The Plan To Reprogram Us With Approved Content & Search Results | Free Speech Expert Ron Coleman
In this riveting episode of the One American Podcast, host Chase Geiser sits down with special guest Ron Coleman, an esteemed freedom of speech expert and attorney. Together, they dive deep into the concerning trends threatening our fundamental right to free speech.
🔍 Topics Covered:
What is the "Deep State" and its real influence on media?
The chilling effects of censorship on the modern public discourse.
The legal battles and nuances defending our First Amendment rights.
The slippery slope from content approval to mind control.
How to recognize and combat information manipulation in your daily life.
Ron Coleman shares his vast expertise and provides eye-opening insights into the underpinnings of our freedom of speech, making this episode a must-listen for anyone concerned about the direction our society is heading.
🔔 Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more enlightening discussions and in-depth interviews on One American Podcast.
📌 Connect with Chase Geiser: [Insert Social Media Links]
📌 Connect with Ron Coleman: [Insert Social Media Links]
#FreeSpeech #Censorship #DeepState #OneAmericanPodcast #RonColeman #ChaseGeiser
And he said, Well, I think I really do think it will, because ultimately you, you know, people do, if you graduate from law school and you don't have the ability to truly understand the other side's point of view, at least for purposes of knowing how to respond to it, you're not going to succeed.
Well, I don't know if that's true anymore.
Uh I think I understand why you're upset about the Treaty of Versailles.
There are reasons to be upset.
Wait a minute.
There were reasons to be upset.
I know.
Oh, I know.
I know.
For the sake of the audience, give me the opportunity to tell your story again, specifically that landmark case with it was the slants, right?
Oh, really?
What happened during the when the internet era began, because I've been at this for over 30 years now.
So before uh Al Gore really um rolled out the internet for everybody was much less of a thing.
But once it became a thing, people started to realize that they had a lot less control over their intellectual property, their trademarks on the internet than they had previously had in the brick and mortar worlds.
Right.
And trademarks first what happened was that trademarks became a way became an excuse for shutting down so-called unauthorized distributors.
And I say so-called because once you buy something, you actually have a right to sell it to anyone you want.
That's it's yours.
Uh but if you give people the impression that you're not that you're an authorized distributor or that perhaps you're the brand owner itself, which is usually not the case and usually wasn't the case, but trademarks became increasingly you that's not an English sentence, so I'm gonna go try that in English.
It became more and more common for trademarks to be used as a way of shutting down competition, especially competition with your distributors who were usually charging people too much.
Anyway, more and more that kind of work began to creep into free speech work, and I've always been interested in free speech, going back to when I was uh in high school and I was a publisher of a an author, let's call it an unauthorized high school newspaper.
Uh the Dead Poets Society.
I suppose.
Oh, Captain My Captain didn't.
I um I was a troublemaker.
I was a bit of a uh I've always been a bit of a subversive.
I come from a long line of subversives, but in any event, I finally I was I did begin to get more involved in free speech work.
And eventually my interest in trademark and free speech uh intersected in a case called uh Inra TAM, which you later became known as Metal versus TAM, and which ended up being the Supreme Court,
United States Supreme Court opinion that ruled that the section of the Lanham Act, which is the trademark statute, the trademark registration statute, which prohibited the registration of any trademark that was disparaging.
Right.
Disparaging?
Trademark disparaging.
Who's to say?
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with us.
Who's to say the answer?
Not the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The government can't pick winners and losers in messaging, cannot withhold the benefit of trademark registration based on the content or point of view of the well, not of the content, because it if you're not entitled to a trademark based on the content, then you're not a title.
But the point of view cannot be a basis for with withdrawing your uh uh withholding a trademark registration.
So the slants, which was a which was and once again is a group of um Asian Americans who wanted to, because they call it um reappropriate a century-old slander of calling Asians slants.
Um they wanted to call, and they do call their band the slants.
They wanted a registration for their trademark.
And now they now they have one.
So we won that case in the Supreme Court.
And my life since then has been basically just pure bliss.
I've just, you know, I hardly even feel the ground when I take steps now.
I'm just so elevated.
There's money everywhere.
Well, the money part is even I don't even think about money anymore because it's it's we literally have plumbing that when you open it up, gold, liquid gold comes out comes out of it.
It's it's amazing.
Well, no, actually, we we didn't even get paid for that case, unsurprisingly.
Um we did get some nice loose.
That's why you call it free speech.
Yeah, rest.
Well, and that's why you know people tend to give me the call.
But anyway, I, you know, I've been I've bounced around a lot.
I've been in a lot of different law firms of many different sizes.
I am a little bit of a tough fit.
Uh I ended up with Harmeat Dylan.
I'm still a little bit of a tough fit for her.
But I am we don't fight a lot.
Uh and we don't fight that much, but we I'm not necessarily easy to absorb into a standard organization.
And this is not a standard organization, so it's it's gone very well here.
And in fact, we do get along great, and she is, besides being an outstanding lawyer, a very good friend and a very loyal person, and uh, you know, a reasonable boss.
But boy, she she takes the professionalism and standards of this organization, the Dylan Law group, every bit as seriously as the you know, the managing partner of a thousand lawyer firm.
Uh and she's great at what she does, and she's got great clients, and I've got some great clients myself, and uh very proud of the work that we do.
So would you say that you're you're difficult to absorb do you just sort of like are you like a bull in a china store?
You you see things that need to be done and you do them and it sort of I'm I'm a little bit of a cowboy.
You know, most like I'm off like a John Wayne Wayne.
Well, a Jewish John Wayne type.
I mean, there is a I I might have done very well as a criminal defense lawyer if I were a little bit harder, but I'm not.
I'm a little I'm I'm I'm I'm not quite that hard.
Uh but they do get to do things a little bit more by the seat of their pants than in most cases.
Um, you know, civil civil litigators.
On the other hand, I really like to um I take a lot of pride in my written work and most criminal defense lawyers don't do as much written work as civil guys.
I think I'm doing the right thing for myself and you know for my clients, and I think I'm I do have their I I do think I ultimately chose the right profession, but you know, when you have ADHD and you're a little bit perhaps too smart for your own good, uh you need to have people around you, and I do uh who will make sure that you hit the mark as well as being uh you know brilliant and flamboyant and uh loud.
You need to also make sure that the the word count is correct and that you had the right color on your brief and stuff like that.
But you know, that's why you join a law firm.
Right.
Right.
So you so you wear matching shoes.
It wasn't Einstein that was shoes for not wanting to mention.
Yeah, supposedly, who knows?
I mean, and no one ever compared me to Einstein.
I mean, I am incredibly smart, but I'm not an Einstein.
You guys are all the same.
She was I'm just kidding.
All the all the smart guys or all the two.
Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant.
Well the smart guys in from Princeton.
Um You went to Princeton?
But I went to Princeton.
No skull and bones there, man.
You missed out.
No skull and bones there.
And that is all and that's the Princeton before the soup, you know, before the woke era, back when you had to really you had to take a standardized test and you had to um you had to really be smart.
Right.
So I want to ask you about some specific freedom of speech things going on now.
And if I catch you off guard on anything, just say so and we can we can pass it.
But that's I will yeah, no, I'll say so if you if that's if you have anything that you specifically want to mention too, we can talk about it.
This is obviously you remember from last time it's casual.
It's it's not as structured as some of the shows that we have on the network here.
Um it's easy for us to bounce back and forth and talk for as long as we want.
But have you followed all what's going on with Owen Schreuer here at InfoWars?
Yes, I have.
It's very distressing, very, very distressing.
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are that we are entering an era of radical abuse of power on that part of government and institutions that have allied themselves with government, such as social media platforms and media companies and finance companies.
But of all the abuses, perhaps the most egregious and the most the greatest threat to liberty is the abuse of the justice system and in particular the prosecutorial like the weaponization of it.
The weaponization of prosecutors, both at the at the federal and now the state level for the most the most egregious political and anti-liberty um purposes.
The idea that journalists are now being, you know, arrested, tried, convicted for doing their jobs or being on the scene as if they were because they may have been sympathetic to people who were doing something which we'll call criminal.
Let's say that everyone else was criminal on January 6th, which is also preposterous.
And that's what that entire interpret that entire prosecutorial enterprise has been an absolute government uh racket of which I hope historians will be able to write in in you know the in the future.
But there has always been this potential.
There is always, and it has been abused before uh during World War One, dissenters and opponents of the war, people like Eugene V. Debs, who is no hero of the mind by any stretch of the imagination, but people were imprisoned for expressing uh opposition to the United States involvement in World War I, uh opposition to the draft.
It's not something unprecedented in American history, but it should be something that should not have happened in the 21st century because of how far we have come since the early days of the 20th century.
It is always been true.
It has always been true that when you give power and privileges to the government to enforce the law, and you make law enforcement officials and prosecutors in particular exempt from any personal and to all practical purposes,
professional consequences for their actions that you are giving them the power to abuse that those privileges.
What we have always depended on was a sense of civic duty, the sense of decency, so that that would be widespread enough that even if an individual prosecutor or an individual prosecutor's office would be delinquent, that those around him, or ultimately the judiciary would call it out and stop it.
I do think that a lot of the gross political prosecutions that we're seeing now are going to end up being reversed in the courts.
We have two problems now, though.
One is that because the United States Supreme Court has historically, but never more than it is now, been extremely extremely selective in the cases that it hears, and also extremely conservative with a small C in the breadth of its rulings.
Right.
So that so that a case will frequently not be heard that might otherwise have been heard in other times because every single thing doesn't align procedurally, or the issue that everyone's really interested in is not down the middle.
And there, you know, there's something to be said for judicial restraint.
There's a lot to be said for judicial restraint.
But because the Supreme Court has been so very careful, what we have now is a world in which a lot of things that should have been clearly prohibited, including cheating in elections.
Do you believe that the application do you think do you believe in the cheating?
Of course, I was there.
I was there in Philadelphia.
You were cheating.
No, I was trying to, I was trying to get a good look at the cheating, and we were not allowed.
We and the other observers from the Trump team and from the GOP were prohibited, even though we had a court order for a period of time that allowed us to get in.
We were prohibited from doing so to watch the counting of mail in ballots.
Um Trump won.
But aside issue for now, we can go back to it if you want to.
But all these issues, all this, all the conservatives.
So that reason number one.
And reason number two is even under the best of circumstances, the speed at which these cases move and the expense that is incurred in defending against them makes it possible to ruin someone,
even a very wealthy man or a woman or person or institution, merely by prosecuting them across multiple jurisdictions, like they're doing to Donald Trump, multiple jurisdictions on the most specious of claims, so some of them actually literally being claims for saying things.
And in other cases, utilizing statutes that are never utilized in ways that they could never have been conceived of as being utilized.
In particular, I'm thinking of the financial reporting claims by the state of New York against the Trump party.
Especially since he didn't default on the loan, so there was no reason to look into it unless you were just trying to find something.
I tweeted a week or two ago that budging information about valuation, about collateral, on credit applications, commercial credit applications, and what are called collateral reports or loan disposition, proceeds of disposition reports.
There are all kinds of different things you have to do.
When you borrow a lot of money, or if you have a line of credit, banks frequently will require you to regularly tell them what's the status of our collateral, and what have you, what have you done with the money?
Are you using the money for what we lent it to you for?
Banks really don't care what are in those reports, unless there's a gigantic smoking gun in them.
They just care that you keep paying.
Right.
But what those reports do is set up a tripwire so that if you do default, the banks then sue you and their lawyers pick up the phone and try to get the interest of the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney's Office or the Eastern District, who are basically private bank police.
And suddenly they will charge you with all kinds of financial crimes because the bank was, which the bank was fine with until they stopped getting paid.
It's one of the many, many problems with the massive number of statutes and over-regulation of just about everything in this country.
And the it all depended on trust.
It all depended on civic virtue.
You cannot have government without giving power to people to govern and to enforce laws.
And I'm not a libertarian, much less an anarchist.
But it always depended, as the founding fathers recognized, and ever and until fairly recently, everyone recognized, regardless of whether they were liberal or conservative, that to have such a system, you required not only an educated electorate on some level,
but certainly those in power had to meet certain qualifications, standards of both education and character.
That's simply no longer the case.
In fact, many people consider it offensive merely to suggest that it should be the case.
That's a big problem.
This all kind of reminds me with this selective prosecution and what we've seen since we last spoke on my podcast with the Twitter files.
You said something really brilliant, and I'm gonna have to paraphrase, obviously, because I don't have everything you've ever said memorized, unfortunately, not yet.
But we were talking about the censorship on YouTube around the COVID misinformation.
And you as I recall, you basically said that it was very odd that they would take the position YouTube would take the position to determine the accuracy of certain claims around the pandemic in the middle of it.
Uh, from like a from like a legal standpoint, you're basically it's just weird that the lawyers would choose to censor based off of claims or opinions about vaccines or the or the pandemic.
And that was before we explicitly knew that the intelligence community is heavily integrated into these platforms.
And that was the implication, though I don't think you explicitly said it, was that someone else must some there must be some other motivating factor for these terms of service and policies that we see from these big tech platforms.
How are your thoughts developed on that given what we've learned over the last couple of years?
Well, one thing that continues to be true, as it was when I said that, is that the expansive judicial reading of Section 230 has essentially created a world in which there is and can be essentially no liability for any social media or uh content platform for
anything it does, or anything it doesn't do.
So that has been more true than ever.
We we learned that the Ninth Circuit uh considers it that way that you know, in the O'Handley case and the DC Draeno case, which is now um, you know, we're hoping the Supreme Court will take a look at uh where the Ninth Circuit said, yeah, it's fine that the state of California told Twitter what accounts to ban, because Twitter didn't really have to do it.
Oh, Twitter did it even 98% of the time they were asked to do it.
It was still just a request.
Right.
That wasn't actually a Section 230 ruling, but that that's the attitude that that apparently a very large part of the judiciary, not including the Fifth Circuit, Biden versus Missouri, thank God, seems to have.
So, you know, the legal piece of it is not that if it in any other world with respect to any other enterprise, the idea that you would allow either algorithms or mid-level staffers to pick and choose among medical related or healthcare related information that is acceptable on your platform because you have no exposure whatsoever to the circumstances
and uh of those choices, but the understanding that you can do it because the choices you're making align with the official government narrative, not because they've been proved to be correct.
Right.
But that there is an official government narrative that is adopted by the corporate media and by all the important institutions that run this country, but not by doctors and not in any well, not I don't want to say doctors, because doctors actually were part of this.
Um not all doctors, but the majority of doctors in this country very, very comfortably bought into that as well.
But they weren't even using doctors to make these decisions.
Rather, it was you know it was and remains essentially a checklist.
Um by the way, you know, you there's a little bit more freedom now on YouTube to talk about COVID um alternative perspectives.
I don't know if you hear that plain.
No, I can't hear it.
The crew here's really good.
That's the F-35 that'd be looking for, right?
I'm being buzzed by the CIA, the NSA, I'm quite sure.
Okay.
Uh, but that's okay.
I'm I'm cool with that.
Um but not with regarding I as far as I understand it's still true regarding election claims.
Right.
But only about the 2020 election.
So you can you can claim that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary, but it's against the rules to claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Don.
It is it is a very, very weird world.
And it is in my non-professional opinion, my opinion is a 60-year-old man who's at least a click or two below Einstein.
That it is not sustainable.
Ultimately, the truth, you can't you can't fool all the people all the time, as a legitimate genius said many years ago.
And and they're not.
And the fewer, you know, the the more people who are open themselves up to truth, the more they will have influence on others who will consider truth.
It is, however, a very complex game that we're playing now because we know that there are all these um operatives who work not only to silence dissent, but to uh what to infiltrate groups of dissenters,
uh either to c you know, to to uh induce them to commit crimes, which is basically the FBI's main business now, it seems, or to um you know, to to report on them,
which is the kind of thing that was considered to be you know distasteful at best and perhaps unconstitutional when it was done against leftists in the 50s and 60s and 70s, but when it is being done against rightists, uh all of a sudden it's protecting the constitution.
It's you know, this is any one of your guests can spout this stuff.
You know, you don't need me for that.
But I do think uh it is it we have to appreciate how complex it is.
I mean, I can't for sure say that you're not one of them.
I don't, you know, but the thing about you is that one of them.
The infiltrators, yeah, the Freemason conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy itself, man.
They're not a Freemason, you're a Fed, man.
How do I know you're not a you have you you've got a Fed jawline?
Yeah, I know.
I could definitely play a Fed in a movie.
You could play a Fed in the movie, and I certainly look the part of the, you know, the underground uh subversive.
Right.
Like nobody believes you the first three quarters of the movie, and then in the end, like it's oh my god, he was right the whole time.
And like they you know the reason I the reason I know that you're not is because you what you do is almost entirely public.
You're about having conversations in public.
You're not someone who is you know starting all kinds of you know secret meetings and you know, uh whatever it is that those people do.
Yeah.
So I'm not really worried about you, and I'm not really worried about anyone that I know, which is probably naive.
But then again, I'm not doing anything that I wouldn't do it, you know, or say in p in public, except with respect to flying confidentiality.
But it is listen, you know, your friend Alex Jones was right about just about everything.
Yeah.
The one thing he was wrong about killed him.
Uh and and that that was a massive miscarriage of justice as well, notwithstanding how silly how really wrong Alex was.
Yeah.
That's not defamation.
I mean, I do a lot of defamation work.
And that's not defamation.
That and again, there you've got a judge doing whatever the hell she wants, because by the time there's review by a respectable court, and there are still some respectable courts in this country, the damage will have been done.
Alex Jones will have been will be radioactive forever.
Gavin McGuinness will be radioactive forget for for forever, regardless of whether the claims against them are ultimately shown that.
They don't have to win the case.
They just have to bring the case in order to do achieve the outcome they desire, which is to just cripple you.
Which of course also happens with with the in the Me Too movement, right?
We just learned about a couple of pro professional athletes whose American careers, which is you know, where the money is, right?
Russell Brandon right now.
There's uh I'm sorry, I'm sorry, who else?
Russell Brand, the recently.
A Russell Band, right?
Absolutely.
It's it's a machine, and you know, every everyone plays into it.
And you know, there are people in the conservative movement who will but will bite every single time.
Yeah.
Every single time.
And I remember during during the Trump presidency, every time some stupid, obviously, obviously invented narrative came out of sources that refused to be identified, you know, the Trump was trying to grab the wheel in the Secret Service limousine, you know.
Trump ha had a uh, you know, a uh uh uh a secret radio in the basement of the White House and he was using to communicate with Cuton.
I mean, whatever it was, breathlessly reported and you and how many conservatives including names you would know.
Um this, you know, this he's crossed the line here.
I mean, there's no skepticism whatsoever.
Here we are.
How do you get sued for defamation for 1.4 trillion dollars for getting a news story wrong 10 years ago now and lose that case?
How do you lose that fucking case?
I have asked the same question myself.
I've been not trying, by the way.
Excuse me.
I don't understand.
It may as well be, you know, it's it's like the old joke, the you know, they used to have these ladies' luncheons club, and they would some distinguished professor from the university would come and speak to them.
And the professor says, um, you know, he's talking about how the sun will eventually be extinguished.
And the lady, one of the ladies in the audience gets very excited and she faints.
And they run over to her, and you know, they revive her.
And he's the professor says, Madame, what what what is it that I said concerned you so much?
She said, You said that the sun is going to be extinguished in 2.4 billion years.
He said, No, no, no.
2.4 million years.
He said, no, no, no.
I said 2.4 billion years.
She said, oh my goodness, I feel so much better now.
These are all meaningless numbers.
These are completely meaningless numbers.
Billions of dollars.
First of all, look, right off the bat, there's a constant a gigantic constitutional problem with punitive damages of that magnitude.
It's cruel and unusual.
It's literally cruel and unusual.
It's it is cruel, unusual, stupid.
It's all the things.
I mean it's not but why, how this could possibly have been have gone to trial, I've I've asked many times.
I never sat down and really looked at the um procedural history of that case, but it should have been dismissed well before the jury uh the the jury uh got to it.
But I did a video actually when I was sitting in for Jenna Ellis a couple weeks ago.
Maybe it was last week.
I've lost all track about the decline in the quality of the judiciary and why that has happened.
And you know, it it's a it's a sectoral problem.
It's it's not entirely related to affirmative action, but uh you would be naive to think that it has nothing to do with affirmative action.
We it's always been said that you know, the A students become judges, and the B students become well, the A students become law professors, and the B students become judges, and the C students become, you know, billionaires wealthy yeah, and that's a little a little bit of a exaggeration.
I mean, the fact is there are many, many very good judges.
When I some sometimes when I read some of these opinions, I'm really impressed by the quality of them.
But some of the is I mean, there is stuff that does look like it was.
I mean, my wife, Jane Coleman, who writes for a legal insurrection, um, reads a lot of opinions, and we spend a lot of time talking, but you know, looking reality checks with each other.
Is this is this actually something in a judicial opinion?
Did the judge really say this?
And again, because of the massive so one of the issues in the in the federal judiciary in particular that people should understand is that you can't appeal virtually anything in a federal case.
There are some exceptions, such as preliminary injunctions, but as a general rule, you can't appeal until the case is completely over.
You uh it in states such as New York, you can take what are called interlocutory appeals, which means you can appeal a ruling in the case while the case continues on.
And that can be a very big deal.
It has the disadvantage of enabling a lot of extra wasted motion and money.
But it can eliminate a lot of w wasted motion and money because if the judge made a an outcome determinative ruling early in the case, and you appeal it, and you win the new cases, the rest of the cases dismissed or whatever, it's moot.
Right.
Right.
So in the federal system, the policy choice was made not to have interlocutory appeals.
And I think generally speaking, that's that's a good idea.
But once you have this world in which judges are no longer acting as gatekeepers to dispose of obviously meritless cases, both civil and criminal, then the lack of meaningful review,
potentially for years, is once again going to the beginning of our conversation, has the potential to really wreak havoc On people's lives, careers, and wealth.
And it's it's a you know, it's a problem, but it's not again, we're talking about the systemic lack of trust and the systemic lack of standards that has affected just about every institution in this country.
So what are you gonna do?
What about these gag orders from Jack Smith?
Thank you.
Well, uh, he is at least uh getting a little bit of judicial pushback there.
It just goes to show, however, that just what kinds of expectations January 6th prosecutors have of being able to get their way.
Right.
Uh it is it's unreal.
It's nauseating.
It is uh a betrayal of you know everything that we once took pride about in our judicial system.
And uh, you know, I I do think the vast majority of it will end up coming out in the wash, but you think the system can really self-correct?
Because my concern is that corruption it can't be it it's so much harder to reverse it than it is to just make it worse.
Well, I think that major reform is possible if the will is there.
Um and if, you know, a lot of things have to go right.
One of the things that a Republican majority and a Republican president could do is to make some reforms that don't look very big with respect to the legal system, but but which could really make a big difference.
One thing I would do is eliminate the District of Columbia's circuit.
I was gonna say just off the face of the earth.
Yeah, well, I'm I'm focusing on the legal system.
I know, of course.
I'm just teasing you.
Did you see my uh poll earlier today, right before we got on?
Oh, well, you know, listen, it is tempting.
It is tempting, but I there's no reason a city, even if it's the capital city, should have its own district and its own circuit.
Right.
Those should be integrated into the Maryland and Virginia systems, uh federal federal courts, the the you know, for those districts and those circuits so that there's at least some spreading out of the outrageous.
I mean you have a judicial district in which no Republican can ever get a fair trial, and no Democrat can ever be convicted.
And I remember this going back, there was I don't remember if you I don't know if you're old enough to remember Scooter Libby.
He was uh in the Bush White House, and uh this was you know senior or junior advisor.
I think it was senior.
Okay.
And he that's which would be why you wouldn't remember it.
And he was um tried on some, you know, one of these political process crimes or something.
And he hired a former boss of mine, a guy named Ted Wells, who is now basically the head of litigation of Paul Weiss, which is one of the elite handful of law firms in the world, super duper star, black democrat, incredibly, I mean, gosh, I wish I could have one day just understanding how his mind works to put together a prepare case.
Just so I could feed off that for the rest of my career.
He could not get uh Scooter Libby acquitted in the district uh in the DC uh district of DC, and this was you know 20 years ago.
It's and it's only gotten immensely worse.
And there, and and you know, we so that's you know, I would I would split the Ninth Circuit in half.
It's an immensely large circuit.
It's not gonna make it things more liberal or conservative, but it's it's an unwieldy circuit, and the quality problem there is well known.
But uh if if there were two smaller circuits, there might be a certain level of accountability in terms of what's going on over there.
Uh but going, you know, the the bigger question, you know, will all the bad rulings be appealed and will they all be reversed?
No.
They won't be reversed.
Um the appellate courts lack the quality and the integrity to do what's right across the board.
But I do think we can make things tolerable until we regain our sanity.
I I do think it's possible for our national culture to regain its sanity as it did, you know not so long after the Debs conviction.
And you know, lot there are lots of cases that did not shock people when they were made, but which history has shown to be, you know, a consensus has developed.
Now it is what is true though, it is you're right that there's, you know, it's not just a matter of corruption.
I've repeatedly mentioned how many institutions are degraded now.
So where is that consensus that reborn consensus going to come from?
Not from academia.
You know, you you have, I mean, you have people like Richard, like Lawrence Tribe, you know, still tweeting the most preposterous things about free speech.
This was a guy who was, you know, I mean, Alan Dershwitz is the only one who kept his head, and he's he's you know, basically retired now, and plus they they threw him out.
They, you know, he's he's no longer a member of the club.
Um, and I have this discussion with David Latt, who is a you know distinguished writer and a conservative who founded the above the law um blog, which is now run by a uh a lunatic.
But I said, David, do you think it ever gets better?
And he said, Well, I think it I really do think it will, because ultimately you know, people do if you graduate from law school and you don't have the ability to truly understand the other side's point of view, at least for purposes of knowing how to respond to it, you're not gonna succeed.
Well, I don't know if that's true anymore.
Uh I think I understand why you're upset about the Treaty of Versailles.
There are reasons to be upset.
Wait a minute.
There were reasons to be upset.
I know.
There were reasons.
Oh, I know, I know.
I know.
That did not, however, just that did not justify anything.
Well, and that's actually what I'm really concerned about.
I did a uh a thread the other day on Twitter, and I very subtly touched on this.
I think that our us far-right extremists are gonna win at some point in this country.
I don't know if it's gonna be in four years or if it's gonna be in a hundred years, think things are gonna get bad and we're gonna win, or we're gonna be able to prevent the worst from happening when people sort of universally realize that it's inevitable that it will happen unless something different happens fast.
And my concern is that we have not developed the hollow leg, for lack of a better expression of the kind of universal power that we could potentially have.
Because things get really bad, and we drain the swamp quickly, and there's this sort of cultural reawakening, and everybody if it flips suddenly, that's the political dynamic, then whoever's in power is gonna have the opportunity to do some terrible things, I think.
What similar to like what happened with the Third Reich.
And my concern is actually more that once we win, we'll lose our heads than that we won't win.
I think the timidity, well, see the problem is identifying who who you're talking about.
You know, um that you know, we're talking, you know, just in terms of like you're not talking about Ben Shapiro.
You're not even talking about Kurt Schlichter.
I'm thinking like the Musks and the Joneses and the Rogans, not necessarily Republican guys, but just people that are committed to at least trying to be reasonable, even if they fall short.
I I think they're gonna win.
And I think the there's a lot, I think there's a lot Of American people who aren't famous that are like that.
And I wonder how long they'll stay reasonable in the context of an increasingly unreasonable political environment.
Well, the thing is that the system right now is structured in a way to roll up anyone who strays from the bounds of what the system regards as reasonable.
And I will say that that does concern me more than overreaction.
And I say that someone who obviously has would have plenty to be concerned about in an overreaction.
I'm just kidding.
Too soon.
Not soon enough.
No, I I'm not I'm not the least bit worried about that.
I mean, I I really believe that it would it helps for people to appreciate this is again I mentioned Kurt Schlichter.
I think he's one of the great guys to go to on this kind of end game stuff.
Whenever you make a see a comparison to the third rice of any kind, you have to ask yourself.
All right, so when the Supreme Court of Nazi Germany heard First Amendment objections to the Nuremberg Laws.
Uh, what was their ruling?
What do you what are you talking about?
There's no they didn't really have a Supreme Court.
There was no first amendment.
Like, the comparisons, the framework doesn't even make any sense.
All the, not just the Nuremberg laws, but all the special legislation and the decrees that were made, like, we don't...
I will say that what happened during COVID could actually end up being sort of a gift to us because we did see during COVID the extent to which the system, including the judiciary, is far too comfortable using emergencies like the Reichstag fire.
Or like Rome, dictator for life.
Or like right, like like Eric Roman friends, um as rationales for throwing basically absolutely everything out the window.
You say to me, Ron, well, that proves that you're wrong.
But I say, no, that that proves that we have successfully identified and potentially isolated a real problem.
Right.
And I believe that's fancy.
Yeah.
And I I think that there I think there are going to be reforms that are not going to be seen as radical and not going to involve looting or or rioting, but are going to be in the in the normal course.
And they're going to make a big difference about our ability to retain the constitutional rules that we rely on to keep us from ever becoming like one of these, you know.
Utopias.
I'm just kidding.
One of these totalitarian utopians.
That's right.
Sure.
So where can people find you and follow you and see what you're doing?
Where can they avoid me?
I'm on Twitter.
That's the home.
That's that's the home base for me.
I'm sorry, X-Corp on the X platform.
Ron Coleman.
At Ron Coleman spelled with an E R-O-N-C-O-L E-M-A-N.
Then you click there, or you can go to Ron Coleman.com and learn all about the wonderful world of Ron Coleman.
It's really mostly about my law practice.
I do have a podcast, culmination.
It's one word because the joke is culmination, not Coleman Nation, but there is a hyphen because I couldn't get the domain name off my back.
Um just search on the internet for Ron Coleman lawyer.
You must put in the word lawyer.
You will get a couple of false results because there are some other Ron Coleman lawyers.
And if you don't put in lawyer, you're gonna get a very, very Large African American who was Mr. Universe many, many times, whose name is Ron Coleman.
But easy to find me.
Easy to find me.
I'm at Ron Coleman.
And uh usually you and I are in the same threads.
You know, if an even if we're not at all.
I turned notifications on for your profile the other day because I didn't want to miss any of your tweets.
I mean, you're shit.
It's just great.
This is this is a great America.
No, thank you very much.
Listen, I was I would I will say this much.
As much as I admire and I recognize all that Elon Musk has done, which is a lot, he still has not fixed and he has not really acknowledged the extent of the shadow banning.
I mean, my account should I should have easily half a million followers.
Easily.
Yeah.
And right now, for like for the last two, three weeks, I'm every time I pass 235, I lose 50 followers.
Statistically, that's impossible.
That's it just doesn't work that way.
You know, right.
I'm sure that there are some there are some hidden algorithms deep in the code that they have yet to discover that are fucking with them.
And it's a it's amazing, but I mean, I'd like to know why me and not Jack Masovic, right?
Like, I I don't want, I mean, Jack's a super influential guy, and he can do a lot of things that I can't do, and therefore I'm glad that Jack has two million followers plus.
But I don't understand now.
It's possible that he's been throttled too, and that he would have five million.
Okay, maybe.
But I think once you get to the two million point, it you can't really say that.
But you'll find me anyway.
I'm out there.
I'm out there and I do have fun, and sometimes I have something interesting to say as well.
Chase, great to talk to you again.
I always love speaking with you, man.
I think you're fascinating.
Thank you for your time today.
I appreciate it.
And let's not let's not allow this to be the last time this happens, and let's not allow so much time in between.
