, he's got the Department of Justice and

their thousand of attorneys and he's got, you know, however many other ones he wants to hire,

either as the chief executive of the country or just because he's a billionaire and he could spend a

lot of money, I don't know, but he has access to lawyers everywhere. I mean, why is it that no other

lawyers recognize the fupa of the court's judicial supremacy and calls foul on that?

Well, let James answer that because it's fear.

It is. I suspect the president Trump understands the situation as we lay it out. I expect

that his team of lawyers or many of them understand the situation as we lay it out,

but it's political. Also, if he was to say, well, I'm not going to follow this decision,

then he's got a big political pushback on that and he's got a battle to fight, a separate political

battle to fight. And as kind of the softly boiled frogs that we all are, the reaction is going

to be, well, President Trump doesn't have that authority because during our lives, the presidents

have not pushed back against the court, but the courts become more and more aggressive

as time passes. So part of what's going on, I think, is an attempt to educate

why President Trump has been an attempt to educate the public. And from a practical standpoint,

you can't hear, you know, district court judges, there's hundreds of them in this country. You

cannot have a committee of 100 disjointed judges deciding how this country is going to be run. That's

from a practical matter. From a legal standpoint, there's no statute, there's no law, the says that

the US district court judges can enter an injunction against the administration. It simply

is a bad habit that got started and it's gotten worse and worse and worse.

I would, I would have you calling that a bad habit if it's not even legislatively

wrecked. You know, you say in your book, the Supreme Court's confidence game, which is

I look at your book, the Supreme Court's confidence game, that when judges from the bench,

when judges from the bench, rule from the bench, they violate six clauses of the Constitution with

no accountability. Why do I think federal and state legislatures been negligent in checking

and counter-balancing the courts? Senator Howard, you can answer that to begin with.

Well, the thing is, is this is here's the truth about serving in the legislature.

Most legislatures, unfortunately, run through this. If I vote for this, am I going to be able to

get reelected? Also, too, most legislatures, and I have to say me, I mean, I served for 14 years,

in the first three or four years that I served, I had no idea of what I'm telling you right now.

The, in Montana, they supposedly have a two-day law class, but they never taught us anything about

what we're talking about. They never told us that the Supreme Court is only can make judgment.

And if you look at some things that we showed you in the book, and people should read the book,

and show how just absolutely fraudulent Montana's Supreme Court is, and we're not alone,

we're, there's probably another 30 to 40 out of states of Supreme Court justices and Supreme

courts that are acting beyond their authority. But remember, I said, knowledge is power.

That's why we wrote this. We want the common man, the common person, the, the doctor, the, the,

carpenter, whatever you are, to be able to read something, and have it documented to the point

that you know what you're doing. That is going to change our country, because if I was president

Trump, and I can't speak for him, but if I was president Trump, the Supreme Court has already made

some of these decisions that they cannot make these, the lower courts can't make these decisions.

I would tell the public that this judge is out of line, he's unconstitutional, and I'm not going

to abide by that decision, and I'm referring it to the House of Representatives to have the man

are the judge impeached. That would put it on the forethought, okay? But as James said, if we don't

fight back, what they are right now, they're essentially won the battle.

Let's, I like to join in, to this point, and you know what, what can people do,

go through their minds, because so many people, and we all see a problem, well, that's out there,

that's a way from my house, there's nothing I can do about it, well, to a great degree, it's true,

but I think by people reading our book and understanding it, it's just clear as can be once you go

in and understand, and I should say, I did not know this when we started out, Senator Howard,

now we're working back and forth on a couple of things, and he kept bugging me to look more at this,

and it took him quite a bit of bugging to get me to look at it. It was three or four times,

he asked me to go look at Margaret versus Madison, and then I read it all on the phone,

yeah, it says what you think, it says what everybody thinks it says, and then maybe the fourth time

he called, he gave me a link to a law professor, Michael Stokes, Paulson, did a continuing legal

education seminar in about 2004, I think, somewhere in there, and law professor, he went through

Margaret versus Madison, and he really broke down the case legally and explained that everything

that's claimed to Margaret today is a myth, you know, we think we know something, so we don't go

look at it, and I will say that it takes, once you take a look at more professors, Paulson's

analysis of the case, and go back and read it, and it's like holy cow, how did I miss this?

I mean, it's as simple as it possibly could be from a legal standpoint, but we've all been

conned to think something, so when you read a case, me included, you have an expectation of what

it says, and you read that into it, and you kind of, when there's illogical steps, you just kind of

jump over one illogical step, because everybody knows that's how it is, and you just keep moving on,

so people need to be educated, they need to educate their representatives of the state and federal

level, the judges are wrong, and Congress can impeach judges, and why don't they just simply pass a

lot that says, just record judges, you don't have jurisdiction to issue injunctions against

the United States government, you know, and doesn't words or something, they could do that,

now the courts don't have that authority now, because there is no statute, none, no writings,

white Congress, signed by the president, no law, this says that the courts can enter

injunctions against the government, yet they do. The courts are there to rule on a case or

controversy, going back to about four questions back, the government takes the case of the Supreme

Court, and they get a ruling, four of the two parties, at least in that case, that's the end of it,

that's the final, final, final ruling, but it does not bind Congress, it does not bind the government,

it does not bind the voters. Well, we'll hold that not right there, both of you, Senator Howard,

and also James, because we got to take a really short break, for a little past our time here,

so we'll have to rush through this a little bit, because this information is so vital,

what's happening in our country right now, and people really need to get this book, the Supreme

Court's confidence game, and read it and study it, because it's really about our lives,

so we're going to take a really quick break here, to hear from our sponsors of americaatloud.news,

you can listen to the 10 penny files daily, Monday through Friday, Easter time on iHeartRadio

and americaatloud.news, if you've missed any of these great conversations, you can find them

on Spotify, Pandora, Apple iTunes, and on my platforms, drtempity.com and drtempity.substack.com,

we'll be right back, with more from Senator Dave Howard and James Regby to talk about their

really important, co-written book, the Supreme Court's confidence game, the lie of judicial supremacy,

the theft of power and control from we, the people, it's a tight week right there.

There are an awful lot of people that are affiliates for michael and del, because we all

really appreciate what he does for this country, we appreciate the hard work that he does,

and we appreciate his products. He has more than 200 products in his store, everything from pillow

cases and comfortors to doggie beds. So my pillow is a great place to shop for just about

anything that you want, and if you use our affiliate code drt, that helps us, that can benefit us,

that helps michael and del, and you'll get a great product for anybody that you're shopping for.

ZioLite is a detox spray, we work specifically with a company called Touchstone Essentials,

they are an incredible company, we've been working with them now for several years,

and ZioLite is a mineral that goes through your body like a one-way basket, it will clean out

heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, aluminum, cadmium, and it hooks onto those metals from a

one-way perspective. So once it's bound, it goes out through your urine or your stools,

and doesn't get re-deposited in other places. Go to dr10penny.com forward slash detox to get your

first bottle of ZioLite spray for $50 off. We'll get ready, my fellow Americans, July 2nd,

3rd, and 4th, AmericaOut Loud.News in partnership with Clear and the Wellness Company invites you

to Nashville, Tennessee for a red, white, and blue celebration you'll never forget.

We're saluted 250 years of America and 10 incredible years of AmericaOut Loud.News,

stand in strong, for truth, justice, and the nation we all love. Three days of high-impact speakers,

powerhouse voices delivering dynamic, unforgettable insights that will fire up your patriots spirit.

And on July 4th, embrace yourself because you'll experience America's most explosive fireworks

show, lighten up downtown Nashville and pure patriotic glory. You can reserve your spot with

early bird pricing right now at americaout Loud.News, forward slash Nashville. It's AmericaOut Loud

News 2510, Nashville, even. Virus protection and immune boosting just got easier. Enter the daily

VStack using cellular absorption technology we put vitamins A, C, D, Zinc, and Quirceton together

with a multi-mineral complex for complete protection. The daily VStack is basically an oral IV of

six products all in one at an affordable price. Go to chemicalfreebody.com, forward slash out loud,

get the daily VStack, protect yourself, boost your immune system, and save 20% on your first order.

I've got two questions for you. Have you been filling off since COVID? Are you struggling with

lingering symptoms? You're not alone. As Dr. Peter McCalla says, an ounce of prevention is worth

a pound of cure, introducing the wellness company's spike detox trio. This powerful supplement

combines nano-kines, bromelene, and turmeric to support your immune system and find off harmful

spike proteins. Nano-kines improve circulation will bromelene boost antiviral defenses and turmeric

reduces inflammation. It's not just another supplement. It's a scientifically back solution to

help you bounce back from COVID. Imagine waking up filled with energy, filling clear-headed

and vibrant again. It's possible with spike detox trio. Re-claim your health now by visiting

TWC.held slash out loud and use promo code out loud for 20% off your first order right now.

Have you been looking for a healthy snack from the go? Well, not all energy bars

are soft and sugary. Bear bars. Sir, a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural

ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based. Organic gluten-free contain six grams of protein and

are low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit

and are held together with serps or sweeteners. To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out loud.

We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth and washing our nose.

Well, wait, we wash our nose. Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses and pollen

enter the body is through the nose. So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day.

That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses and irritants to get into your nose and make

you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear. XLEAR.

Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many

nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose.

Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway and ensures your body's natural

defenses are strong. Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's XLEAR.com.

Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your

family today. The smartest food on the planet doesn't come from a lab or in a package. It grows

in a class jar. I'm Doug Evans, author of the National Best Seller, The Sprout Book. Sprouts

deliver up to 100 times the antioxidants of mature vegetables. They grow in just three to five days

for under a dollar serving. Get your Sprouting Kit at thesproutingcompany.com slash out loud. Use

the code out loud for an exclusive offer. Grow smarter. Welcome back everyone. Senator,

let me just tell you a little bit more about today's guest because they have the power to write

this and they know where they're coming from. Senator Dave Howard is returning guests to our show.

He holds a master's degree in public management from DePaul University and a bachelor's degree

of criminology from California State University Los Angeles. He's a minister and founder of Foxhole

Ministries, the creator of a national radio program, The Voice of Truths Wake Up Call,

which is broadcast daily in at least 25 states nationwide. Dave is also a US Army veteran,

Vietnam veteran, and a former FBI agent. He's been the rest of the show reading all of his

long list of credentials and state Senator for 13 years, 14 years from 2009 to 2022

in the great state of Montana. James Rickby is a retired attorney who practice bankruptcy law

in Seattle, Washington for 40 and has 40 years of courtroom experience from 1989 to 2020. His

family has made Montana their home since 2014. Gentlemen, welcome back to the show. I wish we had

a couple of hours to dig into the very much details of this book because it's written to the

common person. But it's foreign to our brains. It's foreign to everyone we learned in high school

and college and learned on the streets of about how this kind of acts. We hear on the news, you know,

a judge has sanctioned the president and said he cannot do this and he cannot do this. But yeah,

he can. Can the executive France, can the US and the US president rule by executive orders kind

of like how he's been doing? Yes, he can. The thing is, is that I want to make a comment about our

book just really quick. One of the things that made James and I really work out and be able to

write this book was that I came from an investigative standpoint. He came from his attorney background.

Okay, so what happened is is that when he was talking about Mulberry versus Madison,

I was saying, okay, they say they got judicial supremacy. So I take the decision of Mulberry.

Okay, are they Supreme Court justice and I'm starting to go through it. Oh, there's nothing there

and there's nothing there. There's nothing there. There's nothing there. And I go all the way

down to the last part of the Mulberry decision decision and actually he supports the Constitution

and the authorities in the Constitution. He even says that any law that is does not that is

repugnant to the Constitution is not law. Well, what the court did in 58, the Warren court,

was repugnant. And so I kept going to James and saying, wait a minute, this is what it says.

It doesn't say this and it doesn't say and James kept looking at it again. And then I found that

the attorney that did the program on Mulberry versus Madison and I sent it to James,

he nailed it. The whole idea of Mulberry versus Madison is a fraud.

You know, I do. You channeled about this book on my previous show and my other platform

this week with Dr. T. And I believe James, you told me something that has

lived wrong in my ears for a couple of years since you've been on the show that most law

students and most practicing lawyers have never read the Constitution.

Is that true? Let's say they don't study the Constitution. Most of them have not studied the

Constitution. In law school, you're learning to be a lawyer. So you read cases and you read

cases about the Constitution. And for instance, you could read Roe v. Wade and say, wow,

yeah, well, I don't understand it, but they're smarter than me. They've got to read the black

robes on, but they must know the right answers. And so that's what they did. The

law school does not give students a copy of the no class or very few. You have a copy of the

Constitution and say, okay, and read this. And here's the writings that occurred at the time

the Constitution was written such as the Federalist Papers. There's a massive amount of writings

that were generated, particularly before, during and after the Constitution was adopted,

saying what it says, explaining what it says. Law students don't really care about that because

they want to go out and practice law. And by the way, they don't really want, generally,

want to go out and challenge the Constitution. They want to know how to handle a car wreck or

a medical malpractice claim or a traffic tip. And so there's really no study of the Constitution

as such. And it's rather amazing because it does not give the law students don't have the

right frame of mind when they come out of law school to then look at cases as are they

constitutional? Well, there's no money in chasing that question for lawyers. And that really is

what you're there for is for the small case and for to try to make a dollar like everybody else is

trying to do. Well, you know, having retired, I have the benefit of spending my time where it's

interesting and Senator Howard is nothing if he's not interesting and have interesting questions.

He called me and we worked on this. And, you know, I just went through this like I would

at case, somebody comes into my office and here's the facts. Here's what's going on. I mean,

on occasion, I would say, well, I don't know anything about the law in that area, but I'll go look at

and that's what I did as a generalist looking at the Constitution and looking at these cases. These

cases do not jive with the Constitution. And we've got proof of that from the Dodd's case of what

four years ago, the Dodd's case says the Supreme Court in Roby Wade was blown up. I mean,

it's that whole Roby Wade thing was a con on the American people. It was a confidence game

for an on the American people. That case was accepted because the American people respected

the Supreme Court justices. In fact, they've been impeached for issuing that decision because

no basis in the end of the Supreme Court four years ago said there's no basis in the Constitution

for abortion. There's a total fabrication of somebody's imagination. And look at the

consequence, 16 million people, young, unborn babies are murdered because we won't stand up

to nine justices that are fabricating the law. You know, let's take another recent case and

apply your concept here that you talk about in a Supreme Court's confidence game, the most recent

ruling against President Trump and tariffs for this court to say it's unconstitutional. You

can't do that. And then basically in Trump's press conference, he said, I think I can and I'm

going to do it. And was he right or was he wrong? Well, he was right because of the fact that he's

using other laws that is already on the books. And what's interesting is that very thing that

the Supreme Court looked at, I think it was like during Nixon's time or something, the Supreme

Court had looked at it and was totally constitutional. Okay. So he's using other laws to get what he

needs to get done. Okay. But there's so much politics played in this process. And that's why

the judges should just, you know, it's like, you know, James was saying, in the state of Montana

right now, for an attorney to go through school, they do not take one class on the constitution.

Of course, James, when I go to when you go to medical school, take a course in anatomy, physiology,

biochemistry, et cetera. And law school, isn't there a constitutional law of course that you

have to take? Yeah. It's the case law of the constitution in the constitutional law class

that I took a few years ago. And it's probably the same darn textbook today. I know it's not the case.

But they're studying the cases that the court has issued. And they're not studying really what's

the foundation for the case? Where does it go? What is the basis of it? Are they going to look at

a phrase in the constitution? But go back and read what the writers of the constitution meant

with that phrase. Things have been changed. I mean, here, like I say, we're slightly boiled as a

society. And we're frogs that have been boiled. We've been pasteurized. We take what the court says

at face value. And we don't really go back and think clearly about it. But that's really

beyond the scope of 99.99% of the lawyers to take those constitutional issues. So, you know,

I could turn the question back on you a little bit mischievously. I mean, how much time do doctors

and medical schools spend studying vaccines? Excuse me. How about nutrition?

Was that none? None. Well, but they read their emails to say, this vaccine will take care of

this problem. You know, and we got people all the way across the country get the vaccine. So,

it's a little bit of the same thing. You know, people are too used to say, well, the doctor knows,

the lawyer knows, you must stop and think for yourself. You know, you're responsible for

yourself and what you do. And you need to understand what's going on. And if you want to

understand what's going on with the laws in this country, you need to go back and look at the

constitution and read about it and think about it. And then when you local congressman or legislature

has a local get together with the voters, you can ask them, you know, what are they doing? Why

isn't congress passed a law saying these judges can't do this? Of course, there's no law authorizing

them too, but it would be a big roadblock for the judges if congress were to do that. And I mean,

I think there's been a political game played over the years where the congress doesn't want to do

something that tossed the ball on the courts court. And the court made like a abortion that was

legal in New York state at the time of Roe v. Wade 1973. And maybe one or two other states,

but not at all, across the country, it would have been shot down if the legislature would have dealt

with that directly or even more recently, a homosexual quote unquote marriage with some oxymoron.

But, you know, that was imposed by the courts. I mean, yeah, you know, I think California voted

against it and the Supreme Court threw it out in a few years later, maybe they voted for Washington

state, my home ground probably voted for and I think. But that was basically imposed by the

courts. He has this political game where he gives some issues, it's too hot, the legislature

throws the ball on the court of the courts and the court branch elected. So they go ahead and

make a ruling, the legislature wants and the legislature can say, well, I'm sorry, there's nothing

I can do about it. That was the court's belonging. But the legislature can impeach those judges for

making unconstitutional decisions. They didn't want to for so long that we've forgotten we have

that authority. If I bring up to a Montana state legislator that, but you're gross, I say you're

grossing about these clearly unconstitutional decisions, but the Montana Supreme Court has making

and yet you won't vote to impeach them. Oh, we can impeach them for that. Well, yeah, you can.

If a judge is so incompetent, he doesn't know what the Constitution says is out, you know,

you can get tossed out, you can be impeached. We're out of the habit. I mean, before I want to use

the word habit in terms of judges are in the habit of issuing injunctions, I mean, in a way that's

true, it trivializes it. It makes it seem like, well, it's not so important, but by jump up and

down, say, well, that's treason, and they should know it. That's maybe seems a bit on the harsh side.

But everybody needs to kind of to love, figure out what's going on, do some research. I mean,

you must be telling your listeners when it comes to vaccines that you really need to research

what it is you're contemplating, taking and what the effect might. Senator.

Yeah. Well, the thing is, is that's why we wrote this book. Okay. So it is the real reason.

It's because I came into this as a legislature, ignorant about my own Constitution,

and it by the Montana Constitution. And then I was watching these judges do things. Okay. Like

friends, that's, I'll tell you a real short story. I was able to pass in the legislature to get

on the ballot that in Montana, you Montana could not give illegal aliens benefits.

Our own Supreme Court threw it out because in the law, it said that it made the term illegal aliens.

Our court was so egregious that it said nowhere in law is the term illegal alien. They must have

forgotten to read Title 18. That's the criminal code. It's all through it. Okay. That's how

egregious they are. Okay. They're controlling this state. And if you want to know how they're doing

it, then you want to want to get this and you want to take a look at it and you want to read it.

And you can actually study it. I wish that this would get in some classrooms. I'll tell you what,

our legislators couldn't ignore the law and stop doing their job if we knew what they were supposed

to be doing. That's the key. Okay. I got stuck in the top of the third time here today. I want to

hear from both of you about what we can do to get this information into the appropriate hands

to do something about it. Yeah. We've counted the name of the book, but the only place you can get

it is on Amazon. I'll say, Amazon, Amazon, Amazon. That's where you go and get it. It's $15. That's

about three cups of coffee for the book. And once you've got it, and I would interject, it's worth

buying. If you know the reason is we incorporate one chapter is a reprint of attorney general Ed

Namize's article on Cooper V. Aaron. So if anybody thinks that maybe I'm slightly exaggerating what

he said, he uses the word war. I use the word treason. That's a, they're analogous in that context.

But he says what we've been saying. You need to get the book. We need to read it. You need to,

you need to hold your legislators' feet to the fire. Because the, the legislators are, you know,

dollars to balance very few of them understand the situation, but they need to understand it and

then they need to act on it. When judges are acting outside of the fence, they need to be impeached.

It's not a big personal thing. It's just you rule against the Constitution. You need to go find

a new line of work. And I think that the, I said it earlier, knowledge is power. This gives us

knowledge. Okay. So we can talk consciously. We know what kind of fraud they're committing. And then

just think about it. We know how good word of mouth goes. And it goes really well. And then you get

your legislature one of these books and you send it to it. And you say you want comments on it.

And then you get is we're involved in the political and you have central committees. You have all

that type of stuff. You start speaking about it and telling how big of a problem is. And then you can

use like today was that information about that judge that it got overruled because he was

unconstitutional. You can pick one of these up almost every other day. Okay. This is happening. Okay.

And, and really they're out of control. And our Supreme Court isn't doing it. Our Congress can do

it. But it has to be of the will to do it. Well, that's the bottom line. The will to do it.

And I just, you made a comment in passing, Dave, that, you know, does our legislature do anything?

And I think that we, the people would generally say no. And so I think that getting a copy of

this book is really, really important. In fact, for $15, she ought to buy five copies of this book

so that you can stand it out to your local legislators and people that you know, I mean,

all of us have lawyers that are friends, you know, district activists and are doing different

things. We can send a copy to them and say, listen, now spend three hours reading this book because

it reads fast and is written really very well. And it's written to the non-lawyer mind so that you

and really comprehend it and get it into your mind. The subtitle here, the theft of power

and control from where the people kind of says it all. And so we read all of these books available

at our store. It's bookstore.dr10bitty.com. So people can go there. So it's an easy place to find it.

If you forgot the name, you could go into the store and you can look around, you could find it

right there because for those that are watching, you've seen the type, the cover of the book.

And in fact, the back cover says a legislators guide to reestablishing our constitution,

which should almost be on the front cover because it's so good.

Thank both of you here for being here. Thank you for taking the time to write this. And thank you

for even more for being on our show today and taking the time to explain it. So I want to,

and I want to thank all of our listeners who are here that I know you will go get a copy of this

book and send it to your legislature. And you sit down and read it too because everybody's got a

school board. They got a city council. They got all sorts of things. You vote for local judges.

You need to know how to hold their feet to the buyer. So with that, I'm going to close with one of

my favorite verses from the Bible. I close all of my podcasts with whether it's live or pre-recorded,

which is Romans 1212, rejoice and hope be patient in trouble and be persistent in prayer.

Lean into God. He will never let you down. Even though his timeline may not be your timeline,

he's always there with you. So I will see you every year tomorrow or the next time on the 10

penny files. Bye everybody and God bless.