[Music] I am not aware of any contracts that I have knowingly willingly and voluntarily entered into jurisdiction Martin Mr Martin do you hear me call name huh you hear me calling your name I just heard yes okay I'm not certain what you're doing but this is a pre-trial and this does not go this way so first of all my first issue is it looks like you refused to have the public defender represent you is that what you're indicating sir yes if any attorneys think they're representing me they're fired I will not take no attorneys uh because that would be giving up my right to be Sovereign and to be uh a living human Mr Martin Mr Martin I heard you I'm gonna advise you of your rights and what you're giving up today and then once you decide what you're going to do after I do that we'll go from there clear y and welcome to facts or frauds all right the cour will call the case of the state of Michigan versus Eric Martin case number 23 s425 Dey for the people and um standby Council assistant public defender Jay Bellinger um for Mr Eric Martin who appears via Zoom Mr Martin can you please um unmute and state your name for the record I am uh living man capital E lowercase r i c of the capital M lowercase a r t n family um one of the people Sovereign not the legal fiction corporate entity defendant with the name similar to mind here by special appearance to threaten duress not willingly um now again I object again to any attorney uh being appointed to me representing me but that's something I want to ask you R now you said you're appointing this public defender are you appointing it for me or are youon it for you or it made my decision on that it's standby Council if you have motions to make you need to make those at this time yeah that's well that's I need I'm seeing clarification is are you appointing him against my will to have an attorney pointed for me yes is not representing you he stand by councel please make your motions okay that's it well well that's I was going to make the motion to dismiss him if if you if he's appoint if you're trying to appoint him for me which as I already said before I I will not be taking no attorneys I'm one of the people I'm not a defendant who's yes so as I said before so I'm not going to be accepting any attorneys who's going to fraudulently assume I'm a defendant and uh which would then fraudulently give the presumption I'm under the jurisdiction of the Court which I'm not as I said before um you got five minutes to make your arguments and you can spend them however you want to all right yeah like I said before uh I'm a living man so as the US Supreme Court said in the cases I SL it to you before um there's no jurisdiction over living man corporations don't have jurisdiction over living man without her consent I don't consent and it's also under uh there's no consent under the declaration independence of [Music] 1776 no jurisdiction over a human without their consent so I never consented jurisdiction and I don't know and I never will um now I have some uh questions though for the prosecutor that's sir you don't get to ask questions if you want to have a motion you can make those I object to that that violates my right to do process uh it's relevant to a standing argument as to the prosecutor whether they have standing or not I think that's relevant to move forward or not you know there's no standing shouldn't move forward but so what's ruling on that your motion is denied as the jurisdiction and standing now do you have any additional motions I object to that because you you didn't uh you didn't allow me to answer the questions to see whether you know whether you had a legit basis to make that ruling your objection is noted next okay um let's see here you say you're going to be questioning me about the uh some demands I made to dismiss the case anyway right I'm sorry what you said you're going to be addressing some demands for dismissal I made I already sent to you uh to you already you're first of all a demand is not a proper format before a court and could be dismissed outright however I'm going to allow you to make your motions here if you want to make an argument you can do that sir he object to that that's not as I mentioned before demands when someone has the right to to something that's what the terminology uh demand is made and that that's the only reason why I make it um motions even though I know that's that's all you see in the court rules or whatever traditional um but that's for a request and persons are not or humans are not supposed to be requesting constitutional rights you know me exercising my unalienable right right con human rights and constitution rights I'm supposed to be making demands that's how I've been you know and that's backed up by law that's how I've been taught and uh so that's what you know it's all right and proper motions are requests you know um and the defendant makes motions also since I'm just so you're about the end of your five minutes I objective five minutes being any time limit also that I don't I don't care about what you're objecting to you can make it on the record it is noted now if you have something that you want me to address you should do that before your time is up putting a limit on My First Amendment right that's uncons sir this is sir please if you want to have something to say other than the circular talk that you're doing you should probably do that at this time I didn't finish that's why I didn't mean to no nothing circular I didn't I didn't finish the first time all right well that's it as to that uh is the court ready for the people's response r i I don't know if he's done with his motion I'm sorry I'm trying to um well the police I want to question uh the police officer wrote the ticket I have a relevant question as the self-incrimination um move to dismiss um the case based on that because he made me give you know my ID um but I kind of my memory was a little it's a little uh I don't really remember exactly what would say that's why I kind of need to question him to refresh a memory but I do remember in general though he kind of you know I'm required to give my my ID if I remember right and I might have been arrested if I didn't give my ID which is under threatened arrest and even even if he didn't say that which I don't remember which like I I need to have his body Cam and all that U um I want that I want to be able to review that um now and also for the trial if this goes to trial I want the video present as part of my due process right for the uh evidence which is my due process right like I'm saying um and because um like I said violates it violates my self-incrimination right that I'm being made to give my supposed name government name anyways which ain't really my name but uh a government name has been given um you violate self-incrimination and then it's used against me to prosecute or violate self-incrimination um so uh yeah move to dismiss based on that too and like I said if you need more evidence as to like I said his questions then he needs to answer my question I was about to send out interrogatories to him um I'm about to do it here soon um if you find that's necessary unless you find it ain't necessary I'm G send it out soon so oh another thing um now Mrs was I just filed a federal civil lawsuit on you um for violating my constitution rights during this case so you may want to uh consider recusing yourself um I know you probably didn't get a receipt yet because I just sent it out like two days ago so the court will be getting it if they didn't get it already be getting this week and yeah so that out as to your motion to recuse that is denied based on what reasons conflict of interest my reason that's why um I didn't mention that but I thought you might kind of already figure that but conflict of interest due to the lawsuit being filed that's the grounds of uh by demand for dis Miss and I would like to uh Miss Duffy as the prosecutor I'd like to notify you you know of the crimes being committed Against Me by the police officer by in this case um writing the tickets and I request you prosecute them for this because I'm the crime victim here in reality you know because I was traveling by right which the US Supreme Court said we have long as you're not carrying passengers property for profit you're not technically driving a motor vehicle therefore all these charges are baseless there's no case here so so in reality I was harassed retaliated against for exercising my right to travel on my motorcycle you know and then with these charges okay so they had because they had no evidence that I was carrying passenger property for profit which is what's required that's the definition of a motor vehicle under 18 USC section 31 subsection and 10 that's when a motor vehicle is a motor vehicle in contrast to the state law I know what the state law says the state law just says oh if something's mechanically drawn it's a motor vehicle well that state the state statute is in violation of this federal statute therefore it's unconstitutional okay and therefore it the federal statute definition motor vehicle applies here it overrides the state statute under article six of the US Constitution laws the United States is Supreme Over state law so therefore I wasn't doing anything wrong I was traveling by right I'm a motorcycle as I have a right to do without a license without registration without insurance so I was all within my right under that federal statute and the US Supreme Court case law uh that uh I cited already in the court that they sent back but one of the main cases here is Packard versus Banton US Supreme Court case law okay this is a little more specific than just saying people have a right to travel it mentions there specifically uh and I'm going to mention right here um volume 44 supreme court reporter page 259 the streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary and generally at least may be prohibited or conditioned as the legislator deems proper as they're saying right there say we do not need a license if we're not using the streets for profit for gain um I wasn't doing that he the police don't have no evidence of that so he shouldn't even pulled me over stopped and wrot a ticket none of that so I'm the crime victim I request you prosecute him for that and it's also federal crime which I'm going be contacting FBI about I already tried once I got to call him back so yes anything else Mr Martin um well I'm going to see if you got my uh if you're going to I would like to just reiterate my uh the demands for this missile already made or you want to call motions but I gu I like using the word demand because I want to um I don't agree to no unlawful presumptions that you know you know because I understand the legal Le a little bit where you say one word and it means something else and it's presumed and that's why I demand also that there be no legal ease to use in in no stages of this case because that's one of the fraudulent things going on in the court system I'm the final class action stop this in a grand scale but I know it's happening that's why like for example I use the word demand to use the word motion and it can be presume you're a defendant because defendants make motions see so that's why it should be no legal EAS used here it's fraudulent it's wrong it's immoral it's pathetic whoever made this stuff you know because it's it's putting a blind it's a blanket on a lot of people that don't know no better in the system um um something else now when this proceedings started I I notice on the screen it said no recordings are are allowed okay now I object to that in that that violates my due process right to preserve evidence me or anyone else and I'm not just speaking for you I speak for everyone else all the people have a right to record in any public court this is all public US Supreme Court already said this people have the First Amendment right to record in public anywhere and it's also a due process right to preserve evidence because if my rights are violated during these proceedings or any other along with anyone else's we have the right to record that and have that evidence to bring criminal or civil charges so that's why that's not supposed to be poing up on the screen that video audio recordings ain't allowed right thank you sir Miss uh McDuffy thank you r um so I am aware of five items that have been filed by Mr Martin um I think after this case began to be pending in this court and I'll just briefly address the um as to the formatting of those I did notice all of them are handwritten he does write a date on the top of each document but then he usually signs off with a different date on the bottom of the document so if if it ever comes into play that there's an issue with the timing with respect to deadlines or anything like that for my purposes I'm just going by the date that it was received by the court which is usually a third uh date that is different from the other two so the first document I'm aware of is titled demand for the return of my motorcycle that one uh was received by the court July 27th or or yes I believe somewhere around there I'm I'm sorry the I'm not going to really the dates aren't really important so I'm not going to dwell on those uh just uh I'm just addressing these versus actually I think responding to them in detail um defendants specifically ordered and demanded that the troopers from Michigan State Police uh return his motorcycle in this case that is a request of police that was filed with the court no response appears to be required a call for from the people so I don't have anything to say about that next is the motion that was filed for the disqualification of the judge in this case and um I just wanted to point out a couple things first and foremost as Mr Martin pointed out the Court rule that relates to disqualification of Judges MCR 2.03 um speaks to the exact procedure for that in a single judge court and actually the challenge judge here is the chief judge this the challenge judge is the person who decides this motion so I don't have any argument to make as far as that but I would point out there is a quote included in that particular motion that challenges this Court's Jurisdiction um and it cites a case from what's that oh yes pen hallo versus D's administrators that's a case from 1795 and the specific quote that was cited in that case to challenge his Court's Jurisdiction um it's a paragraph or so it begins with something about Heavens let me see I want to make sure I have it correctly I don't want it's not really important in as much as every government is an artificial person a creature of the Mind only all that stuff about artificial persons I I think Mr Martin already um made some references to that I just want to make sure that Mr Martin is aware that specific quote does not exist in that case whatsoever that quote that he used to challenge this Court's Jurisdiction doesn't exist anywhere at all except for other cases where Sovereign citizens have copied and pasted that non-existent case law and they've been told the Same by other courts so apparently there's like a bank um of things to be shared amongst people making this argument just so he knows and everybody else out there knows that does not exist it's not a thing it's nowhere in that case that full text of that case can be Googled for free you will not find that quote the same is true of another case he cited Keller versus patomic electric power that's from 1923 that case also does not include that quote those words or anything even slightly resembling that argument regarding the power he believes is lacking here due to Municipal Court status but FYI um the Michigan district court Act of 1968 did abolish most of the municipal courts four of them are left that they did allow to remain Gross Point Gross Point Farms Gross Point Park and gross point woods all of those are in Wayne County we're in Washington so just so that Mr Martin is aware this is not a municipal court it's a district court finally um as to the motion to disqualify as I mentioned that is for the judge to decide but I might want to point out the manner in which he chooses to pursue that disqualification including any comments or insults for example on page nine of his motion when he says that also Washington was not is not a real judge but a clerk masquerading as a judge pursuing disqualification or recusal or even a federal lawsuit does not insulate you from the content powers of that very same court should you choose to continue escalating that type of behavior that's just the more you know from me third next document that was filed from this court it's titled Martin versus Mike plaintiff's response and object pardon me response and objections to my return criminal complaint on Mike in the attached Court letter that vaguely unfairly stated filings does not comply with MCR 6.11 and 6.12 I didn't have an a letter attached to that to refer to but it looks like that is the Court's rejection of an improper filing or format um I honestly have no idea who Mike is um but the people of the state of Michigan are not listed as a party in that filing so I don't really have any response to that either I can advise though that um Mr Martin mentioned earlier and it stated here that the reference to this criminal complaint um because a defendant refers to himself as a plaintiff and um title something as a criminal complaint it doesn't make either of those things true so I'll direct Mr Martin to the same Court rule he actually cited in that filing which is MCR 6.11 the prosecutor's approval or posting of security a complaint may not be filed without a prosecutor's written approval endorsed on the complaint or attached to it or unless security for cost is filed with the court just wanted to disabuse him of that notion that because he creates a criminal uh case I guess in his mind and on paper it doesn't mean that that exists in reality um so nothing more from that um the Court's rejection of an improper filing really isn't my business so no response from opposing Council would apply today the last two things that were fiable for the court are two demands the court has already mentioned demands I'm so sorry it's a lot of talking happening here I got to refresh two demands one demand for default judgment and another demand for summary judgment both of these I would have the same reaction to um the demand for summary judgment summary disposition concerns parties to a civil action and defendant is referring to civil procedure not criminal procedure there is no summary anything of that notion in criminal matters now um he makes some references to article three of the US Constitution um that pertains to federal courts appointment senior Supreme Court Justices federal circuit and District judges those are article three judges those are the ones nominated by the president confirmed by the US Senate so this court is not controlled by article three of the US Constitution but I think he knows that because he's citing Michigan court rules to um sustain his argument for pretty much everything else so that doesn't change here um summary judgment is not a thing here default judgment now that's not quite the way it works I think he argued that because the prosecutor and Court did not respond to the request to return his motorcycle for that first filing that I mentioned that he should have a default judgment and he should automatically get what he's demanding because he didn't respond to it well I'm responding right now but um that's not how it works either again this is kind of a civil issue um there are cases where there are default judgments filed but those are civil actions we have traffic tickets that defendants fail to appear and get a default judgment but if that were the case I would have a default Judgment of conviction for every criminal case where defendants fail to appear people are on benchor status for 6 to 20 years at a time we don't I don't get automatic default convictions so um again that's really not what's happening here so those are the five things that I'm aware of now finally if it were true that as Mr Martin stated that federal law Trump saw state law and that all state law and state courts are unconstitutional the state court system would not exist and the US Supreme Court would not hear cases resulting from the need to interpret state law Mr Martin has yet to hear as all of us do of state constitutions and the power of the state courts that come from those being abolished so his reference was correct that there are people in this system who don't know any better and don't know what they're doing I don't think present companies excluded from that so on that note Mr Martin if you want to continue without an attorney you can but I wouldn't recommend it that's off the people I surpris you wouldn't recommend your prosecutor uh anyway well I think CU she said so much I took some notes but I couldn't take notes on everything hard to follow along with everything El I think it's best to you know same with me too I say one thing allow her to respond back she says one thing then allow me to respond that one setad of you know what I mean like me saying a whole bunch and then sure saying a whole bunch because it's hard to follow along for both of us I think harder at least me uh and and for both I think it's common sense but all right well so I'm going to respond now to things I could follow along with I took some notes but I could I'm going to either to say again what I missed so then I can respond one by one okay that's not how this is gonna work sir that's understand here I have the right to that you're not controlling this courtroom s that's not how this works uh as a I'm speak about what I have a right to do I have a right to respond back so you're gonna get five minutes and I'm gonna be done so that is your opportunity and after that I'm gonna make my rulings you got five minutes I'm actually setting a timer all right again I object to that again is being uh violates my due process right to the First Amendment um it's not supposed to be regulated by a certain time limit My First Amendment right to say what I got to say based on an arbitrary very unfair time limit sir in a minute you're gonna you're pushing towards being in contemp of Court you got five minutes you can make your objection what you've done you have five minutes now please move forward criminal I want toj to that too about what you said about contempt Court exercising the first amendment is not contempt of Courts no close to that there's no First Amendment right in this courtroom so you're a defendant you need to actually do what is requested of you and I'm giving you an you to make your argument as to the criminal complaints and response what she said about that MCR the M the refusal to act on my criminal complaints that I filed because of MCR 6101 and now first of all they violate my due process right obviously they didn't mention a subdivision subsection of that rule there's many subsections okay so I'm still left in the dark in what Pacific subdivision subsection it is and all those apply to Pacific fact situations so that was first due process violation right there just mentioning that too vaguely General uh number two but assuming it was based on uh not paying a fee or whatever I think like she mentioned or getting a prosecutor's approval okay if it is for that reason those reasons are unconstitutional and therefore it's invalid that Court rule that's why I'm going to file a class action actually on the Court rule and I'm going to get that Court rule and get up out of there because it's it's not legit why it's not legit because as I cited in there I'm pretty sure I cited in there if I didn't I have to check my papers work my paperwork but uh I'm pretty sure I cited in there or I was waiting to respond back if I didn't already but I'm going to say right now that it violates the court rule on I mean the cor not the cor rule the mission Constitution part that says that people have the right to uh prosecute their own cases in article one I forget the next section um but I mentioned in my paper in some future paperwork anyways I know that if I didn't do it on this one and the very first one because I didn't know you know what the hell subsection it was talking about they didn't mention it but I know I mentioned in some later ones sent to the uh sent to you guys but anyway so yeah so violates that right and also um the US Supreme Court case Murdoch versus Pennsylvania and I got the volume number the page and all that think I said to you guys before in the paperwork it says that you cannot deny someone's uh constitution rights by trying to make them pay money for something you know a rights a right bringing some to the courts a right be heard as a right right I don't have to pay money for that criminal or civil case Okay so it violates a due process so all that's legitimate they're illegitimate that is the arguments are using for that supposed to be acting on regardless of a prosecutor's approv or not okay anyways now as to her her asking who's Mike he was the he's the manager at area Towing um but uh if she would have read it she it was in that document to explain that so okay anyways as to the pen Hollow what she said about the quote about the pen Hollow case okay now first I want to say regardless of the pen Hollow case what he said um the Declaration of Independence of 1776 makes it clear the government has no power over the people they derive their power from the consent of the government anyways that's something that's clear right in there okay the consent of the government I never consented and never will so number two now her saying about the quote just recently going to the law library I'm going to need more time to respond to that but um I didn't have enough time to go over the pen Hollow case but if I remember I was just in the the law law school Law Library recently trying to write verify that quote because a lot of these quotes that I got you know that I'm citing in the court some of them I have read and some of them I haven't this pen Hollow case um I'm not sure on that I admit that um I have to double check myself because you know a lot a lot of these I get online um YouTube and a lot of them haven't been shown up to be legit because I go to law library and I double check on them the quotes in the pen Hollow case if I vaguely remember I think I did have a problem myself finding that quote saying that exactly like that but that's not saying it doesn't stand for that proposition I'm sure it still does I just got to go back to law library and read it again if I did read it I kind of don't remember because you know I got a lot of stuff I'm doing but uh yes so bottom line I gotta I got to re uh check up on that case um so it be it'd be premature to rule on it yet as to whether that penal case is illegitimate to stand for that proposition but I know US Supreme Court cases still say it because it's all based off the declaration independence you know and you know so there should be no doubt on that in the US Supreme Court cases exist that say that that declaration independence is part of federal law United States Supreme Court law and it's the basis of the Constitution so it's leg jit that as of the proposition that uh governments have no power over a human without her consent all right now as to the summary judgment that she mentioned chapter 2 doesn't apply that is not true because since there's not a summary judgment in chapter six of the criminal rules then I I forget exactly where it mentions that but it's in the court rules or another law but I remember reading it it's been a while that they make it clear that where there is not you know where there's not a a relevant or same similar um proceeding in you know chapter 6 then chapter two is used for criminal cases so that just that just totally it's not true so the summary judgment it does apply in criminal cases because there's no nothing in chapter six um and regardless of that in regardless of the court rules you got to remember court rules follow the Constitution is the is the top dog any that's the top law anyways and due process right to have some considered and and ruled on and denied in my case I mean the case dismissed because based on my constitutional rights that's just something I have a right to anyways under the Constitution regardless of the court rules you know because the court rules at the Constitution anyways and they don't always follow the Constitution all right five minutes are up all right I got more to say but uh so I'm gonna move for an extension of time on that based on My First Amendment right I got some say it's I'm sorry Mr you want us to move for an extension so I just want to be are we selecting a jury next week or no it sounds like he wants to talk more he does want to talk more but I'm not adjourning it for that purpose I am done with these motions the motion in this particular case to return the motorcycle has already been addressed through the court regarding the fact that um he the court doesn't do that um any he also filed lawsuits against individuals those were also rejected by this court as improper and those there's nothing to really address about that it's already been decided his motion to dismiss is denied despite his uh understanding of the law and I'm not certain which law school he went to summary disposition does not apply to um criminal cases and is denied and same is true for Den default in criminal cases that is also denied um jurisdiction is with this court as I've red before and I will not be dress addressing this issue again um the motion to dismiss is denied there was one point that he did make with respect to due process that is going to compel where we go with this he does not get to to question officers except for in a trial however he is entitled to Discovery in this case and he mentioned that he did not receive um a copy of the video If there is a video or if there's body Cam he's making a demand for that and he's entitled to have a copy of any um body Cam that exists in this case and a copy of any police reports uh that EX in this case so uh those matters need to those items need to be turned over to the defendant so that he can properly prepare for any trial um and trial right now is scheduled for one week so I don't think it would give him a proper opportunity to prepare I will remove this from the uh trial docket for this upcoming week to uh give the and there is one place in which criminal cases does have a demand and that is a demand for Discovery so I think he is making that demand for discovery and I am going to uh require the prosecutor provide him with that absolutely RoR I think the issue was the the standby Council and him rejecting representation so normally this is brought it to the PD's office but since I think it's been reaffirmed today that I I'll figure it out we'll get it we'll get it done somehow what um do you have an email or are you just gonna Mr Martin are you requesting to have the documentation sent to you VIA mail or email how do you plan to receive it sir um first I to your front of me as mister I understand that's another one of the uh the term Mister is another one of the uh what's the words I'm looking for I forget um it's called all right you can you would like to figure it out um to get him that documentation and um I'm G to give you a new date legals ter that's that's the word I look for the Mis is a legal term that's fraudulently assuming I'm a defendant all that but anyway so my your honor while you while you look for that date I will just State on the record um if Mr Martin Eric Martin living man the individual sitting here before me today speaking if you would like Discovery I would highly suggest that you give the court an email address or some method by which we can deliver that Discovery to you because I'm not trying to keep it from you but if you don't help me to help you I can't get it to you I'm going give them my address and I'd rather do it through my uh physical address here at the home um I just wanted to object to the the term first that's all but before I forgot or you know you guys keep going and don't let me do it but same address I that's been I've been sending the uh the my demands to and all that my paperwork um Taylor City Michigan whoa whoa whoaa whoa whoaa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa I'm talking over because this is this is live you don't want everybody in the world to know your address sir well I'm not worried about it but okay I mean okay we have the information we can send over to miss McDuffy if Mr Martin would so allow but I don't have a problem with this so you know you don't need to have a problem with my address I don't care who hears my address all right really have no car now no motorcycle because they took it so that's also a reason I'm going to move to uh that you should grant that they give my motorcycle back to me so I have transportation to get there and again now remember now you said you have no power to decide on the if I remember right that's the word you use no power to give my motorcycle back but you do and not just power but an obligation under the Constitution because it was tooken violation of my Constitution right because it's my private property so not only do you have the power to do it you have the obligation because you took an oath to P the Constitution they took it in violation of my Constitution right it's my private property uh like I said under that federal statute 18 USC 31 subsection 6 and 10 a that that that sir I'm done with that AR I'm done with that type of argument but Mr McDuffy um regardless of why he's making that argument which is is not valid why do you still have why do the police still have that motorcycle is it being held for evidence or why are they holding that motorcycle no the vehicle was impounded as any vehicle would be when someone is pulled over for not having a valid license end or a lack of insurance I think there was also unregister uh plate or registration which is Count three in this case the vehicle um his complaints refer to his desire to he can go get that any time his his complaint is that he wants it returned to him without him having to get it nor pay for it um for the most part so that is yeah that's the issue I see thank you that's right because like I said because it's my Constitution right to have my private property I don't need to pay no money and especially on top of that they're excessive fees on that as we know uh towing places traditionally do which I plan on getting a law going on that too I'm make them stop that I get to it you know how they just keep running the prices up every day it could be thousands of dollars more thing's worth but regardless of that right like I said it's a constitution right to enjoy they should never took it because it didn't fall under the definition of a motor vehicle under that federal statute so they shouldn't have took it from the jump so I wasn't required for license insurance article six of the US Constitution makes it clear Federal statutes are supreme law the state statute is unconstitutional not legit it's not valid in this case all right and particular case we are done I will see you here on December 7th 2023 at 11 o'clock a sir all right and so there you have it yep it all worked out in the end you see and thanks for hanging out with on Factor frauds make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and ring that Bell for notifications so the next time Premier video you can be live chat with everyone else leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and a huge thank you to our channel members Robert Morley and D Chris Kelling got us truth p old Drew b Sean old fart tww1 1960 butcher bird Pats cats Westside girl reacts Jason Heaton and grundle rage now if you're still hanging out you're not subscribed yet why not give it a try I think you'll like it yeah hit the thumbs up button ring the bell and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think till next time I'll see you soon