The dude I’ve been listening to seems to think all jurisdiction stems from USA, INC. housed in DOC

This is the problem. People don't realize how long this has been going on. They see recent fuckery (where by "recent," I mean the last 150 years or so), and assume that's when it started. That is not what my investigation suggests. On the contrary, the evidence (that I've seen) suggests that this exact same fuckery has been going on for thousands of years. The latest "findings" are only the evidence of the latest iteration of it. For example, the individual States claimed ownership long before the U.S. Government existed. The U.S. Government claimed ownership long before later iterations of the U.S. Government did (where by "later," I mean the government that existed after new amendments, laws, etc. which effectively created a completely new form of government).

Before it was "States" and "Democratic Governments", it was The Church, acting through the "Divine Right of Kings," where The Church would proclaim a certain King had the right to claim ownership of the Individuals occupying the land that they had already claimed ownership of. The Kings processed this claim through The Church's blessing, thus The Church was the real ruler there. This was effectively identical to the present system, with the King serving as "the State" having a lower claim, and The Church serving as the U.S. Government having a higher Sovereign claim to ownership of the Individual over the King's/State's claim.

But it goes back even further. This is the way the world has worked for a very long time. When you dig in, you find it is the exact same group of people running the same show, being remade with a new cast of characters and called "the latest thing."

Something to do with banking laws the way all the different levels of government, Fed to local are tied together.

This is mostly correct, and I could elaborate on that for days. In fact I am writing a book on this very topic. The first part can be found here.

It's as much subversion of government as actual law, though it does enter law through Treaty. The Fed is a Sovereign entity through the BIS. The U.S. Government has a Treaty with the BIS, and has proclaimed in their own laws that the BIS's claim to Sovereignty is agreed upon. One corporate entity can't be a Sovereign unless it is agreed that they are. For example, the U.S. Government (a legal fiction) claimed Sovereignty, and The Crown (another legal fiction) disagreed. They had a fight, Triangle wins. (That's a line from They Might Be Giant's song "Particle Man," but is amazingly appropriate here as well. In fact, that whole song explains pretty much everything. It's amazing.) When "Triangle won," The Crown then agreed with the claim of Sovereignty.

These agreements are done (in the legal sense) through Treaty. Only Natural Persons are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) without requirement of such legal agreement, because only Natural Persons exist by Natural Law. It requires a completely different system of law to incorporate a fictional entity, thus it requires other laws contained within that system to agree upon the Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) of that legal fiction. This of course is a complete fraud, having nothing to do with Natural Law, and is indeed an attempt to subvert it (by the creation of an "agreement" between fictions all of which only exist in the mind). Even the concept of a Hierarchy of Sovereigns is a fraud (you can't have a "greater Ultimate Authority," it is a concept that makes no sense), but that fraud is perpetrated through Treaty, i.e. one Sovereign agrees to give up their Right to claim authority to another. This of course can be revoked at any time, because it only has power if both parties believe in it.

Of course if the stronger party believes in it, if they are much stronger, than the other party's feelings are irrelevant, at least in effect. The choice is always there, but the stronger party can make the only choices available very unpleasant (comply or die e.g.).

Brandon Joe Williams, David Straight, David E. Robinson, Anna Von Reitz. All resources for this line of thinking.

I've looked into Anna Von Reitz stuff. She doesn't really talk about what I'm talking about. Either she doesn't understand (which is entirely possible) or she is purposefully leading people away from the fundamental problem. Without addressing the fundamental issue the problem can't be solved. At best you may get the U.S. Government (the stronger party) to recognize your Rights as the Ultimate Authority over you and your property, but that doesn't really lead to a path out, because the U.S. Government still holds enthralled everyone else and any agreement only holds until they decide it doesn't (as the stronger party). Worse, as far as I have seen, If that "legal freedom" is even possible to accomplish they haven't really elaborated how to do that in a reasonable way. It is for this reason I think they may be a smokescreen, designed to hide the real problem. Again, I'm not saying that is the case. Maybe they just don't know. But when you start digging into the evidence, controlled opposition is everywhere. They either might be themselves, or they may have learned from other controlled opposition agents, and that is why their work is obfuscatious.

That Brandon dude is taking it a step further and killing contracts with banks and discharging many different forms of debt and teaching others how to do it too.

If he has given a clear path to effect this, it would be interesting to see. If it is just claims that it has been done (which is what I've seen elsewhere), that is insufficient. I need real, primary evidence. Everything else is, from what I've seen, probably intentional bullshit.

He is heavy into Trust and Contract law.

The next part of my book (hopefully released in the not too distant future) will cover these topics.