Followers of the Continental Congress 2009 (CC2009) a recorded Talk Shoe Conference Call on the Truth of CC2009

Ok, in my own words, the reason that LB says he doesn't trust Shultz is because LB knows that Shultz has been approached long ago and many times about the 14th Amendment. The root of all of Shultz's grievances are found within the 14th Amendment, which is to say the the SOLUTION to all of Shultz's grievances is found in the 14th Amendment. This is not something new to Shultz's ears, but it is something that he continually tunes out. For decades he has made no headway in the Courts because he has no standing in the Courts. He has no standing because he is addressing the old Constitution, not the Constitution in effect. The Constitution in effect is the 14th Amendment. He thinks that he has Constitutional Rights, when the Courts have in MANY cases ruled that US Citizens DO NOT have the Rights of the ORIGINAL State Citizens. He has been told this many times but ignores it, and it is THE solution to access to the TRUE Constitution, which is the Constitution before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment CREATED the Democracy, and everyone joined it, which destroyed the Republic. The real question is, "do you want to be free, or do you want to part of a political movement?"

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…

“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”

(Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97.)

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

don't want to give more details, and I did listen to a few minutes of it--what it appears to be about, is this guy not trusting Bob Schulz, he says Schulz ignores the 14th amendment...blah blah blah
I don't even know how long of a broadcast it is, so I am NOT wasting my time...