CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦
Open in Telegram
Remember, this is more than just a financial opportunity. This is a movement, a reclaiming of what is rightfully ours. Together, we will overcome any obstacle, defy the odds, and rise as victors. Send me an email via: ChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com
Show more📈 Analytical overview of Telegram channel CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦
Channel CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦 (@christopherhauser1) in the English language segment is an active participant. Currently, the community unites 109 774 subscribers, ranking 1 209 in the Education category and 203 in the USA region.
📊 Audience metrics and dynamics
Since its creation on невідомо, the project has demonstrated rapid growth, gathering an audience of 109 774 subscribers.
According to the latest data from 10 October, 2026, the channel demonstrates stable activity. Although there has been a change in the number of participants by 5 018 over the last 30 days and by 0 over the last 24 hours, overall reach remains high.
- Verification status: Not verified
- Engagement rate (ER): The average audience engagement rate is 0.23%. Within the first 24 hours after publication, content typically collects 0.12% reactions from the total number of subscribers.
- Post reach: On average, each post receives 256 views. Within the first day, a publication typically gains 135 views.
- Reactions and interaction: The audience actively supports content: the average number of reactions per post is 0.
- Thematic interests: Content is focused on key topics such as debt, property, exclusion, loan, irs.
📝 Description and content policy
The author describes the resource as a platform for expressing subjective opinions:
“Remember, this is more than just a financial opportunity. This is a movement, a reclaiming of what is rightfully ours. Together, we will overcome any obstacle, defy the odds, and rise as victors.
Send me an email via: ChristopherAHauser@protonmail.c...”
Thanks to the high frequency of updates (latest data received on 11 October, 2026), the channel maintains relevance and a high level of publication reach. Analytics show that the audience actively interacts with content, making it an important point of influence in the Education category.
109 774
Subscribers
No data24 hours
-2 1497 days
+5 01830 days
Data loading in progress...
Similar Channels
No data
Any problems? Please refresh the page or contact our support manager.
Tags Cloud
Incoming and Outgoing Mentions
---
---
---
---
---
---
Attracting Subscribers
October '26Oct '26
October '260
in 0 channels
September '26
+23 671
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '26
+32 905
in 1 channels
Get PRO
July '26
+33 725
in 1 channels
Get PRO
June '26
+30 925
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '26
+23 342
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+24 688
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+37 688
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+34 687
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+21 286
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+27 312
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+16 764
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+13 944
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+81 221
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '25
+42 905
in 1 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+35 838
in 1 channels
Get PRO
June '25
+38 605
in 1 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+97 581
in 2 channels
| Date | Subscriber Growth | Mentions | Channels | |
| 10 October | 0 | |||
| 09 October | 0 | |||
| 08 October | 0 | |||
| 07 October | 0 | |||
| 06 October | 0 | |||
| 05 October | 0 | |||
| 04 October | 0 | |||
| 03 October | 0 | |||
| 02 October | 0 | |||
| 01 October | 0 |
Channel Posts
Interested in a grant?
Upfront fees apply.
Disbursement takes 48 hours.
Grant can be filed Twice in a year
Also available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.
Cash delivery and tracking available
Direct contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauser
| 2 |  Have the administrative tribunals, attorneys and judges been taking anyone's life, liberty or private property without Constitutional Right ? 🤔
FCC v. AT&T, INC.
(c) The Court’s unconstitutional conditions doctrine—which “vindicates the Constitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the govern-
ment from coercing people into giving them up,” | 128 |
| 3 | my dear brothers and sisters, my fear for you, is that you may lack discipline to self govern therefore you press upon others the need to be lorded over by individuals you feel are competent to make decisions for you, and therefore decisions thus that you feel should bind all others.
I self govern, I know the difference between right and wrong, I have zero need to be lorded over by a demographic of phyco paths and deranged heathens that are morally bankrupt and spiritually inept.
I pass not an ounce of judgment upon thee for ones decisions to allow people you have never met make decisions for you. Thats how much I believe in freedom. If you wish to put your dick in a meat grinder, by all means be my guest, after all you are free to do as you please so long as you cause harm to no other. | 120 |
| 4 |  No text... | 115 |
| 5 | Contact me | 142 |
| 6 | Here are the fees and the amount to be paid upfront for different grant amounts:
- $10,000,000: $15,000
- $20,000,000: $30,000
- $25,000,000: $35,000
- $30,000,000: $40,000
- $50,000,000: $50,000
- $100,000,000: $70,000
- $200,000,000: $100,000
For more information, you can contact me on:
- T.me/RealChristopherhauser
- Email: ChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com
- T.me/RealChristopherhauser | 157 |
| 7 | Interested in a grant?
Upfront fees apply.
Disbursement takes 48 hours.
Grant can be filed Twice in a year
Also available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.
Cash delivery and tracking available
Direct contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauser | 203 |
| 8 | No text... | 218 |
| 9 |  ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT: WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL RULE? 🇺🇸⚖️
This isn’t merely about what modern police practice permits. It’s about comparing modern doctrine against the historical constitutional baseline.
A Treatise on Arrest and False Imprisonment states:
“There can be no arrest without due process of law.”
It traces the traditional warrantless-arrest rule through Ex parte Rhodes, Sarah Way’s Case, Pinkerton v. Verberg, and Tillman v. Beard: felony and breaches of the peace, with important historical limitations.
Why does that history matter?
Because Heller tells us:
“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.”
And due process historically wasn’t whatever procedure the legislature decided to call “due process.” Story described it as requiring “the process and proceedings of the common law,” while Murray’s Lessee rejected the proposition that the legislature could manufacture due process merely by its own will.
Now connect that to the Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
An arrest is a seizure of the person.
And freedom of locomotion has deep roots in the law. The treatise describes false imprisonment as unlawful interference with that freedom, while Blackstone recognized that imprisonment could include forcibly detaining someone in the public streets. A-Treatise-on-Arrest-and-False-Imprisonment_text (edited resumed).pdf
Modern doctrine is broader. United States v. Watson upheld a warrantless public felony arrest based on probable cause, and Atwater v. Lago Vista upheld a warrantless misdemeanor arrest under circumstances far beyond the narrow historical rule described by these authorities.
So don’t hide that conflict.
EXAMINE IT.
Precedent is not constitutional text. Supreme Court precedents can—and repeatedly do—get overruled.
Norton v. Shelby County:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law.”
Miranda v. Arizona:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
The question isn’t simply:
WHAT DOES MODERN PRECEDENT ALLOW?
The constitutional question is:
WHAT POWER DID THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY DELEGATE—and what restraints did they place upon its exercise?
That is the investigation we’re undertaking cite by cite.
RETURN TO THE TEXT.
RETURN TO THE HISTORY.
RETURN TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
RETURN TO THE CONSTITUTION. | 181 |
| 10 |  No text... | 170 |
| 11 |  So then, are we dealing with true judicial judges in these county and State courthouses, or are these corporate policy administrators acting as though they are judicial judges? I know the answer but you should be asking yourself this. | 214 |
| 12 | Greetings all attorneys, I have a question dont be shy.
If one was to get into a wreck in an automobile, why is it inadmissible evidence that one if not both of the parties did not have a drivers license?
Why wont the judge allow the jury to be informed that one or none of the parties involved did not have a license at the time of thee accident?
I don't ask questions I don't already know the answer to.
These are thought provoking questions for each and everyone of you! | 218 |
| 13 | Thought provoking question of the day?
What law requires a man to have a name?
What law requires a man to obtain a number by which to be identified by?
Note: no one is expected to perform an impossibility! | 220 |
| 14 | No text... | 221 |
| 15 |  No text... | 205 |
| 16 |  +2THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS A HISTORICAL FLOOR — GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET TO SHRINK IT.
In Victor Javier Grandia Gonzalez v. United States, Justice Sotomayor—joined by Justice Gorsuch—went straight back to the common law to examine the original scope of the Fourth Amendment.
The historical rule she identified was blunt:
“By the common law of England, neither a civil officer nor a private citizen had the right, without a warrant, to make an arrest for a crime not committed in his presence, except in the case of felony.”
The statement then connects that rule directly to Blackstone, Sir Matthew Hale, Kurtz v. Moffitt, Bad Elk v. United States, and the historic distinction between felony arrests and misdemeanor/breach-of-peace arrests.
But the constitutional principle is even bigger.
The Court’s precedents recognize that the Fourth Amendment:
“must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted.”
Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 309, quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 411.
And Virginia v. Moore explains exactly where courts are supposed to look:
“We look to the statutes and common law of the founding era to determine the norms that the Fourth Amendment was meant to preserve.”
Then comes the closing line that ties the entire historical inquiry together:
“Courts should give due regard to the full scope of the common-law rights now secured by the Fourth Amendment.”
Read those propositions together.
The Fourth Amendment is not whatever level of protection government finds convenient today.
Its constitutional baseline must be examined through the legal protections understood when the People adopted it.
That means the historical common law matters.
Blackstone matters.
Hale matters.
Founding-era statutes matter.
The original legal meaning of search, seizure, arrest, warrant, person, house, papers and effects matters.
And modern government cannot simply erase a historical constitutional protection by replacing it with a broader statute, administrative practice, or judicial balancing test.
This fits the same historical methodology we continue seeing across Supreme Court jurisprudence:
Heller: constitutional rights retain the scope understood when adopted.
Jones / Lange: the Fourth Amendment must provide at least its historical degree of protection.
Moore: look to founding-era statutes and common law.
Gonzalez: give due regard to the full scope of the common-law rights now secured by the Fourth Amendment.
The Constitution did not create unlimited governmental power and then ask government to decide how much liberty the People may keep.
Government was delegated limited authority.
The rights of the People remain the limitation.
Know the text.
Know the history.
Know the common law.
Know the original scope of the right.
Because once the historical constitutional baseline is established, the question becomes unavoidable:
Where did We the People ever delegate government the authority to reduce it?
⚖️ Gonzalez v. United States, 604 U.S. ___ (2025) (Sotomayor, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari, joined by Gorsuch, J.).
#FourthAmendment #CommonLaw #Blackstone #Constitution #KnowYourRights #OriginalMeaning #FoundingEra #DueProcess #Liberty #WeThePeople #ConstitutionalLaw #HistoryMatters | 266 |
| 17 | Contact me
T.me/RealChristopherhauser | 251 |
| 18 | Interested in a grant?
Upfront fees apply.
Disbursement takes 48 hours.
Grant can be filed Twice in a year
Also available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.
Cash delivery and tracking available
Direct contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauser | 259 |
| 19 |  No text... | 274 |
| 20 | (ii) specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or
(B) has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.
(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376; Pub. L. 115–253, § 2(a), Oct. 3, 2018, 132 Stat. 3183.)
Law Maxim...
"The chiefest part of everything is the beginning." Dig. 1, 2, 1: 10 Coke 49a)" "Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium", Black's Law dictionary (fourth revised edition 1968).
QUOD PRIUS EST VERIUS EST ET QUOD PRIUS EST TEMPORE POTIUS EST JURE.
Latin, meaning:
“What is first is more true; and what is prior in time is stronger in law.”,...
Article 6 clause 2 the supremacy clause of the United States of America's Constitution.
'This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'
So the rest of this is all repugnant to the Constitution and not withstanding
"Citizens are human capital"
(executive order 13037)...
the Federal corporation and it's State franchise 28 USC 3002, 15a) the definition of the United States means a federal corporation. This is why we the people are citizens of the several States in Article 4 and not U.S. citizens which can only be employees of the federal corporation and its state and its subdivisions. 18 USC 911 is a three year offense to say that you are US citizen if you're clearly a citizen of the several States, because your birth certificate says a live birth in that state.
Ens legis' artificial entity...
Mortuus Civiliter is a Latin term that means "civilly dead." It refers to a person who has been deprived of their civil rights.
More evidence that you are worth more dead than alive to the states as payment to the Federal reserve Bank which is a private banking by 12 Jesuit families since the 1933 house joint resolution 192 and it s public Law, which is fraud to the constitution on its face because gold and silver is our money not people in property the Congress is in rem and quasi in rem treating people as property instead of people with rights and liberty's
31 U.S. Code § 3128. Proof of death to support payment
A finding of death made by an officer or employee of the United States Government authorized by law to make the finding is sufficient proof of death to allow credit in the accounts of a Federal reserve bank or accountable official of the Department of the Treasury in a case involving the transfer, exchange, reissue, redemption, or payment of obligations of the Government, including obligations guaranteed by the Government for which the Secretary of the Treasury acts as transfer agent.
(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 947.) | 283 |
