In the episode 'Show with Lusty 6/2/26', hosts Lusty and Joe embark on a candid and often humorous journey to dissect, debunk, and refine several long-standing concepts within the "sovereignty movement." Characterizing their discussion as an effort to "make fun of all of the stupid that is going on" and critically re-evaluate their own past positions, the hosts focus on evolving legal understanding, procedural accuracy, and discarding ineffective strategies. Their analysis centers on understanding the true nature of legal identity and the mechanisms for asserting one's rights within the existing system.
Revocation of Election (ROE) Clarification 🛡️
The hosts initiate their critical analysis by addressing the concept of Revocation of Election (ROE), a practice previously adopted by thousands, including themselves. They acknowledge that while the ROE "worked for so many people," its underlying premise, derived from Title 26 of the tax code, fundamentally relates to spousal filing status or a non-resident alien's election to be treated as a resident. It was a misnomer for the intended purpose of disclaiming federal jurisdiction over an individual.
The core misconception, as Lusty and Joe now emphasize, is the belief that the "US citizen" entity (the "sole proprietorship" linked to a Social Security Number, SSN) can "elect to be foreign." They assert that the SSN inherently establishes a permanent "District of Columbia" nexus, meaning the associated "person" is perpetually considered domestic under 4 USC 72 and 26 USC 7701(A)(39). There is no "election" to revoke regarding this inherent domestic status.
Instead, the effectiveness observed in past ROE attempts likely stemmed from inadvertently notifying the IRS of a "change of foreign status" through a mechanism they "just accept" due to the system's inherent complexity and a general lack of understanding among its personnel. The refined strategy revolves around the individual operating as an indemnified agent for the perpetual domestic entity (the sole proprietorship). This approach involves:
- Assumed Name Certificate: Obtaining a state-recognized "Assumed Name Certificate," "Trade Name," or "DBA" (Doing Business As). This document formally designates the all-caps name (e.g., "JOHN DOE") as a business entity, allowing the individual to operate it in commerce. This provides a legitimate basis for charging fees for services and suing for non-payment, thus backing fee schedules.
- Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA): Establishing a DPOA between the individual (the agent) and the sole proprietorship (the principal). Joe highlights that his DPOA explicitly incorporates state statutes (e.g., New Jersey's Title 46, Uniform Power of Attorney) to ensure the agent is indemnified from liability for actions taken in "good faith" and "within the scope of authority" for the principal. This indemnification, extending to negotiable instruments (UCC 3-402, 3-104), ensures the agent is not personally liable when acting on behalf of the represented person.
- Notification to Agencies: Submitting these documents (Assumed Name, DPOA) to the IRS (e.g., alongside a 1040 NR form to claim foreign agency) and courts, clearly stating the individual is an agent operating on behalf of the domestic US person, not to be confused with it. Joe shares anecdotes where this notification has led to court cases being dismissed or de-escalated.
Ultimately, this redefined process is not a "revocation of election" but rather a "statement of foreign agency," establishing the individual as a distinct, indemnified, non-liable party managing the domestic US entity. Future applications of this framework might include using a trademark registered under the assumed name to challenge and correct credit report inaccuracies, leveraging the "confusion" caused in the commercial sphere to establish damages, similar to Joey Kimbro's success against credit bureaus.
Challenging Jurisdiction 👨‍⚖️
The discussion moves to the perilous notion of "understanding" in court and the genuine methods for challenging jurisdiction. The hosts vehemently debunk the common misconception that answering "yes" to "Do you understand?" in court somehow grants jurisdiction to the judge or implies "standing under" authority. They deride this as baseless "dumb" rhetoric, lacking any legal precedent in dockets or orders.
The actual challenge to jurisdiction, they explain, is far more nuanced and rare. Simply stating "I challenge jurisdiction" is ineffective if the individual has not explicitly disclaimed their nexus to the 14th Amendment. If one is presumed to be a 14th Amendment "person" (a US citizen), challenging jurisdiction without addressing this underlying connection is legally meaningless and easily ignored by courts.
Genuine jurisdictional challenges, according to Lusty, are limited to a few specific scenarios:
- Total Foreign Status: Asserting one is entirely foreign-born, not a resident, perhaps even "kidnapped" into the jurisdiction, and therefore outside its purview.
- Absence of 14th Amendment Nexus: Declaring oneself a "white citizen of a state" (e.g., California) and demonstrating that one has never established, nor can establish, a nexus to the 14th Amendment. This position, rooted in cases like Bradwell v. State and Mr. Miller, implies that one cannot claim rights under the 14th Amendment and therefore owes no correlative duties to it.
- Indian Tribal Status: A complex avenue depending on federal recognition and location of the tribe within states or US territories.
Joe recounts a compelling anecdote of genuinely challenging jurisdiction. Years ago, he submitted an affidavit asserting he was not under the 14th Amendment. When the judge denied his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and he began reading the affidavit aloud, the judge became visibly agitated, yelling, "STOP, STOP, STOP. DON'T YOU DARE DON'T READ THAT. Don't read that to the record!" This incident, Joe emphasizes, demonstrated that his declaration of non-nexus was a valid jurisdictional challenge, prompting a strong judicial reaction. Although initially found guilty, his subsequent appeal, where he dismantled the opposing counsel's "sovereign citizen" argument by demanding a legal definition, ultimately resulted in no fines, with the appeal judge acknowledging the procedural errors of the lower court. This experience underscores that effective jurisdictional challenge is about specific legal declarations, not "magic words," and often requires persistence through the appeals process.
Legal Terminology & Identity 🛂
The podcast then shifts to the comparative importance of legal terminology and identity, particularly the "lawful vs. legal" debate and the function of passports.
The hosts dismiss the protracted arguments over "lawful vs. legal" as largely unproductive and a distraction. While acknowledging that terms like "lawful money" (historically gold or silver coin, as per a repealed definition in 12 USC 152) and "legal tender" exist, they argue that expending energy on this distinction yields minimal practical benefit. Lusty coins the term "altered importance" to describe how some debates, while technically factual, divert focus from far more impactful issues.
Instead, they champion the critical distinction between state citizenship and federal citizenship. Focusing on this, they contend, is like "digging inside of a gold mine... filled with gold," as it unearths foundational principles of governance. The original design of the U.S. government, they explain, envisioned "white citizens of the states" electing representatives who would remain state citizens (not downgraded to US citizens) while serving in Congress, representing their home state's interests internationally. The 14th Amendment, they argue, "fucked it all up," by creating the US citizen category and thereby obscuring this original structure. They encourage listeners to read their state constitutions, which often differentiate between "the people" (who reserve rights) and "persons" (who have duties), asserting that identifying as "one of the people" in court can significantly disrupt proceedings.
Regarding passports, the hosts clarify their true function. Passports are issued to "US citizens and non-citizen nationals." They unequivocally state that the federal government defines "non-citizen national" almost exclusively as American Samoans (and possibly residents of Swain's Island or Guam), not state citizens. While a theoretical argument could be made for state citizens fitting the raw definition of a "non-citizen national," practically, the government does not recognize this, rendering it a "theoretical conversation" with no real-world application for their purposes. Thus, a passport is primarily an "optional identification badge for the Sole Proprietorship" entity. Joe explains that by submitting an assumed name certificate with a passport application, one can receive internal "08 endorsements" (though not visible on the passport itself) that signify the individual is operating as an agent for the assumed name. This positions the passport as an identification document for the principal entity, not the indemnified agent.
Cestui Que Vie (CSKV) & The Nature of 'Cash' đź’°
The podcast culminates with a forceful debunking of the Cestui Que Vie (CSKV) secret trust account concept and a re-evaluation of the nature of 'cash.' The hosts dismiss the widespread belief in a secret CSKV trust account that individuals can "access" to discharge debts. Both Lusty and Joe admit to extensively trying various methods in the past, including Chris Hower's 1099A and 1040V filings, without any consistent success. While isolated, "super finicky" instances of "Harvey Dent" methods (using SSNs as account numbers with Federal Reserve routing numbers) randomly worked for some (e.g., getting free cars), these were exceedingly rare and often reversed.
They cite a cautionary tale of a couple who went to federal prison after attempting to access substantial funds (e.g., "80 million") from such alleged trusts. The critical error, the hosts note after reviewing their documentation, was not the amount, but their profound lack of understanding regarding negotiable instruments and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). There was no mention of "issuer," "negotiation," or proper fund transfer procedures (UCC 4A, UCC 3-series), indicating they were operating without a sound legal basis.
The fundamental flaw in chasing the CSKV trust, the hosts argue, is a deep misunderstanding of what "cash" truly is and the underlying desire for "money." Lusty provocatively asserts that "bills are cash." Any bill received in the mail—be it a parking ticket, a utility bill, or rent—represents a dischargeable obligation, and therefore, in this context, is effectively "cash." People are "already drowning in cash" without realizing it, as their lives are filled with these obligations.
The pursuit of a secret account to discharge obligations, they conclude, is misguided because the mechanism for discharge already exists:
- The desire to "access the trust account" is, at its core, a wish for instant discharge of debt.
- Credit cards, if properly performed and understood, should function as self-discharging instruments. The system's failure to process them this way is a "billing error." The true challenge lies not in finding a mythical trust, but in correcting this systemic "billing error" and enforcing the proper performance of existing financial instruments. They highlight the absurdity of trying to access a secret, non-existent, or non-personally-owned trust account when individuals are already surrounded by the very "cash" (dischargeable obligations) they seek.
The hosts wrap up by expressing profound satisfaction with the maturing and evolving understanding within the "sovereignty movement." They reflect on their own past propagation of inaccurate information, such as "state national" and the original ROE concepts, acknowledging these were part of their journey and perhaps necessary catalysts for the movement's growth. Their overall message is one of self-correction, urging listeners to move beyond "goofy" and "absurd" ideas towards meticulous research, procedural precision, and a focus on truly impactful legal distinctions like state versus federal citizenship. They honor figures like Richard McDonald as pioneers who "had any of this right" from the outset, embodying the confident, legally sound approach they now advocate. The movement, they conclude, is "growing up," shedding its past inaccuracies for a more coherent and effective engagement with the legal system.