Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:37

The Event ( Raw Deal + Wisdom Circle) - 16 March 22 - Guest: Deana Pollard Sacks

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Go ahead, Jim.
	We're live on the video.
	Well, Giuseppe, we have an unusual show today.
	We have a sensational guest, Dina Pollard Sachs, who's involved deeply in legal issues.
	Can you hear me?
	Oh, are you hearing that?
	I've got the B-Delta server, but I've only got the... We need to connect with Giuseppe.
	We're on the air.
	I've got us on the air here.
	Oh, you're on the air in... You're on B right now?
	Yeah, I'm here on B, but are we on A as well?
	Well, A's not answered.
	Add me on B, then.
	Add me on B.
	And that'll be a good start.
	And then I can seek to add a... OK, I've got to figure out how to do that, Sebby.
	Up at the top, there's a little plus sign over a person's icon.
	You see that upper right?
	I'm on the wrong page.
	I'm being told I'm on the air, but how to add you, I'm not seeing how to do it.
	Let me see.
	We're still getting there.
	Let me pull it up.
	Unreal.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	just add studio no just add me wait a minute the They're adding Studio A. They're adding Studio A. Oh, they're gonna add that now?
	Okay, great.
	Yeah, I think so.
	I got someone here who's helping lend a hand.
	Oh, great.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So, hopefully we're good to go.
	Here we go.
	Okay, we're on live now.
	You got it?
	It's just amazing with live radio.
	Oh, I gotta put on my headset.
	Yeah, you gotta put on your headset.
	So Holly, how are you today?
	I'm doing good.
	I'm glad to be joining everyone on the studio today.
	I think we're okay now.
	I think we're okay now.
	Better.
	I'm hearing a little feedback.
	I can't.
	Yeah, what the issue is, is you have a browser window open with sound on it.
	You only really need the sound on the event.
	I'm sorry, on StreamYard.
	So you want to mute your mic on Studio B. Yeah, OK.
	Mute my mic on Studio B.
	I'm having trouble getting to the right page to do it.
	We're being told we're good to go.
	I'll hear the feedback.
	I'll cope with that.
	We have an unusual presentation today.
	We have a completely brilliant guest, Dina Pollard-Sacks, who represents Naomi Wolf, among others, knows Bobby Kennedy Jr., Reinhart Fulmix, She's going to talk about the COVID legal cases.
	But in the meanwhile, the first hour, there's been a sensational new development regarding Sandy Hook, which we want to share with you.
	Giuseppe, we have a series of slides for this occasion.
	You can assist with that.
	Yep, just give me one second.
	We're glad to put them up.
	I'm going to ask somebody in management to pull in Studio A. OK, so let's go here and expand this.
	OK, that's different.
	OK, let's go there and then do that.
	OK, Jim.
	Excellent, excellent.
	I did an interview this past weekend with a fellow named Brian Davidson, who's a private investigator, panoramic investigations, and he was explaining to me all the internet tools for research that he's amassed, and I was just tremendously impressed.
	It included analysis of photographs, so I sent him a copy of a rather important photograph And asked for his assessment and he sent me back his report yesterday and I want to share with you what we found.
	Here's a little background.
	Go ahead.
	Next slide, Giuseppe.
	OK.
	As everyone knows, I champion collaborative research.
	I bring together teams of experts to sort out what really happened.
	I began with JFK.
	My first three books were Assassination Signs, 1998, Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, 2003.
	We discovered the autopsy x-rays had been altered by concealing a blowout, a fist-sized blowout at the back of the head.
	That another brain had been substituted for that of JFK, and that the home movies, including the Zapruder, had been massively edited to conceal the true causes of death.
	Now, once you understand, once you shatter the cover-up, it becomes relatively easy to discern who was responsible.
	Those deceptions could only have been perpetrated by Medical officers of the U.S.
	Navy and agents of the Secret Service who took possession of the Zapruder film, and while the argument has made that it couldn't have been altered because it was in the possession of the Secret Service, that ignores the obvious alternative that the Secret Service was complicit itself, where I've discovered 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit.
	Now, if you go to the next slide, you see what I do as a philosopher of science is promote the falsificationist methodology versus the confirmationist that is far more familiar.
	According to confirmationist methodology, you look for confirming instances Such as, in relation to the hypothesis, all pennies are made of copper, inducing billions of examples of copper pennies in confirmation.
	But, by the falsificationist methodology, you test hypotheses to see whether they can be shown to be false, where it turns out that, in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes, they were made of steel.
	Now, this is a trivial example, but notice, you can have billions of confirming instances, and yet the hypothesis, all pennies are made of copper, is false.
	Now, if we turn to Sandy Hook, I have been emphasizing a number of anomalies there in my book.
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook and elsewhere.
	There were obvious proofs of fakery from the beginning.
	For example, the cars were parked facing the school, but should not have been.
	It was a 38 degree Fahrenheit ground temperature day, but no heat or steam was coming from the building.
	Entry into the building was staged using a shotgun slug rather than an AR-15 round.
	A crime scene investigation vehicle was present before the crime was committed.
	This is all forms of evidence that courts have not wanted to be introduced.
	Let's take a look at the first.
	Here you have what you think was innocuous, a photograph of the parking lot at Sandy Hook Elementary.
	But if you notice, given that it was a 38 degree ground temperature day, While that's above freezing, it's so cold you'd have to heat the classrooms to teach school, to have classes.
	But there's no heat or steam rising from the building, no doubt, because, as we concluded, the school had been closed since 2008, and the boilers were dysfunctional from lack of use.
	More over, notice there's none of the familiar blue and white parking areas or signage for handicapped.
	Now, I checked Americans for Disability laws in Connecticut and the federal government at the time.
	A public school could not have been legally operating if it were not compliant with American for Disability Act, which includes wheelchair accessibility for all entrances and exits, which was also not the case here.
	But in the third place, notice the driving instructions coming in from Dickinson Drive.
	You drive in, you turn to the right, then you curl around and park facing away.
	But in this case, those center rows of vehicles are all parked facing the school.
	Evidently, it was simpler to simply bring them in in a single line and put them in two by two by two.
	After all, who would even notice?
	They were simply props and an elaborate scenario to deceive the public.
	Go to the next, Giuseppe.
	And what we have here is the entrance to the school.
	Notice that broken out glass there by the doorway.
	Now, according to the official narrative, Adam Lonza blew that out and then entered that way and If you turn to the next slide, you'll see more.
	This is supposed to be inside.
	Now notice, none of the furniture is disturbed.
	There are no indications anyone had come in that way, which would have been absurd.
	Wolfgang Halbig has signed affidavits from a dozen to 16 Connecticut State Troomers, insisting they entered the building through that opening.
	But anyone familiar with uniforms know you take great pride in maintaining your uniforms.
	You wouldn't run the risk of having it cut by the glass.
	Plus, the idea of a 12 to 16 coming in that way is simply absurd.
	Even the three Stooges would have done better.
	Joe would have come in to open the door for Larry and Mo.
	But the Connecticut State Troopers weren't smart enough to figure that out.
	Obvious proof of fraud.
	Look at that.
	You see that magazine rack, by the way?
	There's a slug in the back of the magazine rack that we see in the very next slide.
	Yes.
	Indicating this was done using like a shotgun shell.
	This was not done by an AR-15.
	So something doesn't add up.
	Now here's a Most important photograph in my opinion for the entire event in the next slide.
	Yes, this is a crime scene vehicle in the lot at Sandy Hook and it's before The crime has been committed.
	Look just above the roof and you'll see a string of four windows in Classroom 10, which are undamaged.
	Now, after the event, they'd be shown shot up.
	So this is clearly before the event.
	And yet, You have crime scene tape up for a crime that is yet to be committed.
	And if you come down the flagpole, just to the right there, there's a figure, lower right.
	You see the white there, Giuseppe?
	See the white there?
	Yeah, that is Wayne Carver.
	Right, right, just to the right.
	Yes, yeah, you got it, you got it.
	Wayne Carver with his arms folding, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
	Now, I was participating in a video deposition of Wayne Carver, and I showed him this photograph, and I asked if he could identify himself, and he evaded the issue by saying it was too blurry for him to be able to make an identification.
	But take a look at next slide, Giuseppe.
	The next slide shows how we know this was before the event.
	Top left, The broken, undamaged windows in Classroom 10, top right, after the event, after the event shot out.
	So you can see from the top left, before the event, that corresponds to the photograph of the crime scene vehicles being present.
	Now, in the lower left, you have the pervs looking at the windows to try to figure out how to simulate bullets having been fired.
	And in the lower right, you see how they did it.
	They drilled holes in the aluminum.
	They drilled holes in the aluminum.
	Yes, there is an extra hole there, but look at the pink rods!
	These are all 90 degrees, 90 degrees to the pain.
	They're all exactly parallel.
	No one familiar with weapons would be deceived into thinking that this was a result of actual shooting.
	It was a stage event, just impossible that it could have been legitimate.
	You look at the very next slide, then, and you see further proof that this was an abandoned school because all the furniture is pushed up against the wall.
	I mean, think of it.
	If this had been legit, the furniture would have been distributed normally for classes, the school desks, and all that.
	But instead, it's pushed up against the wall.
	And any of these is proof that this was a staged event.
	Let me solicit your and Holly's views about what I presented already before we move forward, Giuseppe.
	Let's just talk a bit between ourselves.
	Well, Jim, I think that you do magisterial work in pulling experts, PhD-level experts, trained investigators into, you know, systematically dismantling and proving the evidence.
	And I mean, the most ridiculous piece to me is supposedly a bunch of Uh, trained law enforcement officers in Connecticut are not going to kick out that whole window with their, the butt of their shotgun or rifle and make it safe.
	They're going to all step through and risk slashing their legs or what have you.
	I mean, it's just, it makes no sense.
	Oh, it's ridiculous.
	Holly, your thoughts?
	So, uh, Jim, I just want to clarify.
	These are all new, uh, photographs.
	I'm sorry?
	Are these all new photographs that are being released?
	No, these are photographs that were already in the book when the first edition of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook and the second.
	But what we have now is a replication with a higher resolution photograph by virtue of this fellow Davidson, Brian Davidson, who's a private investigator and where I did an interview with him this weekend where he was introducing all the research skills he'd acquired For doing research on the Internet, and I thought, well, look, this is a nice, let me just flip him a photograph.
	So I tossed him a photograph where we described this as having been taken the morning of the 14th in the first edition, but connected it to the day before the evening of the 13th.
	And I thought, well, I'll just see what he can resolve any question about it without giving him any background or context.
	He did not know Sandy Hook.
	He didn't know the elementary school.
	He didn't know anything about it.
	So Holly, I just thought, let's see what he can do.
	And yesterday he came back and it was a bonanza.
	Wait till you see what he discovered.
	Yeah, I'll have to watch that show.
	I saw that you put some information out about there.
	I have heard as well that there are a lot more like even where some of those Google photos.
	Was it Google photos or something of the location?
	He was able to determine the location and the time at which the photograph was taken and from where specifically in the parking lot it was taken so.
	Well, we'll proceed now, Giuseppe, to take a look at these additional.
	I'm just so pleased to have this opportunity.
	There he is, Brian Davidson and the mighty, mighty Fetzer.
	Yeah, we need to do the screen share.
	Oh, you need to share something?
	No, no, no.
	You just put it up, Giuseppe.
	Oh, my bad.
	OK.
	I'm the only one seeing it.
	I got you.
	There we go.
	Brian Davidson, PI.
	The guy is super smart.
	And I just thought, given he was introducing all these techniques for doing research on the Internet, that I'd give it a try and gave him this photograph to track down.
	Now, you can find my interview with Brian on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, and you'll see our conversation before I kicked in the photograph.
	And now I published on my blog the result.
	So if you turn to the next slide, Giuseppe, you'll see what we've got here.
	This is a whole report.
	He got Google Earth images of the Sandy Hook School and much, much more.
	This is an overview.
	Now, if you proceed, I'll read the blog.
	It's not very long, but it's really powerful.
	Editors note, In Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, 2015, second edition, 2016, we published an image of an SCI, it should be PSI, Crime Scene Investigation Vehicle at Sandy Hook Elementary School before the purported mass shooting that day took place.
	In the first edition, we reported it as having been taken the morning of 14 December 2012, the day of the event.
	And here's part of the comments with it in the book.
	Taken from one of the elevated cameras placed around the car park to record the drill.
	Leaves are evident on the trees in the background.
	This is not December.
	No portable mortuary can be seen, which means this is early morning before the portable mortuary was delivered.
	Well, we now believe actually it was taken in December, but that's not material to the proof that it was taken before the event occurred in the second.
	We corrected that to having been taken the night before.
	We knew it was before the event had taken place because the string of windows in classroom 10 have not been shot out as they were presented in the aftermath.
	Here's what we included in the book to make that point on page 149.
	Do you want me to go to the next page?
	Yep.
	Exhibit 30, the windows have been fixed to simulate effects of shots.
	The mortuary tent can now be seen in the reflection of the window.
	This means it's been set up some time after the windows of Classroom 10, featuring three candle images apiece, were staged to look as though bullets passed through some of them.
	I recently learned of the private investigator Brian Davidson, who has mastered internet tools for research, and sent him the photo, but without explaining the background or the context.
	He did his thing using the photo I sent, and this is what I have just heard back.
	No wonder they banned the book.
	We can take a look at the next and follow through here.
	Jim, I am assuming you sent me the photo to try to determine the approximate time it was taken.
	This analysis is a little sloppy, and I don't hold myself out as a pro in this particular area.
	I simply claim that it could be done.
	Not that I'm an expert in this type of analysis.
	Again, I am a generalist.
	First thing I did was find the original source here.
	Notice, I can read the plates in the original high-res image, which you can find on my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
	But if you go to the next slide, Giuseppe, we can see the higher resolution image.
	Look at that!
	Look at that!
	Now, notice above the vehicle, you can see the string of four windows in the school that are undamaged.
	You can see the crime scene tape up for a crime that is yet to be committed.
	You can see the figure just coming down the flagpole, leaning against the wall with his arm folded.
	Yes, that is Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, who claimed that the earlier photograph was too blurry for him to identify himself.
	So what this photograph does is demonstrate conclusively that the Connecticut State Police and the Connecticut State Medical Examiner were complicit in the event, setting up a staged shooting to be presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	In my opinion, this is a single most powerful proof of fraud for the Sandy Hook event.
	Just stunning!
	Holly Giuseppe, would you like to comment on the high-def version here?
	Giuseppe?
	Well, Jim, I mean, you can see no windows shot out here.
	You can see the buffoonish fraud carver here.
	You can see a bunch of people milling around There's the tape, but it doesn't look like the window's even shot out here in the entryway yet.
	So, I mean, it's just, they set this up for a long time and it's funny how the vast majority of normies just, it hits them in the field so they don't question the forensic evidence that blows this out of the water.
	It's just absolutely insane.
	It is, it's studying.
	Holly, your thoughts?
	Well, I know people have looked into this a little bit as far as the building and the school being torn down.
	Sorry, I'm hearing a little bit of an echo on my end.
	Is that from me?
	No, don't worry about it.
	Just go ahead.
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm wondering if this is an older school building.
	It looks older, and from what I heard, it was torn down.
	Oh, we got a break.
	We got a break.
	Standby.
	I will be right back after this break.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslots.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support as this made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio, radio, radio, radio.
	Hey everyone!
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up.
	And the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's health.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs, But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomset.com.
	The People Station.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Holly, it's possible that you have feedback if you have more than one, you know, way of receiving the audio.
	But otherwise, we're just going to muddle on through.
	Let's take a look at the rest of the blog here at what Brian Davidson was able to accomplish.
	Giuseppe, we can turn to the very next image.
	I am guessing that image is very close to the original.
	Second thing I did was to travel back in time to the location and pull satellite images of the structure bearing due north around the time of the event.
	I took a satellite image from March of 2012.
	Then I went to the suncalc.org and traveled back in time to December 14, 2012 and found the exact, pretty close, Placement of the camera.
	The orange is a ball and the lower left is the approximate location of the sun at the time.
	If you hit the very next slide, then, Giuseppe, we have further.
	I then overlay that on Google Maps using the Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, Connecticut as my alignment tool.
	I was unable to find out who took the photo.
	And I can't seem to access anything else in the file where the photo exists.
	The metadata on the image is gone from my earliest and most reliable image.
	Strange.
	And I cannot even access the server without a better skill set.
	Anyway, still more work that can be done.
	Including the plates, which I don't want to bust out because it could be considered a violation of the DPPA.
	It is evening sun, probably the day before, not likely day of.
	Therefore, my estimate puts this on December 13th, perhaps 445, give or take 20 or 30 minutes.
	He's certainly in the ballpark here, and we already know internal to the photograph was taken before the event occurred.
	Your thoughts, Giuseppe, about it seems to me methodologically he did a very precise method.
	He explained what he did.
	It could be replicated by anyone and they get the same result.
	You're muted.
	Scorpio would say operator error.
	He's done a very, very pragmatic job of breaking down his steps and, you know, considering that he's being blocked, amazing that they scrubbed the metadata out of the original picture.
	Excuse me, to this day, they're still trying to block real investigation in the Sandy Hook scam.
	It's just too bad.
	Well, let me say it's remarkable, but the photographs appear to have been taken by the Connecticut State Police that they were recording the whole event.
	Of course, they knew it was a drill.
	I mean, they were setting it up.
	But of course, they were also complicit in presenting it as mass murder.
	In fact, you had the head of the Connecticut State Police, Lieutenant Paul Vance, Well, I think it's interesting that he said he didn't, or felt like he couldn't look at the plates because it would be in violation of the DPPA.
	through by threatening others who were asking questions about Sandy Hook, no matter how innocuous.
	It's stunning.
	Holly.
	Well, I think it's interesting that he said he didn't, or felt like he couldn't look at the plates because it would be in violation of the DTPA.
	It would be interesting to see about those plates.
	And what I was going to say about that school is that the school looks like it had been built in maybe like the 50s or 60s or maybe even 70s.
	And that part of Connecticut is very wealthy.
	So to me, seeing a building like that seems kind of out of place if they're claiming that children were at that school.
	They invested a lot of money into the school so it seemed like an older building to me.
	Well, the building was school was put up like in 1956, so it was an older building.
	And it's interesting that the lettering for Sandy Hook Elementary School does not look as though it's been there since 1956.
	This is just one of many, many indications that this was a gross deception.
	You won't see bicycle racks, for example, there.
	I mean, how are kids supposed to get back and forth?
	They claim that they had to evacuate 469 other students and some 70 staff, but there's no string of buses going in and out of Dickinson Drive.
	We have photographs from the location from dash cam of where the evacuation was supposed to be taking place, and there's nothing there.
	Now, we're told you can't prove a negative, but you can prove that there's no elephant in your living room.
	Which is a negative, by going to your living room and looking for the presence of signs of an elephant.
	Finding none, you're entitled to infer that's because there's no elephant there.
	If you go to the location of places where the evacuation is supposed to be taking place and see no indications of an evacuation taking place, you're entitled to infer that's because no evacuation was taking place.
	So we have a massive evidence that the courts have gone out of their way to guarantee would not be introduced into the official record Despite my best efforts, I've been rejected again and again and again in the Soto vs. Bush, Bushmaster.
	Not only did the Sandy Hook parents oppose my intervention to make the point that there'd been no determination anyone had died at Sandy Hook, but so did Remington.
	And in the Lafferty vs. Jones case, when I sought to intervene again, I was opposed and denied the right to introduce.
	I'm right now intervening in the Remington bankruptcy case to point out that there's a swindle taking place here on the stockholders, the stakeholders, the taxpayers, who ultimately are going to pay for all of this, even though it's the insurance companies that have settled and not Remington.
	So what was originally an insurance scam is now turning out to be a bankruptcy scam.
	And I'm even going to the tax court.
	Well, the Internal Revenue Service wants to deny that I have standing to investigate the fraud because this was a deception.
	They should be paying at the normal taxpayer rate and not at a charitable rate, which would be a bonanza for the IRS.
	And yet the IRS is seeking to oppose me.
	I mean, it's insane what's going on here.
	And that's not to mention my own case, about which I will say more.
	We have one more slide, Giuseppe, or perhaps two, I think one.
	Let's take a look.
	Yeah, here's Brian Davidson, Panoramic Investigations, even his phone number.
	Now, if you want to support my efforts to expose the Sandy Hook hoax and the court rulings that have the effect of covering it up, check out GiveSendGo.com funding fencer.
	This one is for all the marbles.
	You can flip back to us, Giuseppe.
	You can flip back to us.
	And let me simply emphasize that everyone can see that photograph as high resolution as you like by going to my blog at jamesfetzer.org and checking it out.
	Holly, more thoughts?
	Well, when I first heard this story and heard some of your work and heard people questioning what was going on, I did remember this was around the same time.
	Locally, there was a school that had closed because they had built a new facility and they had actually used it as a training ground and they had recruited local families basically Let their children run around in the school and have the police train for a drill.
	And I thought that was absolutely terrible.
	Like they covered the kids in fake blood.
	It did make the local news just as a training thing.
	But I thought that was like absolutely disgusting.
	And then, you know, when I heard about your work and others, I started to think, what if they could just, you know, go live with something like a training like that.
	So for people who can't Very nice, Giuseppe.
	Well, Jim, what's remarkable with the short memory span of 30 seconds of the American normie is that the traitorous Obama-Biden administration were pulling off these false flags almost every week To a greater or lesser degree.
	They were so desperate to try and destroy gun ownership in the United States and some type of psychological operation to get people to trust the nanny state and trust the globalist deep state more so than their own intuitive sense that they need guns to resist these soulless parasites.
	So I think that another thing that is telling in the fact that the IRS, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, you are getting people blocking you every which way and they should just be doing their job and then the truth would be exposed in all its glory.
	But the simple fact that you're experiencing much the way you guys have been blocked on your Phenomenal JFK investigations.
	I mean, when the top of the power pyramid doesn't want something to come out, they can throw everything at you, which is what you are experiencing.
	Oh, I think that's very well said, Giuseppe, and a very nice delineation.
	I mean, they don't want to address the basic issue of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	So that in my case, I had laid out the massive evidence in my answer to the complaint.
	And at the first scheduling conference, the court, the judge, declared that while he understood my views that this hadn't happened, really hadn't happened as we had been told, that
	It had nothing to do that it was not relevant to the truth or accuracy of the death certificate, the uncertified death certificate with no file number, no town certification, no state certification published in the book.
	When the death certificate itself states that the decedent died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December of multiple gunshot wounds.
	So how is it possible that the evidence that nobody died at Sandy Hook is not relevant to a death certificate claiming someone had died at Sandy Hook?
	This was a first of multiple absurdities.
	And then when I Issued counterclaims against abusive process, meaning the lawsuit was brought improperly.
	It was not sincere.
	It was to punish me for exposing what had happened at Sandy Hook for fraud attempt by deception, because the Sandy Hook parents had taken in between $27 and $130 million in donations
	From the sympathetic but gullible American public under false pretenses and then third, a fraud upon the court because the individual had come and testified during a video deposition under the name of Leonard Posner was not Leonard Posner.
	He's at least 20 years younger and 100 pounds lighter.
	But the court bifurcated the case.
	He said, we'll only allow you to pursue discovery on those issues after we dispose of the complaint by the plaintiff, when normally it would go on concurrently, because who knows what discovery might reveal that would have been relevant to the principal complaint.
	So this is a way of excluding me from presenting evidence and undertaking discovery, and then When the sole focus was made upon the death certificate itself, and I introduced the reports of two, not one, but two forensic document experts, both of whom supported my opinion as published in the book,
	The court simply set them aside as someone else's opinion and went ahead to rule against me when, since the authenticity of the death certificate was in dispute, it had to be sent to a jury.
	Now, this is such a blatant violation of my rights that I was simply appalled when the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District upheld the judge's finding and cited just the official narrative of Sandy Hook as though it were true, and cited two court cases which had been resolved on procedural grounds, not reaching the issue of when anyone had died at Sandy Hook.
	And then when I appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they merely rejected my petition for review, in spite of the fact that a first-year law student could tell you this was a gross abuse of summary judgment and had to be reversed.
	Giuseppe.
	That's exactly right, Jim.
	I mean, and we're not even getting into the idea that what happened to the First Amendment, freedom of speech, what happened to protected journalism status.
	Even if you were completely wrong and all those poor little kitties got shot up by You know, it didn't happen, but anyway, the point is that you have the right, as a journalist, as a professor, with published, you know, what, 50, 100 books, I don't know your complete body of work, but it's a lot, and you have every right to question the authenticity under the First Amendment, you know, and it's like,
	That's too bad the parents, their feelings are hurt.
	Who cares?
	Freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings every day, 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
	It's just absurd.
	But it's all part of the globalist means of control.
	And they're feigning, they're feigning those hurt feelings.
	No, the number is 40.
	I have two dozen plus academic scholarly on Scientific knowledge, artificial intelligence, computer science, cognitive science, evolution, and mentality, and then a dozen plus on JFK 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, and more in the area of conspiracy research, all but one of which are collaborative, bringing together teams of experts.
	Holly, your thoughts?
	Okay, so it's only 40 bucks, Tim.
	Right, right.
	So, I just wanted to connect this to what I think we're seeing right now in the world news.
	So, during the Iran-U.S.
	administration when all of this was coming out and all these events were happening, people couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the mainstream media Well, fast forward to what we're seeing with global events now.
	everyone would work together to create these events and they just thought it would be impossible for them to work together and lie to the American public.
	Well, fast forward to what we're seeing with global events now, the Biden administration is tripping over themselves saying that, you know, Russia might have crisis actors and Russia might have false flag events and Russia might use TikTok influencers Russia might have crisis actors and Russia might have false flag events and And now we see that this is what's going on with world events with Ukraine.
	They have to constantly scrub information as it comes out, because of the access to technology now, people can recognize these actors now, whereas even a decade or so ago, people weren't able to figure out who these people were.
	Now it's obvious, you can find their Instagram account, You can figure out that they're a Ukrainian model or social media influencer and people are throwing the word crisis around too.
	Very good, Giuseppe.
	Giuseppe, any further reflections?
	I mean, the law has been weaponized in order to punish those who are seeking to expose the truth.
	Truths that the government doesn't want to be exposed, where they've used the phrase conspiracy theorists to attack those of us who are investigating crimes, which lead back to the government more often than not.
	No wonder they want to silence us.
	Oh, absolutely, Jim.
	And what's interesting is if you step back and you look at the process since 1913, which is really the pivotal time when the globalist communists started to infect this country for real with the Federal Reserve.
	And it has been literally a 110-year effort to migrate slowly, much like you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly boil it.
	It will sit there and enjoy it until it dies of being boiled alive.
	Whereas if you drop a frog in boiling water, it will immediately hop out and save its life.
	So that's pretty much what has occurred in this country.
	And we now have globalist parasitical control of every major corporation, every major population.
	body of federal government and globalist parasites control the transnational corporations.
	They control academia now.
	I mean, it's really disgusting, Jim.
	But, you know, I'm really encouraged that all the patriots are going to go have a barbecue with the patriot streetwalker and everybody wear their red, white, and blue tighty-whities and really make a difference and talk about voting Trump back in.
	That's really going to save the day.
	Well, let me mention that having offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
	It's occurred to me perhaps I should offer an online course on critical thinking and conspiracy theories explaining the nature of thought, the nature of language, the character of arguments, the kinds of fallacies that are made typically in argument, the application of scientific reasoning to sort things out on a 15-week
	Of course, with one meeting a week, tentatively set for 8 to 9 p.m.
	Central Time, 9 to 10 Eastern, 6 to 7 Pacific, where if there's sufficient enrollment, and I'm going to be introducing a further elaboration, then I'd be glad to do this, one class a week for 15 weeks.
	All the materials will be provided online.
	What do you think, Holly?
	Is that an idea we're pursuing?
	I think it would be fantastic.
	I think more people need to get your information out there and to learn about what you've been working on.
	I love doing shows with you.
	You have such a breadth of knowledge, so I think it would be a great opportunity for other people to get access to your work and your knowledge from an online platform.
	Well, it's the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching how to fish.
	I want to teach the world how to conduct this critical thinking to sort things out.
	Giuseppe, does that sound like a plan to you?
	I would like to take that course, Jim.
	I've had a few logic courses in college.
	Long ago when I was getting my initial journalism degree, and I love it.
	I mean, there's so many, you know, it's so funny that the average American likes to decide everything via emotion in their feels.
	It hits them in the feels, but what they really need is to get their minds trained to be able to see through the massive globalist gaslighting that occurs at every level in this country right now.
	I used to tell my students that if they'd come to the university to take just one course, that this was a course they ought to take because it would enable them to sort things out for the rest of their lives, whether in politics, business, dealing with used car salesmen for crying out loud, just figuring out what's going on for themselves and to be less likely to be played.
	And I meant every word of it.
	This would be the one course they ought to take.
	And I think I've got a great opportunity here that deserves to be exploited for the benefit of a new generation of critical thinkers.
	Holly, your thoughts?
	Well, yeah, same with Giuseppe.
	One of my favorite classes was EPIC and I think I took it my freshman year in college and definitely helped me to look at different points of view and no other class in college let me do that.
	Everything else was just memorization.
	And I think especially with the public school now, and we see with political correctness and the culture that we see within schools, there's very little logic and dissent allowed in schools now.
	Well, it's been terrific to have this first hour to explain this blockbuster development by Brian Davidson, finding the original high resolution version of the photograph that by itself proves, in my opinion, conclusively that Sandy Hook was a sham and that the Connecticut State Police and the Connecticut Medical Examiner Wayne Carver, we're complicit in setting it up.
	So for any of those who've had lingering doubts about it, I believe this should be the turning point.
	Would you agree, Giuseppe?
	Yes, I absolutely agree.
	It looks like for some reason Holly is not being heard now on Rev Radio.
	That seems very odd to me.
	I guess we're coming up on the break.
	I'll see if I can solve it then.
	Yes, yes, and Dina Pollard Sachs should be joining us right after this break.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs, but there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	Oh!
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	and we must fight back.
	You can torture us and bomb us Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You learn with us!
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not A choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Tina seems to have misunderstood that she's got to check in, so I'm sending her an email to get her in.
	I sent her the link right in...
	Yeah, I know Giuseppe.
	So she just needs to click on that.
	I just told her, click on the StreamYard link to join the show.
	Let's hope that happens now.
	Otherwise we could add her on Skype, I guess.
	See if she... No, she should be here with the StreamYard.
	We want to be able to see her.
	Right.
	As I say, she's just a...
	She's just a sensational person.
	She's a dynamic speaker.
	She's an experienced lawyer.
	She's deeply involved in the COVID business.
	Naomi Wolf is one of her clients.
	She knows Bobby Jr.
	She's visited with Reinhardt Fulmik.
	He's actually stayed with her in her home.
	She's very much in the center of these issues.
	So let's hope that this happens.
	Do you want to I just sent her the link again and she saw it, so it may be happening any moment.
	Let us hope.
	Let us hope.
	Otherwise, great first hour, man.
	It's unbelievable how I mean, the tell with the whole Sandy Hook false flag is how desperately they're trying to keep your type of brilliant forensic investigation away from, well, I don't know.
	I mean, I was just saying huh to see if she's going to come on.
	It's pretty basic.
	Have you ever done any video with her?
	She spoke at my first and second false flag conspiracy conference.
	Have we got her?
	Not yet, no.
	Let me...
	I guess we'll give her another minute.
	Otherwise, I'll just pull her in on Skype only.
	That's very disappointing, if that's the only way.
	But you can go ahead and give it a shot, Giuseppe.
	Well, I'm waiting to see if she clicks on the link.
	I don't know.
	I've said her the link two or three times and explained she needs to join us at the top of the hour.
	Well, she said, hey, I'm here waiting for your call to be on Fetzer.
	So I guess let's just try and pull her in on Skype.
	If she was going to click the StreamYard link, she clearly would have done it by now.
	See what we can do.
	All right.
	She clicked.
	Okay.
	OK.
	Okay, let's see if this works.
	Oh, jeez, I might have messed up.
	Hold on, I gotta go back to here and do that.
	Go to call.
	Here we go.
	This is where I got to add her from.
	Okay.
	Allowing. Allowing. Allowing. Allowing.
	All right, here we go.
	This should bring her into the show on Skype.
	Yeah, she seems to be connected.
	Dina, are you there?
	I am here.
	Okay, great.
	If you were just to click the link, you'd be here visually as well as auditory.
	Can you click the link?
	You don't want to see me right now.
	Oh, that's okay.
	We can relate.
	Well, Jeannie, I've been explaining how deeply you are involved in the COVID business, that Naomi Wolf is your client, that you know Bobby Jr., that Reinhart Fulmek has even stayed in your home, and he featured you in a recent conference.
	Pick it up from there and just lay it out.
	What's going on here with a COVID scam and legislation and prosecution?
	Give us a big picture.
	Well, I'll just start very big and just say the courts have really struggled with Liberty Clause jurisprudence forever.
	And the reason I bring up Liberty Clause jurisprudence is that every time someone goes to court with a complaint about the government trying to require a medical procedure, or prohibiting a medical procedure such as abortion, those cases are always analyzed under the Liberty Clause because it's the Liberty Clause that gives us protection against medical infringements and also gives us the right to demand things like contraceptives or abortions those cases are always analyzed under the Liberty Clause because it's the
	So it's really about the Liberty Clause.
	And the COVID cases are kind of all over the place.
	There's a lot of things going on here. - Sure.
	Um, and just to start really broad, gosh, it was 2007 or so.
	And I was talking to Erwin Chemerinsky, who's the Dean at Berkeley now at the law school at Berkeley.
	And I said, what's the test for whether there's a liberty clause violation?
	He said, well, there really is no test.
	I'm like, what do you mean?
	No test.
	I need a test.
	I need a test.
	Cause I'm writing an article about corporal punishment in schools and I need to, I need to, I need the test.
	He's like, well, there is no test.
	I said, well, okay, let me create a test.
	So I wrote this article.
	I put aside my article and wrote another article called elements of liberty.
	Elements of Liberty was produced in 2008 by SNU Law Review, and I go through the various cases that analyze the Liberty Clause, the incorporation cases, the due process cases, the criminal procedure cases involving bodily integrity, and then the substantive due process cases.
	And I come up with my own tests, and there's a number of factors the courts look at.
	Most of the history and tradition of our country, whether we've had held this particular right claimed long term.
	For example, the right to die, the right to refuse medical treatment.
	That goes all the way back to the English common law, where if a doctor rendered help to someone who didn't want help, that was a battery.
	You don't get to help someone and save their life, even if they need it and you know they need it.
	If they say no, you have to leave them alone.
	So that's one example of history and tradition, a right to just refuse medical treatment, which is why the court held in that case that, you know, essentially that there's a right to refuse medical treatment.
	But there's all these cases and they're so scattered all over the place.
	The various scholars have referred to this area of jurisprudence as willy-nilly.
	In fact, Justice Scalia called the liberty jurisprudence willy-nilly.
	They just do whatever they want.
	The court was called a naked power organ relative To this area of jurisprudence by Herbert Weschler, a very famous scholar.
	And so it's kind of a mess, but the bottom line is in the cases we've seen so far in the Supreme Court, the Liberty Clause was not raised at all to challenge the COVID vaccine mandates.
	At least not in the case called Biden versus Missouri, where the court did not stay
	Enforcement of the health care worker vaccine mandate that was promulgated pursuant to the medicare and medicare medicaid and medicare funds so when you get funds for medicare and medicaid congress has always been allowed to attach all kinds of strings and that's the one case that's gone before the supreme court so far on vaccine mandates where they didn't stay the vaccine mandate they did stay the vaccine mandate when it comes to the biden's attempt
	To use OSHA to force every employee whose employer employs 100 or more persons to get vaccinated.
	That was struck down.
	But in Biden versus Missouri, well, it wasn't struck down exactly.
	Procedurally, technically, the court would not lift the stay.
	But when a court doesn't lift a stay and allows the lower courts stay on this mandate to stay in force.
	the writings on the wall, the court's going to strike down the mandate.
	So it never went further than that.
	And as I understand it, OSHA is not even pursuing that case any longer because the Supreme Court's decision was six to three.
	So what it really, and I want to point out in Biden versus Missouri, I was actually on the phone with Reiner Fulmick and a bunch of people on a Zoom call.
	And I was just reading through Justice Thomas's dissent.
	And in the very last page, page eight of the dissent, the very last paragraph, the first thing he says in that last paragraph is these cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID-19 vaccines.
	And I read that and thought, oh, my gosh, that means no one brought a liberty cause challenge.
	Because if a liberty cause challenge is brought, the courts kind of have to look into the medical evidence.
	That's how you trigger analysis of the medical facts is by raising.
	A Liberty Clause challenge.
	So on the phone with Reiner Steele, I said, let me go look at the pleading.
	So I pulled up the pleading on Westlaw and sure enough, the complaint, 22 state attorney generals, none of them raised Liberty Clause as a challenge, as a basis for challenging the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare worker vaccine mandates.
	That is why the efficacy or importance of the vaccines was not looked at by the Supreme Court.
	It wasn't before the court.
	So that I found very interesting and strange that of all these 22 state attorneys general, not one said, hey, why don't we throw in a Liberty Clause challenge?
	I don't have an answer for why, but I can tell you the history of the lower court cases since Jacobson versus Massachusetts shows incredible I would say incompetency among the lower courts and or the attorneys litigating these cases.
	And so two summers ago now, 2020, I wrote another article called Judicial Protection of Medical Liberty.
	And this is going to come out in the Florida State University Law Review next month as a lead article.
	And this article goes through every single case since Jacobson.
	Remember, Jacobson was a U.S.
	Supreme Court case But in Jacobson, the law said that people either had to get the smallpox vaccine or pay a $5 fine.
	That's what it said right in the law.
	And so Jacobson didn't get the vaccine and he didn't want to pay the $5 fine.
	But if you don't pay the $5 fine, you could be sitting in jail until you pay the $5 fine.
	So he paid the $5 fine and he went to the U.S.
	Supreme Court and he wanted his money back.
	So I see Jacobson as kind of a refund case.
	And so the court went through the medical facts and detailed how long this vaccine had been around, a hundred years, how it's been considered the only way to quell the spread of smallpox was killing hundreds of millions of people.
	The smallpox vaccine was in use all over the world in militaries because it was the only way they knew.
	That was the only method anyone was aware of to quell the death toll.
	And overall, Smallpox killed about a third of people who contracted it, and babies were dying at a rate of over 90%.
	So this is a very different disease, a very serious disease with a very high death toll, and a vaccine that had been around 100 years.
	And even then, it was a $5 fine if you don't take the vaccine.
	So Jacobson was also running around town.
	He had moved, I think, from Sweden somewhere.
	He was a European person who came to America and he just felt very strongly that he had the right not to get vaccinated and not to pay the five dollars.
	But the court said, no, under these facts of this case, and the court made very clear then the case, the case is not meant to be expanded.
	It was about these facts.
	Under these circumstances, he doesn't get his refund.
	He doesn't get his five dollars back.
	That's it.
	That's the Jacobson case.
	A few years later, in 1922, a case called Zuck versus King came down.
	And that was also a very minimal case where a young lady, a school child, challenged the delegation of power, as I recall.
	And the court said, no, you know, state legislatures can delegate certain health care power, but she didn't raise, again, you know, a liberty claim.
	And the court said if she wanted to raise a substantive claim like that, She would have to do it by writ of certiorari.
	She did not file a writ of certiorari.
	So again, that case is like a three-page case.
	It's a very small case.
	Those are the only two vaccine mandate cases before the U.S.
	Supreme Court until this year.
	So 100 years went by between 1922 and 2022.
	And in those 100 years, the courts have managed to make a disaster of the vaccine mandate jurisprudence.
	And that's again, that's online now.
	My article discussing every single case called Judicial Protection of Medical Liberty.
	It's on SSRN now.
	It's on ResearchGate now, but it's coming out in Florida State University, Larrabee, very soon.
	But in going through that, what I saw was just so many errors by lawyers failing to object to medical evidence, failing to bring the right claims.
	And I thought, now that I've written this article, it won't happen again.
	And I mean, I assumed that the articles have been downloaded tens of thousands of times already.
	So people have seen the article.
	But in looking through the cases that have come down in the past couple of years, I'm seeing a lot of the exact same mistakes being made by the lawyers And by the courts, I'll give you a few examples.
	But basically what's happening is.
	Hardly anyone does constitutional litigation other than the ACLU, you know, maybe the Anti-Defamation League.
	I don't know some of these groups who have brought constitutional lawsuits.
	And of course, people like Erwin Chemerinsky, who's brought numerous constitutional lawsuits.
	He's been before the Supreme Court, I think seven times or something, but you just.
	Most lawyers do not get the opportunity to litigate constitutional cases and they do not know what they're doing.
	So one of the things I noticed off the bat with some of these organizations was that they were filing lawsuits that were just horribly pled.
	One example is that in a case called Employment Division vs. Smith in 1990, the U.S.
	Supreme Court decided that religious freedom infringement claims Do not garner strict scrutiny.
	They change the rule from strict scrutiny, which is the hardest test for the government to pass, to basically a test of sort of reasonableness.
	As long as the law is one of general applicability, like a criminal law, then people can't raise religious freedom claims.
	So in this Oregon case, the Native Americans used peyote as part of their religious ceremony.
	Well, peyote is an illegal substance, and they claimed that because they've been using it in their religious ceremonies for so many years, that they should have an exemption from this general law, this general criminal law, saying that peyote is illegal.
	And the court said no, because it's a law of general applicability.
	And so it changed the law radically in terms of how much religious freedom is going to be protected.
	And so in response to that case, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Reformation Act.
	And that act specifically was passed to raise the test back up to strict scrutiny, to get the test back to what it was before Employment Division versus Smith.
	Well, that was challenged.
	And the U.S.
	Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Reformation Act as to state and local governments, but not the federal government.
	And the reason why is that Congress has certain powers under the 14th Amendment to pass legislation to deal with ongoing discrimination.
	But it has to be remedial type legislation.
	And unlike gender and race discrimination, There wasn't really a history of this type of religious freedom discrimination.
	So the bottom line is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did restore strict scrutiny as the standard for federal laws.
	But as to state and local laws, it was struck down, meaning that 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, remains in effect.
	Meaning that if you bring a claim against a state or local vaccine mandate, you're going to lose if it's a freestanding religious freedom claim.
	Everyone knows this.
	Every constitutional scholar knows this.
	But guess what the lawyers started doing in these cases?
	They start bringing freestanding religious freedom claims, and they get smacked around in court.
	Because you can't do that.
	Because the standard is so low for the government to win.
	And so I started seeing this kind of thing, and I started writing letters to various people saying, you guys, there's a way around this.
	There's actually a couple ways around this.
	One is to allege a hybrid rights claim.
	Because in the case, that same 1990 case, Employment Division versus Smith.
	The petitioners pointed out that the court has used a higher test throughout history when religious claims were brought, but the court responded that that was true for some of those cases, but those cases involved more than just a religious freedom claim.
	It involved religious freedom coupled with The right to rear your child or some other constitutional right.
	And anytime two or more constitutional rights are infringed by the same law, a higher standard should apply.
	Because when one law infringes numerous constitutional provisions, that should be a huge red flag.
	That should tell the court, hey, you better take a close look at this law.
	And that's why we have the hybrid rights doctrine.
	So this is what I talk about in the article coming out very soon in Florida State, telling people you've got to at least allege hybrid rights.
	And there's absolutely no reason not to allege a hybrid rights constitutional claim in these cases, because every single time a medical procedure is forced in the public, it automatically triggers a Liberty Clause challenge.
	So why these lawyers were bringing religious freedom challenges Standalone, freestanding, it's just absolutely asinine because you're going to lose those cases.
	And so I started, you know, writing letters to various people.
	I mean, I was busy, as you know, probably, Jim, with my own case coming to trial very soon in Texas.
	I was very, very overwhelmed with work.
	And so I just started writing to people saying, hey, you need to, you need to file a First Amendment complaint.
	And I would point out all the errors, you know, they were just missing so many claims.
	And, you know, especially in federal court,
	You have to get leave to amend after the other side answers and the court can say no and they're supposed to give you an opportunity to you know to bring all your claims but you really have to be careful in federal court to bring all your claims in the original pleading because once the other side answers you can't just freely amend and so it's just mind-boggling to me that these lawyers I think had really good intentions a lot of them but they do not have the expertise in constitutional law
	And they should not be out on the front lines without weapons.
	They don't have the knowledge.
	They don't have the abilities.
	And they're gung-ho wanting to be the jihad warriors on this issue, but they are not qualified to bring these constitutional claims.
	And they don't know it.
	That's what's so scary to me.
	They may be very good at whatever they're doing, collections work or general civil liability, But when you get the Constitution like this, you need a constitutional expert and they haven't engaged experts on the on our side of this war.
	Giuseppe, would you like to pick up on Dina's disquisition here about these cases, where Dina, we'd really like it if you would join us on StreamYard after the break.
	Just click on the link and join us.
	Well, she said she's not made up for public viewing, Jim, so I think we'll just keep her on Skype.
	Yeah, I didn't know.
	Last time, Jim, we did a show, I was just on the telephone and I did not know I might be on, so I'm sorry I did not get dressed for a video.
	Well, my question, Dina, is first of all, that's just a really fascinating and clearly you're a skilled litigator and, you know, you're a law professor and all that.
	What I'm curious about is how so many of these cases all date back to Jacobson versus Massachusetts, which just from a pragmatic point of view, it has nothing to do with anything that's going on now, but supposedly it establishes precedent, but it really doesn't.
	I mean, especially when you factor in the idea that in 1905, most of smallpox was spread by those vaccines.
	And in fact, smallpox is an episodic contagion.
	It pops up, it infects people, and then it burns itself out.
	It's always done that.
	And the vaccine is worthless.
	In fact, it gives people more smallpox.
	And the way, historically, every smallpox outbreak has always been Resolved is three things.
	Sanitation, quarantining the sick, and heavy focus on nutrients such as vitamin C, vitamin D, healthy food.
	And then, you know, just like my dear friend Dr. Judy Mikevich says every time she's on my show, in fact, just two weeks ago, everything is about supporting your immune function, not trying to kill some bug that these corporate scientists don't even actually understand what's really going on.
	My question, that's kind of long-winded, my question is, the court is not really, they're not scientific experts, and so they don't look at the real facts of these cases.
	They build this case law that's really, really specious and really flimsy.
	And yet now, because of literally the transnational globalist control of this government, Lock, Stock and Bagel, it's all passing through.
	In fact, you know, I don't know why some attorney doesn't make the point of that there was no real pandemic.
	What there was is a rebranding of the flu season pandemic.
	P-I-C.
	Pneumonia, Influenza, Common Cold.
	2019, 2020.
	38 million cases of the flu.
	2020, 2021.
	Oh, it disappeared.
	1,822.
	It didn't disappear.
	It's just another gain-of-function bioweapon release and the rebranding.
	2020, 2021, oh, it disappeared, 1822.
	It didn't disappear.
	It's just another gain-of-function bioweapon release and the rebranding.
	So the whole idea of all these cases being under emergency, it's complete fraud.
	Stand by!
	Stand by!
	We'll be right back.
	We got a break.
	FreedomSuits.com.
	We'll be right back.
	I'll give you this message.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
	This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, Freedom Substance dot com, the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.,
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, the people station.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead bodies.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	If you're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Giuseppe, pick it up where you left off with Dina.
	My question for Dina is, why do this weak body of specious evidence being used to determine that this was a pandemic when the reality, as I proved a moment ago, it's a rebranded scandemic?
	that the people who did get sick got sick with a synthetically designed gain of function bioweapon.
	There is no SARS-CoV-2 in the real world.
	They've developed that nasty, nasty bioweapon contagion in a lab.
	It's never been isolated in the real world, yet it's been injected into millions, hundreds of millions of compliant normies.
	So why hasn't the Supreme Court, well, I already know, but I'm curious to your opinion, why have they not addressed these core saline issues and why do they focus on such a weak body of case law?
	Okay, well, gosh, there's so many pieces to this.
	First of all, the issue has not been presented to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	The U.S.
	Supreme Court is not going to decide sua sponte on its own an issue like this.
	It's such a political issue.
	There's so much medical evidence.
	At some point, I was just talking to a lawyer yesterday about this, about what do we do, because in looking at the cases, the last few days, I'm looking at the cases to do an opinion letter for some clients about whether they can bring a claim against a private employer.
	I'm looking at all the cases that have come down And once again, you're seeing time and time again, the court just spewing out the CDC information and saying these are the facts.
	And I'm going to give a couple examples of that in a minute.
	But what's happening is, again, either the lawyers are not objecting to the evidence presented by the states, because normally the state AG is going to defend or some state attorney, some government attorney is going to defend.
	And the government attorneys are throwing up all the CDC statistics on this and how much how safe the COVID vaccine is and how great it is.
	And the other side either is failing to present contradictory evidence, medical evidence, or they're failing to object.
	When the other side is seeking judicial notice of the CDC and other evidence or something procedurally is going wrong.
	When something procedurally is not going wrong, the courts are just making stuff up.
	Let me give you an example.
	I was so appalled when I saw this the other day.
	A judge named Martha Vasquez in the District of New Mexico, twice in this opinion called Valdez versus Grisham, came down on September 13, 2021.
	Twice she makes statements.
	Here's the first one.
	The immunity provided by the vaccines is significantly more robust than natural immunity gained following infection.
	Okay, that is absolute nonsense.
	And she's looking at other things that have been submitted by the parties in the court.
	Okay, that's absolute nonsense.
	We know that.
	She then reiterates it again several pages later.
	The immunity provided by vaccines may be more long-lasting compared to immunity gained following infection.
	That is patently untrue.
	I found in my own personal research two summers ago that coronaviruses generally give you between 10 and 12 years of immunity.
	But recently it came out that this COVID-19 immunity lasts 18 years to a lifetime.
	And that's consistent with a friend of mine A doctor, a heart surgeon in Arizona who got sick, did not get the vaccine, lost all his hospital privileges by the way.
	He's a brilliant surgeon, extremely intuitive surgeon.
	So now all these people are losing the benefit of his brilliant surgery because the hospitals have all taken away his privileges.
	But lucky for him, he's very smart.
	He opened his own heart institute About 20 years ago.
	He has his own clinic.
	He can do surgeries there.
	But my point is he and one of his partners, who's also a doctor, compared.
	They did their own testing in their own place, comparing their immunity.
	And my friend, his immunity was very, very strong because he had had COVID a year prior.
	His other doctor, his friend, had the shot like two months prior and his immunity was almost gone.
	And he was telling me this on the phone about how different it was and he was arguing, as I've argued, and as all the research shows, that natural immunity is always superior.
	You always want natural immunity if you can get it.
	So for this court to say twice in this opinion, I couldn't believe I was reading this and she's citing the documents submitted to the court.
	Documents submitted to the court are not evidence.
	You need to cite directly, and this is why I was talking to this lawyer yesterday, and we talked about how she's gonna help this other person defeat a motion to dismiss in New York, and I said, I think you better look at Bobby Kennedy's new book, and he has put so much evidence together in terms of the CDC fraud and Fauci's fraud and all that stuff.
	We need to get before a court the conflicting evidence because the courts are all assuming all these facts are true, all these medical facts, and they're not true.
	And Reiner calls the whole pandemic a pandemic of the PCR test, not a pandemic.
	There you go.
	The PCR test was never designed to detect active infection.
	It does not detect active infection.
	And it does like a mathematical sort of extrapolation on pieces of You know, whatever it is in the body to see what has been there, but doesn't say what you have right now.
	So the PCR test is a terrible, it's a terrible indicator.
	It doesn't indicate anything.
	They've used that because almost all of us are going to have some fragment of something in our system that could be extrapolated to the point of saying, oh, look, they've got COVID or whatever.
	That's my understanding.
	I'm no expert on this, but it's just a disaster that this is what's been happening.
	And I don't know what, I don't really know what's going on with the courts.
	I think a lot of them are not, you know, that with it.
	Remember, these federal judges are all nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate.
	These are not appointments made based on competency, based on law school performance, based on anything that would indicate that the people involved are truly the most competent lawyers out there to make the decisions being made by the federal courts.
	They are rather political appointments.
	And some of them are just plain not very smart reading the opinions like where this guy go to law school.
	How did he become a federal judge?
	Oh, that's right.
	Some you know, some some president nominated the person and it hasn't been sufficient care.
	This is a problem that runs throughout our society in our country is that the people who are the best and the brightest are not being given the positions.
	It's people who are privileged, come from privileged backgrounds, know somebody or whatever, and this is why our government is such a disaster.
	Our smartest people won't go near Washington D.C.
	because they're too smart to want to ruin their families and their entire lifestyle to be mixing up with those horrible people in D.C.
	Well stated.
	You know, one thing, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Dr. Carey Mullis, when he was licensing his PCR technology, he insisted on every manufacturing vendor that they put right on the box, this is not a diagnostic test.
	And I think I even have a That image somewhere, let me look.
	But, you know, there is a viable PCR diagnostic test.
	It's called qPCR.
	Here it is right there.
	Which stands for quantitative PCR and there are people who have done really brilliant people actually in my own practice as in Oriental Medicine and Natural Medicine.
	There's companies now that have used the PCR test cross-reference stool samples and figured out a quantitative way to test what's in the stool sample against actual verifiable data.
	So the only way That Fauci and all these other dancing marionettes for Pfizer and Moderna should be doing any PCR test is a QPCR, but they've never done the actual quantitative, backed it up by data, so when you get 20 cycles with a QPCR, you know what you're actually getting.
	They have the data to prove it.
	Regular PCR is nothing but an experimental what-if tool.
	It's just absurd.
	Well, it's so demoralizing because I've been sort of involved in this behind the scenes, not having a law firm really equipped to do this work, but I do have a case I'm about to file on the East Coast.
	But I think we're going to win on the non-delegation issue because these schools got together and just adopted a vaccine mandate with no authority whatsoever, no delegate authority.
	They can't do that.
	The people govern through their legislatures.
	The legislatures can delegate some authority, but it has to be very specific and it can only go so far.
	There was no delegation at all.
	So we're going to go on that.
	I'm going to raise a Liberty Clause claim, but I think it's going to be, we're going to win on the delegation, non-delegation issue.
	So, but, you know, some time ago I was, you know, doing some research online and I came across this video of this person named Dr. Gold, her name is Dr. Simone Gold.
	And I was watching her just kind of butcher the holding of a case called Kuzan versus director of Missouri Department of Health and she got the holding wrong.
	And I thought to myself, well, what is a doctor doing trying to describe a constitutional analysis in the Supreme Court?
	Then I found out she had a law degree as well.
	But I contacted her, this America's Frontline Doctors, I contacted them through the website and said, look, you need to take that video down because to create misinformation like that on our side of this controversy is no good.
	We've got to be very careful And to make a long story short, she has gotten tons and tons of money in donations by promising the donors that she was going to put together a top-notch legal team to go fight these battles in court.
	We're going to get to court.
	She started saying they're going to bring a case against Kaiser and claim that Kaiser is bound by the Constitution and all that.
	Crazy, fringe claims.
	They're not going to win.
	Where are the solid claims here.
	And why does someone, anyway, the donors are very angry because the, the, the, the pleadings filed by America's frontline doctors have been absolutely horrible from what I've seen.
	Again, failing to understand, you can't bring a free state, freestanding with and failing to, failing to address this stuff.
	It's mind-boggling.
	So all the people out there in this country are looking for someone to donate to, to help, and they're giving all this money.
	The money is going to the organizations who do not have the competent attorneys.
	And I had my own personal interaction with this Dr. Gold and it was terrible.
	She hired me to do something in less than one day, and of course I got it done only because I have a constitutional law background.
	And then she ignored my bills for months and months, and it was a tiny little bill.
	And finally my husband got involved, and eventually it was paid, but only because my husband got involved.
	And by the way, my husband was on the cover of Texas Lawyer twice.
	Because one of his clients years ago did not pay his $20,000 fee bill.
	My husband did the research found out this man had stiffed a whole string of lawyers.
	The bottom line is my husband ended up with over half a million dollar judgment against this man for not paying a twenty thousand dollar bill, because that's what happens when people are foolish enough not to pay solid attorney fee bills.
	And he recovered it, too, by the way.
	This man had lots of money.
	Oh, yeah.
	But my point is that the attitude that Dr. Gold is not liked.
	She is extremely disliked by every single lawyer I've talked to on our side because she somehow, you know, she she she came out and said that they're not allowing us to give our clients what we want to give them.
	And that's good.
	She did what every other doctor in the country should have done and then somehow got catapulted into this.
	I don't know what you call it.
	Celebrity status.
	And she's mishandling everything so badly as people are pouring millions of dollars into her organization.
	And she's failing in court because she will not listen to people who know what they're talking about.
	So she's got an attitude that is so unacceptable.
	I can't even believe what's happening because people want to help.
	They want to donate.
	Children's health defense.
	I'm not quite sure what's all going on there.
	I have had some basic discussions.
	With some people over there about why you're losing every single case because I heard a civil rights organizer out in the East Coast say there's zero for 15.
	Zero for 15 in New York.
	How are you?
	How is anyone zero for 15?
	So I didn't have time to look at all those cases, but I did look at some and you know, some of the attorneys were filing things late and all their evidence and over 500 pages of evidence all excluded because it was filed late.
	Or they were, you know, failing to allege standing, for goodness sakes, in a federal court.
	And then when they got a motion dismissed on the failure to allege standing, they didn't move to amend the complaint, which you must do.
	You've got to cure the standing failure.
	Didn't do that, came to court, opposed the motion dismissed, didn't submit any evidence to the court whatsoever, just argued and pleading.
	In court, you cannot make an argument in a pleading, a motion or an opposition.
	You have to attach an affidavit.
	You have to lay a foundation and submit admissible evidence.
	Didn't do that.
	I mean, and this guy, by the way, went to an unaccredited online law school, which I never even heard of, called Abraham Lincoln Law School in L.A.
	So this is what I'm talking about.
	And when I finally asked someone over at Children's Health Defense, what's going on over there?
	He said, well, you know, we have all these different branches now and they kind of do their own things.
	They're trying to get together.
	But people were actually making comments about, you know, whether they're trying to lose, whether, you know, the controlled opposition.
	I find that impossible to believe because I know the general counsel over there.
	I know that her child got regressive autism after getting vaccinated.
	I know her personally.
	I cannot I can't believe that the general counsel over there would ever, ever play a role in any kind of a controlled opposition.
	So I think it's just a matter of just not doing a very good job.
	And I just found out they hired a new firm.
	And again, this firm is not, the lawyer involved that is hired is not a constitutional scholar, is not a liberty clause specialist.
	She has a background in environmental law.
	But again, I keep saying to them, you guys, you need to hire A constitutional expert and a certified appellate lawyer for these cases because you're going to have your rear ends handed to you again and again and again because the government lawyers are brilliant.
	Not all of them, but I'm saying they have so many resources.
	The government attorneys in these cases are running circles around the plaintiff's lawyers because there's so few plaintiff's lawyers who know this area of law well enough and know how to litigate well enough not to have the rear-runners handed to them.
	It's just awful.
	In my position, I'm so stressed out because I see what's happening and I don't have a lot of control.
	I'm not set up at this point to handle these cases alone, but I am gonna take on one at a time and try to just get something done.
	But it's really, really hard to step in as a lot of people who just started doing other things.
	I don't have, I have, I do have a firm behind me, an excellent firm actually, my husband's firm, but it's just really hard to fight the attorneys general, which is who comes in for the state, to defend the state mandates alone.
	I've done it before though, I'm doing it in Texas right now in my own case, so it's not undoable, but I mean these other companies are getting millions and millions in donations And they do not have the common sense to hire the right lawyers for these cases.
	Although I will say the General Counsel at Children's Health Defense is a brilliant lady and I totally respect her.
	So I'm not saying anything bad about her.
	I'm saying As a whole, the lawyers, they're like delegating out these cases to lawyers.
	The guy who lost in New York was a collections lawyer from a bottom tier unaccredited law school.
	You cannot fight the government with someone like that.
	You've got to have top-notch lawyers.
	Frankly, I wouldn't hire anyone who wasn't top of their class from a top 20 law school because I've been to law school, two law schools.
	I've been to Berkeley, USC.
	I've seen the people who are in the bottom half of the class.
	I wouldn't pay them a dime for anything.
	There's only so many lawyers out there who behave like a Columbo.
	And you have to be a Sherlock Holmes or a Columbo in these cases.
	You've got to be into it.
	You've got to want to research hard and read everything.
	And these people, they may have the desire to help, but they do not have the ability to get to constitutional litigation is so, so complicated.
	And there's so many pitfalls in federal court.
	Everything from getting standing to winning a motion to dismiss to being able and competent to file that writ of mandate or an interlocutory appeal or whatever or to make sure you set up the appeal properly by not failing to object to evidence.
	If you don't fail at the get-go, you can't later say, well, we don't want that evidence in.
	It's too late.
	So the procedural errors are a problem and the failure to understand the law is a problem.
	Well, I wanted to bring in Holly, but she's had to step away.
	So, Giuseppe, please do continue.
	Well, let me give you one more example.
	I'm looking at a case that came down January 7, 2022.
	It's called Bertram v. City of Los Angeles.
	And here a court named Gary Klausner basically granted the motion to dismiss and denied the preliminary injunction when these people were trying to avoid disclosing their COVID-19 vaccine status.
	And one of the first things the quote says in section 400 judicial notice is defendants request and plaintiffs do not oppose I don't know what these people are thinking.
	notice of the following documents, all these CDC documents, everything else.
	What are the plaintiffs thinking not opposing judicial notice?
	I would be up and down with a 50 page document describing all the reasons why the court should not take judicial notes of the CDC, that CDC has been captured.
	I would take Bobby Kennedy's book and pull a bunch of those footnotes out and put it right into the pleading.
	I don't know what these people are thinking.
	The court goes on to say that the Supreme Court has long rejected a fundamental right to refuse vaccination and cites Jacobson, First of all, there was no such thing as fundamental rights analysis until 33 years later in Carolene products versus United States.
	In that case, in footnote four, the court for the first time made a distinction between fundamental rights and other rights.
	And they had two tiers of scrutiny, depending whether it's a fundamental right or other rights.
	And the fundamental rights were those to protect discreet and insular minorities, people who have traditionally had laws passed to keep them out of the good life, to keep them down or whatever.
	But that was 33 years after Jacobson.
	How can a court in 2022 I mean, this is what we're talking about.
	And again, my article coming out very soon goes through all the cases and says it's insane what's been going on.
	a theory or a concept until 33 years after Jacobson.
	I mean, this is what we're talking about.
	And again, my article coming out very soon goes to all the cases and says it's insane what's been going on.
	A case named called Workman back in, I think it was 2011, Fourth Circuit.
	They say they're going to apply strict scrutiny because of a variety of reasons.
	There's three prongs to strict scrutiny, which is the highest standard of review in the Supreme Court.
	When you're challenging a law based on liberty or whatnot, and you have to find a compelling purpose, you have to make sure that the means chosen by the state to address that compelling purpose is narrowly tailored, and then you have to make sure that no less restrictive means are available.
	Three prongs.
	What does the Workman Court do?
	They find a compelling purpose and don't even talk about the second two prongs.
	I've never seen that before.
	And so, and by the way, as you were talking earlier, Giuseppe, about the idea that you need to enhance your own immunity, absolutely.
	Whether it's an antibiotic, which doesn't kill anything, it basically stops the proliferation of a germ, or whether it's a vaccine, which traditionally injected your body with a piece of the antigen so your body could learn to fight it, You're still relying on your body's immune system in both of those situations.
	Strengthening your immune system is the key to all of this.
	And that's one of the reasons why I'm so adamantly against this idea that they can force us to take vaccines because some of us really work hard every single day of our lives to, you know, treat our body like a temple.
	To do whatever it takes to work out or eat well and eat lots of fruits and vegetables and it might sound Sort of hokey, but if you do that every single day of your life and hot yoga for me is one of the things I rely on for health Those are not easy things to do, but if you do that as a committed lifestyle practice then who is who is the government to tell you that you have to take a some
	chemical into your body that doesn't even stop transmission or infection.
	The COVID-19, they're not even vaccines at all, they're gene therapy.
	And I've seen the SEC filings, I've seen what they said about these gene therapy drugs, how dangerous they are.
	No one called them a vaccine until they decide, well, let's call it a vaccine, I guess, and that way the public will like it because the people have been programmed to believe that vaccines are safe and effective.
	So they call this gene therapy a vaccine, and then the CDC changes the definition of vaccine in August of 2021 to say that a vaccine doesn't have to prevent transmission, it doesn't have to prevent infection.
	That's the first time we've seen that in the history of the country, and they did that so that they could call this gene therapy vaccines.
	The fraud is all over the place.
	So just to quickly answer your question, what do we do about this?
	My opinion, we're finally getting, because the Texas court ordered Pfizer to release those documents.
	Remember, Pfizer wanted to take 75 years.
	Okay, well you know why that is, right?
	Because all the victims would be dead.
	Yep.
	That's my opinion.
	And in most states, loss of consortium only goes to spouses, not children, minor children sometimes.
	In other words, if you wait 75 years, then the statute of limitations says run.
	Right.
	And you could, there's just no one around at that point.
	So now that this stuff's coming out, I think we're going to have to take a whole new tact with litigation.
	I think we're going to have to go after intentional misconduct.
	And Bobby Kennedy's book is, again, I think phenomenal.
	I'm not done with it.
	But he has managed to compile so much information, so much data, proving the fraud and the fake studies and all these horrible things that the government and the CDC and Fauci and the FDA have done.
	And that book, in my opinion, is the starting ground for all the future claims where we're going to have to go after these people based on intentional torts.
	Because remember, intentional torts are not protected by the PREP Act or the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 86.
	Once you show intent, you show fraud, you show a lack of informed consent, you show that the people didn't know they were taking a gene therapy, they thought they were taking a vaccine.
	Once you show that, you've now gotten out of all the immunities that they've given these vaccine manufacturers.
	So I believe the future is going to lie in racketeering claims, intentional fraud claims where there's injury, battery claims.
	Because in some states like California, you can state a battery claim based on lack of informed consent.
	In most states, you have to bring as a medical malpractice claim.
	Like in Texas, it's brutal because the tort reformers made it so difficult to bring a medical malclaim.
	But in California, as soon as you show you were not provided with information that the average reasonable person would have wanted to know before saying yes to a medical procedure, you've got a battery claim with or without injury.
	So I think that that's going to be the future is showing the intentional misconduct, the fraud upon the public.
	And we need to go after them based on that.
	Giuseppe, I want you to sum it up and take us out.
	Well, first of all, it's just phenomenal to get to have this discussion with Dina Pollard-Sachs.
	She's clearly an elite litigator and gets what needs to be done.
	It's tragic to me that these literal ambulance chasers and debt collectors are smelling a lucrative payday and they're trying to You know, these poor people who don't have a lot of money, I can take the case.
	You can't afford Nina Pollard-Sachs, but you can afford Larry the bill collector.
	So, hopefully, the wave you can create becomes a tidal wave, because that's the only way this is going to get fixed, and I salute you for your brilliance.
	Oh, well, thank you so much.
	But it's been really a lot of conversation with me and a lot of other lawyers saying, Dina, why aren't these organizations hiring you?
	And I said, I don't know, because I'm available.
	I do not know.

▲