An interesting read: https://www.icr.org/article/mt-st-helens-catastrophism/
Perhaps this is a white hat activity to provide funds to people through the latter part of the year. What is this was done because some have a better idea of the general timeline and know that funding will be helpful regardless of the specific Go-Time. That said, personal reservations are worth respecting.
It is passing strange to me that an administrative bent on harm to the populace would provide funds to forestall desperate measures. A suggested counter-argument is that it works along with paycheck assistance to keep people out of the work force longer.
Use some wisdom and come to your own conclusion.
Be safe out there.
According to Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, House members must be:
at least 25 years of age; a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to being elected; a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent.
So I am a bit puzzled. If this is to let us know she is planning to run in 2024 then great. I support the forward looking and preparation.
There are multiple problems with the sovereign citizen argument. One of the most basic is an inconsistency of arguing that you are essentially above all laws while simultaneously arguing that you can benefit from the laws of which you and all others are not actually a part. The logical end state of the sovereign citizen movement is anarchy.
A second major problem is who precisely is supposed to come to your aid to insure your personal sovereignty? On what basis are they required to protect your sovereign citizen status (if they are required to at all, and no one is ogligated to. Why should anyone be if all are self sovereign)? Why is anyone required to enforce anyone else's status?
Most of the time, this argument is based upon someone not liking a law or set of laws in a country, and looking for a way to not have to abide by them.
Your sovereign status argument fails the moment that a group of people refuse to recognize it and inflict whatever consequences upon you they deem appropriate.
Replying to my own post. Let's say a person who had full knowledge of rights of way, went to one of the companies who owned some of those million dollar leases. They go and talk to someone in the current owning companies rights or way dept and is able to convince them to sell the right of way license for much less then it is actually worth because the people who were in charge of making decisions to sell the right of way contracts AT THAT POINT IN TIME did not understand the value of the contracts in the way the buyer did. Once a lawful contract is executed, the ownership has changed. The new owner got a multi million dollar contract for a song because of knowledge vs. ignorance.
Take the previous paragraph and apply it to ownership of the title four flag which appears to signify ownership of the contract on the United States as it is alleged in the video presented by OP. Russell Jay Gould is alleging that he did the equivalent of getting the right of way contract for next to nothing. But in his case, it is a contract on the United States. It was achievable because he operated according to the laws under which the 'deal' was originated. And having taken possession of the 'contract instrument' (the flag), he declares his uncontestable claim.
I understand the seeming senselessness of it. The presentation in the video is not the best. Without intended insult, part of the problem is the presenter. That said, could it be that the seeming lack of sense is because we are not part of the groups of people who originated the 'deal', who understood the laws, or who comprehend the value in such things.
Here is a comparison which may be of use. I know a person who worked on rights of way, contracts, easements for use of long distance communication. Going back as far as the 1800s, companies associated with railroads secured line permits/licenses/easements, etc. for running telegraph lines to all sorts of places. Some of those contracts involved property which is now-aday in major metropolitan areas. You may find licenses with an annual fee of $1/mile length to maintain communication lines. The 130 year old physical document still exists, though it may have been imaged somewhere along the way. Originally for telegraph; later converted for use of copper telephone lines then fiber optic cable. This is 2021. These 130 plus year old contracts are still in force today based upon wording of the original contract and the laws and legal governments under which they were executed. The contract applies to successors of the original company. So, over those 130 years, the ownership of the original company, and all assets, was bought/sold/merged many times. The laws upon which that contract was issued still stand, and the contract stays in force. Today, that $1/year contract could cost millions to originate. The value of the contract itself is worth millions if it were to be sold.
Another common point of reference would be the contracts to buy a house. This is not about the financing part, but the transfer of ownership. These days, the default wording is that mineral rights do not transfer with the sale of the property. So, a plot of land developed sixty years ago was purchased by a land speculator, sold to developers (without mineral rights), lots were made, houses were built, and starting with the original occupant the house and property may have been sold multiple times. Yet, the mineral rights are the property of the land speculator and the successors (whoever or whatever they may be).
Without insult, most people are focused on their monthly payment amount and how much they have to bring to closing (today). They understand what they are signing in a property purchase (tomorrow) about as well as they understand the contract to purchase an iphone.
Now, look at the concept being applied in the video. What is alleged is that a contract/deal/agreement of a sort was made (today to those people at the time of execution). Most people at the time did not know/understand the contract (tomorrow for the people who lived then), they just needed to deal with looming debt (today for those people who lived at that time). They dealt with it like an iphone contract or the purchase of a house. They focused on their present need and left the long term consequences for other people to deal with.
This last point is of immense importance. The practice of incompetent/corrupt/compromised/lazy people in government making decisions which caused massive long term problems to fix a short term looming issue, at the expense of other people, has been going on .... probably since governments started to exist after the fall of man when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and cursed.
Evil people/being understand this. They are prey on the ignorance/fear of whoever is on the other side of the table. The fact that it may not be comprehensible to us at the moment does not mean the deal was not legitimate. It does mean it sucks for us who have to pay for the sloppy selfish behavior of people in the past.
To understand the applicability of a contract/deal/treaty/agreement it is necessary to understand the conditions/rules/laws under which the contract was executed.
Perhaps reality would show that maybe 3-5 billion was sent on bio-weaponry development, 8 billion in advertising, 2-3 billion in bribes, and the balance was extorted away. How likely is it that all of that actually went to development when it could be siphoned away for personal use?
You just described something similar to the book Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End.
Do your own search for "picture of alien from childhoods end".
A number of years back, on the site freerepublic.com, there was a person who posted day by day bulletins of WW2. The front page of the then New York Times was a daily reference point along with all sorts of other information about the pace of the war. We knew how the 'movie' ended as we sat on this side of time and WW2 was a historical event for us. But what can be a blip in a history book was a daily slog for those alive at the time. Consider the setbacks. Invasion of Czech. Invasion of Poland. Invasion of France, Dunkirk. Defeat in Norway. Loss of the HMS Hood along with sinking of the Bismark. The multi-year loss then victory of the convoy campaign which ultimately resulted in the winning of the war. Defeat in Greece, Defeat on Malta, wins and losses in the Med. Victory in Egypt, defeat in Egypt.. rinse and repeat in Egypt. Pear Harbor. Fall of Singapore. Fall of Philippines. Invasion of New Guinea. Mixed victory at Coral Sea. Huge win at Midway. Guadalcanal; a lot of losses before final victory in that theatre. Victory, defeat, victory in North Africa. And on and on. It is not just a short attention span. It is a view of history which air brushes the losses and can potentially paint the wins as the minimum requirement for a successful operation.
Stay the course.
Allegedly...