All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
01:55:12
The Fetz Presents (5 November 2020): Alison "Sunny" Maynard on Judicial Corruption and more...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're not wearing headphones.
Can I try without them?
Sure.
Let's see if you can hear me okay.
Yeah.
This is Jim Fetzer on the Fetz Presents, where my featured guest this evening
is Allison Maynard, who goes by the nickname Sonny, and who's going to be talking about issues related
to judicial corruption and the abuse of law.
Sonny, it's just a great pleasure to have you here.
Cannot hear you.
You are muted.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, I could hear you, but you couldn't hear me.
That's correct.
Is this working okay?
Okay, yeah.
Well, and actually, I'd like to hear you talk about the election, too, because I've been reading your... Oh, oh, oh, oh, wow!
Yeah, and I, you know, I've mentioned this to you.
I've litigated election contests in Colorado, and I can, you know, I could talk for a really long time about all the frauds, and we should not permit mail ballots or absentee ballots, period, because... Sunny, you're absolutely correct.
Now, The key to understanding the way this fraud was exemplified, and it's taken many forms, but it's on a massive scale, and it's clearly coordinated, and therefore it constitutes a conspiracy to defraud the American people of their right to vote in electing the president of their choice, is that the down-ballot cases went Republican.
The republics lost only one house in the Senate, and they gained seats in the House of Representatives.
And in fact, in 25 disputed cases, they won 22 of 25 hotly disputed cases
in the House of Representatives.
Now, what that means is, when they put in the massive number of fake ballots,
and they did this by the millions, Sunny, they put in millions of fake ballots.
They only voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
They only put in a presidential vote, which tells you, you know, how the scam was carried out.
Any voter or the overwhelming majority is going to vote for several candidates and not just for the president.
We lost your image.
Yeah, I know, I was adjusting my seat.
Okay, okay, okay.
The problem, just so people know, is this laptop has a broken hinge so I can't actually adjust the screen which has the camera in it.
Sonny, we're good, we're good, we're good.
Anyway, I think your point is really well taken and it's, you know, I've I litigated an election contest where 186,000 ballots went missing, and the margin of victory was 54,000.
Wow!
It was preposterous, and I got a crooked judge on that one, who later was elevated to become chief judge of the Denver District Court, and this was a case against a Denver election.
Sonny, is this a pattern?
That the bad judges, the corrupt judges, get promoted?
It's like a variation on the Peter Principle, which says the least competent, you know, rise to the highest position.
This suggests the most corrupt rise to the highest position within the judicial system.
Yeah, I've seen this over and over.
I mean, the ones who do favors for like the real estate developers, the bankers, And other powerful people they're the ones who end up being in charge and they are all Rewarded for their corrupt acts this guy Michael C. Martinez.
I mean I had I had another case before him, too Where I mean I was just remembering before this before we started here about how I So I filed this case and the other side filed a motion to dismiss and Martinez struck it.
This is the first time actually It was not the first time I'd been before him, but it was the first time I'd been before him as a plaintiff myself.
Anyway, so I filed this case and the other side moved to dismiss and Martina struck his motion for not complying with his rules.
He had a page limit on it, you know, for such motions.
And so he struck it because the other side didn't comply with that.
The other side attached all these exhibits.
So the other side, you know, there was a little delay and the other side refiled his motion, this attorney.
Exactly the same as before and this time Martinez didn't say a word and I'm moving for contempt saying what's he doing?
I mean, that's just a small example And then when Martinez came out with an opinion because of course he granted the motion to dismiss He said that my complaint didn't contain Boilerplate in it, which was there in two places crap like that You know, they just lie about the facts and then you never get that Overturned you never get it examined.
It's at every level And it is a cabal, and I do want to get into that, but I feel like I should start more from the beginning, but I'm also interested in the election.
Let me give you an addendum that is going to transform your understanding of what's going on.
After the 2018 election where the Democrats perpetrated election fraud on a massive scale again to take control of the House, Donald Trump knew what had happened and that they were going to do it again on an even more massive scale.
And by the way, let me tell you, the reason why so many of the mainstream media were predicting a landslide for Biden Was it based on any empirical evidence?
Because nobody was showing up for Biden or Kamala Harris events.
Nobody.
That was shocking.
Yeah.
Which means they were basically irrelevant.
Oh, the reason the mainstream was promoting this narrative is because they were in collusion with a Democratic Party and were in the know that the Democrats were going to steal the election.
I think they're gonna put in like 17% more votes than Biden would legitimately have received, okay?
Oh, I mean, I don't know how you came to that number, but it sounds about right.
Well, let me explain it.
Yeah.
So the fact that is very close means that Donald Trump actually had a bona fide landslide and may even defeat the false landslide generated.
And I'm making a surmise about that, how much more support he got, which I'm calculating at around 17%.
In other words, they underestimate it again.
But this is like, in some ways, 2016 all over again, where the pollsters were giving fake polls.
It was rigged for Hillary, and there was a lot of voter fraud, but it wasn't enough.
Well, that seems to be how it's playing out here, but there's a kicker.
Steve Pucinich just came on tonight.
He just did an interview where he explained That in anticipation of this massive vote fraud, stealing the election, that the administration had worked out with the Department of Homeland Security that all of the ballots that would be issued would have an indetectable watermark, meaning one that wouldn't be noticeable
Except under special conditions.
So that what has happened here is the biggest sting in the history of the world.
Oh, really?
Yeah, and I'm telling you, Sunny, I had this from several different sources before Steve Pucinich confirmed it.
But Steve Pucinich has a long history with government, and he's been a whistleblower, and if Pucinich says it, you can count on it being true.
So what's happening is that while the Democrats have been rejoicing in their belief that they have stolen the election from Donald Trump, They've actually been nailing themselves with all kinds of federal crimes, and believe me, this weekend or in the near future, it's all going to come out, Sonny, and they are going to be stupefied.
Well, I missed something.
Which ballots were marked, and how did they know which ballots to mark?
Well, all the legitimate ballots have a watermark.
See, returning to the basic concept here, which is it's mail ballots that are the problem.
You know, if you have a one-day polling place election, With hand-counted paper ballots, you, number one, no ballots go missing.
Number two, there are eyes watching the handing out of ballots.
And there's also, you know, in the Australia, they call it the Australian ballot method, there's really a number of steps and they sound almost picky, you know, like the clerk takes Has the person sign in and there's a registration book the other clerk checks the registration and then the name is called out loud then they give a ballot to the person and the person goes into the voting booth and comes back and they remove a tab and There may be a second tab But they remove the tab with the number and then the voter puts the ballot in the box and the voters name is called out again so what you have if it's a neighborhood polling place is all the neighbors and
You've got you've got not only watchers of every step in the process, but you have the neighbors there So if somebody is a ringer and doesn't isn't actually the person who's supposedly voting You know, you know, it it doesn't it's a it's a check and and the fact that you have also a division of labor with volunteer election judges that's really important too because you know, so they come in and they're the ones who actually open the ballot box first thing in the morning and turn it upside down and check it to make sure there's nothing in it and they have the packs of unopened you know ballots
They're in the possession of the foreperson of the of the election judges the night before That's all important to as well as the watchers, but the point is it's a division of labor whereas like in I litigated two election contests against the town of Castle Rock in Colorado where It, you know, with the absentee ballots, it was only the clerk in charge, and she made false records wherever she could.
And she was, you know, with absentee ballots, they have somebody, you file out, file an application, and then a ballot is sent to you, and you mail, you fill out the ballot, and then mail it back.
And the first problem is there's a compromise of the voters' privacy, because on the envelope, there's a self-affirmation, which you sign, and your voted ballot is inside it.
Which means that if they know you, which in a town they probably do, or they could just look you up and see what your political party is.
Right, so they know without even opening the envelope.
Right, it's a complete abrogation of the guarantee of security and privacy of the ballot.
the town clerk who's got a vested interest, she could just throw it away and blame it on the post
office.
And I'm sure that that happens all the time.
And the same thing with the applications themselves is that we had people in these Castle Rock elections
who testified and said, I filled out an application and mailed it to the clerk
and she never mailed me a ballot back.
Well, those applications didn't show up in the public records.
And you can get public records to that extent, but you actually can't get voted ballots.
So you can't check that, but you can check the return envelopes
that the ballots go back in, which have self affirmations on them.
And we also found lots of forgeries.
There were operatives working this election which had ballots in their possession.
They shouldn't have had any ballots in their possession.
And they did a push poll even before the election started to gauge people's sympathies
So that then they had this harvesting operation, which at the time was legal in Colorado.
I believe since I left the state that that little provision has been removed, but they had they had these operatives going door to door.
And they actually had ballots, but they were, you know, they would pick up ballots from, not only from the ones who supported them, but from the ones who did not support them, that they, you know, they knew they didn't support them, and they'd throw them away!
Nice!
Really nice!
Yeah, we know that was going on, and there were just, and we actually had an expert who, you know, my client, I did this case pro bono that I'm referring to, and my clients on their own hired a handwriting analyst.
And they only select he, you know, was charging money by the ballot or actually it was they were checking the the applications for for ballots against the registration records.
They were comparing those signatures and this, you know, my clients only got the ones that to them looked out of whack and the The expert did support them for 12, you know, we found 12 forgeries.
I mean, if there's even one forgery, well, I mean, in Colorado, there's a standard that you have to show in order to get an election thrown out.
You have to show that legal ballots were not accepted or illegal ballots were accepted in a margin that's great enough to change the result.
That's a really hard standard to meet.
So you gotta make an aside to the chat room.
We'll see whether Dr. Brzenik is correct about this, but I had the same report from several other sources before his confirmation tonight.
And yes, I'm unaware of his relationship to Alex Jones, but I'm telling you, we'll know very soon because it will probably be out this weekend that the legitimate ballots are watermarked, and therefore the Democrats have been the subject to maybe the most massive sting in history.
So I appreciate everything you're saying in the chat room.
Keep them coming.
Sunny, have you noticed how many indications are of fraud?
We have five precincts in Milwaukee where they have more votes than voters.
That we have been obtaining heretofore unrecognized numbers of voters participating.
You know, up to 80 to 90 percent voting turnout.
I mean, it goes on and on and on.
There are just so many indications.
They found dumpsters full of ballots.
And they've had trucks bringing in new ballots.
And when they bring in the new ballots, they're 100% for Joe Biden.
And when they throw them out, they're 100% for Donald Trump.
I mean, it's grotesque.
It is, and again, this all results because it's mail ballots and absentee ballots.
You know, when absentee ballots were first found legal, and I'm referring to Colorado again, there were all kinds of restrictions and controls on their use.
Like, you had to go to the county clerk's office yourself with a witness and ID, And, you know, you had to actually have good cause to not vote at the election.
So all those protections obviously have been thrown by the wayside and we've become used, you know, we've had pushed over on us this idea of convenience.
Well, we've sacrificed security.
For convenience and I fully also oppose things like the early voting because again, it's it's up to the clerk.
It's between the clerk that you know, the clerk and the dumpster what we don't know what's going on because those ballots are in her possession for how many wait weeks before the actual Count and she you know we have I had did this Castle Rock election where the clerk was a serious problem and she was colluding with the operatives who were working for real estate developers and just so you know they were all Democrats and every time every time I have litigated one of these contests it is Democrats they have a very well figured out machine for stealing elections and
You know, for that reason, I actually, I mean, I previously was a Democrat, but I joined the Green Party in 2000.
Because this was it was one of the reasons that you know, this was going on But anyway, so yeah that it's all due to mail ballots, but the extra protection about this watermark on legitimate ballots, you know, there are Requirements about what's supposed to be printed on the ballot to assure that they are real legitimate ballots You know when they come from the printer in the days when you're using paper ballots, they have you know Indicia of legitimacy on the back of the ballot meaning a stamp with the clerk's name and address and blah blah blah that it'll say for instance town of Castle Rock so I mean do you need a watermark on top of that I you know and in addition there's the counting problems because they're they now want to use these optical scanning counting machines like the AccuVote is one that I've litigated and
And that can be reprogrammed in the field with a cell phone.
And, you know, it's got all kinds of like stupid mechanical problems, such as, you know, it'll feed through a clutch of ballots at the same time.
You know, there were huge problems in an election in Albuquerque for that, like something like 300 ballots that didn't get read.
But, um, so anyway, I firmly believe that every step away that you move from a one-day only polling place election with hand-counted paper ballots.
Yes.
Every step you move away from that induces or introduces numerous opportunities for fraud.
Invites fraud, yes.
Sunny, you're 100% correct.
Even the old mechanical machines with the lever, you know, I've heard stories of those being co-opted too.
And I also, you know, I ran for Attorney General in Colorado.
And I had had a lot of interest, except I was excluded from debates.
I was the Green Party candidate.
I was excluded like Ralph Nader.
And I didn't get interviewed.
It was really quite unbelievable.
Yeah, just for the chat room, or everyone else in case they miss it, Sonny was a candidate for Attorney General in Colorado for the Green Party in 2000.
2002 yeah 2002 yeah yeah oh anyway just so just so you know and I hope I've remembered this accurately but so there was this big landslide for Ken Salazar who was my opponent for Attorney General he was the Democrat and there was also a Republican and there's this like set percentage you know when they want to When they want to co-opt an election, which I think they want to do all the time, there's always this huge lopsided outcome so that the loser goes away with her tail between her legs and never tries again.
And in my case, I think I got 3% in Denver, although I beat Ken Salazar in La Plata County.
But at any rate, I went to the big warehouse where they had returned all the voting machines to, and this was the type of machine where it's got You know, it's push.
It's a touch screen.
It was a touch screen and I had a lot of questions about those but I went to the big warehouse and I wanted to test a couple of these machines after the day after the election and they said, oh, no, you can't test one that was really used.
We won't let you do that.
We'll let you test one of the demos.
Well, so that's bad enough, but I got some good machines.
I'll let you test and all the rigged ones.
They won't write a test.
Right, right.
And so I thought, you know, I argued about this and I went to the city attorney and I actually was ordered out of there ultimately.
But before that happened, I used one of the demos.
And I pressed my name three times and two votes for Ken Salazar were recorded and one for me.
One?
So two out of every three votes went for Ken.
That's what happened.
And so even the demo was crooked.
But see, I have no way of knowing what the real machines were doing.
But then they got really upset, the people running the warehouse, and they got the city attorney to read me the Riot Act.
And I was, you know, what I was doing was completely permissible.
But I had to leave, and that's the last... Did he know you were an attorney yourself?
Oh, yeah, and he knew I was a candidate, too.
So, you know, I mean, it was crazy.
Arrogance.
Yeah.
And by the way, the guy who ran the election, I mean, they had they had run the previous guy out for fraud.
The guy they brought in had been accused of election fraud in El Paso.
They brought him into Denver to run this election.
I don't know if he was accused or convicted.
I can't remember now, but it's like they just import all these People who are corrupt.
They don't have enough corrupt native Coloradans.
They are ridiculous, Sonny.
Oh, I tell you.
They don't have to go outside the state and find plenty of corrupt individuals.
Oh, yeah. And what's most galling, maybe, is that you hear all the time from city and county clerks and the Secretary
of State that Colorado has completely clean elections.
We've never had a problem.
Well, it's because they bury all the evidence of the problem.
And also, you know, I did these election contests pro bono.
But, well, stuff like the Campaign Contribution Fraud, the Campaign Finance Act, they had the craziest stuff in that where You can't get anybody to look into it.
Any official.
You can't get the Attorney General to look into it.
Nothing.
You, yourself, as a private citizen, have to bring the violation of law before an administrative law judge.
And I actually had that against Ken Salazar, too.
He was running full-page ads, which he called public service announcements in the Denver Post, about his anti-bullying campaign.
I was recently reminded of this, and this was months before the election.
What he was doing was increasing his name recognition in the populace.
I mean, people know today who Ken Salazar is, but back in 2002, they weren't real sure, although he'd had one term as Attorney General, and that was, you know, I mean, that was really, he was put in by a very powerful law firm that called itself Volunteers for his election.
They were running They were running the show and they never, they never revealed their financial contribution, which was huge.
You know, I mean, these were lawyers.
Anyway.
The Colorado judiciary and lawyers haven't been real happy with you, sad to say.
No, no.
And that's, uh, when I was running for AG, I know that that's part of the problem.
Part of the reason that they went after me later, although, um, Well, yeah, so I ran for Attorney General, and I went around talking about official corruption.
Like, I talked about fraudulent elections, and I talked about stuff like Roy Romer, who was the governor.
How he got a nice choice piece of state land for himself.
And in fact, he pushed for a constitutional amendment that was actually violative of the Enabling Act.
I was so proud of myself for the work I did in these matters having to do with the state trust lands because they changed the Constitution In Colorado, in order to free these lands up and give them to real estate developers for pennies on the dollar, but they, but they managed to cloak it under sort of an environmental thing because they said, oh we're going to create the stewardship trust, we're going to put some of these lands, turns out five percent of the lands in the stewardship trust, and plus it wasn't permanent, they could remove them from the trust later.
And so they made this big hoopla about, we're going to save these lands, and it was at best 5%.
And I know that some of those lands have been moved into private possession since then.
But what they did was cover up that these lands then were freed up and going to developers for pennies on the dollar.
And Roy Romer was one of those.
He stumped for the amendment while he was governor.
And in fact, his guys wrote it.
Jim Lockhead wrote it.
Who was his well, I won't don't need to go into it.
But but then so Romer steps down from office and ends up with a choice piece of state trust land that he appended to his ranch.
And you know, I have a blog post about that.
And that's actually been, you know, my blog.
You can't find it.
It's suppressed.
But that one.
That blog post has gotten some interest.
But yeah, tell everybody where the name of your blog, where they could find it, if they can find it.
Yeah, it's called therealcolorado.blogspot.com.
Or actually, therealcolorado.blogspot.com.
TherealColorado.
You know, if you just put therealColorado into Google, it comes up on page 16 of the search results.
They've really suppressed it.
And it turns out that there is actually a soccer club called The Real Colorado.
Yeah, nobody goes past like the second page of results.
They can't find it.
And that, my recollection is that happens even if you put the name Alison Menard in with the real Colorado.
It doesn't come up.
It's suppressed.
And by the way, the one that the blog post that is the most suppressed is where I was writing about this Denver election where 186,000 ballots went missing.
And there were, you know, there were all kinds of This was a charter amendment in Denver that did away with the Election Commission, which had been in place for a hundred years.
They wanted to get rid of that commission boy, and they did it in basically a stealth election, like they didn't comply with any of the requirements of the Constitution or the Denver Charter or Denver Ordinances.
And they also, so they had one It wasn't even a reading of it, it wasn't a hearing, but that occurred the evening of December 26th, day after Christmas, and that wasn't even in compliance with the time periods that the statutes in the Constitution provided for.
And I made these arguments to this judge, Martinez.
You know, the election should have been thrown out, and that charter amendment invalidated for any number of reasons.
And you know what he said?
He said, oh, well, I'm taking judicial notice that there was a blizzard in Denver on such and such day, therefore they couldn't make publication.
Well, Denver itself hadn't even made that argument.
You just made it up?
Well, we really did have a blizzard, but that's, you know, not only did Denver not make the argument, but that's not a reason, you know, you still have to comply with the Constitution.
You know, it's too bad that there's a damn snowstorm.
And this election was also a mail ballot only election, so it was totally a stealth election.
They did away with the Election Commission.
Oh, and I should add something, too, which is in my blog post.
Which is that previous November, there was a huge debacle in the voting.
And this was the election of 2006.
Huge debacle where people, they said that the online registration books went down and people were standing in line to vote for like four hours.
And it was this huge, you know, so what they did was create, create a false problem.
And they blamed it on the Election Commission.
And then they rushed through this charter amendment to do away with the Election Commission, and that was in January of 2007.
So they had everything lined up and ready to go.
They had it all figured out before.
Really, none of us will ever think of Colorado the same way again.
Good!
Because they haven't even heard... I know, you haven't begun to open this vault!
Yeah, I haven't begun to, and I guess now's the time.
But anyway, just to, I guess, lay a little bit of background is that I have never been the subject of a client complaint as a lawyer.
I have a completely clean record.
But beginning at the end of 2006, I started being grieved by opponents in cases I was handling.
And they were colluding.
And not just with each other, but with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
And some of the opponents in my cases were very powerful.
In particular, I was litigating The Animas La Plata Water Project, a billion dollar water project, and I had found, I had uncovered really just killer arguments and facts that should have kicked this thing out of the park.
Like, one of the things is that the initial water rights, which were granted in 1963, well, the attorney that filed the application for the water rights became the judge and granted them.
This literally happened.
And I have many things like this, but I, you know, I won't go into all of it.
That's terrible!
Of course, it's preposterous, but here's the big one that they were really afraid of, which has to do with, I mean, there was this sort of Bureau of Reclamation project that was infeasible.
It should never have gotten off the ground, but this lawyer in Durango named Sam Maines Who, I mean, he really wanted this project and he wasn't the only one.
He took on representation of the southern Ute tribe, the Indian tribe that's in that area.
So we're talking about the southwestern Colorado.
And this, by the way, is the reason I beat Ken Salazar in La Plata County.
It's because of Animas La Plata because he was a promoter of the project and it was always, always economically infeasible.
The Bureau of Reclamation itself said that in a report.
But Sam Maines and his cronies really wanted this and so he created He created this fake argument that the Ute tribes were entitled to basically all the water in southwestern Colorado from, I think there were like 10 different streams, based on what they call reserved water rights.
And this is a theory of water rights where, you know, the Indian tribes And the Utes, I mean, they had a really, really lousy history.
Federal government, obviously, as everybody knows, has violated, I think, every treaty with the Indians.
But, so anyway, so the reservation for the Utes Sorry, I'm kind of blanking now, which is stupid, but oh yeah, here's the deal, here's the deal.
There's something called the Winter's Doctrine, which was created by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
And the Winter's Doctrine says, you know, the purpose of many of these reservations was agriculture.
I mean, that's why they took all the ancestral lands from the Indians and rounded them up and put them on reservations.
But they were, you know, supposedly there to make a living through agriculture.
But one thing about these treaties is that they didn't talk about water.
And you can't have agriculture, especially in the West, without water rights.
Right.
And so the Winter's Doctrine says sufficient water is reserved along with the land for the practicably irrigable acreage.
So it was an implied reservation of water rights that goes along Yes, and this is a reservation, which is a legal, that's a legal term.
It's the opposite of a grant.
So the reservations mean the Indians really were the owners.
And I think, you know, it's been a while since I've looked at this, but it's called Ancestral Rights.
But so the whole construct is the Indians gave away most of their lands to the government in return for the security promised by the federal government in the small area that they reserved to themselves, to the tribes.
So that's the reservation.
A reservation, but the rest given away.
And there was supposed to be sufficient water read into the treaty, but But then something happened, which I'm now wondering whether that was a PSYOP, and it's come from, you know, working with you and James Tracy and Wolfgang Halbig and learning since about, well, since Sandy Hook, learning about PSYOPs.
Because here's what happened in 1880, I think, I'm sorry, yeah, 1880.
The Meeker Massacre.
And there's a town in Colorado called Meeker.
What happened was, there was an Indian agent, so he worked for the Feds, and he was a nasty guy named Nathan Meeker.
And he did something to the local tribes, the Ute tribes.
He was a liar.
And he got them in trouble, and I'm afraid I don't remember the details now.
But, so what happened was, the Utes came back and massacred him.
Him and took his wife captive, and I don't think she was ever seen again.
So, and I've, the reason why I'm questioning this story now is I've read different versions of it.
Like, like one is that when they found Nathan Meeker's body, he had a stake driven through his jaw, which is a sign to the, the afterworld, the afterlife.
That he was a liar in this life.
And I always thought that was a very interesting detail, but it doesn't show up in some other accounts I've read.
Well, anyway, this is basically modern times.
This was 1880.
I'm pretty sure I remember the date correctly.
And people were up in arms, huge, you know, this massacre by maybe a handful of, well, I think there were like 13 youths who came and Supposedly did this so an act of Congress was rushed through that stripped the youths of their reservation.
It extinguished their reservation.
Okay, so this is this is a an act of Congress extinguishing the reservation and so that happened in 1880 and there were certain, you know, the conditions of the extinguishment was that The land from the reservation would be sold and the Utes would be credited, you know, in money for the sales.
Well, beginning in about 1908, attorneys brought suits on behalf of the Ute tribes in the Court of Claims and they said the Utes have not been credited for the amount of money they should have gotten because all these lands, you know, were disposed of.
Which wasn't quite true.
Yes, of course, it was true at that point.
So the Utes got a judgment, and it was a big judgment, especially for 19, I think it was 1911 or something.
Well, then they came back several more times in the 20th century, and seeking compensation again for lands supposedly disposed of.
And without the crediting and this so what what you see if you look at these court of claims cases and I'm now Blanking on how many there were but there were several they came back several times and the attorney fee awards are huge, too well, finally they did this in the 1950s and The the court of claims granted their claim, but there was one dissenting judge and His name will come to me.
He was a famous judge in contract contracts law.
I learned this when I went to law school.
Oh, Skelton was his name because we read cases by him when I took contracts.
Anyway, he was a dissent dissenting voice on the Court of Claims and he said, you know looking at this.
These youths have been paid over and over for the same lands, and their attorneys have gotten the biggest judgments ever awarded by this court.
And he said, I cannot, in good conscience, grant this application for more compensation.
Well, then, for some reason, 20 years went by, because The government, at that time the Justice Department, was opposing the tribes.
They took it to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Well, incredibly, in 1971, there was a 9-0 decision that came out of the U.S.
Supreme Court throwing the Utes claims out.
Out and yeah, and they said they said there have been all these judgments and and actually the one that preceded the one that was before them They agreed in a settlement agreement that they would never seek any more compensation again They're done.
And so the United States Supreme Court said you're not getting any more youths, you know You've just you're in and actually the youths see the youths are an exception to Indian tribes around the country.
They're billionaires and They've also got a lot of natural resources wealth.
They are literally billionaires and every person in the tribe over the age of I forget but I think it's 50 will get $50,000 a year or some or maybe just 50,000.
I mean they get huge payments because they have a lot of money.
And this is this is very uncommon.
But as I've, you know, the way I put it is they've had very savvy lawyers who just basically lead them around.
I mean, that's what I what I saw with Animus Laplata.
But so now we come to Animus Laplata and I'm well, we have two hours for this, right?
But anyway, so I'm getting to Animus Laplata, which is this water project and Sam Maine.
So we're now in the Now in the early 1980s, he gets the bright idea that, you know, this application that initially was made by the Bureau of Reclamation
For an irrigation project, but it was always infeasible.
It never got off square one because, you know, the return of it was supposed to be like 70 cents for every dollar spent, invested.
You know, so it had a negative, it had a negative return.
It was less than zero, so they wouldn't do the project.
But when Sam Maines recast it as an Indian water project, and he said there were reserved rights In these Indian reservations, you know what was left of them, because most of their land was taken, but some was restored in 1934 by the Secretary of Interior.
So there are still two small Ute reservations in southwestern Colorado.
So this was Maine's, you know, great idea is that they, the Utes, are entitled to all the water, all the water.
I mean, you can't even quantify it.
What year was that, Sonny?
an application. What year was that, Sonny? Well, this went on in the 1980s. Was that a Supreme
Court decision? Well, we're not to the Supreme Court at this point.
But we get Acts of Congress where these guys, and they're shyster lawyers, and they're shyster clients.
Some of whom, I mean, basically it was an Anglo water project clothed in an Indian blanket.
You know, the Indians, with their reservations, they actually don't have any practicably irrigable acreage.
When you think, what can you grow at 9,000 feet?
Or maybe it's... It was a clever move to use the Indians as a way of seizing control of the water for others who would exploit it.
Yes.
In a way, they would never have had a direct opportunity, but for the circum...
Yeah, so you've got it, you've got it.
Well, then Sonny comes along, me, I'm referring to myself, and actually I wasn't the initiator of this, but I had, I was representing people, real water users, Who were about to be stripped of everything, their livelihoods, all their water, because they were farmers in northern New Mexico as well as southern Colorado.
They were about to be stripped of it by this bogus water project, which was getting acts of Congress pushing it through and everything.
Well, then I came on the scene and I, but again, I got a heads up from my clients who said, can you look at this?
Because we think that there is this United States Supreme Court decision that extinguished the reservation.
Well, and of course, my input or my addition to that is, if the reservation of land is extinguished, then the implied reservation of water rights is also extinguished.
Right.
It just goes up in smoke because there's nothing to irrigate.
Yes.
Yeah, and so, and that's clear, and there's actually good precedent because the reservation itself was extinguished by an act of Congress.
You know, in other cases involving Indian tribes, you know, they lost their reservation maybe through other means, but in this case there was an act of Congress extinguishing it.
And so... It's very difficult to get around.
Right.
And so then I was talking about the early... You would have thought that would be decisive, right?
You bet it's decisive.
And this is why I started then being subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
It's one of the reasons.
I mean, I had... You deprived some rich people of getting massively richer.
Exactly.
Well, I mean, I was never heard.
I had, I mean, I'm really proud of the briefs I wrote, but I was, my cases weren't even decided.
Like, I did this through the water courts, and it's an exception to normal federal jurisdiction, because the federal government and the Indian tribes had to be parties in this water case.
You know, they were the applicants and they didn't comply with any of the standards even for getting reserved water rights.
These people are just the biggest scoundrels that I've ever run into.
I've run into some big ones and I'm laughing about it, but there's nothing to laugh about because they went after me.
And I, you know, I don't think I have time to go into the other cases, but my opponents in active litigation were colluding to put me away, and they succeeded.
And I never got any of my claims about Animus Laplata determined, because of course it was a contempt.
At the least, of the 1971 Supreme Court decision that said you are never to come back seeking more compensation for lands disposed of, you're done.
And yet, that's exactly what Animas La Plata was.
I mean, they got a big payout, for one thing, from the Congress, but they were seeking water, you know, based on a reservation that had been extinguished, and that the United States Supreme Court had said in 1971 was extinguished, and said, you're done, go away.
But see, you were standing between these guys and a big pot of money, Sonny, and they weren't going to be forgiving.
Yes, and not only that, you know, at the same time they're doing this environmental impact statement, and the project is enormously, I mean, they're going to suck all the water out of southwestern Colorado, and they don't even have a use for it.
It wasn't, the Indians had no way to use it.
They had 2,000 people on these reservations, 2,000 people, and this is an amount of water sufficient, you know, to run The, I mean, what I said at the time, when like when I was running for Attorney General, is they're going to turn Durango into Los Angeles.
Because really, that, and actually too, something else, another issue is that that amount of, well we don't, they never quantified it, which is totally, I've said this, totally violative of the standards, even for reserved water rights.
But they gave away the state of Colorado's allocation of water under the Colorado River Compact.
And I kept, you know, I was arguing that till I was blue in the face.
Well anyway, so I got up to the Colorado Supreme Court, because actually water cases have a direct appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
And they didn't even decide my issues.
They just, they just went after me.
So that, now you have a little bit of understanding.
And so anyway, Based on this stuff, I got suspended three times for a year and a day each.
And they tried to send me to a mental evaluation.
And I've talked to you a little bit about this.
You know, when I was going through this terrible siege, and it was not only me, but my clients, because their cases were interfered with.
Because once the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel goes after an attorney, you have to get off the case.
That was my understanding.
I had to withdraw, and my clients just collapsed.
They didn't have another attorney.
You know, and they didn't have anyone else who would be willing to represent them.
Well, and also I gave them really good deals.
So certainly they didn't from an economic standpoint, but also they, you know, I mean, I have a great store of knowledge and in all of their cases and So it was sick, because OARC, which struts around and says, we're here to protect the public from unethical lawyers.
Well, I mean, they were protecting the rich elites from citizens, and from me.
I mean, that's not their function.
They interfered in ongoing litigation in order to hand a victory to our opponents, and they were overtly colluding with my opponents.
In active litigation.
So they're just despicable individuals.
And I will get to who they are and how I've connected certain things that are scary.
They're just downright scary.
What's happened to Colorado, I believe also happened to you in Wisconsin.
Anyway, so we're almost to that part of the story, which is that I got suspended three times for a year each.
I was sent, you know, there was an order.
I actually filed a suit in Colorado in the federal court against all this stuff and eight magistrates and five federal judges recused voluntarily because it's all their friends, you know, everything's in Denver.
There's a district court, Court of Appeals, Colorado Supreme Court, Federal District Court for the U.S.
District of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit.
It's all there.
They're all friends.
Yeah, you know.
At any rate, so I brought a federal case and right after that happened, then the ongoing disciplinary case.
This is a man named William Lucero, who is going to come up now.
I'm telling the rest of the story.
Lucero issued an order to show cause why I should not be sent to a mental evaluation.
And I actually had appointed counsel for this.
And they got the order discharged.
That meant I did not have to be sent to a mental evaluation.
So after that order was discharged, then the disciplinary proceeding resumed again, and I was not only suspended in that third one for a year and a day, but they stuck a condition there that before I could be readmitted to practice.
I had to submit to a mental evaluation and this is after I overcame the order to show cause and they can't do that like there's all kinds of due process for a disability proceeding which they just ignored and they stuck that condition in there and it's clearly violative of law.
And I had no right of appeal.
I mean, I won't go into all that, but that's when I left the state of Colorado.
That was in 2011.
And I went and got a Master of Science in basically fungal biology in Florida.
And I, you know, I'm gonna sort of leap over that because in 2012... What was the manner in which you felt I was subjected?
In my case, it was parallel.
We lost your sound.
Isn't that interesting?
Just when I asked you this.
Am I back?
There you go.
There you go.
I don't think I did anything, but.
Oh, no, that's OK.
Can you elaborate?
Yes.
Well, I'm at that point, which is I, in 2012, I learned from James Tracy's website about Sandy Hook and came into communication with various people and did my own research, too.
And then I moved to Texas.
My brother's girlfriend actually got decompression sickness when they were diving in Mexico, and she's now paralyzed from the waist down.
Oh, my goodness!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's terrible.
What, did her scuba gear not work, or what?
She followed all the dive tables, but this is really interesting, too.
It turns out that, like, one quarter of the population has a condition called, uh, now that's escaped something.
or underwater presence that affect them adversely?
No, it's called patent, I think, patent foramen ovale, PFO.
It turns out that about a quarter of the population has this condition where the fetus, as I understand it,
the lining of the lungs doesn't really fuse with the heart.
And so there isn't complete, you know, there should be oxygen.
There's an cardiovascular problem that was unknown because it hadn't emerged and it would only surface under very distinct conditions.
Yes, those conditions.
Under those conditions of pressure, air, and so forth.
Yes.
Manifest it.
They don't even warn people about this, and yet like a quarter of the population has this.
That's a huge percentage to be at risk without knowledge, Sonny!
Oh, I'm telling you!
And it really, you know, I mean, Carolyn almost died.
And she, I mean, So they were, and she was very athletic.
I mean, we're talking about a black diamond skier and champion tennis player.
Anyway, so when she came up from that dive, immediately she had effects and they flew her to New Orleans where there was a barometric chamber or whatever it's called.
And she did all these dives.
They call them dives because they take you down to the pressure.
And they bring you back up and trying to dissolve the bubbles.
That's the problem is nitrogen bubbles.
And she followed all the dive tables, but she has this condition.
Bubbles now in their brain.
Well, in her spinal cord, her brain is OK.
I mean, she's still very sharp, but both she and my brother are in their 70s now.
But anyway, so he moved in with her and I came to look after his house and and I've been doing a lot of upkeep on it and it makes sense.
So I'm in Texas now, but anyway.
I've been working on Sandy Hook, as you know.
And I offered my services to you pro bono.
It's not even pro bono.
I didn't say that.
I said, I can't compensate because I'm suspended.
So I've been suspended.
I've been suspended now for 11 years.
I refuse to seek readmission in that corrupt state.
But also, I refuse to submit to this involuntary mental evaluation.
Because it was imposed without due process, but everything they did was false everything You know they like you read these opinions, which they plastered all over the web I had complete defenses to each of them, but my defenses are never mentioned.
You know It's really a classic smear job.
Yeah, absolutely well anyway I Did help you on your case and I And this is the difficult part.
The judge, whose name is Frank Remington, put you on the spot.
Actually, he put, I think, Mike Palachuk on the spot originally.
But he said that you had to reveal the name and bar number of an attorney if an attorney helped you write something.
And it turns out that that's not even in the rule, but there is a statute, and the statute did require that, and the statute was just amended this past July 1st.
Yes.
To take out the requirement.
Very odd.
Yeah, well, I mean, the purpose of the rule is that certain advantages are afforded pro se parties.
Defendants especially certain advantage.
Well, I don't know plaintiffs and civil rights kids anyway certain advantages You know like they read your the judge will read your complaint or whatever you draft more liberally because you're not an attorney so the purpose of the rule which just requires that you state if an attorney helped you write the pleading is The purpose of the rule is simply to take that advantage away because you're not really a pro se party.
You are being helped by an attorney.
So that part of it makes sense.
But the part of it about identifying the attorney by name and bar number, that now has been taken out of the law.
And it has never been in the Supreme Court rule, which is what Remington cited to you incorrectly.
So, how this happened is, you then put my name on a petition for interlocutory appeal as being the writer.
And the irony is, I didn't write that, but you know, I mean, I won't go into it any more than that, other than I know better than probably anyone What it's like to be have a judge on your case, you know, I mean, it's scary there.
They are the ultimate powerful individuals.
So Remington got on your case and that's how you responded to it in that petition.
Well, of course who saw it is Leonard Posner's attorney Posner being the plaintiff in the case against you which is for Which is a fake, stupid thing for defamation.
And you didn't commit defamation.
As a matter of law, you did not commit defamation.
We all know this.
And hopefully the Court of Appeals in Wisconsin will see that too.
At any rate, Jake Zimmerman is that attorney.
And he grieved me.
You know, he found out who I was, obviously, because everything about me is on the web.
Bad stuff.
They took all the good stuff off.
And when I was an attorney general candidate, I had a stellar web presence.
That stuff's gone now.
At any rate, so Zimmerman, I believe, also grieved me, and this is a word I use for filing a disciplinary complaint.
I'm sure that he also grieved me in Wisconsin and in Texas, but they didn't go anywhere there.
But in Colorado, he found fertile ground, and I am being persecuted for the unauthorized practice of law.
And I have, I mean, complete defenses.
It's a completely meritless case.
I mean, I could just rattle these things off.
Number one, who says they can bring something against me?
I'm not an attorney.
You know, they took care of that.
I live in Texas.
I didn't do anything in a Colorado court, so they don't have jurisdiction.
He's accused me of violating the rules of professional conduct in Wisconsin.
Which only apply to Wisconsin attorneys.
They don't apply to me.
And he says, oh, but we're making them applicable to you because of Rule 8.5 in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, which I argue also don't apply to me, but they've ignored my arguments.
The PDJ, which is presiding disciplinary judge, is the same as the one before.
His name is William Lucero.
And poor me, well, I actually have had a blog post called Billy Lucero's Inquisition on my blog, The Real Colorado, since 2010, where I'm skewering him and, you know, talking about how, you know, he would suppress, he actually interfered with witnesses about to give testimony favorable to me.
He shut them up.
He massaged transcripts when I tried to appeal.
I just have a whole litany of problems with him and with the OARC attorneys.
They're just base liars.
They absolutely are the opposite of the types of people that should be holding those sensitive and important positions.
Well, so here's the kicker, and it's really what I want to be talking about, which is that I realized all the people Who have been persecuting me and who were judges on my case.
Case says plural, who did me dirty or who didn't, you know, who just went off on some tangent.
And Frank Remington.
And also, in Wolfgang Halbig's case in Connecticut, somebody named Barbara Bellis, she's bad too, because I've also looked at his stuff.
And again, I mean, I don't think I've said this, I have not been compensated.
I haven't charged you or Wolfgang, and I have never done anything in a representative capacity.
And I have never misled anybody to believe I could represent them.
I mean, I'm just making it as a poor person.
I'm a poor person living on a small Social Security payment now.
I've made several statements under oath and submitted affidavit on your behalf, making clear you did not author the interlocutory appeal.
That was my misunderstanding of the rule and how it would apply.
If any attorney you had discussed the case with me so often, how could you not be affecting what I was submitting now?
That was the rationale in my mind, but you did not author that.
And I've made it very clear to the Colorado authorities that that was not the case, that they're operating under a false presumption.
And I sought to clarify that to the judge, who, however, had other ideas of his own, just as he awarded attorney fees against me when Wisconsin doesn't award attorney fees under a theory that appears to be highly dubious.
Yeah, I am.
I've said this to you before in reading the transcripts of your Your case, like the summary judgment hearing, and also the trial, what I sense is a man afraid.
And I'm referring to Frank Remington.
It's like he just toadies to Jake Zimmerman.
He's always turning to Zimmerman, saying, well, what do you think, Mr. Zimmerman?
Should I do this?
Or what would you, you know, it's like, it's unbelievable.
And he even interrupted, I mean, You know they're all the legal points and maybe maybe we'll get into those but I mean I my position which which is just open and shut is that the I mean so what you're accused of is Defamation by Leonard Posner because you said that the death certificate of his son is a forgery His son was supposedly killed at Sandy Hook Noah Posner
Well, the version that was published in your book is uncertified.
And I'll admit it now, I found a Connecticut statute that says no one can be In possession of an uncertified death certificate, except for genealogical researchers who've been approved by the state or state or federal agents, you know, and there's some qualification there, which actually has made me think that Posner is a federal agent, because all of this, all the stuff he's able to do, and we'll get to more of that,
But anyway, so the one you published in your book was uncertified.
It is clearly a forgery, even though other things you said about it are not actually, technically, they're not right.
They're not indicative of a forgery.
Yeah, I've acknowledged that in the course of the summary judgment.
I explained to the judge that while some of my reasons for drawing that conclusion were mistaken, the conclusion was correct.
Yes, and you got that in, but before you finally got it in, he kept putting you off and going off on tangents, and then he issued a one-page order granting summary judgment to the other side, without even mentioning that your response to that, or your own motion for summary judgment, because you sought summary judgment.
So the basis of your motion for summary judgment, there were two of them.
One is That Jake Zimmerman, in his complaint, he attached what he said was the death certificate of Noah Posner, that it was certified.
In fact, it was certified by both the state and the town of Newtown.
So that wasn't, so you were accused of making false statements about something you made no statements about whatsoever at any time.
And the second thing is that, well what I just pointed out is that You got this uncertified death certificate from Leonard Posner himself.
Yeah, from a plaintiff.
I wonder if the chat room will appreciate the irony that I was sued over a death certificate.
I published it and it'd come from the plaintiff himself who would sue me over it.
I mean, how ridiculous is that?
Right, right, it did.
And he even admitted that.
Yeah, he admitted it during the video deposition.
Yeah, so the chain of events was actually that He, there is a woman named Kelly Watt, a very smart individual who has done really wonderful stuff.
And somehow he got in touch with her.
Yes.
And she said they had like 100 hours of phone conversations.
I mean, he kept calling her, but they got, you know, he got mad about something she said.
Well, what happened was he was donating to his website.
And he said, well, why would you do that?
You don't think that I have a son who died?
She said, because I want to be a party to the lawsuit brought against you for fraud.
And that's when he got furious and hung up.
Yeah, and she would have had standing then, too.
That's right.
But anyway, So Posner, so that was the chain of events was that Posner, she kept sort of, I guess, egging him or what's the word I want, telling him that she'd never seen a death certificate and for a long time the town clerk of Newtown
would not produce death certificates for the Sandy Hook victims, maybe for anyone.
I mean, she just violated their open records law.
Yes.
Yeah, and so nobody could see the death certificates.
So Leonard Posner finally told Kelly Watt, I've put this death certificate up,
along with various other things she was asking for, on a memorial page called a Google Plus page,
And it's on there.
That's what he told her and so she downloaded it and provided it to you.
So that's the one in your book and Posner at his deposition authenticated it that that was the one.
And the chapter is co-authored with Kelly Watt!
Yeah, so there's no question about that.
But anyway, the judge didn't mention your key argument, you know, was your key argument.
He didn't even mention that you'd had, he just denied your motion for summary judgment.
And reading the transcript, it's really quite disturbing because he kept Interrupting you and going off on something else, but you did finally get that information in But then the motion itself was there and there were other problems with their showings You know, I guess we don't really need to get into the Sandy Hook fraud.
You've done many many shows on that So let me get back to this latest disciplinary proceeding.
The case is under appeal and I'm still under his thumb The appeal is public and, you know, it's available in various places and, you know, it's just devastating to the whole case.
Yes, I think that Rich Bolton, your attorney, did a really good job on those briefs.
And, you know, it is about First Amendment retaliation.
It's just insane.
But I should mention too that You know, so you were in contempt, held in contempt, because you provided the deposition of Leonard Posner to me.
Yeah, the video deposition.
Yeah, and so at one point, Frank Remington, the judge, when you were up for this contempt thing, He, you said some, you made some statements that you thought were supportive of me, and he put you under oath retroactively, and then concluded that I had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Wisconsin.
And I'm not even a party to the case.
Yeah.
I had no way to defend.
I said words to the effect that we had discussed the case, and you'd given me legal advice, but it was your opinion, and you were not compensated therefore, and he nevertheless Yeah.
He wanted to punish you, Sonny.
Well, it's a network.
And this is the part I'm getting to now, is that I've looked into the backgrounds of all these people, and they're all Catholic.
Yeah.
And, you know, I never had feelings one way or the other about Catholics.
I have had many Catholic friends in my life.
Not now, though.
I mean, really.
And what I'm really zeroing in on is a cult called Opus Dei.
And I learned about it initially from the potboiler called The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, which became a movie.
I didn't know about Opus Dei before, but now I've... The movie with Tom Hanks.
Right, the movie.
This cult got its start in Spain.
Well, its founder founded it.
His name was José María Escrivá de Balaguer.
He founded it in 1928, and what it is, is it has a definite political agenda to insinuate its members who are secret.
Into key positions, and they started with higher education, and they started in Spain, but it's worldwide now, and it is in every walk of life.
For instance, if you've ever, if you know about the case of Robert Hanson, who was an FBI agent, who was, he's, there's a movie about this called Breach.
He was Opus Dei, and his boss, Louis Freeh, was Opus Dei.
Antonin Scalia was Opus Dei.
Clarence Thomas, Is reputed to be and that might have been a conversion.
I mean all the well right now if I mean, I actually don't know if Amy Barrett has been confirmed yet.
I think she oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
Yes That makes that makes eight Catholics on The United States Supreme Court.
No, I think six No, there are eight Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Neil Gorsuch calls himself an Episcopalian, I think, but he came from a staunchly Roman Catholic family.
And part of, you know, remember Ann Gorsuch, who I believe originated the term Nothingburger?
She was the EPA head under Reagan.
So, a staunch Roman Catholic family, and one of the things they do, I mean, Deceit is their middle name.
They actually will pretend to be of another religion in order to further the cause.
And I'm reading, I'm almost done with a real book about Opus Dei.
It's called, oh, I can't believe I'm blanking on, it's upstairs anyway, but it's by Robert Hutchinson.
It's an unbelievable expose, and I'm going to have to read it two or three times because of all the financial shenanigans.
Because what this group did was they paid off the Vatican's debts, one of the things they did, in return for making the group a personal prelature of the Pope.
And I'm my understanding of that is they're not subject to the normal hierarchy in the Catholic Church, you know, like the bishops and the archbishops and the cardinals and all that.
They're only responsive to the Pope and this.
There has been, in the past, a lot of controversy and bitterness and fights of, I will call them, true Catholics trying to keep this cult out of power.
And what the Opus Dei people do is dirty tricks, blackmail, Murder?
Assassinations?
I mean, in this book that I'm reading, it's like, the term, I mean, all these people are dropping dead of, like, massive heart attacks.
They always use the term massive heart attack and poison, and one of these was the first Pope John Paul.
You know, they said he died of a heart attack.
But the circumstances, you know, the Vatican has never come clean about that.
But he was found sitting upright in bed with his lips twisted.
And a bottle... It's highly probable he was assassinated.
He was assassinated, for sure.
And his personal physician was even prohibited from seeing the body.
And he had even told the Pope You know, how healthy he was, like he was in really excellent health.
Well, the lips twisted suggesting cyanide or something, you know, poison?
This author doesn't go that far.
It's very possible.
But he was sitting upright when this, apparently, a nun found him who was bringing him his coffee.
But there are different versions of this story, too.
But anyway, so this is not a religion of peace anymore, although Catholics portray themselves that way.
I mean, Opus Dei is like funding jet fighters, like 50 jet fighter planes to Argentina.
The stuff they do, I can't even recount it accurately other than to say that what I've seen with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, these people are just base liars.
I think to myself, and I add to them, all the judges in my cases who are giving me weird, bad results.
They all took oaths, you know, oaths to uphold the statutes and constitution of the state of Colorado in the United States.
So I ask myself, aren't they afraid?
That, you know, they're violating their oaths, but see what I concluded and what this book is backing up is that they've been assured that they're serving a higher master.
And like one of the ways I came to this, and this is actually in that 2010 blog post called Billy Lucero's Inquisition, that's when I started seeing the Catholic connection.
And it's because many of these people have gotten awards from like for instance there's the
Thomas More Society gives an award and you know it took me a while to put two and two together and not
a real long while but because Thomas More was sanctified or is that the right sanctified
made a sound and the reason was is he put the authority of the pope over the secular law which
was the king Thank you for listening.
This is why they're celebrating Thomas More.
Or this is, so I believe that, like they never tell you what these people did to get these awards.
They just, they don't tell you.
That's not on their websites.
But like William Lucero is one of the, one of the recipients of the Thomas More Award, which is You know, there's another one called the Red Mass, where the Catholic Church gives awards to judges and lawyers, especially lawyers.
And I asked myself, why are they giving awards to lawyers?
Again, they never tell us.
They don't tell us what these people did.
But presumably, I mean, you have to say presumptively, they're being rewarded for enhancing the power of the church.
And that is actually what's going on, and it's why I'm really scared about I mean the United States Supreme Court is just one court but and you know, I I actually even emailed one of my senators in Texas about this and John Cornyn
Trying to let him know what I know, which is that they don't follow the law, you know, but they make a pretense of it.
They make it come out, you know, they just lie.
They will lie about the facts to make it come out the way they want.
And I know that, like in the cases that they brought against me, and like I mentioned, I brought this federal court case seeking some relief where we didn't even get, I say we because I brought it with one of my clients as a co-plaintiff because This guy, Gerald Lewis, who is now in his 80s, he sleeps in his truck because they took his home.
You know, it's like, and they also, he had a job for a little while at a supermarket, and they made false charges.
I know they're false.
I know, Jerry.
And he got fired from the job, like they have their network they have like Opus Dei means works of the of the Lord and that's their angle is to insert Catholics into positions In industry and business and the courts and higher education everywhere they can and they keep their their real agenda a secret But they know and in fact they are permitted to admit that you know any individual Can admit that he is a member of Opus Dei and I say he because it looks like the women are just helpers They're not really in it
Sonny, I got a couple questions for you about the court and this religious composition.
It was bizarre to me when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still living that we had a six to three distribution, six Catholics and three Jews.
How can that be?
That just seems so anomalous.
You got a country that's predominantly Protestant and we don't have a single Protestant on the court?
What's the deal?
I know, and actually, yeah, so if you were going to mirror the actual breakdown, I think one quarter of the population is Catholic, so that would mean two and a quarter judges, huh?
And the percentage that are Jewish is maybe, what, 5%?
Well, there, there, I don't, let's see, who's left?
Is Souter still there?
Wait a minute.
It was 6-3, you take out Ginsburg and you put in Amy and now it's 7-2, Catholic.
Well, no, you're counting Gorsuch as a non-Catholic, but He is a Catholic.
Mark my words.
And in fact, they had another one who's a really bad guy from the Tenth Circuit, whom I've had a bad experience with since I worked for the Attorney General's Office in 1989.
His name is Tim Timkovich.
He was up at the same time as Gorsuch.
And you know, it's not an accident that all these Coloradans are getting into positions of power, like Ken Salazar!
I mean, come on!
Although he's not now, but he Well, Sonny, that brings me to my other question.
Do you have concerns about Amy Coney Bryant?
Well, sure.
One piece of this that I haven't mentioned is that so many of these people who are Who turn up in attorney regulation in Colorado are from Notre Dame Law School.
And I haven't found that they've had prior connections with the state of Colorado.
So what we have is something I'm calling a Notre Dame Colorado Judicial Project, where they are actually grooming people and inserting them into the bar and the judgeships.
And there's a piece I haven't talked about yet, because I have really pinned this down, I believe.
I mean, I haven't even talked about John Gleeson.
He was the head of OARC during the siege against me from 2006 to 2010.
2006 to 2010. He was in that office for I think 23 years and 15 of it as its head.
Well I discovered, and this is another reason they want to shut me up because
I've got four blog posts about John Scott Gleason.
He's a lawyer impersonator.
He has lied for 45 years about having an undergraduate degree and I have proven that he does not have one.
I can't get his DD-214, which is when he was discharged from the military, and that's a public record, but they won't give it to me.
I can say that he never, he never filed for benefits because it would have to be of record in Arapahoe County, Colorado if he had.
I've got a whole, I've got so much stuff on him, including the prior Well, no, I'm now and now my black I guess this isn't you know, I have oh, yeah, I think I think that he took bribes in return for giving certain lawyers a pass in disciplinary cases and one reason for saying that is he's now working for the firm that special a firm that specializes in representing lawyers being sued for disciplinary cases and
Even though I knew the main partner there pretty well because I actually used to be on the ethics committee in Colorado, but they got me off that But I knew this lawyer pretty well.
He wouldn't I couldn't even get representation in Colorado.
I did finally find one person But the fix was in you know the fix was in so I was convicted but anyway, I have four blog posts about John Gleason because I I think he took bribes.
You know, if they found that there was a lawyer who had lied about something as important as having an undergraduate degree, that office would run that person out of Dodge.
I mean, all they do is go after sole practitioners anyway.
They don't go after the corporate lawyers, ever!
They only go after the low-hanging fruit, and what I've seen is they're incompetent.
But now I'm blanking on all the things I have on Gleason, but literally— Well, Sonny, Sonny, Sonny, we have a question from the chat room I've been asked to pose to you.
Have you read Cardinal Vagano's letter about the deep church?
Yeah, that was actually in my—well, about the deep church, I don't know.
I read a different letter.
Well, I mean, a letter about the church that he sent to the president.
I was recently copied on his letter, but I didn't I didn't read it as yet well, I You know, I steer clear of religious things myself But let me just finish what I your interest in the cat Catholicism in the Catholic.
Well, yeah, but I'm not done because there's something really huge that I have uncovered which is a a judge generating machine operating in Colorado.
I've mentioned Notre Dame.
I mean, they're not all from Notre Dame.
This is a pipeline, yeah.
But here's the deal.
I found that when John Gleason was admitted There were especially two lawyers on the Board of Law Examiners who, number one, were running a bar refresher course.
Now these two lawyers, John Moy and Jim Lyons, and Jim Lyons is a crony of Bill Clinton's, by the way, they They were high-powered lawyers in law firms pulling down big bucks.
So why are they running a bar refresher course?
They're also both Catholic.
In fact, it looked to be like everybody on the Board of Law Examiners was Catholic.
But I found out that they not only had access to the bar exams before they were graded, But that they participated in grading them.
And one of the things about Gleason is this law school that he went to.
I mean, it requires a BA, required a baccalaureate degree from an undergraduate college, which he did not have.
But he got in and they also say on their website that they only require an LSAT score in the 25th percentile.
For the record, I scored in the 98th percentile on the LSAT.
It's another reason that they have to do me in.
But so here's a guy who, I mean, I believe that someone who scored in the 25th percentile on the LSAT would not be able to pass the bar exam.
You know, it's a hard exam.
But there's another aspect to this, which is that, you know, I took the bar exam, I think, a year after, or two years after Gleason did.
And at the time I took it, there was a strange thing, which was, if you scored high enough on the multi-state, which is an exam given, I think, in every state, it's a multiple choice exam about law, you know, all the basic topics.
And day two of the exam when I took it was essays, but they had this rule that said if you scored high enough on the multi-state, they don't even grade your essays.
Well, I'm one of those people.
I did score high.
You know, I put basically all my eggs in that basket because I tend to do real well on the multiple-choice standardized exams.
Well, anyway, so here's John Gleason.
Who I believe could not have passed the bar exam, but somehow he got in, he got a bar number.
I believe he was given a pass on the bar exam by these guys, and that's what they were doing.
And I see other people...
Who came to the state without prior connections with the state, and they're Catholic, and they just have, like, a meteoric rise, really.
I mean, they're a lawyer for a few years, and then they get into judgeships.
This, and, and they're, you know, it's really, it's, it's frightening.
But that's what they're doing, and I believe that if they're doing it in Colorado, they're probably doing it everywhere.
There's a... As it is, they're, as it were, salting the court, you know, by putting in stooges in key positions all over the country.
Right, and they don't follow the law.
That's the thing.
It's like, I've had so many cases... They're not performing the role of a judge.
They have the position, but they're not carrying it out properly.
Yeah, and I, I also, you know, I have tried for years to get records, like from the federal court where my, you know, when I started out in the federal court, I had a good judge, and he, like, he did not give me a preliminary injunction, but There was one issue I could see he was legitimately hung up on, and I re-briefed that for him, but one thing huge that he did was he struck the other side's motion to dismiss.
I mean, I was talking earlier about a different judge doing that.
This one, Phil Brimmer, he struck the state of Colorado's motion to dismiss, and also for not complying with his rules.
And that meant that I was in.
No motion to dismiss.
Well, all of a sudden, Phil Brimmer is off the case, and no reason given.
And if a judge recuses, you should be told, you know, that there's a disability or a conflict, at least that much.
So, Phil Brimmer is suddenly off my case, and there's a magistrate that nobody appointed.
She comes on and she invites The Attorney General's Office to refile their motion to dismiss.
They didn't even file a motion.
She just got on the case and told them they could do that, countermanding the judge's order.
She doesn't have authority to do that.
I mean, so, and I've mentioned that that case went nowhere.
This is a legal game of charades.
Yes.
A complete fraud, Sonny.
What you're describing is manipulating so the public won't be able to discern the fraud that's being perpetrated before their eyes, but unknowingly.
Yes and and the sad part is is that the devil is really in the details which is violations of rules and laws and people's eyes glaze over you know because it gets into the legal jargon but one thing that they'll understand is that Pacer was manipulated too because and and an order was backdated and she wouldn't let me amend the complaint because You know, I, after the stuff, well, I can't remember now what precipitated it, but I tried to amend my complaint, which originally was just for injunctive relief.
I amended it to add claims for damages, and they included RICO claims.
I was saying that these judges are a criminal enterprise, which they clearly are, but I had I had this magistrate refuse to let me amend my complaint, and I had the clear right under the rules to do that.
It was unreal.
So I filed a new case.
I filed a new case, and in fact, when I did that, I had also suffered backdating of orders.
That I could prove were backdating, and also the removal of pages from a pleading that I filed, and refiling it without those pages.
Yeah, I mean, Pacer was manipulated.
The key argument you're making, no doubt.
Yeah, so when I filed a case...
Yeah, that's exactly it.
But by this time, I mean, the disciplinary stuff was done.
I mean, I couldn't even file electronically.
I was under three suspensions.
And actually, two of them ran concurrently, and I think that's why they Had to bring the third case was because they were afraid I would still go to the United States Supreme Court with animals And all these guys were colluding, you know, there was all my opponents in these cases and you haven't heard about you've heard about animus laplata now and I feel really gratified to have been able to Talk about what that was.
But yeah, these people are also Catholics the guys who are who are doing the fake This is also disheartening because, I mean, after all, if Americans want to believe the United States stands for anything, it's equal justice under law.
One of them is from Notre Dame.
And also, there was a Colorado Supreme Court justice who I believe drove the disciplinary stuff against them.
This is also disheartening because, I mean, after all, if Americans want to believe the United States
stands for anything, it's equal justice under law.
And the fact is, we don't even have a remote semblance.
This even brings us back to the current election.
There's all this fraud and deception and fabricating votes and destroying ballots and it's all to promote a political agenda because the Democratic Party and their allies are terrified of another four years with a president who cares about the United States.
Biden's a Roman Catholic too, by the way, but you know, and I'm sorry, I'm sorry to, you know, I do know there are good Catholics out there, but I also know and have good authorities to point to that there's been a subversion of the Catholic Church.
What happened was that the Opus Dei took control of the Vatican's finances.
And it's running the show behind the scenes.
And I, you know, if you stand and you're in their way, all of a sudden, massive heart attack.
That's the term that keeps coming up with different people in this book by Robert Hutchinson.
Even up to and including the Pope.
They did the Pope.
Yeah.
And now they're all hunky dory with the cult.
So, I think, you know, the salvation for the rest of us has to be in the rank-and-file Catholics.
But the problem is, they are not reared in the tradition of independent critical thought and questioning authority.
They're unable to do that.
They are taught obedience.
And that, I'm also getting confirmation in this book.
But that's what I see, is that they don't, you know, these OARC people, who should be the most ethical, They are just robots, and someone is telling them what to do.
They're telling them to put me away.
And I, you know, I'll say this, they're not just, you know, you could ask, well, what's the difference between being suspended and disbarred?
Because disbarment is what they are seeking right now.
Well, you know, I mean it means another defamatory opinion on the web, but if they come if they if they make a finding that I engaged in the unauthorized practice of law that opens a lot of doors for them just like Remington's order where he put that he enshrined that in an order, you know engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
is a crime in Texas.
And it is in other states, too.
But I haven't met the definition.
The definition requires being compensated or doing, you know, drafting legal documents or appearing in a representative capacity.
And legal documents means documents that affect a legal right, which motions and briefs don't.
They're just argument.
You know, I didn't draft any wills or trusts or contracts or deeds.
I didn't do that either.
So I've never had the opportunity, you know, okay, and I haven't told you what's happened in this disciplinary case, because the latest thing is the emails.
Jacob Voss, who is the current prosecutor, the current robot, Revealed that he had private emails from me between me and Wolfgang Halbig and Richard Carlyle and they deal with Sandy Hook matter and They date from August of 2018 So Voss shows that he has my emails and I'm like, whoa He quoted them in his first complaint and I I said, where did you get those and he produced?
He produced a chain from Jacob Zimmerman, who said he got them from Mark Bankston, who is a lawyer in Texas, who represents some of the Sandy Hook plaintiffs against Alex Jones and InfoWars.
So here is Mark Bankston saying that our private emails were in a production of documents that InfoWars made to him.
Well, our emails don't say that InfoWars was copied.
It's only me, Wolfgang Halbig, and Richard Carlyle, and it's an extremely confidential subject that actually, by court order and an act of Congress, is confidential.
It's under seal.
So, the three of us were talking.
We didn't share those with anyone else, and on their face, they don't show that they were shared.
Okay, so his whole argument for how he got the emails is false.
And I'm quite sure they came from Leonard Posner, that he's hacking everybody's accounts.
Yes, yes.
And in fact, I have another instance of it, which also relates to this stuff.
But anyway, it turns out I found two very helpful, they should be helpful, federal laws that prohibit the use in evidence in any proceeding of intercepted emails or any intercepted telecommunications.
And also, it provides for good damages, as well as injunctive relief.
So, I told Voss, you cannot use these.
He just blows me off.
I moved for a protective order to Lucero.
He denied it.
He said, you haven't proven that those emails were hacked.
You know, on their face, they just show the three of us.
But then I got affidavits from Wolf and Richard, and I'd already said myself, we didn't provide them these emails to anyone.
Like, Wolf and Richard didn't, like, print them out and mail them to InfoWars.
That didn't happen.
Anyway, Voss and Lucero both, they're determined to use these emails, and they're using them for what they call aggravating factors.
Although let me back up.
I refused.
I was supposed to give a deposition to Voss and he wanted to inquire into the emails and I refused even though my motion for protective order was denied.
I relied on these federal laws.
I said I'm not giving my deposition.
So what's recently happened is Lucero has defaulted me.
Even though I've filed 35 pleadings in that case, and I have a pending motion for summary judgment where I've established that Voss has no case at all, that I did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and that he didn't even, you know, his complaint falls apart completely.
Well, I can't get it decided because I've been defaulted.
So now, all they're gonna do is hold a sanctions hearing on November 12th and 13th.
This is like finding me guilty of libel and then having a jury to determine damages after they've already decided the issue, even though it was in violation of the protocols, the law, the evidence.
I mean, matters like that just don't make a difference, it appears, when you have a predetermined conclusion.
It's exactly the same thing.
So I should have won on summary judgment, but the PDJ won't decide my motion.
So the last, I think, thing is this.
I actually sued those guys in federal court in Texas, in San Antonio.
And I went in for a TRO, and guess what?
I can't get a TRO.
I can't get a setting of a preliminary injunction hearing.
I have tried repeatedly, and I'm ignored.
ignored.
Ah.
So they're not going to go after me.
They won't let you get your foot in the door.
Yes, but they I had to pay a $400.
I'm going to ask for a refund because, you know, there's a certain social compact, actually an express contract.
Can you go to the Chief Judge?
Well, I think the Chief Judge is part of the problem because I actually filed a second case where I also sued Frank Remington, but I sued The Colorado Supreme Court itself see this is I filed a second case because number one Richard Carlyle is a plaintiff with me in the first case and that first case is just the emails.
I wanted to keep it to that because that's enough of a reason to stop the discovery.
But the second case is much broader and I'm asking the court to look at all the things that never got looked at when I filed in Colorado and I've also sued the two courts.
Actually, three courts, Colorado Supreme Court, but also the U.S.
District Court in Colorado, and the Tenth Circuit, because they're hiding records.
Because I'm entitled to records that deal with either me or the cases I handled, and they won't produce them.
I've been making this request for about 12 years.
So, that case was assigned to the Chief Judge, and I have not yet paid the docket fee there, because I've seen what's happened in the emails case.
So I'm thinking over my options there.
And I actually did something vis-a-vis the emails case that I don't want to talk about yet, but we'll see if something else comes of that.
Of course, as a person of limited means, you can't just throw money down the rabbit hole.
Right, and I did do that in Colorado, you know, but yeah, limited means, and they, you know, I did actually file, try to file, inform a pauperess.
And they denied it because they said I had retirement income.
I also have some money in the bank, which is like left from the sale of my house in 2009 and some other things.
My retirement income is a minimal Social Security payment.
I mean, I haven't worked since 2009.
And in fact, I saw what was coming as of 2007 and ratcheted down my practice beginning then.
I knew they were going to do that to me.
And really, well, not just Animas La Plata, but that was the big one.
I mean, I was exposing other frauds too, but I just have, like, the cronies of my opponents were everywhere in positions of power.
Well, Senator, the problem is that you're a brilliant attorney, you take the profession seriously, you do your homework, and therefore you can be a formidable foe, and they don't want to deal with you because you're more than they can handle if it's a fair-level playing field, namely a courtroom where the law is impartially administered and the responses are appropriate to evidence, witnesses, and the like.
Yeah, thank you for that.
And, you know, it's actually kind of heartening because with email now, and I have several friends on email who are like co-researchers of Sandy Hook, and you, and some others.
You know, when I was first going through the siege, well, email existed, but I wasn't served these pleadings by email.
You know, it was all certified mail, which was hideous.
I had a post office box, and I had to go during business hours to sign for the certified mail, and it was so embarrassing, you know, because I kept getting them.
And I asked OIRC, can't you just send me this by email?
I will confirm that I got it.
Or just send it by regular mail that way I can go after hours and get the they they wouldn't even respond So that's you know they get you they they part of their game is humiliation a big part of their game Humiliation and they they probably expected me to commit suicide but I feel I have something to contribute here, and now it's it has sort of morphed into a Zeroing in on the people who are corrupting the system.
And they are organized.
And they are a cult.
And maybe it's not Opus Dei, but I have substantial evidence that that's what's going on.
That's a very worthy investment of your time and effort for the benefit of the American people, Sonny.
Thank you, Jim.
And like you too, doing all your shows.
I don't, I have no idea how you keep it up, but you're always on top of every issue, and I learn a lot all the time from your blog and your shows.
So we're each doing what we feel we're best at.
Yes, yes.
Yeah, making our contribution.
Regardless of circumstance, we're going to do our best to get the truth out to the people as long as we can do it.
Yeah, I mean, and it's such a concern to see what's going on now with kids not even being in school.
Oh yeah, all this COVID fraud is enormously damaging and this guy who would be president wants to extend it and further damage the economy.
Attendant, of course, increased suicides, damage to health because people aren't getting the treatment they normally would have, the economic effects are catastrophic, Kids being out of school.
They're losing education.
They'll never be able to make up.
And the propaganda.
The propaganda they're subjected to.
Yeah.
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
I'm with you 100%.
I'm so concerned about the children, you know, because they're never going...
They're gonna have hideous lives, hideous, and they won't know, they won't have the tools that you and I got through a good education.
And Sunny, the public doesn't even understand that these masks are harmful to your health, that it's ruining yourself slowly, because you're depriving your blood of the oxygen it needs by recycling oxygen to bleated air, which is killing your brain cells, putting additional stress on your cardiovascular system, The most expert on this matter has predicted in two years we're going to have an astonishing increase in dementia.
But frankly, you know, DEAGLE, this monster website projected to the military-industrial complex, it projected we're going to go from 330 million population in 2020 to less than 100 million in 2025.
That's five years, Sonny.
That's losing more than 200 million Americans in five years.
That's what they're projecting.
I know, and in almost every country.
And Catherine Horton also pointed out to me something I hadn't realized, which is, it's not just, you know, on the Deagle site they show projected population in 2025, and they also have the population as of 2017.
And so you see a drop, but what What isn't being added in is what would normally have been, you know, increase in population due to childbirth.
That those numbers must be added in.
There's a much greater loss.
Probably another five million or more.
Yeah.
And for other nations, it's showing relatively modest increases and decreases of the kind you would have expected would also be true of the United States.
Who knows what they have planned for us, but I'll tell you, I'm not taking their damn vaccine.
And actually, I have something to add about the masks.
I will not wear one myself, which means I've been grocery shopping outside the county, where I can get away with it still.
There was some publicity about how people wearing masks find that the masks start to stink.
Well, then that made me, and also they have increased dental problems, and I've already got a lot of, had a lot of dental problems from dry mouth.
I don't produce saliva at night, and saliva is antimicrobial.
But the thing about the masks is that you're creating a warm, moist environment in which bacteria and fungi flourish.
Yes, yes, yes.
And you're breathing that back in, too.
Yes, yes, yes.
It's going to promote respiratory death.
Now nationwide, the CDC, the WHO, they're not keeping statistics on the flu, which normally would have vastly many more deaths, even than this alleged coronavirus.
They're lumping them all together, claiming they're all coronavirus.
And now, of course, because wearing masks, you're going to have more respiratory deaths, and those are going to be attributed to coronavirus as well.
And this push for a vaccine, you know, I want, in fact, A friend of ours, I won't say her name, but she goes by Cinderella in her writings.
She mentioned that she was going to write in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on the ballot.
I don't know if she actually did that.
I wish I had thought of that.
I think he should be president.
I do.
I mean, because all the stuff that he's written, I mean, what we really need now is for somebody to put their foot down on this stupid mandatory vaccinations.
He'd be a great director of health and human services in the next Trump administration.
Well, Gates blocked that.
I mean, there was, like, Trump wanted to appoint RFK Jr.
to that position or some similar, I don't know all the names of all the positions for the public health.
But, you know, There's a video of Gates saying that he told the President, no, don't go there.
You don't want to go there.
I was like, what the?
Being Bill Gates?
Yeah, telling the President.
Bill Gates is a monster!
He is a monster.
This is like taking advice from the devil.
He's a monster.
By the way, you remember that I filed... I've been filing complaints for the unauthorized practice of medicine against Mr. Bill Gates and also Melinda, because she's aiming and abetting.
Good.
And I believe I may have a state that might go for it, but I don't want to... Sonny, Sonny, I want you to pursue that.
I want you to pursue that.
I want you to come back and do another conversation with me about it.
I'm wishing well, my friend.
You've been an invaluable ally to me, and I know Wolfgang and James Tracy feel similarly, and what's happened to you has been deplorable.
It's been a complete reversal of what ought to be the case.
We're living in a society where the evil are thriving and the good are suffering unjustly.
It's awful, Sonny, and you were Eloquent and getting key points about the judiciary and its corruption across tonight.
I can't thank you enough.
Well, my thanks to you, because you've got a great audience, too.
Was there a call in tonight?
I didn't know if there was.
No, on this there isn't, but I have a chat line, and see, I've been pulling off, you know, comments and questions from the chat room.
I see, okay.
Well, it's really gratifying to me to be able to tell something of my story.
I really, really appreciate it.
In fact, I was going to add something, but it slipped my mind.
Early dementia, but I don't think it's from vaccines because I'm not doing that anymore.
This will be, of course, archived on BitChute, and I will be sending you the link and all that.
Okay.
If there's any final words you'd like to say about where anyone can learn more about you and your work, Sunny?
Well, they can feel free to email me.
My email address is dinophile at gmail.com.
So it's like dinosaur, but it's dinophile, d-i-n-o-p-h-i-l-e at gmail.com.
And I'd love to hear from people.
I mean, I think that the bottom line is each of us has something to contribute and we can resist.
And if everyone does what they're capable of doing, you know, you get more, you get stronger as you, as you develop the skills of fighting back.
And, and we need to resist.
Our number one duty as citizens is resist this crap coming down this This COVID crap and the takeover of the courts and whatever your particular interest is where you have skill and expertise and you can clean it up because everything needs cleaning up.
Donna, it's been marvelous to have you share your time with us this evening.
I can't thank you enough.
Wonderful, wonderful.
Thank you so much, Jim.
I look forward to having you back.
Okay, bueno.
Thank you very much and good night.
Yes, this is James Fetzer on Fetz Presents with my very special guest this evening, Alison Sonny Maynard, who is also Dinofile at gmail.com.
Check her out.
Watch and share.
Thank you for being here, Sonny.
You were a great guest.
Thank you, Jim.
You were a great host.
We had a good time.
Take care.
Real pleasure.
And everyone in the chat room and watching, thanks.
Okay.
Good night, all.
Bye-bye.
Bye now.
Thank you, guys.
▲
Export Selection