All Episodes
Previous Next
June 13, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
01:57:38
The Raw Deal (12 June 2020) with Alison "Sunny" Maynard
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- All right, good day wherever you are in this world.
I hope you're having a great day here listening to Revolution Radio.
Everybody asks for this.
Revolution Radio.
The information never saves.
When you attend a funeral, it is sad to think that sooner or later those you love will do the same for you.
And you may have thought it tragic not to mention other adjectives to think of all the weeping they will do.
But don't you worry, no more ashes, no more sackcloth, and an armband made of black cloth will someday nevermore adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you gets your friends and neighbors too, there'll be nobody left behind to grieve.
And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement.
Yes, we all will go together when we go.
We will all go together when we go.
All subdued with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance.
Lloyd's London, be loaded when we go.
We will.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, where for a change of pace, I'm a very special guest today with an extensive background as an attorney, as a candidate for attorney general at one point in time for the Green Party in Colorado. as a candidate for attorney general at one point in
Someone who has been extending herself to aid and assist others who have found themselves on the wrong end of a legal case, typically contrived cases intended to punish those of us who have been speaking the truth.
Her name, Alison Menard, a Sonny to me and her friends.
Sonny, it's a real pleasure having you here on the show.
Oh, it's my pleasure entirely.
Thank you for asking me.
I'm just elated.
You have so much to tell us, because you've been on the inside of the judicial system, dealing with issues in any number of states, and I felt our audience could learn a great deal from you.
So, take it away, Sonny.
Well, thanks, although I wonder if people might not want an update about your case.
I mean, are you willing to summarize where you are in that?
Because, you know, yours is an example of judicial travesty for sure.
It's retaliation for the exercise of your constitutional rights.
Yes, yes, yes.
But since the decision, you know, the verdict, and a couple of efforts to punish me for alleged contempt for having shared a deposition by the plaintiff, because I was convinced that the person who was posing as the plaintiff was not the same person who was alleged to be the father of the child who died at Sandy Hook,
It's been a matter of waiting until the date for submission of the appeal, which has been extended a couple times because of the coronavirus nonsense, as I would put it.
So now it's going to be due, I think, within a week, Sonny, my best recollection.
Yeah.
Okay, well, I guess we'll not go into detail about that at this point, except that I saw when I examined pleadings in your case, lots of the same things that I had seen in Colorado, and it was in Colorado that I practiced as a lawyer.
And just to fill people in, you know, I was primarily a water lawyer, although I also did civil rights and an assortment of general civil litigation.
And listeners may be vaguely aware that water is a big deal in Colorado and it's worth a lot of money and I represented homeowners associations and environmental groups trying to keep water in the streams or trying to keep their water from being stolen.
And some big water thefts I exposed and for my pains I was retaliated against with a series of bogus disciplinary proceedings brought at the behest of my opponents in active litigation.
And so a lot of my experience and what I'll be talking about will point back to that.
But the predicate was the water cases themselves and, you know, it's, I debated whether to go into detail about what happened in the cases and I think at this point it's better to maybe make more general points.
At any rate, in the first slide, I'm stating the obvious.
Our freedoms are disappearing fast.
I mean, I've seen so many instances where there have been inroads made in what I always believed were established, you know, firmly judicially established constitutional rights, such as
You know to be secure in your papers and possessions and you have the right of free speech there's the Skokie case which people may be aware of where which was a big deal because you know the Nazi Party was prohibited from getting a permit to march in the streets of Skokie and the ACLU took that case and got a wonderful judgment standing up for the right of
of politically unpopular speech and speech makers to say their stuff.
I mean, there's just some, you know, few restraints on speech.
That's what I always understood.
Like, you know, you're right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins sort of thing.
Or shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Anyway, so what I saw as a lawyer was that the disciplinary process was being used against me as a punishment for my speech to shut me up and it, you know, has it succeeded?
Well, it prohibited me from practicing my profession and it also led to the defeat of my clients in active cases.
Anyway, so I'm getting ahead of myself and the first slide just states principles like judges.
We always think of as the putative as the protectors of our freedoms, but we're seeing anymore that are they afraid to do so such as the judge in Jim's case?
I mean, he sure didn't stand up for the First Amendment.
He put Jim's case on a fast track, a railroad train, and never paid any attention to Jim's defenses, which were complete defenses, and just, you know, rubber-stamped whatever the plaintiff wanted, the plaintiff's attorneys.
Now what they're using with COVID is obviously using a public health emergency excuse.
There's I've just found this off the web that there's a Fifth Circuit case now and it deals with abortion but abortion is a constitutional right up until the first trimester and it's saying that that can be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency.
Well so for the women who want To exercise that constitutional right, it's not there for them anymore.
And others will follow if they haven't already.
We can go to the next slide.
Okay, great.
Anyway, so I would like to tell about a couple of cases where I learned about how asset stripping is accomplished via the use of the courts.
And I'll start with a Ulyppians case, and it's a funny name.
It was the name of a black theater arts group in Denver that owned a big historic building called the Elgebel Temple, and they had done fundraising to acquire that building, and they'd also gotten a loan from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development.
And in 1998, I think it was, maybe 99, the mayor, the city attorney actually, and both the city attorney and the mayor were black men.
The city attorney was Dan Muse and the mayor was Wellington Webb.
The City Attorney demanded that the Board of Ulipians step down in favor of people appointed by the Mayor, or else he would call their loan.
And in fact, their loan wasn't in default.
But he made that threat that they had to step down, and so they did, and the next thing that happens is Mayor Webb appoints cronies to the Board.
And once on the board, they proceeded to change the bylaws and strip the corporation of all its assets.
They locked the doors, they changed the locks on the doors, and my client's property, personal property, was still inside.
And they never got it back.
And they sold the building, this huge historic building, they sold it and pocketed the proceeds.
It's just rape.
It was rape.
It's just deplorable.
Yes.
And the court case was even more deplorable because in this case, so I tried to get a Temporary restraining order that was denied we were put before a new judge who had been a criminal prosecutor She didn't know anything about civil procedure and she she denied it then we went for a preliminary injunction hearing and that judge Denied the preliminary injunction.
Okay, so we're on our second judge then we go to we have actually been assigned for the real case to a judge that had a good reputation named Hyatt, but we never got any proceedings before Hyatt because it turned January and Denver District Court has this little thing that they call rotation and
Where the judges, like, you know, musical chairs, they switch courtrooms and they're not supposed to take cases with them, although I saw an exception to this later.
But so all of a sudden we don't have our good judge.
We have another one who dismisses the case.
I argued, you know, until I was blue in the case, or blue in the face, that, you know, this was wrongful.
Next thing I know, we have another judge, and she's, because apparently the previous judge I was told was diabetic, and so I, that was never of record in the case.
I was told this by another judge that I happened to be friendly with at the time.
Anyway, so then another judge comes on.
She's brand new and she has a conflict.
So she's off the case.
And then we get McMullen, who actually was the chief judge of the Denver District Court at that time.
I'm quite sure that he was and he was in courtroom one.
Well, McMullen also dismissed the case.
He concluded summarily that my client's group had no members.
We had like 300 members, but he concluded there were no members.
And so I appealed to the Court of Appeals, got him reversed, and we're back before the same judge, and he did the same thing a second time.
So this takes five years, believe it or not, and I'm working pro bono.
I mean, I took this as a pro bono case, and I I really fought.
I mean, I filed lots of motions.
At no time were my clients' issues ever discussed by the judge.
And when we had a hearing, he insulted my witnesses, insulted my clients, and insulted me.
I mean, but so the real the oh and something else weird happened, which was that When we were in the Court of Appeals the first time we were sent to a settlement conference I've never seen that happen in the Court of Appeals and and the judge there that held the conference really put pressure on us to settle But you don't settle something like that.
I mean, they weren't offering to pay money.
They just wanted to get rid of us.
But it was my client's building and their corporation, a nonprofit corporation that put on theater productions.
Well, the upshot of it was we never got heard on anything.
We just went through this exercise in futility for five years where my motions were always denied.
And even though I won the one appeal, we came back before the same judge and he dismissed it a second time and I appealed again and this one we lost.
We had a different panel and they just came down on the opposite way from the first one.
So I'm saying this because something I learned about this was about use of the courts for asset stripping.
Meaning that, I mean, that's the first time I saw it and I have seen this pattern where unscrupulous people take people or groups like non-profit corporations, they take them to court on some bogus reason.
And the judge transfers assets.
This is actually happening in, you know, just an overwhelming number of cases having to do with guardianship and I'm in touch with some of these people who are affected by this and so it seems like a total, it is a totally different
Area of the law, you know with elderly people usually but also sometimes disabled people when they have a trust account these people are targeted and and for instance with elderly people, you know some in one case, I'm aware of some distant relative came in and made friends with the mother of my friend and actually captured her and took her to Ohio from Florida and
and had her sign over all of the assets that should have gone to my friend who was her only child and sign them all over you know like and the mother was just so disgraceful yes Yes, and it's happening all over.
And so, I guess, you know, I'm getting a little bit off my initial subject, but it's... Well, your point is the use of the law in the courts to achieve illicit ends.
I mean, these are nice illustrations.
Yes, and thanks for interjecting.
I don't want to get boring with just a monologue here, but it's shocking beyond belief.
So the courts, what I've seen, like in another case involving another friend of mine, but a similar sort of situation where she lived in Michigan and her father also lived in Michigan and A sister in Denver invited the father to come to Denver where he proceeded to suffer a very serious injury.
He fell down the stairs at night and she put him in a nursing home and my friend was prohibited from seeing him and my friend is a lawyer.
And he was prohibited from having his own attorney.
He was at the motion of the nursing home and the sister, he was declared incompetent when in fact, I mean, this understanding from my friend, I mean, he'd been a reporter for the Chicago Tribune back during the war and so forth.
He was highly competent, although he'd had an injury, a leg, I guess it was a leg injury.
So they appointed a guardian.
Who then is given control over all the bank accounts and assets of the vulnerable person and proceeds to run up bills against this estate and pay them out of the elderly person's assets.
And I mentioned my friend in Florida, that same thing happened, that same scenario.
And then when all the money was exhausted, they killed her mother.
And that's what happened to this man in Colorado too.
Yeah, that's what they do, is they take, they appoint people, they don't let you act for yourself, and they don't let, well, often family members are the problem, but in other situations, you know, they appoint a guardian who's not even related, and they do, you know, everything has to do with self-dealing.
Like, for instance, they will take legal control of a house And sell it for way under market value, but a crony of theirs buys it at that undervalued price and then resells it for a killing.
So this stuff is going on and it's not being controlled.
And I am talking a bit out of turn because I, but it is, it is the same scenario.
It is asset stripping that is.
Being carried out with the offices of the court, and the court is a full partner in it, too.
And so, anyway, I am just sort of talking a blue streak here, but I was talking about Eulipians, but then the next case I had that was like that was a homeowners association in Spring Creek Ranch.
Which is one of the cases I end up getting groundlessly disciplined for, where my client, it was a small homeowners association, but it had water.
And water is where I came in.
It's how I got introduced to this, because the adjacent property owner wanted that water.
He couldn't develop without it.
And so he installed his own plants in the subdivision, my client's little subdivision.
They went to an attorney and got themselves appointed as the board, even though there was an existing board, and then they proceeded again to strip the assets.
And such harm was caused that I can't even describe it, especially in, you know, this interview.
But anyway, so that's the first of these things.
I realize it may be new to you, so it's not a dialogue as we've been able to engage in when we've talked about Sandy Hook.
Oh, Sonny, this is just fine.
Remember, it's the audience who is our target, as opposed to me specifically, but yeah, I think you're doing just fine.
Okay, well good.
So, just as, I guess, Trying to characterize What sorts of things go on in court cases?
Another one is attorney fees and you've just run into this I mean they always make lip service or give lip service to what's called the American rule Which is that attorney fees are not?
Awarded as a matter of course to the prevailing party in a lawsuit in Britain They are.
But so, it's not supposed to happen in America, but there are some exceptions to that rule.
And in Colorado, for instance, one of the exceptions is when a statute provides for the fees.
Okay, you can see that.
But another one is, actually this is a statute too, and it says when the suit that is brought is groundless, frivolous, or vexatious, that the court can award fees, and it's discretionary.
So all the court has to do is label your case frivolous, vexatious, or groundless, and then run to town with an attorney fee award.
And that has happened to me before, too, personally, where my case was far from frivolous, but the judge The judge never ruled for us on anything, and that's another big, huge thing that I could be talking about, but I'm trying to sort of expedite proceedings here.
So attorney fees as a sanction, that's another way they keep you in line, and it's just happened to you, as I mentioned, where for this putative contempt, The attorney for Leonard Posner asked for a sanction of his fees for the entire case, not just for the contempt.
And your attorney, Rich Bolton, I thought did a masterful job of showing that that couldn't happen.
Well, it did happen.
That's what the court has just done.
And it's just outrageous.
And this on top of an outrageous and undeserved damages award where summary judgment was awarded Unliability.
That never happens.
It's not supposed to happen.
You put facts in issue and moreover summary judgment should have been granted to you because the document they sued you over wasn't the document you published statements about.
And what you said about the document you published statements about was true, which is it was a forgery.
It definitely is a forgery.
But anyways, the court paid no attention to your arguments.
So anyway, that's the second thing that I've realized is going on, which is attorney fees as a sanction.
And you never hear about this.
I mean, what you hear about is cases like the McDonald's thing where the woman got burned and got a huge judgment and so when things like the this are brooded about or the published in all the newspapers and number one it looks like a frivolous case although I guess she was in fact really severely burned by this coffee but it makes people think that
You know, they have a right to be heard in the courts and that if they've been injured, they will be made whole.
I think this probably happens in about one-tenth of one percent of the cases.
I mean, what I'm seeing is that opinions come down which mischaracterize your issues altogether.
I mean, this has happened to me where I've read this and I don't even recognize the case that I've handled because they make findings of fact That have no relationship to what was presented to them.
And I'm not even talking about findings of fact that are in conflict.
I mean, obviously discretion will be paid to a judge who resolves disputed issues of fact.
But I'm talking about findings where there isn't any conflict.
And, you know, one comes to mind right now in that Spring Creek Ranch thing.
One of my clients, you know, we were fighting all these bogus liens that this bogus new board of directors put on the other homeowners' properties.
I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of liens.
Anyway, Helena Lewis, who was one of my clients, she took the stand and she had reviewed their accounting, you know, probably a hundred pages of little print, and she pointed out numerous instances where liens were placed before assessments were even made, meaning the homeowners weren't even told what the charges were that they were supposed to pay before this putative board of directors that was never elected by them went and placed liens against their properties.
Okay, so that testimony of hers was based on their document, this new Board of Directors own accounting document.
She was just pointing out that their own documents showed liens were placed before assessments were made.
Well, in the decision that came down, and this was an order denying a preliminary injunction in that case, The judge said, Helena Lewis believes liens were placed before assessments were made.
This is just bogus.
She didn't believe it.
She proved it with their stuff.
And there wasn't any controverting evidence in the record.
So, and I would point out that that judge, you know, when he finally dismissed that case, he took a Trip around the world with his wife that lasted three months.
And here's something else is that, you know, even when I've, you know, believed that and he was he actually retired, he was of a retirement age, but in Colorado, they then come back as senior judges.
You know, and they're not no longer even subject to a retention election.
And that, I don't think I actually put that as a point here, but I thought about it later.
Anyway, so, and you know, I've sort of established punishment for exercising constitutional rights.
They, you know, defamation, for instance, is a really squishy area of the law because Well, for instance, in Posner's case, was he even harmed by somebody saying that the death certificate of his child was forged?
I mean, I guess you could conceive that there's some harm to that, but you never said he did it.
And in fact, in your own motion for summary judgment, you proved it was a forgery.
Anyway, I already went into that.
I'm not really prepared to talk about the First Amendment.
It's a really complex area of the law in the sense you think it's forthright or straightforward, but there are lots of exceptions and They are judicially created exceptions, obviously, to the right of free speech.
It's a hard area of the law to understand.
You have to read a lot of Supreme Court cases to understand it.
But so that, you know, I mean, that's an example.
Anyway, so other things.
Sorry about that hyphen in the middle of that word.
Other things I've seen, you know, with me and water law, basically I fought, I think, the same cabal of guys, powerful water lawyers, who were sewing up the water for their clients.
They did stuff to me for the full 20 years that I practiced law, and it started very early on.
Well, one of them then was put on the Colorado Supreme Court in 1996, and this is a man named Greg Hobbs.
And I have indications that Hobbs was actually obsessed with me.
And I don't necessarily mean sexually.
He was obsessed with, he wanted to know, it kept coming back to me that he was trying to find out what I was working on.
And I have full, a very strong belief that he went to my judges in my lower court cases and told them how to rule.
But he also, I had the stuff on Hobbes, well, I forgot, I haven't explained that one reason I was in the Colorado Supreme Court often, maybe more often than other attorneys, is that water cases, they start in the water court, which is basically the district court, but appeals go directly to the Colorado Supreme Court, and it's because water is that important.
I mean, it's important for making money, primarily, for this cabal.
So I didn't have to go to the Court of Appeals, I went to the Supreme Court, and that's where Greg Hobbs was put.
And I moved to recuse him, I think, three times in various cases I had, and I had stuff on him that you almost never get.
I had unbelievable stuff.
And I did get him recused in a couple of places, but it's kind of like what they say about a water buffalo, that if you shoot it and only wound it and don't kill it, it will kill you.
And I wounded the water buffalo.
I think I really, I mean, this man, this man is a narcissist as well as a dirty trickster.
And that he was on the Colorado Supreme Court, you know, he, he viewed himself as God's gift to the water bar.
And the other justices, and like I would say there was one other who had experience in water law, of all seven justices, and the fact that probably 40% of what the Colorado Supreme Court does is water cases, there was only one that could come close to being considered an expert, and that was Hobbs.
And he, so he controlled the rest of the court on those decisions.
Anyway, I will get to that, because I included one little piece of evidence that I detached in Motions to Recuse, which I think may give people who are facing similar problems some ammunition.
It's one of the things you can do.
In general, though, you can't get records.
In Colorado, anyway.
The Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice a couple years ago, Nancy Rice, at the time, decided that they were not subject to the Colorado Open Records Act.
And before she did that, her own rule had said that if you were a party to a case, or if you were the attorney on a case, you would still get records.
That ruling that you couldn't was really directed at the press, you know, which has a legitimate interest in getting court records.
Well, at any rate, I was supposed to be able to get records concerning me, communications concerning me, as well as my cases, and they've never produced any.
And I know there's all kinds of stuff there, and that's why they're not.
And the same thing with the federal court.
Sonny, just as an observation about our timeline, we're about half through the first hour, but only a couple of your slides, so you may want to get highlights, hit highlights.
Okay, good idea.
It's hard to know, and I haven't done this presentation before.
I don't have many slides, and they're just like these, mostly.
Anyway, I have run into instances where court records have been altered, including by the judge.
And Animas La Plata was a big water case where, I mean, I can't begin to describe the travesties that occurred there, but one of them was that I discovered In looking through the historical records of the case, sorry, and the water rights actually started, they were first applied for in 1963.
I mean, there's just, there was just 50 years of unbelievable stuff.
Excuse me.
So I found that the person who filed the application for water rights on behalf of the applicant Uh, then became the judge and granted them.
Wow, that's pretty convenient.
Yeah, yeah.
And this is another, this is like a key reason that my opponents went after me with disciplinary proceedings.
It's because I, I would have gone to the Colorado Supreme Court.
I also, I mean to the United States Supreme Court.
I had a really good issue which that they were ignoring a 1971 United States Supreme Court decision.
But anyway, I also found that, you know, I got 19 boxes of evidence from a prior adjudication And even at that, I found that much of the evidence had been disposed of.
It was referred to in a prior ruling, but wasn't in the boxes.
And they predated, they anti-dated, the priority of this water project, Animus Lepata.
And so, I mean, I realize people may not understand that, and you're not even there.
Well, another problem is you can't, you know, like I went to the Attorney Registration Office trying to find out who my judge was.
You know, what law firm he or she had worked for before becoming a judge, and they don't have that information.
They won't tell you.
They say we don't keep it.
I had mentioned earlier in connection with Ulyppians about the judge switching in Denver.
They actually do this every January and that's improper.
I've never run into another court that does that and it's politically motivated because a judge has a duty to sit on the case unless he or she has a conflict or a disability.
And another thing is non-random assignment, and I've gotten instances of that too, which again, it looks like political motivation is the reason for the judge we got, who then dismisses the case.
I believe that a couple of my judges were bribed.
One indication of bribery can be second mortgages paid off a short time later.
Another form of getting a judge to rule your way is to give positive testimonials and the Connecticut judge that is on Wolf's case is one of these like she was invited by the opposing law firm to come give a luncheon speech and she was fetid and That's a small kind of testimonial, but it is still that.
And then there are indirect benefits, like children getting advancement, or another case getting positive press.
And I've seen that where my judge, like in Animasoplata, which was the biggest water case around he deep-sixed us and then You know a month or two later this huge two full page spread in the Denver Post appeared about Greg Lyman That's that judge and another case that he had Before him which just he just got upheld in the Colorado Supreme Court, and it was a nothing case I mean nothing burger.
It was about sheep on a pasture sheep grazing I mean So what I saw was, that's a thank you to Lyman for doing what he did in Animus Lepata, but of course they couldn't say that.
Anyway, so the next one.
Oh, so I'm able to go through these.
Well, okay, methods of judicial selection.
Here's the root of the problem, which is they did away with the elections of judges in 1966, and so it's sheer cronyism.
The judges are appointed by the governor after he gets some nominations from judicial nominating commissions around the state.
But he appoints all the members of those commissions, too.
And they do have some statutory requirements, like, you know, as far as political party membership goes.
And I think that's meaningless.
And they call this merit selection.
But the problem is there's no vetting by the public or even by the bar.
So many times as a lawyer, I would look and I would see like some attorney who's just been appointed to a judgeship, say in Denver, and I'd never heard of that person.
And you can't find out about the background of these people often, as I mentioned, at least judges.
There's almost no information about them.
Well, one thing I discovered is I could go to the public library and get this old publication called the Legal and Financial Directory.
And from paging through it, going back, way back, I sometimes got an address, an office address, and was able to link it to a law firm and then discover whether my My judge had a conflict.
But the fact that there's no vetting means that I, for one, have gone back to supporting elections of judges, even though that comes with its own problems.
For instance, people say, oh, but, you know, that means the judge will respond to whoever gave the biggest campaign donations.
But generally, campaign donations are required to be disclosed.
But the important thing is you get the chance to find out what is this person doing, which otherwise you can't.
Find out what that person has done in private practice and as a judge if it's a retention election.
Anyway, so that's, I didn't mention that the judges are initially appointed, but then there are retention elections, like every two years for the District Court, and four years, I think, for the Court of Appeals, and six for the Supreme Court.
But the judges always win those.
Oops, sorry, did I do that or did you?
You did that?
Oh, sure!
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't have control after all.
Okay, so I've kind of, in my own mind, compared myself to Diogenes, who went around looking for an honest man with a lantern, and I'm looking for an honest judge.
And they do exist, but there are so many machinations that can be undertaken to To get the right judge they want on your case.
And for instance, when I brought a federal case over what was going on with the OARC against me and my clients, eight federal judges and five federal magistrates recused on their own motion because they didn't want to rule against people they knew.
I mean, all these courts are in the same city in Denver.
Meaning Denver District Court, Court of Appeals, Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, and also the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals are all in Denver.
And they all know each other, and there's, you know, they all know each other.
So anyway, all these judges recused, and then there was an improper non-random assignment of a judge who struck our complaints.
Struck them.
We didn't get any kind of... We didn't get a single one of the rights guaranteed to litigants by the rules.
Anyway, I mentioned Hobbs's financial disclosures, and these are a little hard to read, but this is one of the things you can do if you have a bad judge, is they have to make these disclosures.
And what I found was, okay, you'll see several things if you can read.
Southwestern Water Conservation District.
This was my opponent in several cases, particularly Animas La Plata.
So he's there, he's going down, and he's like, Well, this is a gift certificate.
That doesn't sound that serious, but it's because he taught Water 101.
Well, this is not an appropriate activity for a judge.
Judges are permitted to do things which advance the legal profession, but in this case, he was associating with a political entity, which is a water development entity, and he was teaching a course to real estate agents.
You know, that's not lawyers.
So, there was that.
He, let's see, Idaho Water Users Association.
When you see water users, you know it's people who want, they're not environmentalists, for instance, or they don't want to keep water in the streams, they are developers.
And so he's there in Idaho, not even Colorado.
There are several other of these, and as I said, this was just one thing.
What I found, what I had evidence of, was that he had met in inappropriate, well I regard, I mean they are sort of, on the face of it, it looks appropriate.
Like he started A committee to examine rules governing water cases, particularly a rule about experts.
And I scratched my head when I saw that.
I thought, why?
I mean, this doesn't look reasonable at all.
But what that did was put him in close contact with water lawyers in their offices, in the office of my chief opponent, David Robbins.
So Greg Hobbs, the Supreme Court Justice on my case, was meeting with my opponent in his office.
So all he needs to do is come a little early and leave a little at late.
And other attorneys show up that are on this committee.
He's hobnobbing with them.
But the important one is Robbins.
And there, I already mentioned that they were Confederates.
They were cronies.
Anyway, we can go on to the next one.
I know I'm still...
Yeah.
Oh, there were, okay, so there are still more of these.
And it's easier to read, read this.
This, actually the year isn't noted here.
Speech to Southwestern Water Conservation District Annual Conference.
I'm pretty sure this was 2006.
This was right between my two trials in Durango.
Was that what actually I'm it's this one Durango April 9th to 10th.
That's where I had my trials.
He was there meeting with my judge and with my opponents And all these things are like that and I so as I mentioned in a couple cases I did get him recused but in the one that really mattered the most he did a lot of damage and then I got him recused F I mean actually I didn't get him recused because I didn't know about this stuff and It was after he did this to me that I started making inquiries, and I never got a remedy for that.
That this guy who clearly did what he did on our cases was in the pocket of our opponents.
So then the question is, who are the judges?
They are overwhelmingly Catholic, and I can, I am going to say that that's true nationwide, although I don't have knowledge of like, you know, probably I guess 90% of the states.
I do have knowledge of Colorado and the federal court in Colorado where that's the case.
I even, you know, I made a mistake saying I know of a judge who is Opus Dei.
I think I do, but for sure I had a judge on my disciplinary case who was Opus Dei.
You know, what is this?
I mean, if you've read any of the books by Dan Brown, like The Da Vinci Code, they're boilerplate books, or I'm sorry, potboiler books, but he does a really good job talking about this organization.
They are fanatics, and into self-flagellation and murder.
So I have, yeah, you should read those books.
They're amazing.
And I'm sorry, I mean, maybe you'll want to make a disclosure.
You know, I have known, I've had friends who are Catholic and they're lovely people, but there's a level where What they're doing is obeying authority, and I, I've discovered that several of the judges I had were given awards by something called the Thomas Moore Society, and I scratched my head and remember that Thomas Moore was
I mean, he's venerated by the Catholic Church because he put the religious authority, the Pope, over the secular authority, which I believe now is represented by the law.
So even though they're taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America and the state of Colorado, it's like they have their fingers crossed behind their back because they know that they're really going to answer to a higher master.
And so, you know, your contact, oh now I'm blanking on his name, the CIA agent, Robert, Steele, Robert David Steele, is that it?
Yeah.
He had a very interesting observation, which I think is probably accurate.
And it is, he said about the judge on your case that someone dropped a national security letter on him.
And that really resonated with me, because in fact, I've got this in a different place.
I have found intelligence connections of several of the judges I had.
You know, and it actually stunned me to find that, like I've mentioned Greg Lyman, the Durango water judge.
You know, I actually looked really hard to find out who his father was.
There's no obituary.
I just found a reference in an obituary of his mother.
She just died a few years, you know, a couple years ago.
And going through, I have a subscription to Ancestry.com.
I believe that I found the father and he was a military who was involved in PSYOPs in Vietnam.
And I'm like, whoa, psyops!
So that's one example.
Another one, the bad water judge who doesn't even know anything about water law, the one who sits in Glenwood Springs, which is the Colorado River.
They divide the state up depending on which river.
They make a division for the Colorado River, for the South Platte, and so forth.
Anyway, this judge, his name is Ocelot, I found used to be in the State Department and he was there when there was an attempted overthrow of the government in
It's the country next it's but I want to say Botswana but that's not it's Honduras Honduras it was in Honduras yeah so he was there and when I see that I think you know this is not that and what I see is that he just another one who just rubber stamps whatever the other side puts in front of him So anyway, right now on the U.S.
Supreme Court, six of nine are Catholic, and I'm including Neil Gorsuch because, you know, I don't know if you remember his mother.
These are Coloradans.
His mother was Ann Gorsuch Burford, and she was the head of EPA under Reagan.
In fact, I think she's the one who coined the term Nothingburger.
But she was a staunch Roman Catholic, and he grew up Roman Catholic, but now he says he's Episcopalian.
You know, and I, you know, I don't think that the breach is really that serious.
I think they both have saints, maybe the same ones, Episcopalians and Catholics, but I admit to a lot of, you know, lots of ignorance here.
There's a great deal of difference between the Episcopalians and the Catholics.
Take my word for it.
The only church in which I was ever involved was in junior high and high school.
It was St.
James Episcopal in South Pasadena.
I became head of the youth fellowship, treasurer for the Episcopal Diocese for Young People's Fellowship, a delegate to the 14th World Convention on Christian Education held that summer in Tokyo, Japan.
The differences between Catholicism and the Episcopalians is a mess.
Well, I will accept that, although I thought you told me you were a Catholic.
I I guess that you meant Episcopalian, but I have seen... I mean, as you know, Sonny, I've been agnostic.
I'm just saying that was the one period of my life when I was involved, but it was the Episcopal Church, not... Oh, okay.
Then I guess I misheard, and I understand that you left that behind.
But I have seen, you know, I saw an article at least once that the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church were considering mending their rift.
I don't know if they can.
There have been those efforts, but I do not believe they've come to fruition.
Okay, well anyway, maybe I'm wrong then, but I have included Gorsuch as a Catholic, because he was a Roman Catholic in his upbringing.
At any rate, and there are sprinklings of others, but let's get back to the first one, because six of nine, that's way out of proportion to the number of Catholics in the population.
I know!
How can we have nine justices and they're all either Catholics or Jews?
I mean, what for crying out loud?
Right.
Most Americans are Protestant of one variety or another.
Yeah, and I want to emphasize that people I think are missing the boat.
They only look at the issue of abortion.
And, you know, that isn't the fundamental problem.
The fundamental problem is obedience to authority.
And that they do, in fact, put their obedience to the Church over any secular law.
I firmly believe that accounts for what I've seen.
And that, you know, so there are, there is, you know, I for instance didn't, I haven't mentioned some other people involved like Anonymous Lopato.
One of them was a Deputy Secretary of Interior.
Really bad guy.
And I believe that when you talk about a national security letter, that he did that, at least to the federal court.
And also Ken Salazar, who was ahead of, you know, was above him.
He was, Ken was Secretary of Interior and also one of the people, the main person I ran against as Attorney General.
So, I don't know the extent to which Ken Salazar was personally involved in what happened to me.
I actually haven't seen any evidence, and I'm talking about the retaliatory disciplinary proceedings.
But this guy David Hayes, his deputy, was definitely involved.
I have proof of that.
But here's the thing that, you know, I don't even see my clock, but this is the thing I really wanted to get to, which is a judge-generating machine.
Okay, you got about five or six minutes, Sonny, before we go to the break.
Let me just add, just for the record, that Sonny's views about Sandy Hook are not ones that I'm presently allowed to address.
I've essentially been gagged until the appeal is processed and the case is reversed.
So, I mean, I'm not endorsing or disputing what she has to say.
Sonny knows the case very well.
I would also say, you know, everyone is welcome to call in the number for the second hour.
The number is 540-352-4452.
I repeat, 540-352-4452, where Mitch will field your call, and Sonny and I will take your calls, and in the meanwhile, she'll expand on her comments here to four.
Go forward, Sonny.
Great, but did you want to get into Sandy Hook?
That's what I heard you say.
No, no, I said no, I cannot.
You cannot?
Okay, alright.
You're free to express your opinions.
God, that is unreal.
But that also, I guess, may just be your attorney's caution or his advice.
But at any rate, I wanted to get to this.
I haven't even talked about the guy who the guy who led the charge against me.
Can we go down another slide?
Sure.
To where it says John Gleason.
Well, we don't.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean, Yeah, yeah, I actually have four blog posts on this guy.
Okay, so now we can go back to where we were.
This is the guy who led the charge against me, and he was the head of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
And he also was the person who advised the Judicial Discipline Commission about whether or not they should discipline judges.
So, an enormously powerful guy.
Well, after I had been through what I went through over a four-year period, I started looking into him and found out he's not a lawyer.
He has lied about having an undergraduate degree for 45 years.
Lied!
And I can prove that through documents I managed to get.
He also, I don't believe he has a law degree either.
I mean one thing is that he was required to have an undergraduate degree to get into the third tier law school he went to and he didn't have that.
But I also believe he was not honorably discharged from the military.
There's, I have, I believe he was taking bribes and again this is from looking at second mortgages taken out against his property.
So you have to, I'm skipping ahead to attorney regulation because This guy was in charge of it.
He never even filed an application for the position.
And in fact, I believe that, you know, there was one announcement I found in the Colorado Lawyer that the time period had already run for applications by the time that was posted.
So he and I've asked for the application and it doesn't exist.
So he was selected for a reason that has nothing to do with merit.
And what he did he's not there now, but what he did was he only pursued You know the sole practitioners I believe well and women Disproportionately he never went after the corporate lawyers, and that's why there's there are so many abuses they never get disciplined and there there's all kinds of misconduct and they his office still only goes after a very tiny fraction of the number of complaints filed against lawyers and
But in looking at Gleason, here's what I became aware of was, I mean it's a judge and attorney generating machine, is that I found that there are, on the board of law examiners during the 1980s, and in fact I believe all of them are Catholic too, but two jumped out at me and they were James Lyons and John Moy.
James Lyons, by the way, is a close associate of Bill Clinton's, and he is the one who went to Northern Ireland and concluded the Good Friday Agreement.
I personally believe he went over there with a suitcase full of cash, and I will say that open and shut.
Hope I don't get sued over that.
Anyway, I'm saying that that's what I believe.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything, as you know, Sonny.
Yeah, okay.
Well, anyway, I'm saying that that's what I believe.
At any rate, that's kind of not pertinent because the important thing is that Lyons and Moy also ran a bar refresher course, which I actually even took because I was admitted out.
I took the bar exam in 1987.
It was called Barbary and they were both partners in very successful law firms.
They didn't need to have this thing on the side.
But I think one reason is it's a way they could identify up-and-coming law students and help them.
So, and BARBRI was a good course.
I mean, I was amazed because the bar exam has one, what BARBRI teaches to is something called the multi-state, and it's just multiple choice questions.
It's part of the bar exam.
And I was amazed how much, like the BARBRI course, their sample exams, the bar exam actually was.
And at that time, when I took it, you could pass solely if you got a high enough score on the bar, on the multi-state.
They didn't even grade your essays, which were day two.
So they, Lyons and Moy, ran the Barbary course, and then I found out they also sat on the Board of Law Examiners, where they not only had access to the exams before they were given, but they participated in grading them.
Sonny, you're gonna have to hold that thought.
We'll be right back with Sonny Bernard talking about a host of issues related to judicial corruption.
She's seen it up close and personal.
So we'll be right back.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslots.com.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
A U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuked on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
Did you ever feel that things were not quite right?
That everything was just ever so slightly askew?
Do you have, to paraphrase Morpheus, a splinter in your life?
If you're interested in hearing the latest information about UFOs, the paranormal, ancient cultures and structures, monotonic elements, longevity, Fantastic discoveries in science.
Download to your brain.
Then tune in to us.
Hi, I'm Dave.
And I'm Maggie.
And we are Shiny Side Out, Sundays 2 to 4 a.m.
Eastern.
See you then.
I'm Bruce from Radio.
BrighamSlips.com.
You don't need to expect us.
We're on radio.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoking machine.
Be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
All right.
Thanks for listening.
We'll be right back.
We'll take a short break here at RevolutionRadioFreedomSuch.com.
And now we're going to get back to your host.
Well, Sonny, I'm not surprised.
We already have three callers on the line.
The first is a regular from California, and in spite of our intermittent differences, he has a lot to say.
Paul, welcome back to the show.
I promise today I'll be in my good behavior.
Excellent!
Hi Paul.
I couldn't help, as I was listening to most of the first hour, I know that I've seen or read something about your guest and her cases somewhere on some website sometime.
I don't recall exactly, but it all sounded very familiar, especially the whole thing in Colorado.
As Jim knows, I've talked about my adventures in legal land, which is actually the title of a book by Mark Stevens.
I don't know if your guest has heard of it.
Adventures in Legal Land.
But yeah, I learned just some hard lessons and come to find out that the law doesn't matter.
No.
Case precedent doesn't matter.
They, in many cases, just make it up as they go.
And I'm going to ask your guest to confirm this.
If the law is on your side, they'll tell you it doesn't apply.
If the law is on their side, they're going to use it against you.
Would you say that's a fair assessment? - Well, I have run into that many times, many times.
And it's really discouraging.
And people just, I think, people who go to court for the first time are babes in the woods, or think that the courts are there to do justice.
You know, there's often a completely perverse outcome, you know, that doesn't have any relationship, as I've said, to what you've brought to the court.
And so you don't want to get sued.
I mean, it's a lot more dangerous than you think it could be, as Jim has found out.
I mean, Jim believed that he would be able to, you know, assert the public interest and get to the bottom of a lot of issues that Leonard Posner can answer.
And the opposite happened.
They just went after him.
They just went after him.
I'm sorry, what?
No, no, go ahead.
Were you finished?
I was going to add a little bit more personal.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so part of my experience has been formed by the people I've met along the line in my day.
And, you know, you take a little bit from everybody that you encounter.
And I had a really good friend.
He's gone now.
I really miss him a lot.
He was a character.
He was your classic American, hard-charging, ambitious man.
He was about nine years older than me, and he's been gone since the early 2000s.
But I had about a 10-year Friendship with him and he told me a lot of his stories, you know, because he was like I said a hard-charging ambitious guy was in business for himself for a while and you know did a little it's a little of that, you know was in the service and he told me one of his stories was quite interesting and I totally believe him because he's one of those people he looks you in the eye and you know, he's not kidding around.
So he was in business with a guy and the guy was cheating him and I guess in bed when you're stealing money, you know, they call it And he knew, found out about it and he confronted him.
And to his surprise, his partner, you know, in business, brazenly told him, well, I guess you can always sue me or take me to court.
And he goes, I could tell you, so my friend told me what he told him.
He said, I'll do you one better.
I give you 30 days to get out of town.
If you're still in town, I'm going to kill you.
And, uh, you know, I may get caught.
I will plan not to, but it doesn't matter if I do get caught because I'll be alive and you'll be dead.
So you got 30 days, the clock's ticking.
And he told me that the guy moved.
It's funny, because I've often thought, you know, I hear stories like yours.
I read tons of stories online.
Like I said, I spent about the better part of two years just diving into the whole legal system and reading other people's cases and dealing with my own.
And I found out in a hurry that you could line up your codes and your statutes and your In your case law and you get everything lined up and you think, oh boy, this is easy.
You know, lawsuits are fun.
And then you find out, oh, wait a minute, they don't play fair.
So I kind of made my mind up years ago.
I'm just never going to go to a court and ask a court for anything.
If I can't handle something, you know, just normally in real life, I'm either just going to let it go or I'm going to do something extra judicial about it and take my chances.
But I don't think I will ever appear in a courtroom again voluntarily.
So that's it for now.
You can take him into college.
Thanks, Paul.
Oh, it's good.
It's good.
It's good, Paul, to have you here.
Yeah, no, I'm glad.
Okay, why don't you hang around.
Giuseppe, come on in from District of Criminals.
Hello, folks.
Interesting first hour.
I must say, when I was a young boy, I got to witness Ali Frazier 1, 2, and 3, and I've had the distinct pleasure to witness Fetzer Paul 1 through 5.
So my first, I took a couple quick points down.
Number one, my first, uh, it's shocking how utterly corrupt and criminal the judiciary is.
And secondly, on top of that, you faced misogyny in the old boys elitist network.
I mean, especially in law and medicine and upper levels of corporate, it's rampant and systemic.
So you had like the double whammy you're trying to overcome.
My clients have even noted that.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Oh no, did you want to comment on that?
I just said my clients even noted that a couple of times.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious based on just what you're describing and many, many female professionals over the decades that I've known and become friends with describe similar things.
It's really, it's really truly unfair.
And the funny thing about Opus Dei is it's like the Masons, 98% of the membership are clueless groups.
They just join it because they believe in the superficial tenets of the organization.
And the upper 2% that are actually in league with the globalists that are really the dangerous ones.
And so it sounds like you've run into a couple of dangerous ones.
I was born and raised a Catholic, went to Catholic school every day for nine years, kindergarten through eighth grade.
And that did me enough for this life and a couple more.
I don't really have too much use for Catholics these days, but I do.
A really good friend of mine was an Opus Dei for decades and decades, and he just treated it as a, you know, fraternal organization.
He didn't say anything sinister.
And my question leading up to those three statements is, if you spell Jew, J-E-W, as in judiciary, I think like the judiciary is far more dangerous than what the Catholics do.
I mean, the Catholics have certain marching orders, but basically up until only a few decades ago, they really serve the good of their flock, which is mostly working class and middle class people.
Whereas the judiciary's agenda seems far more sinister.
And so my question to you is, which group of malignant infiltrators, the Catholics or the Jews, do you feel are more dangerous and therefore more effective in their treachery?
Well, I think they've both been successful for a few reasons, one of which is that I think they divided up their territory.
And I'm talking about the criminal enterprises.
The way I see it is that the Catholics have the judiciary and law enforcement, and the Jews have much of everything else.
And I don't mean to disparage them.
One thing that you have to respect about them is the very strong family ties.
Like, is it really a fault that they groom young people in their family or their extended family and put them in positions that will then, I guess, pay back?
You know, it's funny because I saw, there's a 1934 movie about the Rothschilds starring Boris Karloff.
I watched that online not that long ago.
It's in black and white.
1934?
It's really good, and it presents, but you must expect it presents them in a very favorable light.
I mean what you had is this patriarch with five sons, and the patriarch was a moneylender.
I think in Warsaw, and he sent his five sons out to the capitals of Europe to become bankers, and their advantage was that then they didn't need to worry about getting waylaid by highway robbers, you know, carrying money from one bank to another, because they were all related.
They just made their loans and, you know, did paper back and forth, I guess.
I mean, I don't know how bad it works.
We've left electronic transactions, basically.
Yeah, and so they figured it out.
You've got to give them that.
They figured it out better than anybody else did, and they have used that to consolidate their power.
But I do think, too, that there has been a change in the Catholic view of humanity, particularly when they took nuns out of management positions in hospitals. particularly when they took nuns out of management positions in The New York Times reported on that in about, I think, 2009, and that has stuck with me.
So, it's sort of taken the human aspect... What was that all about, Sonny?
Well, what they said is they're running out of nuns.
I mean, I guess young women don't choose that as a career as much as they used to, even to go into nursing and hospital management.
That's what the slant or the purpose of the article was.
But the upshot is, is that now we have hospitals where you see these crazy things, like in the COVID, you know, these videos of people dressed in hospital garb and they're like dancing and high-fiving each other.
These are crisis actors!
Of course they are!
It's unbelievable!
Of course they are!
But, you know, so I think, you know, if nuns were in charge of that hospital, this would not be going on.
I'm sure that's the case, you know.
That's very interesting.
Just simply, yeah, go ahead.
So anyway, just to wrap up, yes, I regard both of them as, there's two types of criminal outfits.
One is the National, now I'm forgetting, National Criminal, God, how can I do this?
The Syndicate, which is the Jewish, and there's a separate name for that, National Criminal, God, I'm sorry that I'm blanking, and the other is the Mafia, and that's Catholic.
And I, you know, it's quite possible the Mafia is an arm of the Catholic Church.
I, you know, there's enough evidence to say, and so this is how they're operating, and they've dropped all guise, all pretense of civilized behavior.
They're just doing this almost in the open, you know.
I mean, we are really sliding downhill fast, and, you know, I'm scared for the future.
Giuseppe, I want you to stand by with Paul.
I'm going to come back to you both.
Meanwhile, we have Bruce from Texas.
Bruce, go ahead.
Hi, Bruce.
Yes, hello, guys.
Go ahead.
Yeah, Sonny, you have a very good personality and a good heart, and I want to commend you for fighting a good fight on behalf of your clients, especially the pro bono.
Thanks.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, people don't want to hear personal anecdotes, so I'll keep it real brief, but my family lost over a thousand acres here in Texas due to corruption.
I had an older relative who was basically blackmailed into selling or he was going to end up dead, and we fought that in the courts for a number of years.
Once we found him, he disappeared out of fear for his life, and that was my exposure to Russian in the courts and it's systemic and it's pretty bad.
I'm sure when you went through college, you thought the system was basically functional and fair.
Is that correct?
Oh yeah, and law school too.
And you know, like what you read in law school are Supreme Court opinions, and they're usually so great.
I mean, they're, they're so, such a wonderful use of the language and their points are so well reasoned.
But that's, you know, they don't even follow that.
They don't even follow the precedent.
I grew up hating lies, you know, and it's just like one big lie now.
I'd rather step into a court in the Soviet Union or in Germany during Hitler's reign than now.
At least you know what you're getting into.
Now you step in, you think you're going to get justice, and you get twisted around and slam dunked.
It's pretty bad.
I think the only solution really is rope and shotguns.
I don't know what else would cure this.
Lots of rope, really.
Well, I mean... I just want to toss that in there.
I'm glad, Bruce.
I'm glad.
Yeah, Sonny may want to respond.
Go ahead, Sonny.
Yeah, I mean, I'm with you on that.
Like, I, you know, I'm debating whether to bring a case, and the thing is, is that it backfires so often.
But, so the alternative, I think, is exposure.
Exposure and sarcasm.
Or satire, I guess is the word I want.
Like, if you make fun of them, if you mock them enough.
And also, if people don't file cases in the court, they may run out of money.
You know, it's an effective defunding.
And the court fees, the docket fees, are so high now, too.
I mean, I checked at the federal court in Texas, in fact, and it's 400 bucks.
400 bucks to file a case.
Anyway, well, yeah, I mean, that's really unbelievable.
So they put it out of reach of the regular Joe.
Or Jill.
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah.
And I think you're the first idea of exposure and discrediting them, you know, remove the trust of the people and maybe, maybe it'll be a positive result from that.
Yes, because in Colorado, are we talking basically, Drying up rivers and streams for subdivisions and industrial development?
Is that what you're talking about?
Yes, yes, that is what I'm talking about.
And much of it that I thought was actually thefts from other water users.
But I also was involved in fighting for an in-stream, the in-stream flow rights which have been decreed, and those are minimal.
But they're even into that.
You know, I mean, they just don't care.
They would dry up.
You know, Colorado's lifeblood is tourism.
It's the fishers and fishermen and the hunters and stuff.
And if they dry up the streams and kill all the wildlife, that's the end of Colorado.
Yeah, where's the Sierra Club?
I don't know if Sierra Club has been corrupted for a number of years now.
Yeah.
Millions of millions of animals, you know, that depend on that water.
Yeah.
For shekels, you know.
Yeah, and you know, just so you know, I mean, Jim mentioned that I ran for Attorney General, and I had represented Sierra Club Pro Bono in some suits, and I'd been a member for about 15 years, and they endorsed Ken Salazar.
They didn't even make, I mean, Ken Salazar never even filled out their questionnaire.
I filled it out, and I, you know, it's like I did all the right things, they just blew me off, and so I quit.
I, you know, That's pretty strange, honey.
What do you suspect was going on?
I'll tell you that it was the belief, the entrenched belief, that Ken Salazar, because he's Hispanic, is progressive and he's an environmentalist.
And he, in fact, you know, had this stupid campaign where he said he fights for He basically borrowed this stuff from my campaign, and I really did do those things.
So he didn't fight for anything except real estate developers.
But the thing is that there's a very strong, entrenched feeling that because he's Hispanic, he's progressive, and he's the guy for them, and they're going to vote Democratic, and I was the Green Party candidate.
So I never, I was excluded from debates, you know, all that stuff that Ralph Nader endured.
His was on a much bigger scale, of course, but in Colorado that's what I experienced as well.
So yeah, I mean, it's how do you overcome this pro-Democrat leaning?
And now it's funny because I've been involved in all these PSYOPs and I find that the ones I'm most closely aligned with are Republicans.
I mean, they're the ones who see that this is all rubbish, like a lot of these mass shootings.
Who actually care about the Constitution and due process.
Yeah, and I didn't ever appreciate that that was the case.
I mean, I really care about the wildlife.
Basically, that's what I care about most.
And, you know, really wanted to try to leave water in the streams.
And that's why they had to get rid of me.
But it isn't why they had to get rid of me.
It's because I exposed misconduct by powerful people, like criminal conduct.
That's why they had to do it.
Bruce, you had good questions here.
I'm glad you have called.
Bill from Australia.
Go ahead, Bill.
Bye-bye.
Thanks, Bruce.
Thank you, Bruce.
Bill.
If Bill's not there, he may have to reconnect.
Let me go back to Paul.
Paul, come on back in.
Okay, good.
Before I Another little story of what reminded me during the first hour.
It's time for a lawyer joke.
It's a little dated with the 80s 80s villains, but it'll still work.
So you're locked in a room with Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, and a lawyer.
You have a gun but only two bullets.
Who do you shoot?
Answer, shoot the lawyer twice.
So when I was listening the first hour, I was reminded of what I thought was called the Embarcadero shooting, but it's actually called the 101 California Street shooting.
I remember it quite well here in the Bay Area.
It was in the Embarcadero District, but this was back in 1993.
There was a law firm there, Pettit & Martin.
They occupied three floors of a building at 101 California Street.
Oh, yes.
And there was a guy by the name of Gian Luigi Ferri, and he went in there on July 1st, 1993, and he killed eight and wounded six, and he also killed himself.
But what's interesting when I read about this, and like I said, I remember it well, it was a big deal, and here's what they say about it.
Something like this always, how should I say, generates more legislation.
So here's what it says.
The killing sparked a number of legal and legislative actions that were precursors to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, whatever that means.
And it goes on to say here, they always characterize these guys as something negative.
So he was a 55-year-old failed entrepreneur.
They couldn't just say he was an entrepreneur.
They had to say he's a failed entrepreneur.
He made his way to the law offices, but his reason for targeting the particular firm was, quote, unknown.
Unbelievable!
Unbelievable!
left behind a tight letter, four pages, single space, and they go on to say this is all they say about it.
It contained many grammatical errors and misspellings.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
The key to his action, why he did what he did is all there, but they talk about the grammar.
Yeah, no, it's right in here, and It goes on to say, it characterizes the letter as this.
In the letter, he claims he had been poisoned by monosodium glutamate, a flavor enhancer in food, and that he also had been legally raped by Pettit and Martin and other law firms.
The letter also went on with complaints against the Food and Drug Administration and the legal profession in general, and so on and so on, which he called criminals, rapists, and racketeers.
So, you know, somehow, some way, this guy got screwed big time.
And he took down a couple partners.
He got, he didn't just get the regular run of the mill.
Unfortunately, he got a couple legal secretaries, but he took down two partners, two lawyers, and an intern, and then some other people.
That's a fascinating case, Paul.
That's a fascinating case.
I remember, I'm sorry, go ahead.
I was gonna say I remember that that incident and you know what I'm starting to be suspicious of everything that has these agendas which are furthered and also has manifestos.
I think we should look into that because like I'm looking into right now the crash of Pacific Southwest Airlines flight 1771 on December 7th, 1987.
Yeah, it's because this crash, the pictures of it just show like kibble on a hillside.
There's no identifiable plane parts or baggage or bodies.
Um, and they use that to show that Flight 93 in Shanksville must, you know, could look like that too.
Because I've always said there's no plane there either.
So you think one plane crash and claim that explains why another was real?
How ridiculous!
Well, they both, well, yeah, they say that... They're both fabrications, Sonny, already from what you've said, it's obvious, there's no plane crash in that instance.
Right, right, and what I'm trying to explain is that 93 just has kibble, too, and so they've pointed, persons have pointed me to this other crash to say a plane crash can look like that, where everything is destroyed.
I'm coming up with unbelievable stuff that is establishing that this crash never happened.
And, you know, one of the resources is just the phone directory, which is now whitepages.com.
I'm finding current listings for people who supposedly died.
And I also found there's no report on the NTSB's website of this crash.
And the FAA shows that this plane was not taken out of service until 1993.
You know, so I think any of these, particularly the old events, you should look into them because you can get records or, you know, maybe at least more easily than you can when everybody's on top of it, you know, it's current.
And Jim has disagreed with me about that in the past, but man, it really feels in how things happened how the law was changed because each time it's like what Rahm Emanuel said that that a crisis is an opportunity that shouldn't go to waste or something.
Right, right, right.
They create crises in order to push through some legislative change about something, and they probably have other agendas that we can only guess at, but stock plays are a big one, too.
I don't want to cut you off, Paul.
I'm going to keep you here, but I want to bring in Giuseppe for a while.
Giuseppe, come on in.
Yes, I'd like to return to my original line of questioning.
And I do acknowledge your observation that the Hebrew tendency to value family and take care of one another is admirable.
But if you put it on the archetypical scales of justice, and that's on one side, and then you put on the other plate of the scale, the idea that they psychotically seek to destroy the unity and family the idea that they psychotically seek to destroy the unity and family closeness of every other country and species on the planet, to me, that far outweighs What do you think of that?
Well, I mean, what I think the problem is, it's not the fact that people are Jewish, it is that they are Zionists, and that they have a dual loyalty.
And we can find these people because, I think, I don't know how to find out who has dual passports, but that's a really good indication.
That they have a divided loyalty, and that's what we saw with a lot of 9-11 characters, is that, you know, I mean, they're taking over positions in industry and, well, I guess primarily industry, but also government and military, and they are doing things for the benefit of Israel, not even so much for themselves personally.
Let me interject real quick, and I'm sure you're going to like my interjection.
So, Sonny, the only thing I would take issue with, well, there's several things I would take issue with.
I point this out.
Divided loyalty.
That's the term that she used, and you used it twice.
And I think that that, to be honest with you, is ridiculous.
They don't have divided loyalty.
We're talking about criminals people that just oh what they're interested in is whatever it is their agenda is And I don't believe they have any loyalty at all to not just the United States, but in most cases the human race and non-Jews.
So it's not divided loyalty in my mind.
Well, that's a that's a I guess the legal term of art for it.
That's why I used it.
But you make a good point.
Yeah, I believe their principle loyalty, maybe their sole loyalty is to Israel.
But see, that's not every person who is Jewish is like that.
I mean, there are loyal Americans who happen to be Jewish.
But yeah, so we can address this if we just get rid of the ability to carry dual passports.
My very first political speech, Sonny, was On 15 April 2008, on the grass outside the Capitol, there was a Ron Paul Freedom Rally on Tax Day, and I gave a talk that would subsequently be published under the title, 9-11 and the Neocon Agenda, in which I was emphasizing how the members of PNAC who moved into the Department of Defense were, by and large, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
No dual citizen should ever be placed in a policy shaping or decision making position because you cannot know that their loyalty to the other state does not outweigh their loyalty to the United States.
And I stand by that 100%.
All citizens should have no such key positions in our government.
I'm absolutely in agreement with that.
And so what you are describing is divided loyalty.
But yes, these people are showing that they, you know, they really don't care a hill of beans for Americans, you know, people in the country.
Yeah, the neocons, that's the word that was escaping me.
And by the way, when I talked to Giuseppe before, the word I wanted was National Crime Syndicate.
That's the Jewish organized crime.
It's Meyer Lansky and all of those guys.
And they're separate from the Mafia, but the two groups cooperate.
That's even in Wikipedia, that they cooperate.
But I've read books about that too.
Paul.
Paul.
Yeah, Giuseppe, Giuseppe, go ahead.
Yes, I would completely agree with your observation that a small, psychopathic, narcissistic, to the point of being satanically evil, they're so dedicated to themselves.
It spans like the Zionist Jew, the Sabad-Lubavitch in the Muslim faith.
The Wahhabis are like that.
In America, you've got psychopaths like Dick Cheney, who are fundamentally evil, and the people of his ilk, and then in the Catholics, like you said, the upper echelon of Opus Dei is the same way, and big parts of the Jesuits as well in the upper echelon.
Yeah, they're all Catholic.
A handful, a couple thousand, maybe ten, twenty thousand, just I agree.
this planet into an open septic field.
And it's just terrible.
That's very true.
I agree.
Go ahead, Paul.
Well, I was just going to say to pile on to that, yeah, when you take a look at these individuals and their behavior, you know, you just, they're not like us.
I mean, who would do what, you know, the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Fry or Fray, would do?
I mean, to act that way, right?
I mean, you know he's faking.
You know he really doesn't care about, you know, King Floyd, George, Lord Floyd, whatever his name is, right?
But look at what he did and how he acted.
Who does that?
You know, just a sociopathic weirdo.
You know, you take somebody like Larry Silverstein, okay?
He knew what was gonna come down, and he did get that special insurance, right?
Sure, sure.
Right, so it's like, you know, these people, they plan ahead of time for their own evil schemes, and it doesn't matter who they hurt.
So, like so many people have said, they question their humanity and their right to do so.
Paul, in my opinion, the biggest story out there right now today that doesn't concern directly Donald Trump is Antifa taking over six blocks of Seattle.
Would you believe this has been ongoing for several days now?
The Wisconsin State Journal, my own home paper, hasn't published one word about it.
Not one word about it.
And I think it's because it's so massively embarrassing.
I mean, this is like the militant spear, the point of the spear of the Progressive Democratic Party, in essence.
And they're doing this lunatic thing, taking over a police precinct.
Evidently, the mayor directed the chief of police to withdraw.
They're having trouble managing their own police.
The homeless stole their own food.
They are therefore having to beg for food supplies.
They're discovering the difficulties in policing their own little area at the same time they're calling for the abolition of the police.
I think they are making the whole Black Lives Matter and Antifa movement a laughing stock.
I love it because it is so lunatic.
But I don't understand.
Is the whole world not hearing about it?
Because like the Wisconsin State Journal, I'm not even publishing about it.
Probably so.
I couldn't tell you.
I'm sure you've seen some of the videos online.
I remember going through several the other day and I don't know if you saw the one where, you know, they're squabbling amongst themselves.
One group was very opposed to some video of, excuse me, some what you call graffiti tagging.
Yeah.
You know, a couple of them were doing.
And, you know, they ended up being in a fist fight.
Yes.
Don't do that.
You know, it's kind of like You know, like Lord of the Flies.
I'm not sure what to make of it.
I don't know how well thought out this is, or was, or who really is behind it.
But these people, they can't have regular jobs, right?
Well, the mayor is wholeheartedly for it.
I don't understand.
How are the residents of Seattle looking at this, taking this little chunk of Seattle and just turning it over to this anarchistic crowd that is, you know, I mean, it's just bizarre.
Just bizarre.
I mean, it seems to me it's making the whole progressive movement look like a group of lunatics, which more or less they are.
Giuseppe, Giuseppe!
Well, it's interesting the game of chess that's going on between the neo-Bolsheviks, which is who ultimately is behind the Democratic National Committee and the BLM and the Antifa and Trump and the traditionalists, because which is who ultimately is behind the Democratic National Committee and the BLM and the Antifa and Trump and the traditionalists, because they keep hoping Trump sends in what they would perceive as stormtroopers to restore order, because they keep hoping Trump sends in what they would perceive as stormtroopers to restore order, but
But then some advisors left to give it in the right address, I'm sorry, the right advice, to say, Donald, just step back and let them play it.
Right, right, right.
This is a piece of self-immolation that would befit a Buddhist priest, a Buddhist monk, you know, protesting the Vietnam War.
I mean, they're going up in flames!
Dave from Minnesota has joined us, and given his perch in Minnesota, I'm sure he'll have additional contributions.
Dave, join the conversation.
Well, the only thing I was going to say is that Sonny seems so sweet to you.
She's ruining my perception of lawyers, so that's too bad.
I'm ruining your what?
I didn't... My perception of lawyers.
His perception of laws, yeah.
Ah, yeah, yeah.
Lawyers, yeah.
Go ahead, David.
Hey, question for you.
Ms.
Benjamin Crump keeps showing up at all these thugs that are either strong-armed people or like Mr. Floyd.
Do you have to...
Do lawyers have to pass a bar exam for each state they want to practice in?
Or how does that work that he can keep showing up at all these places?
They can usually get admission in another state by moving to participate or to represent somebody, Pro Hoc Vitae, and they have to associate themselves with a firm in that state.
And that's actually what Jake Zimmerman did.
It's relatively straightforward, usually uncomplicated.
Actually, I've never seen in your case.
I've asked about that.
I wanted to see Jake Zimmerman's motion to participate.
ProHoc VJ.
Have we ever seen it, Sonny?
I have not, but I emailed you and that sort of got lost in the shuffle.
I remember way back when you did.
I've never seen it, yeah.
It's probably the same loss when the gym went up against, you know, those guys from Minnetonka, I can't think of what they're named, like Mess Besser.
Yeah, Mess Besser, yes.
They're probably sponsored.
Yeah.
See, the other question I've got, and this might raise Jim's blood pressure, I'm not sure if it's been addressed, I just tuned in.
Sure.
With Jim's, the guy that, I just lost his name now, I call him Dershowitz, but with his stating that you have no right not to take a.
Oh, Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz.
Yeah.
Yeah, is that, what's your take on that, Sonny?
Oh, you know, I mean, I was so shocked by that.
And I have not actually gone out to research it.
He didn't cite actual cases that stand for what he said.
So, you know, it's hard.
It's like, how do you defend against something when you don't know what their authority is?
Yeah, I was pretty shocked by that, and I may look into that and write something.
I mean, obviously, that's contrary to everything that we understand about our Bill of Rights, is that, you know, we certainly do have the right to reject something that's going to intrude on us, especially when the science is bad as it is.
I mean, they actually don't have any rational basis, the government does not, for, you know, putting this on us.
Sunny, the Gates polio vaccine paralyzed 500,000 children in India.
He's killed many, many in Africa.
We know the H1N1 vaccine causes brain damage.
We know the thimerosal in these vaccines causes autism.
The statistical correlation is perfect.
So it's even a matter of self-defense.
Plus informed consent, you'd have to be told all the pros and all the cons.
It could only be done voluntarily, with your permission.
Does Dershowitz not even know the Nuremberg Code?
I mean, I was embarrassed and shocked, and he disgusted me when he took that stance that Americans didn't have the right to resist a mandatory vaccination.
To hell with you, Alan Dershowitz!
It is rubbish, yeah.
I mean, you've made good points, better than I just did, Jim, but I know that I would be able to find it.
I mean, it's an unusual situation because usually it's the government preventing you from doing something, and here it's forcing something on you, you know, under the pretext of being for public health.
But you bet I would fight that.
Can I interject a second?
Go ahead, Giuseppe.
It's interesting that Dershowitz Also, probably intentionally lied about the ruling, because if you look, and I've read the entire ruling, and once they make the statement that he's citing, then they stated a series of caveats, but it doesn't apply to XYZ, like asthmatic children, or blah blah blah, you know.
So they pretty much followed the large canon of prior rulings.
So that's even more despicable and insidious that he wasn't even honest about what the ruling really said.
Yeah, that's disgraceful.
Disgraceful.
We have a call or a question from the chat room.
Mitchell, please field facilitate.
Hello, this is William Dirk McClain in Northern California.
Go ahead.
I don't mean to bounce around from Bill Gates of hell and the vaccine issue, but back to the Seattle issue.
Sure, yes, yes, go ahead.
Okay, I just, I had heard, this might be of significance for somebody to look into, that if you have an autonomous area or autonomous part of a country for over 10 days, By international law, they can declare independence from that country.
Really?
10 days?
It goes back to our land and I'm not...
It's just something I heard and maybe needs to be verified.
Is the state of Washington willing to allow eight blocks, six blocks in downtown Seattle to be taken over by this autonomous state?
I mean, the whole thing is so absurd.
This is so ridiculous, I can hardly believe.
Yes, and it perhaps could have greater implications.
But that was my only comment that I wanted to interject because I thought it was so important.
Yeah, it is.
That's a good one.
I'm glad you spoke up.
Paul, let me go back.
You're one of my heroes.
Thank you.
Mine too.
I want to thank you for that.
That's very kind of you to say.
I appreciate that.
Dave, thanks very much.
Have a great day.
Excellent.
You too.
Dave, did you want to add more about what's going on in Minnesota and Minneapolis?
Well, I see that the Governor's daughter was even implicated on supporting these thugs, Hulk Walls was their name.
And then I see Nancy Pelosi's daughter was also Part of these protests, which I find rather interesting.
De Blasio's daughter is a complete mess.
She was all but naked on the subway there.
I've got one of Nancy Pelosi's daughters.
Yeah.
I know, I knew you did.
Several of them are involved in these things.
On Dave's point here, I'm going to just jump in.
So Dave, you need to go occasionally to Miles Mathis' site.
I don't know if you're familiar with it.
Yeah, I read his articles every once in a while.
Yep.
Okay, so he's big on pointing out that these people, the elites and the Jews, they use family members all the time in all these various, you know, exercises and events.
That's one of the favorite things that they've done for a long time.
They're all family members because, you know, hey, they know who they are.
They're part of the team.
Yeah, good point.
Yeah, I'm very disturbed by this development which I want to share.
America's most watched cable news show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, is on the brink of being cancelled.
Carlson, the only high-profile journalist in America who defends and advocates for normal people.
...has had some of his last few remaining sponsors pull their ad this week over his accurate coverage of the George Floyd race riots.
Jews, leftists, and capitalists have boycotted his show due to the belief that he was encouraging frightened and browbeaten white people to fight for their dignity and speak truth to the system.
Jewish journalist Amy Siskind reacting to a video of Tucker's Juneteenth monologue, edited into propaganda by Sussex co-ethnic Marty Baron at the Washington Post, demanded the TV pundit be put on trial.
In post-legal America, this cannot be dismissed as mere hyperbole.
I've many times said Tucker's really the only show on television you don't want to miss.
He's the most clear-thinking, Most analytical, most focused, he has the best sense of values.
He's not quite as sensitive to nuances of conspiracy, but it's forgivable given how much truth he gets out on the air.
And he is virtually alone!
I mean, it's just stunning to me what has become of this once great nation.
We used to care about the truth.
We used to have reporters who actually investigated.
They would hold government accountable.
Now they become nothing but shills for the Democratic Party and the Zionist agenda.
It's just disgusting.
Yeah, but Jim, we've always said that this tribe always pushes things way too far, way further than they need to.
I think this is case in point because I think there's a lot of people waking up, a lot of normies.
Dave, I want to believe that.
I tell you, I felt if we can go through this COVID bullshit, if we can now go through this Antifa Black Lives Matter, if you can see how many of these white liberals are bending over to kiss their black ass, I mean it's just absurd!
These people are just committing mayhem, riot, looting, even murder, and they're being deified!
This guy, George Floyd, I have described him as a man for all seasons.
He's not only fentanyl, but meth.
He's not only armed robbery, but assault and battery.
He even takes the time out to make porn movies, for God's sake!
Yes, there's a perfect idol, the perfect representative of today's Democratic Party.
Yeah, Bill, go ahead.
I've been waiting for an hour.
No, Bill, I called on you before and you had disappeared.
I called on you before.
Go ahead, Bill.
Go ahead, Bill.
Okay, okay.
I'll just say that corruption's been around for a long time.
Oh, Bill, Jesus Christ.
I don't need to hear some platitude.
We all know that, Bill.
We're talking about the corruption of the moment, which is what matters.
Jim, can I give an example?
Jim?
Can I give an example?
Yeah, okay.
I looked up my relatives, right?
And the guy that started Sugarcane in Australia, He had a court case with his neighbor, and they made his neighbor's lawyer the judge.
That really sucks.
No, thanks for that.
Giuseppe, Giuseppe, come back in.
Giuseppe.
Yes, speaking of shows, I'd like to share the following breaking news that beginning tomorrow, On Studio A on Revolution Radio, The Conspiracy Show is expanding to three hours, 1 to 4 p.m., and I'm joining The Great Scorpio as the co-host of the show.
So I'd like to invite everybody to listen, and hopefully Dr. Fetzer will have you on as a guest in the near future.
And our first guest is going to be some real nutty dude from California.
It should be very interesting.
Excellent, excellent, Jeff Sabney.
I'm very pleased to hear that.
Paul, Paul, go ahead and come back in, Paul.
So, not to stir a hornet's nest here with you, Jim, but just I want to make some points about this whole narrative with George Floyd, okay?
So, we have not seen mugshots or inmate photos.
We don't know for sure that the guy with the record in Texas is him.
As you know, it was a closed casket.
So, I just want to cast some doubt on exactly who it is and what it is.
So, you know, many people weighed in, and you had that guest on, Dan, I think it was Dan Ferris, and he pointed out on that first show Is this guy Floyd George or George Floyd?
Had no internet presence of a man that age, living in that location, matching his description and his photo.
So, we could be dealing with a couple of different people here.
Just be cautious about, you know, this guy's... Paul, Paul, Paul, I agree!
I did a video interview with Nick Kohlerstrom, who's the leading expert on the 7-7 London subway attack.
And we took apart of the whole thing.
It was completely staged.
It had different takes.
It had different players.
It even looks as though the officer was wearing a knee pad so that he wouldn't actually be pushing pressure on the neck.
When he was put on the gurney, it was completely improper.
There weren't any EMTs.
The cops don't do that.
Everything about it was phony and fake, Paul.
So if you somehow think I thought it was real, that's not true.
No, no.
I was just weighing in on the fact, not that you thought it was real, but that Everything that's being said about this guy is real, and I'm not sure... Oh, oh, oh.
Some of these things I have verified myself, like him being a porn star making porn movies.
One of the commentators on my blog actually, I didn't notice, initially put up one of his porn movies.
Another got so upset I had to go back and take it off, not even having known it was there, but I took it.
I've got a very tasteful frame from one of his four movies that I used in various of my shows.
Yeah, no, I saw that.
The guy's...
The whole thing is so fraudulent, so contrived, this is so phony, and this is very much in accordance with this Zionist agenda to exploit racial tensions in the United States to destroy America.
I mean, that is an agenda they are pursuing.
Okay, real fast, let me ask Jim this.
Okay, so Jim, you would seriously entertain the idea that this guy that they're showing us, George Floyd, or Floyd George, is not actually dead?
You would entertain that?
I even have reports that he attended his own funeral, which was also true of some of the Sandy Hook kids.
It was also true, you said, yeah, okay.
Yeah, it was me, yeah.
Hey, Sunny, I'm gonna ask you a question.
It's gonna be a small one, I don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but she says that, you know, with these vaccinations, You almost have to enter into an agreement.
It's almost like a contract with the government.
Does that make sense to you?
I know they trick people into signing.
You mean to not hold them liable if something adverse occurs to you?
Yeah, but you have to agree.
There has to be an agreement between the two parties.
Well, you know, that would be a smart move on the government's part, and I certainly wouldn't enter into any such agreement.
But, and you know, there's also a defense if you try and get out of it later, which is that it was imposed on you by duress.
You signed it under duress.
And so, but yeah, I wouldn't sign anything they gave me.
And yeah, what they're trying to do, I think, is cover their backside, saying that Well, I mean, do you think they'll even have people sign anything?
You know what I mean?
I think it's such a lie.
I'm sorry, you're kind of cutting out, but... No, no, Paul's also trying to talk.
Dave, say it again, Dave.
No, that's fine.
I was done.
I was finished.
It just seems like they're... Go ahead.
No, Sunny hadn't heard your last question or comment, Dave.
That's all.
Paul was trying to interject and she couldn't quite hear it.
You were saying something about the government having people sign an agreement.
Well, Dennis, I would just ask you a question.
Do you think we'll even have people sign something?
This is something I don't know.
- This is something I don't know.
I mean, I've seen that one guy who, an independent guy who made a video about, you know, them coming to get us, he drafted his own agreement that he would make the government sign.
And it wasn't half bad, it had some good ideas in it.
I don't know, I mean, I think I would just say no and put them on their proof.
But, you know, I mean, I don't know what they're planning to do.
Does anyone?
I mean, where did you hear this about contracts?
Are they going to say that it's just part of the social contract, that your government is in charge, therefore you must go along with it?
Go ahead, Paul.
Okay, so quickly, I'm going to tell you what they're already doing, what they have been doing.
All I know is I can tell you what I encounter, what I hear people I've talked to.
So two different stories, both recently.
One was a guy that I met, we started talking about this issue, and he told me, he's in his 40s right now I believe, he told me when he was 10 years old, like in the fourth grade or whatever, they came to the school and they gave everybody shots.
They didn't get any parent's permission or anything like that.
He even showed me the mark on his arm.
He remembered it well.
He had a mark?
Wow.
Yes, so in other words, just without the parents or anybody else, they just came to the school and they gave the kids shots.
Here's another one which blew my mind.
This was several days ago.
Discussion with people just entered into it, and this guy told me about his friend.
They were both construction workers, and they were working in a hospital.
What a lot of people don't know is you're working inside a hospital doing construction work, they make you get a flu shot in most cases.
What?
But it's very common, so get this.
This guy's friend got a flu shot, right?
He got sick, very sick.
Two days later, he went back to the hospital, and according to this guy that told me, first person, he said, they gave him another shot and he died a day later.
What's going on right now?
You know, the flu shot is to give you the flu.
I mean, it's like the polio shot will give you the polio and all this other shit.
It's unbelievable.
Right.
Have you guys seen the movie, Faxed, yet?
I haven't watched it.
I've heard it's really good.
Really good.
Vaxxed.
V-A-X-X-E-D.
Yeah, and there's also a Vaxxed 2 where they are interviewing parents of children who are affected.
There are some very scary statistics in there.
there, number one of which is that, I think they said by 2032, 80% of all boys and 50% of all children will be autistic.
You're thinking of my-- Yeah, half a-- no, I'm going to a slide here.
I want to mention, Sonny is going to be one of my speakers at the Question Everything 2020 conference to be held in Austin, Texas, 7 to 8 November.
You can learn about it, go to Capital N, Stream.com.
M-I-X, capital M. Stream, S-T-R-E-A-M.com.
Sonny will be one of my speakers.
I've got 20 simply excellent people I brought together for this event on a whole range of issues involving conspiracies, false flag, judicial corruption, the use of directed energy weapons, Target individuals.
I've got just superb lineup.
I want everyone to check it out and think about either pay-per-view, which is totally reasonable, or being there.
We only have 200 seats at the hotel.
Just check it out.
Mixedinstream.com.
Sonny, I'm so glad to have had you here today.
It's been such a real pleasure.
Oh, it's my pleasure.
Thanks so much for having me.
And I hope to meet some of the people who've called in or are listening.
I hope they can come to Austin in November.
Well, I hope so, too.
And you've got some regulars.
You've got a pretty good mix here.
And I really like our callers to this show, and they make important, very important contributions.
Giuseppe, if you're still there, I'm going to let you get virtually the last word.
Just want to remind everybody, I'm the new co-host of The Conspiracy Show.
It's Studio A from 1 p.m.
to 4 p.m.
Saturdays and look forward to everybody coming and joining us.
Thank you.
Okay everyone, thank you all for being here.
Sunny, it was just super.
Thanks to all the callers and thanks to all of you out there for listening.
Thanks guys.
Thank you, Jim.
▲
Export Selection