YesToHellWith

“Do you know the Buck Act? Probably not — and that’s by design. It quietly overlays federal jurisdiction on the 50 States, converting State Nationals into federal citizens by assumption.
This is how they enslave you without chains. Learn the truth at YesToHellWith.com.”

Discover the truth they never taught you: the federal income tax was written only for government employees.
Get your copy of the ebook or paperback of Restoring the American Republic at www.JamesBowersJohnson.com.

Then take your stand—sign the Final and Perpetual
Declaration of Independence
of the united States of America at
www.ToThePresidentOfTheUnitedStates.com

and help restore freedom in America.
And see the real solution at www.DeJureGovernor.org

the only true path to ensure our Republic not only survives, but thrives.

Restoring the American Republic by James B. Johnson — exposing federal overreach, tax fraud, and the path back to sovereignty.

They hid the truth. Now it’s time to uncover it.
Restoring the American Republic — a bold journey to reclaim liberty, sovereignty, and justice.

The Liberty Dialogue Series begins here.

From tax fraud to unlawful courts — discover the truths they never wanted you to know.

By James B. Johnson — soldier, father, author, and unjustly convicted American.

A candid dialogue on how we restore freedom, sovereignty, and the Republic.

Link In The Bio

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

“The Supreme Court defined ‘income’ as profit or gain from capital and labor combined. It does not include your private work — the wages of a man or woman living free in the 50 States. If you thought your labor was taxable, you’ve been lied to. The truth is at www.YesToHellWith.com.”

Discover the truth they never taught you: the federal income tax was written only for government employees.

Get your copy of the ebook or paperback of Restoring the American Republic at www.JamesBowersJohnson.com

Then take your stand—sign the Final and Perpetual
Declaration of Independence
of the united States of America at www.ToThePresidentOfTheUnitedStates.com

and help restore freedom in America.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Because when you need a license to drive, a permit to work, or approval to drink a beer on your porch, you’re not free. You’re managed. And the people managing you don’t even know the Constitution they swore to uphold. Learn more at YesToHellWith.com.”

Discover the truth they never taught you: the federal income tax was written only for government employees.

Get your copy of the ebook or paperback of Restoring the American Republic at www.JamesBowersJohnson.com.

Then take your stand—sign the Final and Perpetual
Declaration of Independence of the united States of America at
www.ToThePresidentOfTheUnitedStates.com

and help restore freedom in America.
And see the real solution at www.DeJureGovernor.org

the only true path to ensure our Republic not only survives, but thrives.


#american #constitution

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Constitution Day Shock
Every September, Americans celebrate the Constitution — a document that essentially is no longer enforced against the Federal Government. If the Constitution is ignored, betrayed, and trampled daily… then what exactly are Americans celebrating? Expansive and unconstrained government at the expense of freedom? It’s time to wake up. Go to YesToHellWith.com and let truth reign supreme.”

Get your copy of Restoring the American Republic at JamesBowersJohnson.com.

Then take your stand—sign the Declaration at ToThePresidentOfTheUnitedStates.com

and help restore freedom in America.
And see the only real solution at DeJureGovernor.org—
the path to ensure our Republic not only survives, but thrives.



#constitution#americana#éducation #survives #americanstyle #independence

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What does it mean… to constitute?

When we make something we do so using things…
and with a specific intent.

Take a knife.
It is made from metal…
Shaped into certain dimensions… weight… and balance…
For one mission — to cut.

The knife is not a cup.
It cannot hold liquid.
It is not a bowling ball.
It is not a flowerpot.

Nothing in the design, the clauses, or the maker’s instructions…
Allows the knife to serve any purpose other than what was intended.

So — let’s agree:
To constitute means… to create with purpose.

If you write a love poem for a friend…
You choose the paper… the pen…
You select words to send a particular message…
And you shape the tone to match your intent.

The poem is not a legal brief.
It is not a horror story.
By its very constitution — like the knife —
It has boundaries that keep it true to its nature.

The Founders of America understood this.
When they framed the US Constitution…
They were not drafting an abstract idea.
They were building something very specific…
A structure made of words and principles…
Designed to form and bind a government.

And this Constitution —
Like the knife, like the poem —
Cannot, by deception, be turned into anything else.

This famous document is not a knife.
It is not a bowling ball.
It is not a love poem.
The Constitution creates… and controls… the United States Government.

We must be firm about this:
The Constitution is not the source of our freedom.

Even the Bill of Rights — another creation —
Was written with a clear and limited purpose:
To prohibit the government from doing what it has no authority to do.

Patrick Henry said it plainly:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people…
It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

But to understand how to constitute anything — especially freedom —
We must first understand what that freedom is.

John Locke described liberty as:
“To be free from restraint and violence from others…
Which cannot be where there is no law.”

Freedom is not chaos.
It is the natural condition of man…
Bound only by the equal rights of his neighbor…
And governed by natural law.

The Constitution was built to preserve that condition.
A carefully measured frame…
Designed for justice… and for nothing more.

Freedom is the open meadow…
Without a fence… master… or hand to pull us back.

It is the birthright of every man and woman.
It does not come from parchment…
Or from the promises of politicians.

Robert Heinlein put it simply:
“In the absence of order, there is chaos. In the absence of freedom, there is tyranny.”

Freedom is the natural condition into which we are born.
It can be limited only by the equal rights of another.

The Founders understood this.
They knew government is not the giver of liberty…
It is, at best… its guardian.

That is why they wrote the Constitution with boundaries —
Not to control the people…
But to control the power that governs them.

Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed in Marbury v. Madison:
“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited;
and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten,
the Constitution is written.”

James Madison, in Federalist No. 45, reminded us:
“The powers delegated… to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Freedom thrives only when those limits are honored.
When the meadow is kept open…
And the fence is built to keep the government in —
Not to keep the people out.

Even a carefully built frame…
Can be broken…
If the limits are ignored… or erased.

This was the great debate over the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson argued in 1787…
That a Bill of Rights would guard against abuse:
“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against

every government on earth…
and what no just government should refuse.”

But Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, warned of a danger:
That by listing some rights,
We might suggest all others were surrendered.

The Ninth Amendment resolved this:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights…
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Yet over time…
Two dangerous phrases have crept into our language:

“Constitutional rights.”
And “civil rights.”

They sound harmless.
But they imply that rights come from government…
And what government gives… government can take away.

Consider this:

Have you ever wondered how Congress—meant to be chained down by a short list of powers—ended up ruling almost every corner of your life?

It wasn’t by accident. It was by twisting a few words in the Constitution into weapons of control.

First, the Commerce Clause. Written to regulate trade across state lines, it was stretched into a blank check—allowing Washington to dictate everything from farming wheat in your backyard to the rules of your workplace.

Second, the General Welfare Clause. Intended as a boundary to keep spending for the common defense and benefit, it was turned into a license to spend on anything politicians can dream up—welfare programs, subsidies, and entitlements that bind citizens to government.

Third, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Once a modest tool to carry out enumerated powers, it became the “elastic clause,” stretched to justify entire federal agencies, national banks, and endless regulation far beyond what was written.

Fourth, the Supremacy Clause. Meant only to ensure federal law was supreme in its rightful sphere, it has been twisted to trample state sovereignty—even in areas the Constitution never gave Washington control.

Fifth, the Spending and Taxing Powers. Instead of funding government, they became tools of coercion. States were forced into compliance under threat of losing federal dollars, while taxes and penalties were used to manipulate private choices.

Sixth, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Enforcement Clause. Passed to secure liberty after the Civil War, it has been wielded as a federal sledgehammer over civil rights, education, voting, and state governance—often beyond correcting true violations.

And finally, War Powers and Emergency Declarations. These open-ended grants have been the excuse to suspend limits altogether, expanding federal reach under the guise of crisis.

Together, these clauses—distorted by Congress and upheld by pliant courts—form the scaffolding of federal overreach. What were once chains on Washington have been melted down into shackles on the American people.

If we are to restore liberty, we must tear down the false empire built on these twisted interpretations—and return to a Republic of consent, not coercion.

In truth…
Our rights do not flow from any statute,
Any office,
Or any man.

They are inherent —
Given by our Creator —
And bound only by the equal rights of others.yet over

Government exists for one purpose:
To secure those rights.
Not to grant them.
Not to regulate them into privileges.

The moment we forget this…
The fence around government breaks…
And the meadow of freedom begins to vanish.

Words shape nations.
And some words… quietly steal liberty.

Two of the most dangerous are:
“Constitutional rights.”
And “civil rights.”

They sound noble.
They are repeated in schools…
Echoed in courtrooms…
And worn like badges by politicians.

But here is the truth:
These phrases shift the source of your rights…
From nature — to government.

And what government gives…
Government can take away.

Some in public office use these terms without knowing the harm.
They’ve never studied the difference.
Others use them knowingly…
Because dependency makes power permanent.

If your right to speak is “granted” by law…
It can be restricted by law.
If your right to defend yourself is “given” by statute…
It can be taken by statute.

This is not liberty.
It is a license —
Revocable at will.

The Founders rejected this thinking.
They knew rights were not favors.
They were not created by ink on paper.

They are inherent…
They exist because we exist.
And the only role of government is to secure them.

Once we forget this point…
We begin to beg for permission to live free.
And a free people…
Should never beg.

A man who understands freedom…
Knows the limits of a constitution.

He knows it is not a blank check for power.
It is a frame — built for specific ends…
And for nothing more.

This man seeks nothing from government but justice.
He does not ask it to feed him…
To clothe him…
Or to direct his life.

He lives by a simple maxim:
He is free… so long as he does not violate the

life, liberty, or property of another.

In this, he is both sovereign… and responsible.
He does not envy the possessions of his neighbor.
He does not petition for the earnings of others.
He asks only to be left alone —
And to leave others in peace.

Frederic Bastiat wrote:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.
On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property

existed beforehand that caused men to make laws.”

When a man lives by this truth…
He needs no constant supervision.
He requires no master.
He is governed from within… by conscience and principle.

The Founders built the Constitution for men like this.
For citizens capable of governing themselves.

The more such men there are…
The less government is needed.
The fewer there are…
The more government becomes a cage for itself, alone.

To constitute freedom…
Is to build a world where liberty is the default…
And control is the rare exception.

It is to arrange society so that each man and woman…
May walk their own path —
Bound only by the equal rights of others.

In such a place…
Commerce is honest because fraud is punished.
Speech is free because no man fears his neighbor’s opinion.
Property is secure because theft — by private hand or

public office — is forbidden.

Here, the government has but one mission:
To protect the boundaries…
Not to dictate the journey.

It does not measure our lives…
It measures only its own actions against justice.

Samuel Adams described this ideal:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:
First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
Together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

In a constituted freedom…
Charity is voluntary.
Success is earned.
Responsibility is personal.

It is a society that thrives on trust between neighbors…
And mistrust toward concentrated power.

The Constitution was meant to be the blueprint for this world.
A frame that holds power in check…
So the meadow of freedom stays open…
For every generation to walk.

Ignorance is the most fertile soil for tyranny.

When a people forget the meaning of freedom…
They forget the limits that bind their government.

And when they forget what it means to constitute…
They forget that their Constitution is a thing —
Built for a purpose —
And for nothing more.

Out of this ignorance… a monster grows.
A government that no longer fears its master.
A government that believes itself the source of rights…
The owner of property…
The keeper of every man’s will.

History shows this pattern.
James Madison warned:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

We are not governed by angels.
And when the people stop enforcing the controls…
Power expands into every space it can reach.

What begins as a protector…
Becomes a regulator…
Then a master.

The tragedy is that much of this happens…
With the consent of the people themselves.

They trade the hard work of liberty…
For the false security of dependency.
They forget that every promise from government…
Comes at the cost of someone else’s freedom.

The price of ignorance is not paid in theory.
It is paid in chains.

The only cure…
Is to remember.
To Remember what freedom is.
To Remember what it means to constitute.
And to remember that the power to preserve liberty…
Has always been ours.

The Constitution is not broken.
It is not enforced. It is ignored.

The Constitution has taken over the entire meadow

And more.

The problem is not that liberty has failed…
It is that we have failed to preserve it.

Our rights are not gifts from Congress.
They are not privileges of citizenship.
They are not negotiable contracts between ruler and subject.

They are natural.
They exist because we exist.
The only just purpose of government…

is to secure our natural rights. And in doing so… it fulfills

its one true aim: justice.

When government steps beyond that mission…
It acts without authority.
And every such act is void.

Thomas Jefferson reminded us:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so it will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Those chains are forged by the people’s will.
By their knowledge.
By their courage to say… “No more.”

Restoration will not come from politicians.
It will come from citizens who know their rights…
Who refuse to be ruled by dependency…
And who insist that justice — not control — is the end of government.

It begins when we speak truth plainly:
There is no such thing as a “constitutional right.”
There are only rights we are born with…
And a Constitution that exists to protect them.

It grows when we reject the language of servitude.
When we stop begging for permission to be free.

And it is fulfilled when the people once again
hold their government within the frame that was built for it…
Two centuries ago.

The meadow of liberty is still there.
We must hack away the government’s thorny

Vines, deep roots, and dense presence..

We need only the will…
To clear it…
Repair it…
And walk it again…
As free men and women.

Most of those in elected office
Are as ignorant as the people who voted for them.

Secondly…
Those elected are often laden with destructive passions that destroy.
Vanity and
The hunger for power, for example.

They alone pervert the words of the constitution

As such our guards against them —
And against their ignorance and intentions —
Must be that much more stringent.

Then there are those who work for the government.
They are equally ignorant…
And worse —
They are controlled by systems.

Even the military…
Is filled with officers who know nothing but the system.
They may wear the uniform…
They may hold the rank…
But they are not wise regarding the limits of the Constitution.

They do not grasp the nuances of its words.
They speak of “Constitutional rights”…
As if they are saying something of merit…
When in truth…
They are repeating an error.

I have friends who are generals who served in the Armed Forces.
And I tell you plainly:
These protectors of the Constitution —
Men who have taken an oath to preserve and defend it —
Do not know what it is.

Yes… this is a bold assertion.
But I stand by my claim.

From junior officers to military flag officers…
To congressmen…
Too Supreme Court justices

And the President…

Our government is littered with people
Who have no proper context for this founding document.

And if you doubt it…
You need only weigh the evidence:

· An unsustainable national debt.

· The highest incarceration rate in the world.

· A swelling mass of statutes, codes, and regulations.

· And a steady erosion of liberty with each passing decade.

This is not fruit borne of wisdom, but destruction
sourced in ignorance in high places.

And it is killing the Republic from within.

Where does this leave us…
And our vast meadow of freedom?

A meadow without boundaries…
Save one:
The violation of another’s life… liberty… and property.

Where does it leave the Constitution of the United States…
Except as something that was never truly intended?

If the Constitution —
With its weight…
Its dimensions…
Its words…
Its concepts…
And its intent —
Is not honored…

Then it is no longer a founding document of rigid constraints.
No.

It is a relic…
Of a past… that no longer exists.

An artifact of fascination…
And faux elevation…
When such admiration is misplaced…
Misapplied…
And misunderstood.

Sadly, the Constitution is replaced with something else

Something the Founders never constructed, wrote or constituted

And this something else is sinister and the antithesis of freedom.

Why?
All because of our ignorance…
Of what the Constitution was an is, if only honored, respected and enforced.

We the People —
An ignorant people —
Now hoist lofty praise for a restrictive parchment…
That no longer serves its hallowed purpose.

Instead…
A supposedly free people…
clutches and clamors for government numbers… and checks.
For handouts and benefits galore…

The very things…
The Federal Government was never designed to provide.

And so…
The government has gone…
From defender of liberty…
To destroyer of a once free people.

Where does that leave the American Republic?
What is the solution to a Federal Government that

no longer operates within the confines of its original charter?
Is there a way to restore and preserve the chains that

bind powers so they cannot be more than intended?

There is a solution.

Because the Constitution of the United States is not a bowling ball…
Not a knife…
And not a love poem.
It is a binding agreement — a framework designed to limit government power.

On this Constitution Day, September 17th, 2025,
we can resolve, once and for all,
to impose and to adhere to the limitations of government.

There is a concept called de jure — the opposite of de facto.

De jure means “by law.”
It is something rightful, lawful, and legitimate — recognized under the Constitution — even if it’s not currently in power.

De facto means “in fact.”
It is something that exists in practice, even if it has no legal authority.

If a constitutionally elected governor is removed unlawfully,
and replaced by someone who seizes the office,
the removed governor is still the de jure governor…
while the usurper is merely de facto — in power, but unlawful.

Our natural rights and freedoms are de jure.
They exist even today.

If we operate under de jure principles — natural law and the true designs of the Constitution —
the governors of the several States can secure what was originally intended.

A de jure governor,
who honors both the state and federal constitutions,
is a bulwark against oppressive forces —
protecting the free while still serving those

who choose to remain federal subjects within the state.

This is the easiest and surest way to restore the

sovereignty of the 50 States and the liberty of their citizens.

A governor acting in de jure authority can stop any

transgression that exceeds rightful power.

The details are secondary to the courage of a man or

woman willing to cage government power in its rightful place.

Imagine… if the States refused to be the mouthpiece of federal schemes.
Imagine… if they declared, again and again,
that the people are free — and must be left alone —
unless they violate the life, liberty, or property of another.

This Constitution Day is not just another date.
It is the line in the sand.
The day of restoration.
The moment we reclaim the birthright of freedom —
for ourselves… and for our posterity.

The Republic cannot be saved from Washington, D.C.
It must be restored in the states — one governor,

one act of truth, one free man or woman at a time.

Most Americans believe they are free… yet they live

under a system that governs by assumption, not consent.
The truth is simple: You are only governed by that to which you consent.

A De Jure Governor knows this truth — and acts on it.
Governing by right, not by presumption.
By consent, not coercion.
By the state constitution, not federal decree.

This is the meaning of de jure — lawful, rightful, legitimate.
It is time to return to this treasured understanding.

A De Jure Governor refuses unlawful federal mandates.
Nullifies unconstitutional laws.
Protects State Nationals who lawfully withdraw from federal jurisdiction.
And restores natural rights and lawful governance in the state.

This is not theory — it’s the rightful role of a governor

under the Constitution and natural law.
It is the difference between freedom by consent…

and control by assumption.

De jure means “by law.”
De facto means “in fact.”

Today, we live mostly under de facto governance —

power that exists in practice but lacks lawful authority.
Licenses, silent agreements, and assumed obligations keep

people bound without their knowing consent.

A De Jure Governor exposes this system — and

restores the option to live lawfully, peacefully, and free.
This is not rebellion.
It is lawful correction.

Do you know someone who refuses to bow to unlawful power?
Who believes in truth, sovereignty, and the consent of the governed?

We must nominate and support candidates in every state —

men and women who will act as De Jure Governors.
Those who understand natural rights and
Reject unconstitutional we cannot and will not

.
And will act courageously, lawfully, and without compromise.

If you are that person — or know someone who is — now is the time to act.

We cannot and will not continue under the false comfort of de facto rule.

We must return to the lawful authority of de jure governance.

De facto oppression assumes and presumes that our silence is our consent.
De jure demands our voice, our action, and our courage.

The Republic’s restoration will not come from Washington.
It begins in your state…
with your governor…
and with us.

Let me show you what this looks like.

Consider that a de jure governor would not rule, but serve.
The people of this State would be declared sovereign.
with Government as their servant, not their master.

The Governor’s Charter would be a public record of

lawful intent and peaceful redress.
It affirms that no man or woman shall be compelled

into any jurisdiction without knowing and voluntary consent.

We will no longer confuse “legal” with “lawful.”
What is lawful springs from natural law, equity, and justice —
not from corporate codes and administrative decrees or the

presumptive ignorance of arrogance officials.

From this day forward, the supremacy of lawful authority

will be recognized above what is merely legal.

De jure governors would protect the right of any man or

woman who, by affidavit and declaration, withdraws from

federal statutory jurisdiction and limited state and local control. Moreover,

No State agency would harass, penalize, or target anyone

for their lawful status.
Instead, the de jure governor would establish an

Office of Status Recognition and Preservation
to defend the rights of State Nationals who choose

to live under lawful and limited state constitutional authority.

This is not rebellion.
It is the restoration of the compact between free people

and their limited servant government.

The de jure governor would restore the right of the people

to create and operate courts of record under common law.

These courts would hear disputes, preserve affidavits, and

provide lawful remedy outside statutory control.

A de jure governor recognizes that justice is not a bureaucratic process —
it is a moral imperative rooted in the rights of the people.

With the State rejecting all federal mandates, programs,

and funding schemes that violate the sovereignty of the people.

Coercion, forced compliance, and presumed jurisdiction are

unlawful under the natural law principles. A de jure governor

would defend against this oppression.

The chains of federal and state overreach will be replaced

with the bonds of lawful consent.

A de jure governor will teach the difference between lawful and legal,
the original principles of the Republic, and
how to peacefully withdraw from unjust and freedom defeating systems.

An educated people will never again allow themselves to

be governed by presumption, ignorance or fear.

A de jure governor’s Charter is not a call to arms — it is a call to

peace, freedom, truth, and lawful restoration.

The people are not the property of the State.
They are free.
And it is the sacred duty of the de jure governor to recognize and protect that freedom —
today, and for all generations to come.

Imagine this.

A man… born and raised in his State…
has never worked for the federal government…
has never sought a federal contract…
or has revoked any and all federal benefits.

He lives under the protection of state law…
and the natural law rights with which he was born.

One day, the IRS sends him a letter —
threatening civil and criminal action…
claiming he owes a federal income tax.

Under the governance we have today…
he would fight that battle alone.

But under a de jure governor —
it would be very different.

A de jure Governor would issue a sworn attestation…
that this man is a State National,
and not lawfully within federal jurisdiction…
but under the protection of this State’s sovereignty, as well as his own

Personal sovereignty. .

This attestation would stand as evidentiary proof —
an official record that the federal claim has no lawful foundation.

No federal court would dare overrule such a stand…
because to do so would spark the very conflict
that the Constitution was designed to prevent —
a direct clash between state sovereignty and federal overreach.

The IRS would have no ground to advance a criminal charge…
no lawful basis for a civil suit.
The State… standing firmly behind a state national…
becomes a wall that could not be breach.

This is not defiance for defiance’s sake.
It is the lawful execution of the Governor’s duty…
to protect the unalienable rights of the people…
and to reject any unlawful presumption of federal control.

When a State asserts its rightful authority…
and its Governor acts in de jure capacity…
the federal government knows…
there is a line it cannot cross.

And for the first time in living memory…
every State National who chooses freedom…
will have the shield they have always deserved.

Imagine a family… living on land that’s been in their hands for generations.
They have clear title… and owe no debt to the federal government.

One day… a state or federal agency claims authority over that land —
maybe for environmental regulation,
maybe for eminent domain.

Under today’s system…
the family is forced into years of litigation…
fighting in courts that already presume federal supremacy.

But under a de jure governor… the scenario changes.

A de jure Governor, issues a sworn attestation:
that this land and its owners exist wholly within the jurisdiction of the sovereign State…
and outside the scope of unlawful state and federal authority.

That attestation becomes evidentiary proof —
a lawful certification that the state and federal governments lack jurisdiction.

No judge would risk overruling a governor’s direct assertion of state sovereignty…
because to do so would ignite a constitutional conflict
between the separate and co-equal governments of the United States and the illegal operation of state authorities.

The agency would be forced to withdraw.
The land remains with the family.
And the precedent would be clear —
that the State stands as a guardian against unlawful intrusion.

This is what de jure governance means.
It is not a slogan.
It is power… used lawfully… to defend the people.

Now imagine this:
A State National is arrested under a federal gun law —
a statute that violates both the Second Amendment and our own State constitution.

In the current system…
that person will be prosecuted in federal court…
with little hope of avoiding conviction.

But under a de jure governor,
the process stops before it starts.

A de jure governor would issue an attestation…
that the accused is a State National,
exercising rights protected under the State constitution,
and not subject to the challenged federal statute.

This is more than political posturing —
it’s a legal wall, backed by the authority of the State’s highest executive.

Federal prosecutors know that pursuing the case
would mean challenging the sovereignty of the State itself —
a battle they do not want to fight…
and one the Constitution does not allow them to win.

The case would be dismissed.
The right to keep and bear arms… remains intact.

This is what happens when the Governor stands…
not as a manager of federal and state programs,
but as the guardian of the people’s liberty.

Let me be clear.
No government that claims to serve a free and sovereign people
can tax their very right to own the ground beneath their feet.

Property taxes are not a public service.
They are a perpetual rent —
a declaration that the State, not the people,
holds ultimate title to the land.

Under de jure governance… this is unacceptable.

If you can lose your home or farm
because you could not pay an annual fee to servants in government…
then you do not own your land.
You lease it from the State.
And that is not sovereignty.

The natural law says:
What you rightfully acquire… is yours —
free of interference, so long as you harm no other.

The original intent of our State constitution recognized property as a right —
not as a privilege granted by a taxing authority.

A de jure governor,
will move to abolish ad valorem property taxes…
and restore allodial title to the people of this State.

Government will fund itself through lawful means —
specific-user fees, voluntary contracts,
and excises that do not touch the ownership of your home,
your land, or your means of production.

Your property will once again be an extension of your sovereignty —
not a ledger entry in a tax office.

This is more than policy.
It is the rightful restoration of ownership…
and the permanent end to the lie that you are a tenant in your own home.

Under de jure governance…
the people are sovereign.
And sovereigns… do not pay rent to their servants.

When a de jure governor says he will end state property taxes…
the defenders of the status quo always ask…
“But how will we fund schools, roads, and local services?”

The answer is simple.
We will replace the tax with lawful, voluntary, and transparent revenue streams…
that respect ownership… and preserve sovereignty.

First — Specific-User Fees.
If you use a service, you pay for that service — directly.
Road maintenance, utilities, and certain public works
will be funded by those who use them,
not by taxing those who do not.

Second — Voluntary Contracts and Local Compacts.
Communities may freely choose to pool resources for schools, fire protection, and other services.
No one is forced —
but those who value the service contribute to its upkeep.

Third — Lawful Excise and Transaction Revenues.
Under de jure governance,
we may apply narrow, transparent excises on certain commercial activities —
but never on the ownership of your home,
your land, or your livelihood.

Fourth — Restoring Efficiency by Ending Federal Dependence.
Much of our current tax burden exists to comply with federal programs and mandates.
Once we refuse those mandates,
we eliminate the overhead — and the expense — they create.

The truth is… property taxes have never been about fairness.
They are about control.
They ensure that no man or woman can live free of the State’s claim to ultimate ownership.

We will break that chain.
We will prove that a State can thrive…
with services funded by consent…
not coercion.

Under de jure governance…
schools will teach, roads will be maintained, communities will flourish —
and your home will be yours… in law and in fact…
for as long as you choose to keep it.

Let’s assert for the importance of Constitution Day

the distinction between lawful and legal.

Lawful is true.
It is rooted in natural law — in what is right.
Legal is a contrivance — a crafted fiction, created for control.

Our founders built America as a nation of laws.
But today… we are a nation of men.
Men who twist words, write codes, and call them law…
while they erode the very freedoms they swore to protect.

Think about it.
You can’t let your grass grow more than four inches — that is legal.
You can’t own more than four cats — that’s legal.
You can’t travel without a license — that’s legal.
None of these come from natural law.

And the danger is this —
when we forget the difference between lawful and legal,
we willingly surrender sovereignty.

This Constitution Day, we must remember —
the law exists to defend life, liberty, and property.
Not to micromanage, restrict, and control.

It’s time to reject legal schemes that replace law…
and restore the truth:
We are a nation of laws — or we are not free.

Words are the battlefield.

Every freedom we’ve lost…
began with a change in the meaning of a word.

“Person.”
“Resident.”
“United States.”
On paper, these terms mean one thing.
In legal codes, they’re redefined to pull more people under government control.

Here’s the truth —
if you don’t know the words,
you don’t know the fight you’re in.

A de jure governor could stop this.

With the authority of the State,
he could issue lawful definitions,
draw clear jurisdictional boundaries,
and block agencies from applying their “legal” terms to people they don’t govern.

Imagine an “Executive Office of LAW” —
Language And Words —
whose sole mission is to preserve the very words that guard our freedom.

This Constitution Day…
remember:
If we preserve the words,
we control the future.
If they distort the words…
they control us.

One righteous governor… can restore the balance of power.

Imagine this —
The Governor of Virginia issues a proclamation:
that State Nationals are sovereign and free.

He signs the peoples’ personal and official documents —

admissible in any court —
to certify this lawful status and jurisdiction.

He orders all state agencies to reject federal schemes

like the National ID Act, the Patriot Act, and ObamaCare…

when applied to State Nationals.

He institutes the Virginia Foreign Agent Registration Act —
requiring any federal agent to file their oath, bond, and authority
before acting in the State.

Do you see it?
This is a wall of lawful authority.
One the courts would hesitate to breach
because it pits federal presumption against state sovereignty —
and the Constitution sides with the State.

This Constitution Day, we face a choice.
Greater cooperation with federal overreach…
or governors willing to go to WAR —
for Words And Rights — for their people.

The people are sovereign.
And sovereigns must be left alone.

Many believe America’s Great Experiment is over.
They say the damage is done.
And for the most part… they’re right.

A ruling class now decides what’s best.
They feed dependency… and kill the will to be free.

But there are those who know true freedom —
no ties to the federal machine,
minimal, deliberate ties to the State.

Remember this:
The American Revolution began with just two or three percent
of the people. If even one State elects a de jure governor…
everything changes.
Others will follow.
Freedom will spread.

The choice is yours:
Stay a subject… or stand as a sovereign.

Here’s the first step —
Get the book series known as The liberty Dialogues and Restoring the American Republic.

Read.
Share.
Buy a copy for your family.

Share this video far and wide.
And go to yestohellwith.com for updates and real action steps.

Freedom is not gone.
It’s waiting… for you to claim it once again.

I am James Johnson.
I am not part of the political machine.
I do not hold a title that binds me to it.
I do not have power that makes me beholden to its club.

I am not a lawyer —
an “officer of the court” forever bound to serve the system first.
I am not a career politician chasing a higher seat or a bigger paycheck.

What I do have… is something rare.
I have lived the reality of our broken system.
I have fought in state courts… and federal courts.
I have stood my ground against the machine.
And yes — I have been sent to prison for a crime I did not commit.

That experience — as unjust and brutal as it was —
taught me more about freedom than any law school or political office ever could.
It taught me how far the beast will go to keep power…
and why the only solution is for governors — not Congress, not the courts —
to battle that beast head-on.

I would not run for Governor to enrich myself.
I would not seek the trappings of power.
or the praise of others.
I would not accept a salary for serving the people of Virginia.

My satisfaction would be the increased freedom of state nationals.
My reward would be seeing the chains of unlawful government cast off.
My joy would be knowing that Virginia stood as an example to the rest of America…
that sovereignty is not dead… and liberty can be restored.

I would be a governor who owes nothing to the machine —
and everything to the people.
I would reject federal overreach.
I would protect the rights of State Nationals.
I would stand in the gap for those who want to be free.

This is not about left or right.
It is about right… and wrong.
It is about whether we will remain subjects —
or stand again as sovereigns.

My name is James Johnson.
I am outside the system…
and I would fight for the freedom of Virginians come what may.

I would fight for the life, liberty, and property of every state national in every State.

This is the attitude we need. Americans need those

who will radically change what is so horribly wrong.

Let us find those men and women and encourage them to become de jure governors.

“Now that we know what truly constitutes the Constitution of the United States, the path forward is clear. It is high time for de jure governors to rise — to protect State Nationals, to honor lawful authority, and to stand as shields against federal overreach. Without them, every man and woman will be presumed a federal citizen, and the Constitution will be reduced to little more than a relic — admired, but powerless. With de jure state governors, sovereignty is restored, liberty is defended, and the Constitution lives again as the binding chain upon government, not upon the people.”

We must restore the American Republic and once again live as a truly free people.

Begin a revolution of thought and regain your freedom.

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice.

In the last episode, we heard from Orlando Carter and, based upon his comments, we know PNC Bank lied about the existence of a $4 million loan when it submitted a Suspicious Activity Report to the Federal Government. We know the FBI and DOJ advanced a false theory of prosecution into the court system. This entire deception was further complicated when Glassman and Parker lied in 2018 by stating that the evidence of the $4 million loan was shredded.

We are left with two questions. First, how is it possible that the Federal Government was wrong about something that is easily proved? Second, why is it that no one with the requisite authority will rectify this matter in the interests of truth and justice?

Regarding the first query, we must accept that the government is arrogance to the point of being untamed. Let’s use the analogy of herding cats. As the Department of Justice currently functions, it is impossible to control 93 arrogant US Attorneys and thousands of investigators. If the Attorney General of the United States does not apply appropriate oversight over what are criminal acts by federal officials, those who wield prosecutorial and investigative authority will, like feral cats, roam and destroy at will. Consequently, people like Orlando Carter will be unjustly prosecuted. Providing for strict oversight over a herd of US Attorneys is a must. It is not enough to expect supposedly experienced US Attorneys to govern themselves according to their oaths and ethical standards.

For example, we must conclude that the original US Attorney, Gregory Lockhart, was not held to account for his questionable choices and actions. Just the opposite. Lockhart roamed beyond truth and into the hinterlands of lies. Yet, he received praise from on high as the system supported his efforts and Carter’s guilty conviction. When the system does not focus on truth, wayward US Attorneys, who are drawn to the scent of trophy convictions, will foster what is false and unjust.

Regarding the second question, after an unjust conviction is secured by the DOJ, those with titles and authority will assert that, by law, they cannot investigate what is a criminal decision within the courts. However, what if the courts are complicit with the injustice? Absolutely nothing. Those with power, bad actors, and the system, to include the courts, are not held accountable.

This supposed “law,” which allegedly prevents elected representatives from getting involved with criminal court cases, serves as a means of self-preservation. As such, if pubic officials are able to refuse help, the injustice continues. However, what happens if an official is asked to assist with an ancillary matter that does not require a direct challenge to a criminal case? Sadly, not much at all. He will seek an answer from the responsible agency and nothing more. Once he receives a reply, he will forward it and consider the matter closed. He serves as nothing more than a middleman, a glorified secretary.

Let me give you an illustration. In the year 2018, I asked Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia to review not the criminal conviction against Carter, but the conflict between the Departments of Justice and Treasury concerning the non-existence of the $4 million loan. Since Kaine saw the conflict between PNC Bank’s admission to the Department of the Treasury and the court conviction, he was compelled to send a query to the DOJ. When Kaine received a response from the DOJ stating that the guilty conviction was secured fairly, what did Kaine do? He sent me a letter, attached the agency’s response, and washed his hands of the matter. He did not delve into the obvious conflict between two federal agencies. Was Kaine at all intrigued? Was he moved to investigate an injustice? No. Kaine did nothing to advance truth or exonerate an innocent man. Kaine did what he could do without resolving the obvious conflicts. He considered the matter closed.

In another example, Orlando Carter recently asked Congresswoman Beatty from Ohio to investigate the non-existence of the $4 million loan. Beatty went through the formalities by asking the DOJ to respond to this issue. Once again, the DOJ gave her a boilerplate statement explaining that Carter was convicted and justice had been served. Beatty then sent the DOJ’s perfunctory response to Carter and closed the matter. She refused to seek truth. She performed as a glorified secretary.

Let’s now consider the following development. A year after Carter contacted Congresswoman Beatty, the Ohio chapter of the NAACP researched the government’s case against Carter. Knowing of the obvious conflicts, the NAACP then approached Beatty. Quite curiously, if only because the NAACP raised the concern, Beatty, at least by appearances, treated the matter with more importance. She wrote to Attorney General Garland and asked that they investigate the matter involving PNC Bank.

When Carter contacted her, she essentially ignored an innocent black man’s request for help. With the NAACP, she would not risk ignoring a powerful group in her district.

As we can see, once a criminal conviction is secured, it is nearly impossible to have an objective review by anyone with authority. Unless a maverick is willing to intervene in the interests of truth and justice, the system will do nothing to overturn an unjust conviction.

There is one other point to consider. Short of having direct access to an official or celebrity who can “walk” into pockets of power and expose singular examples of injustice, how does someone access those who can do what is right?

You may recall that, at the recommendation of the Inspector General of the DOJ, I wrote to the Office of Professional Responsibility for a third time. I have not received a response. I recently wrote to President Trump, FBI Director Kash Patel, and US Attorney General Pam Bondi. I asked them to investigate the Carter conviction. I wrote to Alice Johnson, Trump’s “Pardon Czar.” I have received no responses from any of them. Are these people busy? Yes. Do requests take time, fall through the cracks, or are ignored? Yes.

So, how does one gain needed attention? Must one do something sensational? Must someone threaten to ignite himself with gasoline in front of Fox News Headquarters in Washington, DC just to expose the injustice in the case against Carter? We know that sending letters for years and producing a podcast is like a worm’s whisper heard during a Category 5 hurricane. Now, with the NAACP’s involvement, there may be a chance. However, the NAACP may receive the same responses as myself and Carter. Given the “system” and its propensity to perpetuate what is flawed, the possibility of change is unlikely.

In the end, we must analyze what Trump experienced for years and accept that the system has been treating Americans in the same manner for a very long time. The Justice system’s acts are evil and they must stop.

Concerning the Carter case, were Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker’s actions and lies evil? Did the DOJ shred evidence of a $4 million? No. This evidence did not exist. Is it fair to label Senator Kaine and Congresswoman Beatty as advocates of evil if only for their unwillingness to help? Yes. At a minimum, acting cowardly in order to protect oneself as an elected representative does nothing to defeat what is unjust. I will go so far as to say that any official or representative who hears of Carter’s case and does nothing advances lies and evil.

Throughout this podcast series, my focus has been primarily upon Glassman and Parker’s lies that the DOJ shredded evidence of the $4 million loan between PNC Bank and CBST. We know the $4 million loan did not exist. If Glassman and Parker had even remotely accomplished what they were morally, ethically, and professionally obligated to do, in all likelihood, Carter would have been exonerated in 2019 or 2020.

Had the FBI and DOJ done their jobs in 2008 and 2009, Carter would never have been charged. In other words, from a purely civil perspective, from a contractual and business angle, if PNC Bank believed that Carter and his company were legally bound to a valid contract, then PNC would and should have filed a civil suit to secure their financial interests. The FBI and DOJ should have known this as fundamental, rather than fabricating an outlandish theory of prosecution.

The truth remains that the justice system at all levels of government was weaponized against Americans long before the targeting of President Trump. And if this atrocious conduct is to stop, if this evil is to be eradicated from the DOJ and FBI, the Federal Government must herd cats in a manner that evil is soundly defeated, starting with each US Attorney and every FBI agent.

I encourage you to read my recent correspondence, as well as the letter from the NAACP to Congresswoman Beatty and the attached letters. Note the language that each party used to slip and slide away from truth, as they justified their indecision or inaction.

Let’s take a look at Beatty’s letter. She said,

Noteworthy, Beatty said that she and her staff spent “ample time and attention” on Carter’s request. Time? Attention? But what of the merits of Carter’s claims? What of truth? Does truth matter? Even with a minimal use of resources, Beatty should not have been able to ignore the fact that Carter’s guilty conviction was wrong.

Even more absurd, Beatty said there was no further assistance she could provide. This is code for the fact that she could not and would not push more paper requests to agencies who had already given their perfunctory replies. To do so a second time as a glorified secretary would be absurd. As if to prove this point, she tells the NAACP that she will not respond to any further requests, as if to say, “My role is limited to protecting my position as a congresswoman, which requires me to do nothing more that shuffle your query to an agency that will ignore it, the truth be damned.”

Beatty easily negotiates the moral and ethical dilemmas by refusing to answer obvious doubts herself. As we can plainly see, there is absolutely no accountability from within or without the system.

The response from PNC Bank to Beatty is appalling and reflective of the bank’s attempt to rely upon the record as the basis for escaping any accountability.

Let us not forget that in 2017. PNC Bank admitted to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that there was a loan of $250,000 and only this loan. Moreover, we know the OCC confirmed there was no $4 million loan. We also have certified records from PNC documenting the smaller loan and not the alleged $4 million loan.

What is remarkable is the childlike approach to PNC’s conduct and explanation. The bank points to the idea that Carter has filed nine lawsuits, as if this suggests his further guilt rather than the opposite, that he is fighting for his innocence and exoneration. Knowing that the original Suspicious Activity Report to the FBI about the alleged $4 million loan was a lie, PNC confirms the case was adjudicated. But we know the case was adjudicated based upon a lie and, as such, the lie stands.

Let’s now consider the response from the DOJ to Beatty:

Now, what are we to do with this explanation? The DOJ’s response is surreal. Since we know there was no $4 million, as validated by PNC Bank, we may conclude that the reference to any loan was a lie. However, just as PNC Bank ignores the lie and advances the “court record” as justification for Carter’s criminal conviction, quite incredibly, the DOJ does the same. The DOJ, as the vanguard for justice, points to the “public record” as the highest affirmation of Carter’s guilt, a public record representing a grand lie.

The DOJ cannot allow itself to weigh the possibility that PNC lied about the loan in 2007. The DOJ cannot acknowledge the certified records from PNC years later that prove there was no such loan. The DOJ cannot accept PNC’s admission to the OCC of the existence of only a $250,000 loan years earlier. The DOJ cannot attest to its own response to my FOIA Request that no documents of a $4 million loan were shredded in the Carter case.

The DOJ expended minimal time and effort to confirm the “fact” of the existence of the $4 million loan because the debt was established during the prosecution of Carter filled with lies. Does this make any sense? Why does no one within the DOJ consider the merits of Carter’s claims and that what is now available rebuts and defeats a “fact” that was allegedly established in court? Why doesn’t the DOJ accept the possibility that all parties at every point along the way were deceiving themselves and others? Why doesn’t the DOJ admit that the public record might be flawed?

This brings us to the OCC’s response to Beatty, which is as comical and disturbing as the DOJ’s response.

The OCC states that it “reiterated the bank’s conclusion regarding the existence of a $250,000 loan dated December 31, 2003.” Clearly the bank’s conclusion of the existence of the smaller and earlier loan without mentioning the larger and newer $4 million loan confirms that this $4 million loan did not exist. In fact, the OCC even stated to Carter, “The bank specifically stated in the letter sent to this office that it did not have any other debt on file for CBST Acquisition, LLC, other than the note signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount of $250,000.00. To support their response the bank provided a copy [of] the signed note.”

What stands out as sheer folly is that the OCC’s claims that Rafael Underwood from the Department of Commerce challenges whether the PNC debt was $250,000 or $4 million. This is NOT what Underwood asserted. Rather, Underwood, more than anyone throughout this enter tragedy, clearly distinguished between the smaller loan as real and the larger loan as fake, a lie, a fabrication by PNC Bank. Underwood goes so far as to say that the entire judicial apparatus was deceived by PNC’s lie.

How could the OCC, which itself secured a concession or confession from PNC that there was only the $250,000 loan, disparage a federal official within the Department of Commerce for stating the facts clearly and concisely? Even the OCC received confirmation of one loan and NOT the possibility that the $250,000 loan could or might be a larger amount.

Without trying to make the OCC look foolish, we should note that, contrary to the OCC’s statement, Underwood’s letter is not undated, but reflects March 22, 2022. Do details even matter in the larger context of prevailing truth?

The OCC then posits what is rather ridiculous. It claims the OCC only communicates what is provided by the bank. Since the OCC regulates national banks, we have to conclude that what the bank communicates to the OCC, which it then relays to the customer, must be truthful. This is exactly why the OCC states to Carter that the OCC does not require certified records from PNC Bank. PNC must tell the truth.

Now PNC may not have stated in exact terms that, for example, “there is no $4 million loan,” but the reference to the fact that the only loan obligation CBST had was $250,000 does the same. There is no other loan. There was no other loan. Without parsing words with the OCC’s response to Beatty, could it be said that the OCC does issue findings of fact by virtue of its complaint process? The answer can be nothing but the affirmative. Otherwise, what would the complaint process serve other than the OCC ensuring that banks comply with banking laws and regulations? If the OCC correspondence to PNC Bank and the subsequent OCC letters to Carter in January and March did anything, they held PNC to account for the existence or non-existence of a $4 million loan according to banking laws and regulations. By virtue of the OCC complaint process, the OCC did arrive at factual findings.

Finally, with the OCC’s conclusion that “based on our review of the information provided by your constituent, it appears the issues outlined in this complaint have been appropriately addressed,” does the OCC agree with the guilty verdict, or that Carter’s claim that there was no $4 million loan is credible? This query is vital especially since PNC confirmed as much to the OCC, which the bank had to do in full accord with the banking laws and regulations?

This series of letters from Beatty to other agencies and their responses brings us back to Beatty. With the knowledge that PNC lied and there was and is no $4 million loan, when Beatty received NAACP’s letter, she wrote to AG Garland.

Quite incredibly, even though the evidence proves there is no $4 million loan, Beatty suggests that the conclusions of all agencies to the contrary are insufficient to Carter and his supporters. After all, Beatty has no dog in this fight. She refuses to acknowledge what is and reject what is not. Once again, she is a glorified secretary pushing paper and collecting responses which she then forwards to no advantage other than to perpetuate a lie.

We need only consider Beatty’s final words. She said that Carter and others “seek additional clarification regarding the amount of the debt.” No, this is not what Carter wishes. He wants the DOJ to concede that there is no $4 million loan and that the theory of the prosecution of the government’s case was predicated upon PNC Bank’s initial deceit in 2007.

If we were to look at an illustration of this entire tragedy, we would see the entire landscape of the lie beginning with PNC Bank, the FBI, DOJ, Court, Defense Attorneys, the OCC, Benjamin Glassman, Kenneth Parker, to include all officials and representatives. Yet, below this mesh of confusion, which fosters the lie that there was a $4 million loan for which Carter and CBST were obligated to pay, we find hints and chunks of truth

However, this truth emerges only after great effort of those who refuse to accept the grand lie. As a result, PNC admits the truth long after the criminal trial. The OCC provides the truth, but only after compelling PNC to answer. Rafael Underwood from the Commerce Department asserts the truth. The DOJ concedes that there was no shredding of the $4 million because the loan did not exist and there was no destruction of the case records, contrary to Glassman and Parker’s lie. All of these examples give us an understanding that the $4 million loan was a fabrication.

Our illustration reveals that the entire false narrative that the public or court record established the existence of the $4 million loan is itself a lie based upon a lie. If the record proves the loan existed, and the evidence entered into the court was a lie, then the record is a lie.

Perhaps someday the Federal Government must and will ignore the lie and accept what is so transparent.

As for Orlando Carter’s efforts. He has been working with several parties along as many fronts. It is not whether if he will prevail, but when. We will stand along side of him and hope for the justice that is deserved and long overdue.

Until then, may truth reign supreme.

Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. I am recording this episode on the coast of Mexico, so please excuse the background noise.

In the last episode, I explained how Benjamin Glassman, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and Kenneth Parker, current US Attorney, lied to the public in 2018 about shredding documents that do not exist and never existed. Moreover, because of their lie, they failed to dignify an admission from PNC Bank that there was no $4 million loan and a finding from the Department of the Treasury as to the same fact. The repercussions were devastating. Glassman and Parker were expected to seek the truth in Ohio, but they avoided the truth like the plague and kept an innocent man in prison.

In this episode, we will discuss my attempts to hold Glassman and Parker accountable for their lies and how the system failed to investigate them. I will also discuss in greater detail the role of Kenneth Parker. I want to be clear about an important point. After some three plus years as US Attorney, Parker, after receiving my direct request that he provide proof of the shredding of these alleged loan documents, has not responded.

In the last episode, I spoke about the inefficiency of the system that is the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the system is problematic when holding public officials accountable for their criminal conduct or gross incompetence. This means the system fails to provide a solution for anyone suffering from abuse or wrongdoing by public officials. Whether Glassman and Parker acted criminally or incompetently, Orlando Carter is still seeking an answer for his unjust conviction and the lie stated by Glassman and Parker about shredding evidence that does not exist and never existed.

Let me explain with a timeline and supporting documents which you will find attached.

·         You will recall that in January and March of 2017, I received investigative findings from the OCC confirming that a $4 million loan did not exist between PNC Bank and Carter or his company. These documents were posted in a prior episode.

·         I then spoke with Glassman and Parker in 2018 in their Cincinnati office. They began the meeting by proclaiming that the evidence of a $4 million loan had been shredded by the DOJ.

·         On December 28, 2018, Glassman responded to our concerns with a letter explaining why Carter was justly convicted. You may recall that he summarily dismissed the significance of what we deemed to be new evidence by the OCC. I uploaded Glassman’s letter in a prior episode.

·         Since Glassman and Parker did not help Carter in the least, and without any other recourse, in March of 2020, I filed a complaint against Glassman with the BAR Association at the Supreme Court of Ohio. The BAR Association responded that the proper agency to receive a complaint against a US Attorney was the Office of Professional Responsibility with the Department of Justice.

·         So, I filed a complaint against Glassman with the Office of Professional Responsibility. When the OPR responded that they were not the proper agency, I filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

·         None of these agencies assisted and disavowed being the proper party to investigate Glassman’s crime.

·         In the summer of 2021, I learned about Parker’s nomination to become US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio under President Biden.

·         In October 2021, I penned an open letter to Biden. I then penned a Press Release concerning a controversy between Butler County and Kenneth Parker as it relates to the alleged $4 million loan.

That same month, I penned a Press Release concerning the nomination of Kenneth Parker with an emphasis on Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz is a member of the Judiciary Committee which was responsible for approving and advancing all nominations for US Attorneys to the full Senate.

·         At the end of October 2021, I flew to San Antonio, Texas, to speak with Senator Cruz’ Chief of Staff. My efforts were to no avail. Parker’s nomination advanced from the committee to a full Senate vote and he was confirmed as US Attorney.

·         When Parker was confirmed as US Attorney, I sent him a letter on December 6, 2021 and asked that he prove that the DOJ destroyed the alleged evidence of a $4 million loan.

·         To ensure that I received an answer, I submitted a FOIA request on December 7, 2021.

·         Parker responded to my FOIA on December 20, 2021, by stating that my request would be sent to the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys.

·         Since then, I have emailed the Executive Office of US Attorneys several times and have not received a response. The Federal Government remains silent on this issue, which means that Glassman and Parker will not be held accountable until the lie about the shredding of evidence of an alleged $4 million loan is denied.

·         Now, since none of the agencies mentioned above were willing to accept responsibility for investigating a US Attorney who lied while in office, I do not expect a different response concerning Parker. However, I wrote to each agency and received no responses whatsoever. The Office of Professional Responsibility, the BAR Association, and the United States District Court never responded to my concerns. Even after I sent subsequent requests for answers, I received nothing.

·         Finally, on June 7, 2023, I filed a formal complaint with Mr. Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, through his online portal. I have not heard from Horowitz at all.

Several questions must be asked:

1)      What agency is responsible for investigating a US Attorney who lies, especially since the lie prevents the exoneration of an innocent man in prison and contradicts a conclusion of fact from a separate federal agency?

2)      Why would Kenneth Parker not willingly review Glassman’s own words and agree to reconsider the OCC finding of fact and admit that the DOJ made a grievous error when prosecuting Carter in 2009?

3)      Why did Senator Cruz refuse to discuss with the Senate Judiciary Committee allegations that Parker lied about shredding documents that do not exist? Why would Cruz allow Parker’s nomination to proceed from the committee to the full Senate unchallenged?

4)      Why has it taken nearly three years for the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys to answer my simple FOIA Request?

5)      Why does the same office refuse to respond to my emails with an update?

6)      Why hasn’t the Inspector General of the Department of Justice responded to my complaint against Parker?

7)      Is the Federal Government grossly inefficient and, therefore, unable to answer these questions, or is the Government complicit with the lie made by two US Attorneys?

It appears as if no one is responsible for the overall tragedy that is the unjust conviction of Orlando Carter, just as there appears to be no one responsible for any of the numerous agencies or components involved. For example, if it were possible to speak with President Biden directly, and if he were willing to listen to the FACTS of the case, would he obfuscate and deflect the issue, or would he task someone who would resolve the issues once and for all? You see, without one specific person deciding for the Federal Government, the matter will not be addressed.

Now, if an official within an agency of the Federal Government were to listen and resolve at least one aspect of the overall tragedy, that one conclusion could affect other elements. For example, if the Executive Office of US Attorneys were to process the FOIA Request and determine that there were no records proving the shredding of a $4 million loan, then we could use this new fact and leverage a response from other agencies and work toward a conclusion. Yet, when there is complete inertia by the Federal Government, Glassman’s and Parker’s lies will remain uncontested and both truth and justice will be denied.

One must wonder, akin to the corrupt culture of the FBI under James Comey, if the Federal Government refuses to concede to the injustice of the Carter case simply to avoid all repercussions. Given the lengths the FBI concealed the lies concerning collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, why wouldn’t the DOJ simply hide the truth concerning the Carter tragedy?

Let’s look at one of my attempts to hold the “system” accountable and consider the impact. When I first learned that President Biden nominated Kenneth Parker as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, I acted quickly. I genuinely believed that Senator Cruz would give my concerns a fair shake and consider the gravity of Parker’s complicity with the lie about shredding of evidence which does not exist. After all, Cruz is constantly fuming and barking and huffing and puffing about this and that. Why would he not do the same about a lie that is easily proved about a nominee for US Attorney concerning a federal conviction and prison sentence that were predicated upon the existence of that very $4 million loan?

Since Senator Cruz aggressively seeks public acclaim as a firebrand, that is, the tough guy seeking truth, I figured he would want to dignify the facts and openly and aggressively condemn the Parker nomination.

Here are the facts relating to Senator Cruz:

1)      I provided Cruz with the history of Parker’s lie.

2)      I made an appointment and flew to San Antonio and provided the documents and information directly to his Chief of Staff.

3)      Cruz’ Chief of Staff provided this relevant information to Cruz.

4)      I had already emailed the same information to most of the members of the Judiciary committee as well.

5)      When Parker’s nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee without so much as a raised eyebrow, I called Cruz’ office in San Antonio and asked for an explanation.

6)      Cruz’ Chief of Staff explained that he could not confirm whether Cruz voted to confirm or deny Parker’s nomination because both the votes within the Judiciary committee and the full Senate were voice votes.

7)      I told Cruz’ Chief of Staff that it was rather convenient for a Senator to rely upon voice votes as a means not to document his decisions. I further stated that it was obvious that Ted Cruz advanced the nomination, for there was NOTHING about him addressing the controversy within the committee, Senate, or the press.

What does my experience about Cruz tell us about the system that is the Federal Government? Truth and facts are important when they serve the self-interests of public officials. Since the lie about shredding an alleged $4 million loan was related to a criminal case, perhaps Cruz chose not to investigate the matter. Why? Congressmen and Senators are prohibited by law from getting involved with criminal cases. This means that these representatives passed a law to prevent themselves from getting involved in criminal cases. They, therefore, can avoid controversies associated with unjust convictions. Is this not a convenient tactic?

Thus, a sitting Senator deliberately refused to investigate an ISOLATED issue, the nomination of Parker as US Attorney after he lied to the public about a fact that can be proved. Apparently, a lie made by a nominee for US Attorney that can be verified was deemed too subjective for Cruz and he likely considered any blowback as not worthy of his political interests. Now, if every official within separate agencies that are involved in this case were to think the same, then they would also not be held accountable for their conduct and Carter will never be exonerated. At a minimum, one would think that a Senator or Congressman would determine that a man’s life is worth the time and effort to investigate a single and significant lie made by any public official.

However, let’s presume for a moment that a lie is one of the most difficult things to prove. When both Glassman and Parker were presented with a finding from the Department of the Treasury that validated that a $4 million dollar loan never existed, didn’t they have an incumbent responsibility to investigate - not a previously adjudicated criminal case, by the way - but possible criminal conduct by private and public officials who advanced the existence of that loan years ago? Anyone can see that if Glassman and Parker had done the right thing, people would have called them noble, just, and fair. But they acted cowardly and did the opposite.

People would have considered Cruz as a just person as well. And isn’t this what is needed most? Don’t we want and need people who always seek the truth? At some point, be it a US Attorney or US Senator, officials should pause and establish a credible reason to challenge what is an obvious dilemma, which is that one federal agency says one thing, while a separate federal agency says the opposite. Failure to reconcile two opposing positions between two federal agencies is the failure of the most basic function of government itself.

There is a Supreme Court case I often use to underscore the people’s responsibility to hold public officials accountable for their conduct. Consider the language in Federal Crop Ins Corp v Merrill, 332 US 380, 384 (1947):

…anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so… even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.

Now if we give the words in Merrill sufficient latitude, there can be no doubt that we the people have the burden to make sure that officials do not violate their authority. As such, are we not obligated to hold Glassman accountable for his deceit and incompetence? Was he not exceeding and violating his authority beyond his capacity as US Attorney? Did he not have a burden to adequately consider the OCC letter and PNC Bank’s admission that there was no $4 million loan? Are we not justified under Merrill to ensure Glassman is punished for and that he corrects his indiscretions?

Did the Executive Office of US Attorneys have a responsibility to respond to a FOIA Request in less than three years, especially since this agency simply is confirming what does not exist? Did Senator Cruz, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have a responsibility to learn of a nominee for US Attorney who lied about a case while he was Assistant US Attorney? Did Cruz have the burden to prevent Parker’s nomination from being advanced to the full Senate?

We must answer in the affirmative for each of these questions.

Let’s pause for a moment and consider my complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility against former US Attorney Glassman. I encourage you to read this one letter to appreciate the gravity of Glassman’s and Parker’s conduct and lies.

Given the forthrightness of my letter to the OPR, at some point we must pause and look at the panoramic view of what is the Federal Government’s injustice against Orlando Carter. We must remark, with stupefied amazement, that the federal agents did not verify the existence of the $4 million loan or guaranty in 2005 and why Glassman and Parker did not verify the existence of the loan in 2018. The story that is the unjust prosecution of Orlando Carter by glory-hungry public officials is simply irreconcilable.

The impact of the damage caused by the Federal Government, beginning with US Attorney Lockhart in 2005 and now with the current US Attorney Kenneth Parker, has had and will continue to have a devastating impact upon Carter. Let me give you an example.

Presently, Carter is dealing with a federal tax issue. The IRS sent him a significant tax bill based upon the false claim that he had a $4 million loan or guaranty. Ironically, the accounting firm, Clarke, Shafer, and Hackett offered conflicting testimony in and out of court. Carter’s accountant at the time of his trial, Tony Schweier, is on the record that Carter has both a loss and a gain.  How is this possible? This is the same dishonest accountant who testified in Carter’s trial that he had a $4 million liability with PNC Bank.

We need only look at the recent correspondence from Carter’s current tax representative to Kenneth Parker to understand the scope of this problem. Now, if Kenneth Parker is not the public official who bears the burden of providing the financials and documents Carter needs to file a proper and correct tax return, then he should give Carter the name of the official who can help. The attached letters from Carter’s tax representative are quite revealing.

This story cannot get any more unreal. No one deserves to go to prison for a loan that does not exist, and no one deserves to deal with the likes of the IRS over a tax liability that does not exist.

Unfortunately, since no current public official is willing to make an easy and courageous decision to challenge prior public officials who represented and supported the false claim that a $4 million loan existed, Carter will not find redemption.

When I publish this specific episode, I will be sending more letters to The Office of Professional Responsibility and to the Inspector General of the DOJ asking for an investigation into both Glassman and Parker. I will also be sending a letter to both Kenneth Parker and the Executive Office of US Attorneys and ask for an update on the FOIA Request.  

In the next episode I hope to have a full interview with Orlando Carter. It is time that we heard from him concerning the entire scope of this tragedy.

Until then, may truth reign supreme.