Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

Channel

CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

@ChristopherHauser1

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

110,573subscribers

-7,515 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 100,000–316,228.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1002620337408
TypeChannel
Username@ChristopherHauser1
DescriptionRemember, 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: [email protected]
CreatedBetween 1 March 2025 and 31 July 2025 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live17 September 2026
Measurements held32
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 17 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/ChristopherHauser1

Topic

Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 9 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 57% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

106,554121,252113,9037 August 2026 — 118,088 subscribers7 August 2026 — 117,627 subscribers8 August 2026 — 117,196 subscribers9 August 2026 — 116,785 subscribers11 August 2026 — 116,144 subscribers12 August 2026 — 112,669 subscribers13 August 2026 — 108,464 subscribers14 August 2026 — 106,884 subscribers15 August 2026 — 121,252 subscribers17 August 2026 — 120,592 subscribers18 August 2026 — 120,225 subscribers19 August 2026 — 119,709 subscribers20 August 2026 — 119,442 subscribers21 August 2026 — 119,106 subscribers22 August 2026 — 116,348 subscribers24 August 2026 — 114,767 subscribers25 August 2026 — 112,836 subscribers26 August 2026 — 112,349 subscribers27 August 2026 — 110,210 subscribers28 August 2026 — 110,039 subscribers29 August 2026 — 109,711 subscribers30 August 2026 — 109,448 subscribers31 August 2026 — 109,132 subscribers1 September 2026 — 108,821 subscribers2 September 2026 — 108,490 subscribers3 September 2026 — 108,245 subscribers6 September 2026 — 106,554 subscribers9 September 2026 — 108,009 subscribers11 September 2026 — 114,453 subscribers13 September 2026 — 112,787 subscribers15 September 2026 — 110,877 subscribers17 September 2026 — 110,573 subscribers110,5737 August 202617 September 2026
32 measurements spanning 41 days, net -7,515. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 104,349–123,457 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 32
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
17 Sept 2026, 11:37110,573-304
15 Sept 2026, 07:21110,877-1,910
13 Sept 2026, 16:58112,787-1,666
11 Sept 2026, 19:38114,453+6,444
9 Sept 2026, 10:42108,009+1,455
6 Sept 2026, 01:00106,554-1,691
3 Sept 2026, 20:20108,245-245
2 Sept 2026, 11:33108,490-331
1 Sept 2026, 08:44108,821-311
31 Aug 2026, 07:17109,132-316
30 Aug 2026, 08:48109,448-263
29 Aug 2026, 09:48109,711-328
28 Aug 2026, 12:14110,039-171
27 Aug 2026, 09:34110,210-2,139
26 Aug 2026, 10:44112,349-487
25 Aug 2026, 12:02112,836-1,931
24 Aug 2026, 11:47114,767-1,581
22 Aug 2026, 19:48116,348-2,758
21 Aug 2026, 06:35119,106-336
20 Aug 2026, 09:42119,442first reading

Engagement

195 posts held, back to 26 July 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 97 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
0.224%
avg views ÷ 110,573 subscribers
Avg views / post
248
99 posts measured
Reaction rate
this channel exposes no reaction counts
Posts in window
101
of 195 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 21 September 2026
Posts held195 (26 July 202621 September 2026)
Views total24,574
Reactions total
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken22 Sept 2026, 09:25 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Photos
582
Videos
44
Links
413

Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 22 September 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.

Recent posts

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC96 viewsread 22 September 2026

Please double check my work never ever use these cases I post without verifying them for yourself. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 48 U.S. 1. Summary: This case arose from the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island, addressing whether a state’s government was "republican" under the Guarantee Clause. The Court held that such questions are political, not judicial, and that soverei

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC96 viewsread 22 September 2026

I am working on building a Memorandum at the moment, just taking the time to share what I believe to be critical decisions with all of you for your benefit and use. State v. Doheny, 60 Me. 504 (1872) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 60 Maine 504. Summary: A Maine state case holding that "due process of law" and "law of the land" refer to the common law as it existed when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC94 viewsread 22 September 2026

Due process of law; Tayler v. Porter, 4 Hill 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1843) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 4 Hill 140 (New York Supreme Court, 1843). The document also references 4 Hill 773, which appears to be a typographical error or misinterpretation. Note: The correct case is Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill 140, not "Tayler." The document’s reference to 4 Hill 773 is incorrect, as no such case exists in that volu

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC91 viewsread 22 September 2026

Common law and due process of law State v. Simmons, 2 Spears 761 (S.C. 1844) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 2 Spears 761 (South Carolina, 1844). The document misspells "Simmon" as the case name; the correct name is Simmons. Summary: The South Carolina court held that "law of the land" refers to the common law, emphasizing that due process requires adherence to traditional legal protections. The document

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC95 viewsread 22 September 2026

Major case here for all of you, rember if you have relied on a prior supreme court case you have a perfected affirmative defense and cause of action for willfulness. Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 143 S. Ct. 890. Summary: The Supreme Court held that district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to agency structure before administra

20 Sept 2026, 19:53 UTC99 viewsread 22 September 2026

“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 “Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

20 Sept 2026, 19:52 UTC111 viewsread 22 September 2026

AWESOME IF EVERYONE POINTS OUT THEIR NUANCES IN THEIR OWN STATES. The distinction between "arms" and "firearms" is rooted in the foundational separation between natural rights and regulated privileges. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a direct recognition of natural law, not as a government-granted privilege. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876),

Showing the 12 most recent of 195 posts we hold for @ChristopherHauser1. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 17 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦” (@ChristopherHauser1), 110,573 subscribers as measured 17 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ChristopherHauser1.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.