CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

Открыть в 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

Больше

США207 Образование1 208...

📈 Аналитический обзор Telegram-канала CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

Канал CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦 (@christopherhauser1) языкового сегмента Английский является активным участником. Сейчас сообщество объединяет 108 784 подписчиков, занимая 1 208 место в категории Образование и 207 место в регионе США.

📊 Показатели аудитории и динамика

С момента создания невідомо проект демонстрирует стремительный рост, собрав аудиторию из 108 784 подписчиков.

Согласно последним данным от 31 августа, 2026, канал показывает стабильную активность. За последние 30 дней изменение числа участников составило 612, а за последние 24 часа — -215, при этом общий охват остаётся высоким.

Статус верификации: Не верифицирован
Уровень вовлечённости (ER): Средний показатель вовлечённости аудитории составляет 0.32%. В первые 24 часа после публикации контент обычно набирает 0.14% реакций от общего числа подписчиков.
Охват публикаций: В среднем каждый пост получает 346 просмотров. В течение первых суток публикация набирает 155 просмотров.
Реакции и взаимодействия: Аудитория активно поддерживает контент: среднее количество реакций на один пост — 0.
Тематические интересы: Контент сосредоточен на ключевых темах, таких как debt, property, exclusion, loan, irs.

📝 Описание и контентная политика

Автор описывает ресурс как площадку для выражения субъективного мнения:
“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...”

Благодаря высокой частоте обновлений (последние данные получены 01 сентября, 2026) канал поддерживает актуальность и высокий уровень охвата публикаций. Аналитика показывает, что аудитория активно взаимодействует с контентом, что делает его важной точкой влияния в категории Образование.

108 784

Подписчики

-21524 часа

-5 5397 дней

+61230 день

346

Просмотры поста

~ 15524 часа

~ 19348 часов

0.32%

Коэффициент вовлеченности

~ 3

Постов в день

Ads index

beta

Загрузка данных...

Похожие каналы

Нет данных

Возникли проблемы? Пожалуйста, обновите страницу или обратитесь к нашему support-менеджеру .

Входящие и исходящие упоминания

---

Привлечение подписчиков

сентябрь '26

сентябрь '260

в 0 каналах

август '26

+32 905

в 1 каналах

Get PRO

июль '26

+33 725

в 1 каналах

Get PRO

июнь '26

+30 925

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

май '26

+23 342

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

апрель '26

+24 688

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

март '26

+37 688

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

февраль '26

+34 687

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

январь '26

+21 286

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

декабрь '25

+27 312

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

ноябрь '25

+16 764

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

октябрь '25

+13 944

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

сентябрь '25

+81 221

в 0 каналах

Get PRO

август '25

+42 905

в 1 каналах

Get PRO

июль '25

+35 838

в 1 каналах

Get PRO

июнь '25

+38 605

в 1 каналах

Get PRO

май '25

+97 581

в 2 каналах

Дата	Привлечение подписчиков	Упоминания	Каналы
01 сентября	0

Посты канала

2	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	180
3	Many are taught to believe a living trust is something you create because you scared to die 😭 whole time one of the biggest reasons to have one is because you’re STILL ALIVE. Imagine this… you’re 42 years old, got a house, two kids, a business bringing money in, a couple bank accounts and a car. You healthy, handling your business, ain’t thinking about death whatsoever. Then one random Tuesday you get into a serious accident and you’re unconscious for three weeks. Now what? 🫣 Your mortgage didn’t become unconscious with you. Your business payroll ain’t in a coma. Your children still need money. Insurance still gotta be handled. Somebody still needs access to certain accounts and somebody needs actual AUTHORITY to manage the property. And this is where folks learn the difference between having assets and having an ESTATE PLAN. Because your mama saying “that’s my daughter, I handle everything for her” doesn’t automatically give mama legal authority over everything you own. Your boyfriend knowing every password doesn’t make him trustee. Your oldest child knowing exactly what you wanted doesn’t automatically give them authority either. Depending on what documents exist, your family may end up needing powers of attorney, court involvement, guardianship or conservatorship proceedings just to handle things you would’ve gladly let them handle yourself. Now imagine the same woman already established her living trust, properly transferred the appropriate assets into it and named a successor trustee with clear instructions for incapacity. Completely different risings. 💯 She wakes up three weeks later and finds out the house stayed handled, trust property stayed administered, the person SHE selected stepped into the role SHE created and there wasn’t a family group chat trying to figure out who was supposed to be in charge 😭 THAT is what started making trusts hit different for me. A living trust isn’t merely a death document. It creates an actual structure for property while you’re living. You’re essentially saying, “If I cannot administer this estate myself, THIS is who steps in, THIS is what they have authority over and THESE are the instructions.” And baby when you start studying scripture beside estate planning it gets even deeper. 👀 We spend every Sunday talking about wills, testaments, heirs, inheritance, stewardship and being faithful over what we’ve been given… then come home with absolutely NOTHING written down concerning our own estate 😭😭😭 How you claiming inheritance but refusing administration? How you praying for increase but haven’t created structure for what increases? How you asking the Most High to make you ruler over many things when the few things already in your possession would be thrown into confusion if you couldn’t speak tomorrow? THAT part convicted me. 💯 “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” 1 Corinthians 4:2 📖 Sometimes stewardship ain’t another prayer. Sometimes stewardship is sitting your a$$ down, inventorying what you actually have, naming who can act, documenting your instructions and making sure the people you love don’t have to reconstruct your wishes during the worst week of their lives. On earth as it is in heaven hits a lil different when you understand ORDER. 🫣 Maybe establishing your trust isn’t preparing to die at all. Maybe it’s finally learning how to properly administer what you’ve been trusted with while you LIVE. 💯	227
4	The people making decisions about immigration never impose these decisions on their own neighborhoods. Look up the 15 richest ZIP codes in the United States—they're also the most stable ZIP codes, because they are not subjected to mass migration. That tells you the whole story right there. Martha's Vineyard looks a lot like it did 50 years ago. So does Nantucket, so does Brookline, Massachusetts. So does Aspen. If it's so great, then why don't they have 10,000 Haitians living in Martha's Vineyard? Because it's not great, that's why. It's not an attack on the Haitians. It's the nature of mass migration, of taking people from a completely different culture, with no education, limited skills, and no money, and dropping them into what was formerly a pretty prosperous, stable community. Who benefits? Not the formerly prosperous community.	187
5	William Blackstone in his Commentaries identified the private rights to life, liberty, and property as the three “absolute” rights—so called because they “appertain[ed] and belong[ed] to particular men . . . merely as individuals,” not “to them as members of society [or] standing in various relations to each other”—that is, not dependent upon the will of the government. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 119 (1765) (Commentaries); see also Nelson, supra, at 567.[3 The protection of private rights in the Anglo-American tradition goes back to at least Magna Carta. The original 1215 charter is replete with restrictions on the King’s ability to proceed against private rights, including most notably the provision that “[n]o free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.” A. Howard, Magna Carta: Text and Commentary 43 (1964).] (this is cited by thomas in his concurring opinion in axon v ftc 2023: Justice THOMAS, concurring:..As I have explained, when private rights are at stake, full Article III adjudication is likely required. Private rights encompass "the three `absolute' rights," life, liberty, and property, "so called because they `appertain and belong to particular men merely as individuals,' not `to them as members of society or standing in various relations to each other'—that is, not dependent upon the will of the government." Wellness Int'l Network, 575 U.S. at 713-714, 135 S.Ct. 1932 (dissenting opinion) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 119 (1765); alterations omitted). Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S.Ct. 890 (2023))	200
6	T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me	210
7	+6 This evenings dinner will be slow smoke prime rib perfectly cooked to a core temp of 130 before being pulled of the smoker and wrapped to rest.	227
8	Regulation Does Not Automatically Equal Constitutionality Another important distinction is between the existence of a regulation and the constitutionality of that regulation. Government can establish laws addressing public safety. Some regulatory violations can also constitute criminal offenses. But government cannot establish unlimited authority simply by declaring conduct unlawful. A person accused of an offense remains protected by constitutional due-process guarantees. The government must establish the elements required for conviction under the applicable law. The Constitution remains the higher authority. Article VI, Clause 2—the Supremacy Clause—provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the question cannot simply be: “Did the legislature pass a law?” The constitutional question is: “Does the law remain within constitutional authority?” The Question I Put to Government I am not arguing that government should have no authority. I am arguing that government authority has limits. If government restricts liberty, identify the constitutional authority and the limit of that authority. If government regulates property, identify the authority and the constitutional protections that remain. If government requires identification, identify the authority and the limits on the collection and use of that information. If government imposes a tax or financial obligation, identify the constitutional authority and the applicable limitations. If government makes violation of a regulation criminal, establish the elements of the offense and the constitutional validity of the underlying law. And if the justification is public safety, I recognize that public safety is a legitimate governmental purpose. But the existence of a legitimate purpose does not mean every method of achieving that purpose is automatically constitutional. The Constitution requires both government authority and constitutional limits. So my position can be reduced to one question: Show me the constitutional authority. Not merely the statute. Not merely the regulation. Not merely the government's assertion of power. Show me the constitutional authority, the right affected, the limits on governmental power, and the process required by the Constitution. Because “We the People” means that government exists under the Constitution. Government exercises power. The Constitution defines the boundaries of that power.	236
9	A brilliant explanation and example from one of the many who drop in and share knowledge with us all on this face book page .... Constitutional Limits on Government Authority My argument begins with the foundation of our government: “We the People.” The Constitution does not establish government as the owner of individual rights. It establishes a government whose powers and limitations are defined by the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be interpreted to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment applies that protection against state governments, stating that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And the Fourth Amendment protects the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. These provisions establish an important principle: Government power is not unlimited simply because government has enacted a statute. Liberty and Personal Transportation Consider personal transportation. A person purchases an automobile with their own labor and money. The automobile is personal property. The person uses it to travel from one place to another, rather than transporting passengers or merchandise for compensation. Government nevertheless requires licensing, registration, identification, financial responsibility, and other requirements before that person may lawfully operate the vehicle on public highways. I recognize the existing legal precedent: courts have upheld the authority of states to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public highways, including vehicles used for personal, noncommercial transportation. So the argument is not that a person can simply declare a vehicle “private” and automatically become exempt from every traffic law. The constitutional question is broader: When government restricts conduct involving liberty or property, what constitutional authority permits that restriction, and what limits apply to that authority? The fact that a legislature passed a law establishes that a law exists. It does not eliminate the Constitution's limitations on government. Property The same constitutional principle applies to property. The Fifth Amendment protects property through due process and provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government also possesses recognized taxation powers. Therefore, the existence of taxation itself is not the constitutional question. The question is: What authority permits the particular tax or property restriction, and what constitutional limitations apply to that power? Ownership does not mean that property is completely immune from regulation or taxation. But neither does government ownership of the lawmaking power mean that constitutional property protections disappear. Privacy and Government Identification The Fourth Amendment establishes another boundary. Government-required identification systems can allow authorities to identify vehicles and connect them with government-held information. Courts have recognized that license plates are publicly displayed and generally carry a limited expectation of privacy. That precedent must be acknowledged. But constitutional analysis does not end there. The Fourth Amendment raises questions about the reasonableness of government searches and seizures and the circumstances under which government may obtain and use information. The question becomes: How far may government go in identifying, tracking, collecting, retaining, and accessing information concerning people who have not been accused of a crime? The answer must remain within constitutional boundaries.	222
10	Нет текста...	237
11	Нет текста...	244
12	GRANT TUTORIAL CH trustee access .mp4	281
13	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	289
14	I haven’t had any sleep this week because I’ve been so busy with work. You can contact me on T.me/RealChristopherhauser.	344
15	Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005): The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to enforce a restraining order, leading to the tragic loss of a woman's three children. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989): The Supreme Court held that the state has no duty to protect individuals from private violence, even when aware of the danger. Sapp v. City of Tallahassee: Reinforced that the police do not have a specific duty to protect individuals. Keane v. City of Chicago (1968): Confirmed that there is no special relationship between the police and individuals that mandates protection. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept (1990): The court ruled that a police department is not liable for failing to protect a woman from domestic violence. Rivera v. City of Providence, RI (1992): Reaffirmed that the police have no specific duty to protect individuals. The POLICEMAN and the CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER The POLICE MAN (MAN) has a duty under COMMON LAW to serve and protect and uphold the COMMON LAW. The POLICE OFFICER (FICTION) is a CORPORATE EMPLOYEE a REVENUE COLLECTOR who ENFORCES STATUTES. You are in COMMON LAW JURISDICTION this means that no CIVIL LAW STATUTE applies unless you CONSENT to it. POLICE are a COMPANY which exists to make PROFIT. They PROFIT from you by enforcing STATUTES on you, not LAWS, but BY-LAWS a.k.a. POLICY. Next time you hear one of them say the reason they stopped you was to protect others and yourself know that they are completely full of shit	363
16	Remeber Flock cameras are for your saftey, I believe that like I need another orphis. Wake up people the system they operate is not for your benefit, its for their benefit, their principals benefit, their retirement and to your detriment. The Supreme Court Ruled Police have no duty to protect the population in 1981. In 1975 they changed thier jobs to data collectors, and motor vehicle code enforcment revenue generators. So..what do they do? They protect the states financial interest and could give two shits about you. They get paid up to $10k to say you commited a crime for the statistic reports and those reports create more laws againts the people. Please define for me why we say that's heroic? you as an individual have no right to police protection. And that there's a common belief that police are required to protect each individual, rooted in the motto "To Protect and Serve." However, legal precedents in the United States don't actually support this belief. The "public duty doctrine" holds that law enforcement owes a duty to the public at large, not to individual citizens. This means police are responsible for maintaining overall public safety but are not legally obligated to provide personal protection to every individual. The legal reality and the public perception are vastly different. And! You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. (Remember against, not for you.) You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. You do not consent to any searches and always ask if you are free to go. A detainment is considered a seizure of your person. Police can and may LIE to you! Remember to STFU and ask if you are free to go! Key Cases to support my comments: Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): Three women were attacked despite repeated calls to the police. The court ruled that the police do not have a specific duty to provide protection to individuals, only a general duty to the public. Riss v. New York (1968): Linda Riss was attacked by an ex-boyfriend after unsuccessfully seeking police protection. The court ruled that the government is not liable for failing to provide police protection to individuals. Rieser v. District of Columbia: Similar to Warren, this case reaffirmed that the police have no specific legal duty to protect individuals from crime. Turner v. United States (1919): This case focused more on federal officers but similarly found no specific duty to protect individuals from harm. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975): The court ruled that the police are not liable for failing to protect a woman who was killed despite her prior calls for help. Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982): The police were not liable for the injuries sustained by a woman who was attacked by an assailant they had been monitoring. Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974): The police were not liable for failing to prevent the theft of property despite being aware of the high risk.	325
17	Нет текста...	351
18	T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me	369
19	If you have submitted your applications with me kindly contact me T.me/RealChristopherhauser	424
20	T.me/RealChristopherhauser Submit your Applications Payment start Wednesday	427

Посмотреть все записи