Going Over a 42 USC 1983 Case Made by a BAR Card with Vem Miller (Part 2 of 2)

The video features an intricate discussion between Vem Miller and Brandon, primarily centered on Miller's ongoing 42 USC 1983 civil rights and defamation lawsuit. The conversation expands significantly to encompass broader economic theories, the critique of existing monetary systems, the introduction of a new cryptocurrency called Gaju, detailed legal strategies and interpretations of US code, and philosophical reflections on historical legal figures and societal change.

Economic and Crypto Discussion:

• Diminishing Value of Labor and Rise of Corporatism: The speakers assert that over the last three decades, the value of labor has significantly diminished, while the cost of real assets such as land and homes has become prohibitive for younger generations. This economic shift is attributed to governments worldwide printing money 💸 in response to crises like the 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19. This practice, described as "corporatism" rather than "capitalism," effectively sells off the future earnings of the populace, benefiting those with existing real assets whose values inflate with the increased money supply, leaving the majority disenfranchised.
• Bitcoin's Purpose and Limitations: Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto as a direct response to this centralized control over currency, aiming for a decentralized digital medium that could not be devalued by government fiat. Its objective was to facilitate fair, electronic peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. However, Bitcoin proved impractical for everyday use due to slow transaction processing times (minutes to hours) and high fees that could exceed the cost of small purchases ⏳. By 2016, it largely ceased to be considered a currency, instead becoming primarily a "store of value."
• Introduction of the Gaju Maru Blockchain and Gaju Currency: Recognizing Bitcoin's limitations for daily transactions, the speakers introduce the Gaju Maru blockchain and its native Gaju currency, designed specifically for everyday utility. Gaju is presented as "real money" capable of facilitating common purchases like groceries or haircuts, and its associated Gaju market aims to enable buying and selling of goods and services at a fraction of the cost of traditional platforms like eBay 🛒.
• Accessible Gaju Mining for Decentralization: Unlike Bitcoin, Gaju mining does not demand specialized, energy-intensive equipment. Instead, it can be performed on ordinary home computers 💻 during its initial "protected rollout" phase. The project aims to engage millions of individuals in mining, with public mining scheduled to commence at the end of 2026. This extensive participation is intended to foster immense combined computing capacity, ensuring the Gaju Maru remains highly decentralized and operates as an "economy for the people by the people."
• Opportunity for Economic Emancipation: The initiative is presented as a movement to restore human dignity and sovereignty, offering individuals the unprecedented opportunity to directly benefit from their work and ideas without taxation by intermediaries. Mining packages are available via gajumining.com, providing early access to Gaju rewards. This early participation is likened to mining Bitcoin in its nascent stages, promising significant benefits to early adopters and positioning them as leaders in a movement towards economic emancipation ✨. The project consciously avoided venture funding to preserve its non-corporatist ethos, promoting a "win-win-win" model of capitalism.

Vem Miller's 42 USC 1983 Case & Legal Strategy:

• Nature of the Lawsuit: Vem Miller has filed a defamation and civil rights lawsuit against a sheriff and county officials following false accusations that he was an assassin ⚖️. Miller maintains these allegations were baseless, with details of the unfolding case and a related documentary available on americas.com and vmmiller.com.
• Amended Complaint and Core Claims: Miller's amended complaint details several key allegations, including:
  • First Amendment Violation: His right to assembly was impeded by the false accusations and subsequent arrest.
  • Municipal Liability and Failure to Train/Intervene: The sheriff's department is accused of inadequate training, leading to reckless and unsubstantiated accusations, and a failure to intervene to prevent the widespread dissemination of these false claims through an international press conference involving hundreds of media outlets.
  • Defamation: Specific counts for slander and libel have been filed.
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
• Debate on Legal Strategy: Purity of Truth vs. Strategic Wins: Brandon, adopting a "purist" stance, advocates for operating strictly on fact and law, even if it leads to repeated losses, believing eventual truth will prevail. He critiques the use of bar-carded attorneys, explaining that the legal definition of a "client" as a "ward of the court" (an "infant and person of unsound mind") and "representation" as a lawyer "impersonating" the client, effectively diminishes the client's standing. While Miller acknowledges his attorney provides emotional distance in a traumatic case, Brandon suggests this choice could be strategically exploited by opponents. 🗣️
• Critique of "Equity" as a Legal Strategy: Brandon expresses extreme disdain for "equity" as a legal strategy, labeling it as "trash" and "psychotic." He argues that claims of winning cases through "equity" are often misguided, as dismissals frequently occur for extraneous reasons—such as filing nonsensical documents or being perceived as a persistent nuisance—rather than the merits of "equity" arguments. He recounts instances where absurd filings led to dismissals, illustrating that courts might dismiss cases to clear dockets or avoid complex litigants, not because "equity" was a valid legal basis. Brandon vows to aggressively debunk this "psychosis" surrounding "equity." 📉
• Analysis of 42 USC 1981, 1983, and 1985; Jurisdictional Basis:
  • Applicability of 42 USC 1981 & 1983: Brandon contends that 42 USC 1981 ("equal rights under the law") and 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights) are historically rooted in post-Civil War legislation intended to protect the rights of "Negroes" and 14th Amendment citizens. He argues that Miller, as a white individual, cannot appropriately invoke these statutes without implicitly claiming this protected status. His use of terms like "resident" and "firearms" (which Brandon identifies as 14th Amendment-specific terminology) further complicates Miller's position, potentially making these claims vulnerable to dismissal if challenged on this basis.
  • Proposed 42 USC 1985 (Conspiracy): Brandon strongly advises adding a 42 USC 1985 conspiracy claim. He describes this as a "rocket launcher" in comparison to the "pistols" of 1983, capable of significantly escalating potential damages. This claim requires demonstrating that two or more individuals conspired to commit an 83-style violation. It also offers a unique jurisdictional pathway under 28 USC 1343(a)(2), enabling extensive discovery, such as subpoenaing emails and phone calls, to implicate anyone who knew about the alleged civil rights violations and failed to prevent them. This approach could effectively drag in numerous defendants and establish a presumption of guilt that they would then bear the burden of disproving. 📜
• Challenges Related to Personal Status:
  • "Resident" and "Firearms": Brandon points out that Miller's use of "resident" (implying US citizen status) and "firearms" (a 14th Amendment term) conflicts with the concept of a "white state citizen" and could be used against him.
  • Dual Citizenship: Miller's Canadian passport presents another challenge. According to Brandon's framework, to fully assert "white state citizen" status, Miller would need to relinquish his Canadian citizenship. Miller indicates a willingness to do so, given his journalistic travel has been compromised by the lawsuit.
• Importance of Bodycam Footage: Miller reports that law enforcement is currently withholding crucial bodycam footage, prompting upcoming motions to compel 🎥. Brandon emphasizes that if the footage is "lost," it would greatly disadvantage the defense. Under Rule of Evidence 301, Miller could then establish any presumption regarding the events, and the absence of evidence from the lost bodycams would make it impossible for the defense to rebut these presumptions, effectively solidifying Miller's narrative.
• Scale of the Lawsuit and Supreme Court Potential: The $100 million damages sought are substantial, potentially financially devastating for Riverside County. Miller's attorney foresees the case inevitably reaching the Supreme Court due to the high stakes and anticipated protracted legal battles and appeals 🏛️. Brandon suggests leveraging Miller's media background to maintain public pressure by televising and widely publicizing all court hearings, escalating the "noise" around the case.

Historical Legal Context & Philosophy:

• Inspiration from Historical Figures: Brandon draws inspiration from historical legal figures such as Roger B. Taney and Samuel Freeman Miller, viewing them as exemplary "real Americans" dedicated to liberty and country. He proposes creating an animated educational series about their lives and judicial contributions, including Taney's controversial Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (1857) and Samuel Freeman Miller's pivotal role in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873).
• Critique of "Woke Culture": He criticizes modern "woke culture" for what he perceives as a distorted interpretation of history, leading to the unjustified vilification of figures like Roger B. Taney, whose statues were removed despite his long and constitutionally faithful service. Conversely, Samuel Freeman Miller, whom Brandon extols as a "white messiah of the black race" for his profound contributions to freeing enslaved people and shaping constitutional law, remains largely unacknowledged and his decisions misinterpreted.
• US Monetary System and Constitutional Interpretation: The discussion extends to the US monetary system, particularly Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from issuing anything other than gold and silver coin as legal tender 💰. Brandon references the Legal Tender Cases, specifically Julliard v. Greenman (1884), to explain that the Supreme Court affirmed Congress's power to issue paper money, effectively bypassing this constitutional restriction by establishing that the District of Columbia, not being a "state," is not bound by Article 1 Section 10. This is presented as the foundational reason why Washington D.C. will never achieve statehood, as doing so would destabilize the entire Federal Reserve Note system and fundamentally dismantle the commerce clause, eliminating institutions like the DMV.
• The "Bringing Death" Metaphor: Both Miller and Brandon articulate a shared philosophical outlook, metaphorically referring to themselves as "bringing death" to detrimental systems. This is not driven by vengeance, but by a profound commitment to ending what they view as corrupt or flawed societal structures, such as the "US citizen classification" and the current financial system based on "negotiable instruments." Brandon describes himself as the "bringer of death," viewing it as his job to facilitate the end of existing systems. He finds greater motivation in dismantling these systems through meticulous legal process and exposing truths than in receiving monetary compensation (Federal Reserve notes), which he perceives as merely an "unconditional promise to pay" that he could theoretically create himself. He envisions replacing these systems with a constitutional gold/silver-backed currency or a gold/silver-backed crypto, while retaining the conveniences of modern life. This philosophical underpinning informs his purist approach to legal challenges and his unwavering commitment to challenging the status quo.

Final Takeaway: The dialogue reveals a deep commitment to systemic change, both economically through the Gaju currency and legally through rigorous constitutional interpretation and challenges to existing paradigms. Brandon's "purist" and uncompromising approach to law, coupled with Miller's high-profile civil rights case, underscores their belief in confronting established power structures. The discussion highlights a desire to restore foundational principles of liberty and justice, even if it means operating outside conventional norms and challenging deeply ingrained legal and monetary systems. Their perspectives are rooted in a critical re-evaluation of historical figures and legal precedents, aiming to inspire a return to what they perceive as authentic American ideals and economic freedom.