Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:33

The Raw Deal (23 September 2022) with John Remington Graham

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know I need someone.
	When I was young, so much younger than today.
	I never needed anybody's help in any way.
	Now these days are gone and I'm not so self-assured.
	Now I find a gentle mind and open up the doors.
	Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
	And I do appreciate you being round.
	Help me get my feet back on the ground.
	Won't you please, please help me?
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Raw Deal.
	I'm going to be joined today by a retired professor of law, John Remington Graham, who knows my case very well and is pleading before the Supreme Court.
	Before he joins us, however, let me review some of the latest developments out there among the bizarre.
	Biden starts strong at the UN, but then stumbles his way into woke irrelevance.
	Biden appearing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States is an embarrassment from the beginning.
	As he, in his address to the UN, in his address to the UN General Assembly, President Biden managed to say all the right things on the Ukraine war, but then he kept talking A permanent member of the U.N.
	Security Council invaded its neighbor and attempted to ease a sovereign state from the maps under the president.
	And we see attacks on schools and hospitals, centers of Ukrainian history and culture.
	He cited mass graves and cover in Islam with bodies showing signs of torture.
	Let me say, There's every reason to believe these are not mass graves created by the Russians.
	Those would be large graves with multiple bodies.
	These appear to be bodies of Ukrainian soldiers that had died previously that were buried individually.
	So all this being blamed on Russia is ridiculous.
	Not only that, of course, but any attacks on schools and hospitals do not appear to have been the responsibility of Russia.
	Indeed, We have Ukraine even shelling the nuclear power plant.
	Such clear-eyed, stark statements of Vladimir Putin's crimes—obviously, this is an interpretation—and the damage the war has done to the international order are the right reply, as the Russian autocrat begins a massive call for new troops and threatens once more to go nuclear.
	At this point, Biden's iteration of the US wanting the war to end on just terms, the only country standing in the way of that is Russia, might sound responsible.
	But the fact is, Vladimir Putin is complaining that the NATO and the United States especially has been providing vast amounts of equipment, high-tech military equipment, to To Ukraine, which has caused, you know, a lot of losses for Russia.
	They did not anticipate that would not occur had they not sent Stinger missiles, these TOW anti-tank missiles and the like, which in my judgment makes the United States and NATO co-belligerents.
	Putin does appear to be calling up additional reserves because the matter is being drawn out longer than he may have originally anticipated.
	But even this piece continues.
	Even his words about the global struggle for freedom were more than welcome.
	It's no secret that in the contest between democracy and autocracy, the U.S.
	and I as president champion a vision grounded in democracy.
	That's ridiculous.
	Mitchell, we got a lot of background static.
	Background static.
	A lot of noise here, I'm hoping we can deal with.
	It's ridiculous for him to be out talking about democracy in Ukraine when there's no democracy in the United States.
	I mean, it's completely outrageous.
	The open borders are soaring crime, the growing inflation.
	Biden ought to be attending to business here at home, not seeking to defend the most corrupt nation, and indeed also the poorest nation in Europe, to wit Ukraine.
	Even in his words, but what might have been a stirring call to arms Look, literal and figurative was horribly blunted by a laundry list of liberal left shout outs that followed, centered naturally on climate change, which Biden claimed lives first among the challenges that matter most to people's lives.
	The planet's 674 million people living in abject poverty don't agree, Joe.
	Still more laughable is his long salesmanship around the Inflation Reduction Act.
	He hailed it as a global game changer when every serious estimate shows it will have little to no inflation even within the United States, let alone globally.
	Not Nor even a significant impact on climate change for all its hundreds of dollars in spending.
	And all that's, of course, correct.
	Indeed, the climate change business is an enormous fraud.
	It's a myth.
	It's founded on the scientifically falsified claim that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the temperature of Earth, as Joe Olson has shown, where he and I have done a series of nine different episodes on
	Climate change, and the fact that there's no evidence to support it, and every reason to deny it, which you can find at my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, under anti-global warming, or look for Joe Wolson in climate change, you'll find it.
	It turns out over 600 million years of Earth's history, there's no correlation at all between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth.
	Earth does go through variations in temperature, and maybe perhaps we're going through one now, though I suspect most of the alleged indicators of climate change are actually forms of weather manipulation that are taking place deliberately to reinforce the false belief that CO2 has something to do with it as part of the Great Reset.
	It's a reinforcer Just as they'll stage these phony school shootings anytime they need a boost with regard to their propaganda campaign.
	So we have the major, major problems here that are taking place that Biden is not addressing.
	But first and foremost, if he wants to focus on global change, He needs to get his head screwed on right.
	It turns out that CO2 actually cools the Earth in four different ways and is, of course, indispensable to life.
	CO2 is converted through photosynthesis and the like by plants and trees in order to produce oxygen, which is indispensable to life on Earth.
	And the idea of reducing the carbon footprint is also similarly scientifically illiterate because the amount of carbon is indispensable to life forms.
	So what we're talking about is some knuckleheads, but also some sinister manipulators who are promoting a A false theory that they find plausible, and they're running with the ball.
	The progressives, for example, are outraged that Biden hasn't done more to clamp down on climate change, to bring about EVs and reduce the carbon footprint and get us all onto electricity.
	Ignoring the fact that electricity just doesn't come out of nowhere, and electric cars with these enormous batteries require all kinds of resources and exploiting the environment, human labor, the cost is humongous.
	We need Coal and gas and oil or nuclear to produce the electricity that is supposed to be available to deal with all these changes to make a Green New Deal possible, where we're encountering absurdities such as the governor of California declaring
	One day, California will only allow electric-powered vehicles after 2035, and just a couple of days later, the state declaring a blackout shortage.
	You can't charge your vehicle or other major appliances at the key hours of the day, like from 4 to 6 p.m.
	in the afternoon.
	Well, I grew up on the interstates, the massive highways in California.
	I learned to drive on the Pasadena Freeway.
	And I'm telling you, California is a mobile society.
	You can't get anywhere without a car.
	The very idea that the Green New Deal really wants us to give up gas-powered automobiles and the global research wants us to give up our vehicles all the time, completely.
	Because they claim we're only driving them like 7% of the time.
	Well, you're driving them at the time you need to drive them.
	When you have them, they're available to you to use to get to where you want to go from point A to point B. That's a part of what it means to be free, to live in a free society.
	And they're going so far, so knuckleheaded, and you didn't hear Joe Biden addressing this at the UN, that the state of Illinois, which appears to be the tip of the spear, Is declaring that after January 1st of 2023, that's right around the corner, my friends, trespassers cannot be removed from private property.
	The police will not have the authority to do that, which is in effect that the destruction of private property.
	Meaning if you went on a vacation and came home in Illinois and found that homeless people had occupied your home, you'd have no way, no law enforcement would be able to come to assist you and you'd be on your own.
	In my opinion, this is an absolutely stunning development and represents the abolition of private property by the state of Illinois.
	And what in the world is going on here is anyone's guess except that it's a sure sign We're actually dealing with a Democrat party that's gone full communist.
	I mean, if there's any basic difference between communism and capitalism, it's private property.
	Because under communism, there is no private property.
	Communism entails the abolition of private property.
	And we're seeing right here and now that that's taking place.
	Not only that, But the massive influx of migrants, which we know is utterly indefensible, economists have pointed out from the beginning that you cannot combine a welfare state with open borders.
	It's unsustainable.
	It will lead to the collapse.
	When in the House they were contemplating a bill regarding voting rights, the Republicans wanted to add a clause that non-citizens are ineligible to vote in federal elections.
	The Democrats would not support it.
	The Democrats opposed it.
	They defeated it by a vote of 21 to 12.
	That means they want all these migrants to come in.
	So today's illegals are tomorrow's Democrats.
	Bear that in mind.
	Today's illegals are tomorrow's Democrats.
	So how in the world are they going to be able to stop the midterm election?
	Because I guarantee you they are going to do something about it.
	We have a former NATO General declaring that the West must be prepared for war with Russia, and he's talking about a nuclear war.
	General Sir Richard Schereff, a former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, is warning the West must be prepared for war with Russia.
	There will never be peace in Europe while Vladimir Putin is in the Kremlin, he said.
	This is a mark of a desperate man.
	He's looking to reinforce failure.
	He's scrambling around, desperate to try to stem the chaotic retreat of Russian forces from Ukraine.
	The bottom line with Putin is the only thing he respects is strength.
	Well, this is pretty absurd on its face.
	It appears the whole war with Ukraine was provoked deliberately to exacerbate tensions between Russia and Germany and to circumvent opening the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
	Because once the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was opened, that cheap gas coming to Germany from Russia Any prior tensions would evaporate in the midst of such a peaceful, harmonious commercial transactions.
	The necessity for NATO would become obvious.
	NATO's an anachronism.
	It's totally unnecessary.
	That means the profits being made by the military-industrial complex would all but evaporate.
	They could not have that.
	They had to incite a provocation between Russia and Ukraine, where Putin was very, very clear in his objectives in coming into Ukraine since the so-called color revolution of 2012, which was promoted by Victoria Nuland of our own Department of State using $5 billion in American taxpayer money.
	The Ukrainians have been shelling the Donbass region, which is predominantly ethnically Russian, where many casualties, thousands of deaths, were being brought about by the artillery barrages, and where Putin has simply asked, in the name of the national security of Russia, that Ukraine would not become a NATO nation.
	Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the West, Secretary of State Baker at the time, for example, declared there would be no encroachment to politicize or turn the newly sovereign Eastern European nations that would become independent countries into NATO nations, the US and NATO have systematically violated that agreement.
	Not one inch, said James Baker.
	Well, they went from some 14 NATO nations at the time to 30 NATO nations now by doing precisely that.
	So when Putin simply asked that Ukraine not become a NATO nation as well, that was violated.
	That was violated here by the declaration they were going to become a NATO nation, leaving Putin no choice about it.
	I suspect that we have a regular caller who's calling in on the line and is creating the background noise.
	Please simply mute yourself.
	Please simply mute yourself.
	Not only that, when you talk about the U.S.
	as a democracy, Biden has now declared a new national emergency after creating a new Department of Justice task force to combat domestic terrorism.
	And we all know who are the domestic terrorists.
	The domestic terrorists are anyone who voted for Donald Trump, anyone who's conservative, anyone who believes in the Constitution.
	The perpetuation of the national emergency comes amid accusation by rank-and-file FBI agents that the Biden administration is exaggerating the threat of white supremacists and pressuring agents to cook up domestic terrorist cases involving racial extremists.
	Current and former FBI agent told the Washington Times of her perceived white supremacist threat is overblown by the administration.
	They say top bureau officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terrorist cases and tag people as white supremacists to meet internal metrics, meaning demands coming from the attorney general and the director of the FBI.
	The demand for white supremacy in the FBI vastly outstrips the supply of white supremacists, said one agent who spoke with The Washington Time on a condition of anonymity.
	We have more people assigned to investigate white supremacists than we can actually find.
	The FBI agents at the Bureau's leaders have already determined that white supremacy is a problem and have set a policy to prioritize finding incidents of racial violence to fit the mold of domestic terrorism.
	We are sort of the lab dogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to vet otherwise.
	First Amendment-protected activities, when FBI agents said, if they have a Gladstone flag, remember that's a snake, don't tread on me.
	And they own guns, and they are mean at school board meetings because they don't like critical race theory or teaching kids about sex when they're in the third grade.
	That's probably a domestic terrorist.
	They nailed it.
	The FBI's categorization of racial violence, which may be domestic terrorism, goes in only one direction, of course.
	White suspects who commit violence against any person of color are domestic terrorists.
	A person of color committing an act of violence against a white person, however, is not considered an act of domestic terrorism.
	The Center for Strategic and International Studies in a 2020 analysis provided an illustration of how think tanks seize on politicized terrorism data to fit the last narrative that right-wing extremists and white supremacists constitute the single greatest threat to U.S.
	national security.
	Catch this.
	The analysis makes several arguments.
	First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
	Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years.
	Right-wing extremists perpetuate two-thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States and perpetrated two-thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90% between January 1st and May 8th of 2020.
	It is easy to manipulate by statistics the way you classify the data.
	Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors.
	One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S.
	presidential election, before and after which extremists may resort to violence depending on the outcome of the election.
	Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests, raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period.
	This is all highly manipulated.
	The Department of Homeland Security in a 2022 National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin provides a snapshot of recent acts of political violence that are misclassified as right-wing.
	Get these.
	The suspect in the grocery store attack in Buffalo, New York in May of 2022 claimed he was motivated by racist, anti-Black and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, often referred to as the Great Replacement or White Genocide.
	A violent attack in May 2022 in Laguna Woods, California, targeted congregants of a church serving the Taiwanese community.
	The attack killed one and wounded five.
	In April 2022, an individual wearing a gas mask threw two smoke canisters and opened fire on a New York City subway during morning rush hour, resulting in injury to dozens of individuals.
	Now, here's the key part here, and if you who have called into the call line to listen to the show, please go to freedomslips.com.
	Go to freedomslips.com, studio, be and listen, because you're causing background noise here.
	Here are a few facts about acts of political violence that have occurred under the Biden administration.
	Peyton Gendron, the suspected Buffalo mass shooter, had leftist leanings and hated Fox News.
	The Muwaka shot Christmas parade massacre that killed five and injured 40 was allegedly committed by a black nationalist who supports Black Lives Matter.
	The New York subway mass shooting suspect was a black nationalist and BLM supporter.
	The July 2021 Capitol barricade attacker was a follower of Louis Farrakhan and a supporter of the Nation of Islam.
	Salvador Ramos, a Uvalde mass shooting suspect who allegedly killed 19 schoolchildren and two teachers, is an Hispanic American, clearly not a white supremacist.
	The Laguna Woods shooting suspect is a Chinese nationalist who's upset about Taiwan.
	A Tulsa hospital shooting suspect, believed by some to be a white supremacist, was in fact a black male upset at a local doctor.
	The list could go on.
	Potential terrorism cases are arbitrarily not being included for reasons of political inconvenience, while others are just starting to fit the Biden admin and FBI narrative about far-right extremism and white supremacy.
	Jack, I'm very glad you're here.
	I'll be bringing you in right after the break, my friend.
	Stand by.
	I'll bring you in.
	Okay.
	So I'm very pleased to have him, Jack Graham, here, and we'll be having a conversation following the break.
	I want to add, as they continue to go all out to smear Trump and try to deny him the right to run in 2024, we have a Trish James lawsuit against Donald Trump in New York City.
	For ordinary business practices in New York, let me emphasize about this lawsuit that it's completely absurd that there's no complaint.
	There's no complaint.
	Trisha James made this up.
	Trisha James declared when she was running for the office originally she was going to get Trump.
	She's running for re-election now, and it's very clear she's seeking to fulfill on that campaign promise.
	There's no complaint.
	She's claiming he was somehow defrauding banks and financial institutions.
	But the banks and financial institutions aren't complaining.
	They haven't filed a complaint.
	There's no justification for this lawsuit.
	Moreover, it's my understanding the statute of limitations on the charges she's raising is six years and it's long since run out.
	So that's what you get from Democrats in these positions of authority.
	They're abusing their position.
	Here's another illustration that's almost staggering.
	Bar line.
	Requests revealed there were no Department of Justice investigations of election fraud after the 2020 election, as Bill Barr, who is then the Attorney General, has claimed.
	This is just so insulting beyond belief.
	But that's what Trump was up against.
	He was surrounded by traitors.
	He was surrounded by everyone who, you know, wanted to do him in.
	I mean, to me, it is simply staggering what was going on.
	We're about to hit the break.
	I'll see if I can do anything about the background static.
	I'm delighted to have Jack Graham here.
	We're going to be talking about the Alex Jones trial and a host of other issues, including a book of Jack's, about government and the rule of law.
	He knows my case backwards and forwards and will have a great deal to say that I think you're going to find extremely valuable.
	Then, of course, after the conversation, we'll open live for a call.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that 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.
	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 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.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police...
	I'm here, Jack Graham, man, I'm here.
	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.
	Oh, oh, oh. oh.
	Oh, oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslip.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 Freedom Slips.com 100% listener supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Hey, everybody.
	- Hey, everybody.
	- There's Jim.
	- Very experienced in the law.
	He served as a defense attorney.
	- Jim, this is Jack Graham.
	- Yes, I know you are, Jack.
	I'm so delighted you're here.
	I'm introducing you, my friend.
	He's a retired professor of law, and he has vast experience in the law and considerable familiarity with my own case.
	Jack, I want to talk a little bit about Alex Jones and what's going on here.
	I don't know what's going on with Alex Jones.
	I know what's going on with Trump's litigation in New York and his litigation in Florida, but I don't know much about Alex Jones.
	I do think that the Sandy Hook case has been used by the major news media of the United States for propaganda purposes.
	And I think this attempt to bring down Alex Jones and ruin him is simply an attempt that is simply a political move.
	It's like the attempt to go after Trump in New York City.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Please do tell us more about Trump and New York City and the like, Jack.
	I'm delighted.
	Well, the New York City case, I've looked it over, and either Trump misrepresented the value of real estate or he didn't.
	And that's a very simple thing to prove one way or another.
	And the Attorney General of New York is grandstanding, unprofessionally, which suggests that She hasn't got a case.
	So I don't, I'm not worried about the New York case.
	The one that I'm worried about is, is Florida.
	Yes.
	Tell us more, Jack.
	Just go right ahead.
	Well, I mean, first place, the magistrate that issued the warrant has no legal authority to proceed.
	And that's clear as a bell.
	From two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the United States v. Raddatz in 447 U.S.
	and the Northern Pipeline case in 458 U.S.
	You can't read those cases and get the impression that the magistrate had any authority.
	The magistrate was not working on good behavior.
	And that's very clear from decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
	on irreducible salary has to characterize any judge who acts on behalf of the United States in a criminal case.
	And that's very clear from decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
	And the rules of federal procedure for criminal cases covers up these decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
	And that means that the point can be raised later.
	The other thing that I wanted to say about the New York case is that there are two very distinguished constitutional lawyers who have published an opinion in the Wall Street Journal on the 22nd of August.
	2022, Rivkin and Casey, and they have pointed out that the Presidential Records Act supersedes any of the federal statutes on which the application for warrant was made, which means that any judge could have denied the warrant.
	Any qualified judge could have denied the warrant.
	And that the whole search and seizure is illegal.
	I urge those who are interested to check out the opinion of Rivkin and Casey in the Wall Street Journal on the 22nd of August.
	It's published and it's not a secret.
	But the thing that's bothering me is that the lawyers who represent Trump are not acting on these basic principles of law.
	And they should.
	They are acting like Bill Barr, who has nothing to gain from making comments adverse to Trump at this point.
	And it's very unprofessional for a former Attorney General to do that.
	And this suggests deep corruption, and I mean lawyer fixing.
	That's what I want to say about the case in Florida.
	I think Trump is in trouble because his lawyers are selling him out.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I don't think the government has anything against Trump.
	But I don't think the state of New York has anything.
	But they can make a lot of noise.
	I don't think the U.S.
	government has anything against him either.
	But his lawyers are selling him out, and that's what gets him in trouble.
	That's where he's in trouble as far as I'm concerned.
	Very good, Jack.
	Very good.
	Tell us more about The Sandy Hook case in general, you are explaining how you believe it's being used to mislead the public and promote gun control.
	Could you elaborate?
	Well, I don't have the detailed knowledge that you have, but I do know that you have a photograph of the school on the day of the shooting, and on that day it was closed.
	The school was closed.
	And that's all I need to know that This suit against you is completely groundless.
	You're now before the U.S.
	Supreme Court and you're on a very, very interesting issue.
	Whether or not the 7th Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment so as to be usable as a check against Frivolous granting of summary judgment, which is what happened to you in Wisconsin.
	And I think you have, the court is giving this question very serious consideration.
	And they have, you only get about one writ of certiorari per petition.
	One for a hundred petitions.
	But I think in this particular case, you have a pretty good chance.
	I'm getting rid of certiorari granted.
	Jack, could you comment on and explain about the fact that Justice Gorsuch has shared my appeal for a stay, which was, it seemed to me, highly appropriate.
	I mean, the court will issue... Yeah, well, of course it was very appropriate, but I think that Justice Gorsuch Gorsuch could have denied your motion, but instead he distributed it to the court, which suggests that the court is giving your case very serious consideration.
	Talk about the petition, Jack.
	Many don't understand this idea of incorporating the 7th Amendment within the 14th.
	Well, there has been a question of whether the federal Bill of Rights is incorporated by the 14th Amendment and applied to the several states.
	That question has been troubling us for a long time.
	And the courts have used a selective incorporation approach.
	For example, they've incorporated the 4th Amendment.
	They've incorporated the 5th Amendment.
	They've incorporated the 6th Amendment.
	But nobody has ever suggested that the 7th Amendment was adopted.
	And that's a very attractive idea to the court.
	One thing is that in this particular case, the 7th Amendment, if incorporated, would just be a check on summary judgment.
	And that would then become a federal question.
	And state judges who grant summary judgment unlawfully, and that is the biggest source of judicial corruption in the United States, that is a very attractive way to try to get the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 7th Amendment.
	And it's exciting, because what happened in your case, as far as I'm concerned, it really isn't a First Amendment case.
	It's a case of granting summary judgment unlawfully, when you're supposed to have... A motion for summary judgment says that there are no material facts in dispute, and that given the The material facts, undisputed, you're entitled to judgment on the merits.
	That practice has been so abused all over the country.
	I mean, it's just.
	And they have to do something about it because the legal profession is losing its prestige because of this kind of corruption.
	And so if we could succeed in making your case a case where the Seventh Amendment could be used as a check against unlawful use of summary judgment, it would be a big win for judicial honesty in the United States.
	Judges in the state courts would be much more circumspect about granting summary judgment.
	Judges do this all the time.
	They grant summary judgment in the face of undisputed facts.
	In your case, there was a question whether a death certificate was for real.
	You had two expert opinions who gave affidavits saying that this death certificate Was a fake, and of course that means that there was a disputed fact and it was improper to grant summary judgment.
	It's a shocking example of abuse of summary judgment, of a kind which we see in many cases across the United States.
	It happened to me during my career, I've seen it happen Oh, to many lawyers and many honest practitioners who were just shot out of the water because of corrupt use of summary judgment.
	And if the 7th Amendment were incorporated into the 14th Amendment so as to be a check on summary judgment, it would have a very beneficial effect, I think.
	And that's why I think this case is so important.
	And I think it's why it's very likely that the court is giving your case very careful consideration.
	You only get a writ out of 100 applications before the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	You practically can't get before the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	But there's a very good chance.
	I mean, when Gorsuch is distributing your motion for a stay, is indicative of serious consideration by the court to grant a writ of certiorari in your case.
	And if it is granted, it would be one of the most interesting examples of trying to curb judicial corruption by granting summary judgment, which is the most frequent kind of judicial corruption in the United States.
	Yeah, I think that's a very important point to elaborate upon, Jack, that there are two objectives of a summary judgment.
	One is to circumvent the cost, the expense, the time, the manpower involved in conducting trials by jury when, but only when, there are no disputed facts, since it's the role of a jury.
	To resolve disputes about the facts, but also to protect the right of the defendant to trial by jury by ensuring that this is only happening if there are no undisputed facts, which was so grossly violated by the procedure employed in Wisconsin, which allowed the judge to resolve these matters based upon his subjective opinion about what facts were reasonable or not.
	Exactly.
	In your case, it was a corrupt abuse of the summary judgment procedure.
	I remember when I was in law school and we were studying summary judgment in the first year of law school.
	I went along with it.
	I thought, you know, summary judgment is a good innovation.
	But I didn't realize at that time when I was a law student that the summary judgment procedure would be so abused as it has been throughout my nearly 50, more than 50 years of practicing law.
	And it's, but what happened in your case is very common.
	It's not a, it's not an, but this is a very striking example of a common abuse of summary judgment.
	And if the Seventh Amendment could be pleaded under the Fourteenth Amendment, the question would become federal and the state district judges would be less inclined to abuse a summary judgment procedure.
	That's why I think your case is so important.
	Because as far as I'm concerned, your case isn't about the First Amendment.
	It's about abuse of summary judgment.
	And now you have a very good chance of getting before the U.S.
	Supreme Court on the 7th Amendment as a provision incorporated by the 14th Amendment and thereby applicable to the several states.
	And if you succeed on this, and there's a As good a chance as you ever get on a case of this kind, we will have a check on the most common form of judicial corruption in the United States.
	I've been worried about abuse of summary judgment procedure all my career, and I've seen Abuses of it that just are shocking.
	And your case is one of them, but this is a very striking example.
	The judge avoided the First Amendment by unconscionable use of the summary judgment procedure.
	There was a disputed question of fact, and he Decided that there was no disputed question of fact on grounds that were manifestly dishonest.
	So there we are.
	I think your case is highly important as trying to get rid of a practice or to reduce a practice which is responsible for a lot of judicial corruption in the United States at the present time.
	I'm just very glad to hear that, Jack.
	It's rare.
	I mean, the statistics actually are even more striking than one in a hundred.
	The court gets between 8,000 and 10,000 submissions and they hear... They hear about 80 or 90 cases a year.
	Right.
	So it would work out that you're It's a little, you have less than one in a hundred chances of getting a petition granted.
	With this case, it looks like they're giving serious consideration.
	I think that Gorsuch's distribution of your motion for stay, when he could have denied it on his own authority, is an indication that the court is giving this very serious consideration.
	They may not rule your way.
	But it's a good sign.
	It's a very good sign.
	Well, Jack, if they were, you know, it's really not me.
	I mean, Mike Hayes simply highlighted the defect in the Wisconsin Summary Judgment Protocols, but it's for all the citizens of Wisconsin, and because, oddly enough, The Supreme Court has never affirmed the applicability of the 7th Amendment to all 50 states, even though it has done so for the other 9 of the first 10 amendments.
	I do not see how they could resist.
	Well, if the 4th Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, why shouldn't the 7th Amendment?
	and here's a way to use them here's the way to use the amendment forcing a jury trial here's a way of using the seventh amendment to prevent abusive summary judgment which is a or serious form of judicial misconduct that we have Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	I don't consider, and I agree, your cases, I mean, I know you and I feel bad about you getting a raw deal.
	The main thing is that you're not the only one that gets this kind of raw deal.
	Everybody.
	This happens all the time in many states where summary judgment is abused terribly.
	In Minnesota, it is terribly abused.
	It's abused in Wisconsin, obviously, and it's abused in many states.
	And if they made this a federal question, Abuse of summary judgment were a federal question.
	It would greatly reduce abuse of summary judgment across the country, and that would eliminate about half the judicial corruption we have today.
	Yes.
	Eliminate about half?
	That's really staggering, Jack.
	That's really staggering.
	Well, that's why I think the court is giving it serious consideration.
	I'm sure the court is aware of many cases in which summary judgment has been abused.
	And I mean, this is a very common thing.
	And people who I've been thrown out of court on cases that were very much part of my career
	Based on completely bogus theories, but if this question of abuse of summary judgment were deemed against the 7th Amendment and incorporated as such by the 14th Amendment and it became a federal issue, judges in the state courts would be much less inclined to abuse summary judgment.
	That's why I think this case is so immensely important.
	Your case is not really a First Amendment case, as far as I'm concerned.
	If it were a First Amendment case, it would never have been brought.
	The only reason why they could bring it was that they could falsify the facts through an abusive use of summary judgment.
	And that's why this case is so important.
	Abuse of summary judgment is the key to your case, as far as I'm concerned.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I agree 100%, Jack.
	And it's interesting, this case is before the court, even though I'm pro se.
	This happens only on rather rare occasion, but there was an historic precedent in the Gideon case.
	Could you elaborate?
	Gideon v. Greenwright was a case where we got the right of of counsel in criminal cases.
	There were states that were denying people charged with felonies with counsel.
	I mean, what could be worse than that?
	And Gideon v. Wainwright was a case where a guy went to the U.S.
	Supreme Court pro se, and the court seized the case and Made some law.
	This case could be the same type of thing.
	Jack, we'll be right back, but Jack Ramp right after this break.
	Stand by.
	Thank you.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	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 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.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - I think.
	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 burn 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. Radio. Radio. 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 audience.
	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.
	Jack, are you still with me?
	I would sure like for you to talk about your book.
	It seems to me that's an important development in its republication.
	Can you address that? - I think we lost Jack.
	I'm glad we were able to get him for a while.
	Jack, are you there?
	No.
	OK.
	Mitchell, we lost Jack, right?
	No, Jack.
	Okay.
	Let me talk a bit about the Alex Jones case and why I think this is a very funny situation and what's going on here.
	And I'm going to open the phone lines early, of course.
	I'll be glad to do that.
	540-352-4452 opening the phone line so anyone can call in now.
	The Alex Jones case, of course this is a, what you have to understand in the first place is this is a trial for damages.
	This is This is not a trial to determine liability.
	In fact, in none of these law cases has there been any determination of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, it's astonishing.
	They've all proceeded on the basis of assumptions or presuppositions or stipulations or defaults or, in my case, an abusive summary judgment where no jury was addressing the question of whether anybody died in Sandy Hook.
	And where, in my instance, as you would discover if you followed my petition or read the You know, the appeal to stay, which we discussed on Wednesday with Paul and Mike, where I thought they had excellent comments on it.
	Alex Jones is being pilloried during a trial for damages.
	And what struck me and what I would like to have had Jack talk about, and he may have, I may have squeezed it in early on.
	They're talking about questions like, Whether this individual walking up and down Dickinson Drive dressed in a SWAT outfit carrying a weapon upside down by the magazine was or was not David Wheeler, who is literally an actor.
	I mean, he is not just a crisis actor.
	He's literally an actor.
	His wife, Francine, is also an actor.
	They have Screen Actor Guild cards.
	They have Screen Actor Guild credits.
	And it's very clear Well, they've sought to deflect attention from David Wheeler onto an FBI agent who bore a certain resemblance.
	They're not the same.
	Wolfgang has been protesting because he was among those who made these observations about David Wheeler playing two roles on that occasion.
	But it appears, and I must admit, I've not been watching the Alex Jones trial of late.
	I have so Many shows and responsibilities here in terms of other reporting that I guess I need to sit down and watch some of it.
	I'm hearing stunning reports about the anguish he's going through because he knows it's a fraud.
	And yet he's having to defend the proposition that it was real.
	They're trying to do some whitewashing here.
	And the point I was making to Jack is you cannot establish facts during a trial for damages.
	The facts are already determined.
	So this is yet one more way in which it appears this whole trial process with Alex Jones is fraudulent.
	Let me mention, too, as I may have mentioned on Wednesday, I sought to intervene in all three of these trials to point out that there had never been a determination, a judicial determination, that anybody died at Sandy Hook, and yet they were proceeding on the basis of the assumption
	That the whole shooting event was real, which of course I, with all the evidence I'd amassed and through my collaborative research, published in a book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, it was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
	But where the court ruled right off the bat during the scheduling conference, I would not be allowed to introduce all of that evidence on the ground that and These were his words.
	I may be slightly paraphrasing, but they're quoted in my petition.
	It was whether or not anyone died at Sandy Hook was not relevant to the authenticity, the truthfulness of the death certificate in question about which this lawsuit had been brought.
	And here I am, even though all versions of the death certificate, and there turned out to be a total of five, and you might ask yourself, How could there possibly be five different versions of a death certificate?
	Even though all five versions of the death certificate assert that Zedin died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
	So how is it possible that My position that nobody died at Sandy Hook, that it was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, cannot be relevant to the truthfulness of a death certificate for a person who is declared to have been a decedent from the shooting.
	I mean, it's just stunning.
	And it goes from there.
	And yet the court was acting in accordance with ...protocols for summary judgment that are permissible in Wisconsin.
	This is just one illustration of innumerable.
	There may have been as many as 20 motions where the judge ruled that I had made where he denied every single one of my motions.
	I cannot think of a single case in which a judge ruled in my favor regarding an issue that I raised.
	We got Bruce from Texas standing by.
	Bruce, go ahead, join us.
	Bruce?
	Yeah, okay.
	I just unmuted myself.
	I don't want to be a noisemaker.
	Bruce, have you been calling in early just to listen to the show and even though you were muted?
	No.
	No, okay.
	No, no, that wasn't me.
	Yeah, go ahead, Bruce.
	I plead innocent.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, I was hoping that your guests would hang on because I wanted to ask him, but we can kick it around, I guess, as laymen or whatever.
	Where are these state judges coming up with throwing out laws against transgender people participating in women's sports because it's unconstitutional?
	Their rationale is that it's a violation, I guess, of civil rights.
	Oh, Bruce, of course.
	rise or equal protection under the law.
	But isn't it voluntary to change your own sex?
	And when you do that, you're handicapping yourself from the male side.
	Do you need to go to the women's side?
	I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me.
	Oh, Bruce, of course.
	The whole thing about this transgender stuff is completely absurd.
	Turns out that there's legal action going on in Tennessee, I guess, because Tucker did a report about how Vanderbilt was among the institutions that were permitting these kinds of...
	Medical, surgical procedures that take place.
	They're very expensive and therefore they fatten the bottom line for these institutions.
	But they're, in my opinion, grossly immoral.
	They're completely wrong.
	How can you have a young child not even pass through puberty make a decision about their sexuality and whether they want to live the rest of their life Surgically altered to become a male if you're female or to become a female if you're male.
	In my opinion this is all grotesque in the extreme.
	It's unbelievable.
	So Tucker called it out the following day.
	As I recall, the governor of Texas initiated an investigation of Vanderbilt.
	Other prominent institutions, including UCLA, for example, Medical Center, were involved in this and a host of others.
	It's all completely outrageous and disgusting beyond belief.
	Further, go ahead, Bruce.
	Yeah, and I don't, you know, Alex Jones, yeah, it's bad what's happening to him, I guess, to a point, but Alex Jones 2022 is not Alex Jones 2012.
	He's totally backpedaled on 9-11, on everything else.
	He's become like more of a, I don't know, he's more of a political pundit than a truth seeker now.
	You're talking about, yeah, you're talking about Alex Jones as the persona, the views he represents, the way he pursues issues through InfoWars.
	That's what you're talking about.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I mean, yeah, he went on against, uh, you know, the COVID scam, but you know, as far as 9-11 and stuff, he's just totally dropped that, it seems.
	And, and he called it in the Boston Marathon bombing hoax.
	He had a reporter, he would call him the Kraken, remember this?
	That guy, and he was actually, yeah, he was upsetting the officials.
	And I believe they were afraid that one of the brothers that was accused was going to cross paths with him.
	And ever since Boston, it seems like something happened to Alex Jones, and he's just totally reversed course.
	And he's no longer a cue seeker, like I said.
	Yeah, I don't think there's any way he can get out of it now.
	He's committed.
	Now he has to back up the official story and then try to wiggle his way out of this judgment.
	He's a meat sandwich, deservedly so, my thing.
	Yeah, I don't think there's any way he can get out of it now.
	He's committed.
	You know, it's really ironic that years ago when they did a video deposition in Connecticut, he asserted on the video that he'd never read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, I mean, how ridiculous is that?
	How can this guy?
	How can this guy take these stands?
	How can this guy take this stance and not have read the only objective scientific collaborative research ever done on the case?
	I mean, at the time when the book was banned, they had 20 books on Sandy Hook, but every one of them took some variation on the official narrative.
	Mine was the only disputed.
	Well, of course, I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, where we concluded that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no parents or children, there were no teachers or students there, and that it was a FEMA exercise.
	We said it is mass murder to promote gun control, for which we even had the manual.
	The evidence is so massive because the events on the ground corresponded to what you'd expect from a FEMA exercise and not what you'd expect if it had been an authentic actual event, including no surge of EMTs into the building, no string of ambulances to rush the little bodies off to hospitals to be declared dead or alive, no medevac chopper called, no Bodies placed on the triage tarps, which were laid out in the parking lot.
	No string of buses to evacuate the rest of the children.
	In fact, Dickinson Drive, the one-way interroute, is so clogged, you could have got a bus in there if you wanted to.
	And let me say, When you look at the school and the parking lot and the arrangement, something is terribly wrong.
	This cannot have been an elementary school.
	Let me just say, you would have to have an entry in and out.
	You'd have to have a U-shape so the buses could drive in one way and drive out.
	They wouldn't come in and then turn around and drive out the same way they came in.
	You'd have to have bicycle racks.
	You'd have to have a special section for teacher parking.
	A whole load of other issues.
	I believe this whole facility, which was actually Sandy Hook School rather than Sandy Hook Elementary School, was for a completely different purpose.
	I believe it was designed to handle special needs kids and that they couldn't go to regular public schools and therefore they have a completely different setup.
	And that there's been no serious investigation by any of the parties to these suits because they appear to have a predetermined agenda, which is to collaborate in an effort to deprive American people of their right to keep and bear arms.
	I'm convinced that Remington, you would have thought, Facing this massive Remington, I sought to intervene in that case as well to introduce the massive evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook, where I was not only opposed by the plaintiffs, which was unsurprising, but where I was opposed by the defendants, the insurance companies, yours.
	Yeah, well, then Remington changed hands and went underneath the A hedge fund of some kind.
	You know, and we see that, especially like Ford and GM or some automakers.
	As soon as they go under a change ownership to BlackRock, they go woke.
	And that's a reflection of their majority shareholders.
	Let me go over this stuff.
	Jack was saying that he wasn't following the Alex Jones trial.
	Let me give an update and then comment on it.
	Waterbury, Connecticut.
	Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones took the stand Thursday at his defamation trial in Connecticut as he tries to limit the damages he must pay for promoting the lie that the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax.
	But of course, it wasn't a lie.
	It was a hoax.
	More than a dozen family members of some of the 20 children and six adults killed in the shooting also showed up to observe his testimony in Waterbury Superior Court, which is about 20 miles from Newtown, where the shooting occurred.
	Plaintiff attorney Christopher Mattai showed a video from Jones' Infowar Web show in which he called the mass shooting phony as a $3 bill and called the parents of the victims crisis actors.
	Mr. Jones, if someone were to falsely claim that a group of families who had lost loved ones were actors and had faked the deaths of their loved ones, that would be a horrible thing to say, correct, Mattai asked Jones before showing the video?
	In the context, it could be, yes, Jones replied.
	Jones was found liable last year by default.
	...for damages to plaintiffs without a trial as punishment for what the judge called his repeated failure to turn over documents to their lawyers.
	The six-member jury is now deciding how much Jones and Free Speech Systems, InfoWars' parent company, should pay the families for defaming them and intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
	Brian, look how ridiculous this is.
	He got an opinion about it.
	He voiced the opinion.
	There's nothing in the freedom of speech that says hurting somebody's feelings is a reason not to exercise freedom of speech.
	Outside the courthouse, the story continues.
	Jones calls his trial a kangaroo court.
	Jones has been in Connecticut this week in preparation for his appearance.
	He held a news conference Wednesday outside the courthouse, bashing the proceedings, as he has on his InfoWars show, as a travesty of justice, and calling the judge a tyrant.
	He made similar comments on his way into the courthouse Thursday.
	This is not really a trial, he said.
	This is a show trial, a literal kangaroo court.
	The plaintiff's attorney began by asking Jones whether he believed Judge Barbara Bellis was a tyrant and whether he calls a lot of people tyrants.
	Only when they act like it, he said.
	Jones was also asked about a page on his In Folk Wars site that called the trial a kangaroo court and advertisements on that page.
	He said the page was created by his staff but called it a good report.
	He was also asked about daily profit reports.
	Jones said he could not answer that question, but denied he saw the trial as a marketing opportunity.
	On his show, he has called the trial an attack on free speech, and when asked Thursday how important he felt the proceeding was, he answered, I think this is historic.
	Jones also said that credibility with his audience is not the most important thing to him.
	It's crushing the globalists, he said.
	Fellas began the day by going over the topics that Jones could not mention in his testimony.
	Free speech rights, the Sandy Hook family's $73 million settlement this year with gunmaker Remington, The company made the Bushmaster rifle used to kill the victims at Sandy Hook.
	The percentage of Jones shows that discuss Sandy Hook, and whether he profited from these shows, are a similar case in Texas.
	Listen to this!
	Listen to this!
	He's not allowed to mention this!
	This is incredible!
	He's not allowed to mention free speech rights.
	He's not allowed to mention the Sandy Hook family's $73 million settlement with gunmaker Remington.
	He's not allowed to mention the percentage of Jones shows that discuss Sandy Hook.
	He's not allowed to mention whether he profited from those shows or a similar case in Texas.
	I find that outrageous.
	Those would all be mitigating factors, it seems to me, in a judgment of how much damage is he ought to pay.
	This is not the appropriate forum for you to offer that testimony, Bell has said.
	Jones indicated that he understood.
	But the jury had to be sent out of the courtroom several times while attorneys argued about the scope of Jones' answers.
	You're going to get your exercise today, for those of you who wear Fitbits, the judge told jurors.
	I do not know what Fitbits are, but I assume that was an appropriate observation.
	During the lunch break, Jones again complained to reporters about not being able to testify that he's innocent.
	But Sandy does have some regrets about the content of his broadcast dealing with Sandy Hook.
	I've said things I probably shouldn't have said, he added.
	I didn't realize the power I had.
	And I've seen the families.
	I've met some of the families.
	I think they're real people.
	But it's the media and the lawyers that kept bringing it up and miserably saying what I said and what I did.
	Jones also has been found liable by default in two similar lawsuits over the hoax lies in his hometown of Austin, Texas, where a jury in one of the trials ordered Jones last month to pay nearly $50 million in damages to the parents of one of the children killed.
	A third trial in Texas is expected to begin near the end of the year.
	When Jones faced a Texas jury last month and testified under oath, he toned down his rhetoric He said he realized the hoax lies were irresponsible and the school of shooting was quote 100% real.
	Jones shows that portrayed the Sandy Hook shooting is staged by crisis actors and part of gun control efforts.
	Testimony at the current trial.
	...has also focused on website analytic data run by InfoWars employees, showing how its sales of dietary supplements, food, clothing, and other items spiked around the time Jones talked about the San Diego shooting.
	Evidence, including internal InfoWars emails and depositions, also show discussion with the company about pushing the hoax lines.
	Jones' lawyer, Norman Pettis, is arguing that any damages should be limited, and accused the victims' relatives of exaggerating the harm the lies cause them.
	And in fact, since they aren't actually lies, they can't have caused them any harm at all, other than being exposed as participants in an elaborate hoax.
	I think this is quite outrageous.
	Mitchell, I gather we've lost Bruce?
	Would you like to comment on what Jack had to say in these further issues regarding the Alex Jones trial?
	Mitchell.
	Mitchell, can you join?
	you Thank you.
	Yes, Jim.
	Yeah, please go.
	Any comments, thoughts you have about Jack or any of these other developments regarding Alex Jones?
	I mean, I think it's outrageous.
	He's being subjected to a third degree, you know, real interrogation there.
	And he's squirming because I think he knows, of course, that it was fake, but he has, for whatever reason, adopted the posture that is real.
	What are your thoughts about the trial?
	Well, it's certainly that Alex Jones is being targeted and that free speech and free thought itself is being targeted.
	That, you know, we are being commanded and demanded to acquiesce.
	and to associate our thought processes and our beliefs With an approved narrative coming from someone or something, you know, throughout history, those that claim the moral high ground often were their own heretics, so to speak.
	And, you know, in this case, you know, when you look at the U.S.
	justice system, the U.S.
	Justice Department, whether it's Jim Fetzer or Alex Jones or Donald J. Trump, We have seen a complete breakdown and not only the rule of law.
	But the rule of justice of how justice is supposed to be.
	Accounted for, so to speak in the public forum that the civil liberties.
	And the right to, you know, basically a free and open trial have been succumb to political agendas.
	Well, you see, there's never been a, there have been no jury trials about any of these cases.
	None of them address the question of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	They've all been settled on procedural grounds, whether it's by stipulation or assumption or default.
	In the cases of Alex Jones or the Remington or in my case by virtue of an abusive summary judgment procedure.
	That basically enabled the judge to set aside my evidence and my facts as unreasonable.
	I mean, literally, it's the concept of whether the evidence is reasonable or unreasonable that Wisconsin allows a judge to use to dispatch facts that he doesn't like, that he finds to be unreasonable based on his subjective opinion.
	Mitchell, stay on because when you're on it's clear and I'm not getting the static.
	Please stay.
	More thoughts of yours.
	We're almost to the break, but what I would say is that the court believes Madonna, the material girl, and her bashing of God and the Catholic religion has more credence than your words for Sandy Hook.
	Well, Beto will return after this break.
	Call in. 540-3524-552. .
	Listen 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 that 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, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslip.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 people.
	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 in 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.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Hey, everybody.
	Welcome back.
	It's The Raw Deal on Revolution Radio.
	So come on down and join us at freedomslips.com, revolution.radio.
	Catch us Monday, Wednesday, Friday, noon to two Eastern.
	You can get the straight truth right here on The Raw Deal.
	Hello, Jim, you back?
	All right, here he comes!
	All right.
	Who we got on the line?
	Just us.
	Just us.
	Justice.
	Give me your further thoughts, Mitchell.
	I think you're being very clear about all this.
	Oh my gosh.
	Well, you know, we live in this world.
	We live in a land of psyops.
	And the government essentially runs the people from psyop to psyop.
	From emotional fear and, you know, tyranny to, you know, threats of nuclear war now.
	This problem reaction solution, the strategy of tension, it doesn't get relieved.
	You know, the tension that is pushed in, that is hammered, Um, there isn't any relief valve that I see, you know, and some people may think the Ukraine war itself is a relief valve, but that's actually just the slow burn.
	Um, so yeah, um, it's, um, the continuing escalation and the denial of the West.
	You know, of course, you know, I look at as if right now there's three fronts in the Ukraine war with, you know, basically Ukraine itself.
	And then in the south, you have Armenia and Azerbaijan, a Christian and Muslim, Christian Muslims going at it.
	The Armenia backed by Russia with a self-defense mutual defense agreement.
	And then you have over on the other side, thousands of miles away from there or so.
	You have Turkistan and Kazakhstan, I believe it is.
	They were having cross-border skirmishes last week between armed groups.
	It really is.
	It really is really a hell of a thing.
	So, yeah.
	Uh, what's going to happen, Jim?
	I'm not sure.
	But I see NATO escalating.
	And this these color revolutions, they keep trying to push them through.
	So it's not good.
	Yeah, I agree completely, of course.
	I like all Jack's comments about the writ, of course.
	He has followed the case from the beginning, and I think, given his vast experience, his sense of how things are moving is going to be highly accurate.
	And he's concluding that it looks very, very promising, which is my opinion, too.
	Gorsuch could have simply denied the writ, as did Amy Coney Barrett, which was Somewhat surprising to me, the justices don't have to give any explanation for why they would deny a motion to stay.
	But because this motion to stay order was itself illegal and in violation of the statutes of Wisconsin for how these things are to be done, it was simply issuing a stay until the Supreme Court rules on my writ.
	as opposed to being a permanent stay.
	It was simply contention on ruling on my writ, which seems highly appropriate.
	They issue stays of even lawful orders.
	And in this case, it was of an unlawful order.
	So I didn't think it would be a tough call.
	On the other hand, I had to send it to Justice Barrett, because she has this Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin is located, But after her denial, I had the option of sending to another justice, and I sent it to Gorsuch, who, of course, has taken a more favorable view of it and shared it with the entire court, which I regard as a very positive development.
	Do I still have you here, Mitchell, or no?
	I know we're having Internet issues here, but still going.
	Anyone who'd like to call in, remember the number 540-352-4452.
	I want to thank Paul from California and Mike Sledge for the excellent discussion we had on Wednesday.
	That was highly, highly appropriate.
	Mitchell, I'm glad to have you back.
	Any further thoughts about all of the above?
	I mean, Alex Jones, from what I'm hearing from those who are actually watching the trial, is in some kind of anguish.
	He's really in an awkward position because I have no doubt he knows better Uh, that he's having to testify for this famed reason, uh, you know, why he's claiming it was real.
	It's a bit baffling to me.
	Bruce, I see we have you back.
	Tell us, Bruce, your thoughts.
	Yeah.
	You need a, uh, a collar.
	Here's the peanut gallery again.
	That's all right.
	Yeah.
	I was just wondering, uh, I don't want to pivot away from that list.
	Uh, if you don't mind.
	I just want to talk further about the Ukraine and Putin's response with his conscription.
	I see that as very appropriate.
	You know, I saw a prisoner, a Ukrainian prisoner, who was being interviewed on RT, and he said that he only had like one day of training, and they put him in an armored personnel carrier, brand new, and then there's an aerial shot
	I've been going straight down a trail in a totally non-tactical formation, being hammered by attack helicopters and missiles, and these guys are just being fed into a mincemeat grinder, you know?
	You know, you're in charge of a company of Marine Corps crews that took 12 weeks just to make a Marine, you know?
	And then you went on to your A.I.T., whether it was in armor, infantry, communications.
	These guys, these Ukrainians are just cannon fodder.
	It's just absurd.
	It's a crime against humanity to just shovel them into the front lines like that.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And, uh, it's just incredible the media ignoring everything that's been going on in the Dombash for 10 years or 8 years now.
	These people have been suffering.
	You can know an equivalent between the Ukraine, Athenomabian coups, and Israel.
	It's the same behavior by the Russian backers, the same ignoring of genocide on part of the media, the same endless supply of money and weapons, and the same challenge disregard for human life on the part of the government of Ukraine.
	You know, it's a giant estate.
	That's where the pale settlement was, in the Ukraine.
	And I believe that's where the Ashtonata Jews originated from.
	Yes.
	This idea of Jews.
	And they're just unleashing parrot That's why they killed the czar in retaliation for being confined to the pale settlement by uh, by the imperial government of Russia.
	Yes.
	You know?
	Yes.
	Absolutely right.
	And I'm kind of troubled by some of the people on the right wing of the alternative media.
	Like I was listening to a show the other day and it had a spokesman from National Vanguard and He expressed disappointment that more people aren't supporting the white nationalists of the Azov Battalion.
	Those people are Shavosh Goy!
	They're working for Jews!
	What's with this big blind spot when it comes to this?
	It's a repeated behavior.
	Did you know that the neo-Nazi leader of the 1970s in the United States, Frank Collins, his real name was Frank Collins.
	He was convicted of child molestation.
	And he's the one that did that stunt where they marched through Sophie, Illinois.
	And to me, that was a PR boost for the Holocaust industry.
	They came out right when that series on ABC, The Holocaust, came out.
	Tell me, their take was, of course, reinforcing the official narrative, no doubt, right?
	That's exactly it.
	I have my opinions on what happened in Germany and their policies, and I believe they've been wrongfully accused as far as the Holocaust is concerned, and Hitler did great things from 1933 to 1938, you know?
	But if you put on the uniform that the paint master behind you is Jewish, you gotta start asking questions, you know?
	And I just don't get this blind spot in the white national community, you know?
	And then they begin to hold that title of white supremacist, you know?
	You're basically being a caricature, you know?
	You're promoting the enemy.
	And so I have to wonder what your dang, you know, your real motives are in doing that.
	And like the right stuff, you know, those guys there, Mike Enoch and them.
	They totally pushed back against 9-11 Truth.
	They totally swallowed Hook, Line, and Seeker, the official story.
	And they would ban you if you even tried to question it.
	The lines go straight to organized jury, but they didn't want to touch that.
	Are these people really supreme in their intelligence?
	To me, they're like imbeciles.
	Yes, yes.
	How right you are.
	How absolutely right you are.
	Yeah, these people never, they won't question a damn thing.
	But, you know, except, you know, racial strife in America.
	Immigration, which is, you know, these are good topics.
	But, uh, Sandy Hook!
	Look at the people involved with Sandy Hook.
	Uh, Hosner.
	And all these other characters, you know?
	Dean Rosen, there was a sign behind him, everyone must check in, you know?
	Yes.
	They all have something in common.
	Yeah, but the white supremacists just don't seem to notice it.
	They just seem to overlook it.
	So I have to question that intelligence or the motives or maybe both.
	Yeah, I got that off my chest.
	Thanks for hearing me out.
	Oh, you got it.
	Absolutely.
	100% Brian.
	I'm glad.
	I'm glad to hear from you.
	OK, thank you.
	Thanks very much for calling back in.
	Yeah, Jim.
	Hey, Brian is here.
	OK, no, no.
	Brian's here.
	OK, Brian, go ahead.
	Join us.
	Brian, please.
	Your thoughts.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, yeah, that wasn't Brian you were talking to.
	I forget who that is on Brian.
	But anyway, on Alex Jones, I know you're familiar with the Power Hour because you used to be on there with Joyce Riley.
	And that's carried by a local radio station.
	So I pick it up right on air and there's a woman named Johnny.
	They're like co-owners of it.
	And Alex Jones was Jones was in Kansas City for some promotional event, you know, him being on that radio station, whatever.
	And she got on the air and she said, that guy is such a jerk.
	I'm going to carry his show one day a week.
	She carries it on Thursday, but she said he was the most intolerable Arrogant.
	She just could not stand him.
	And so what I know about Alex Jones is he's controlled opposition.
	You know, Lenin said the best way to defeat your opposition is be your opposition.
	And to me, everything they're doing with that Alex Jones trial, it shows when they bring in all the press and they make a really big elaborate deal of showing what's going on.
	It's getting into what Russ Winter talked about, the egregore, the group consciousness.
	They use the press as like an egregore amplifier.
	When they put that out over the airwaves on their mainstream news, oh look, Alex Jones has admitted it really happened.
	It's to reinforce that thought in the group.
	Groupthink of all the people in the US so that they can keep doing what they're doing.
	As far as I know, Rothschild probably called him up and said, look, we need you to help us out here.
	We'll give you billions, whatever, and just play along.
	That's my take on it.
	Just what does he get out of it?
	Well, I think he gets money from Rothschild or somebody.
	It's all just a big scam show.
	I think that for him to go along play-acting this whole role that he's got, yeah, they'll make it look like he has to pay all this money, but I think, in reality, he gets even more money for this big game they're playing.
	It's all kabuki theater.
	Rachel, let me bring in your thoughts.
	What's your take on Alex Jones in general?
	Well.
	I think everything that is good.
	Everything that is grassroots.
	I think everything that is effective once it becomes effective, it is co-opted.
	It is tarnished.
	It is brought down and then it is used as a tool.
	Has Alex Jones cycled through all of those already yet?
	I don't know.
	But, you know, it's when, you know, because somebody co-ops your style, your message, your ideas, and then flips the script that, you know, can you hold Alex Jones responsible for that?
	I don't know.
	Uhm, all I know is you know we have to have free speech.
	We have to have free thought and you know we have to be able to speak freely.
	Without those, those hindrances like Alex and you are facing.
	You know?
	It would be essentially if you and Alex, instead of talking about Sandy Hook, What if you were talking about something that Muslims wanted to shut you down and shut you up for?
	What if it was Protestants?
	What if it was Catholics?
	You know, what if it was just some other group that had the power?
	What if it was AIPAC and the Jewish lobby?
	You know, it essentially is no different to me.
	Because we get to believe and we get to think whatever we choose and whatever we want.
	And, you know, that, you know, what they do is such an affront to freedom, such an affront to the First Amendment.
	It's disgraceful in America.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I do agree completely, of course.
	I mean, it's it's fairly stunning.
	Can I make a comment?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	You know, I think I mentioned at the last show that on Veterans Today they had published from February 24th, 1920, Hitler's 25-point plan, his political platform.
	And oh man, I had to go back and read it again because Everything on there, if everything in that platform was applied to the United States of America, we would have virtually no problems.
	I mean, it was things like, you know, if the press lies, we're going to be shut down.
	Seal up the borders.
	No more illegal immigration.
	No Jews in the government.
	Okay?
	I mean, it just...
	The end of Roman law, only common law for the Germans, and when you read it, it just is mind-boggling.
	Your jaw just drops, and then there was like a 20-minute video on everything, all their, when the Nazis came to power.
	All the things that they did to bring Germany out of the Depression and how it worked so well and went into detail and how Hitler just really pissed off the bankers.
	That I didn't realize that the bankers in 1914, when World War I started, they confiscated all the German gold because it was kept overseas, and they ran out of money by 1918, and that's why they had the hyperinflation.
	And the thing that I found interesting, too, was they talk about, we've heard of the Caligari Well, the early Nazis, the industrialists, the elites of Germany, when Hitler was thrown in jail, they wanted to put Caligari in charge of the Nazi party.
	I mean, what a disaster that would have been.
	We would have had the Caligari plan a lot quicker over there.
	So it's just fascinating, this Veterans Today article.
	So anyway, I would recommend anyone read it.
	It's under Jack Hart.
	Did I get your take, Brian, on Alex Jones and his situation?
	Well, yeah, I told you, I think he's just controlled opposition.
	I think he's super dark, he's not good.
	Johnny, you know, the radio station here, that's when I first got exposed to it.
	And Paul even said that he knew someone that knew him, and, you know, anyone who knows him personally, it seems like, or has been around him personally, is bad news.
	His wife's Jewish.
	His father was in the John Birch Society, and what I know about the John Birch Society is Rockefeller gave them a lot of money, and he said, whatever you do, you'll get money from us, but don't mention us Jews in anything.
	That's my take on him.
	I don't think he's good.
	You don't think he's good, okay?
	No, I think he's terrible.
	See, I think he does good to this extent.
	He invites attention to Puzzling situations, complex controversial cases where something looks fishy.
	I think he's good at bringing in people to give different opinions, but I think he's not good at following through, that he never reaches a point of assessing all the evidence, sorting out the difference between the authentic and the fabricated and ascertaining what the real explanation turns out to be.
	In other words, He's good at initiating discussion and noting controversies and inviting attention, and there I think he's done a really exemplary job on a whole host of issues.
	But when it comes to following through, he's very weak.
	I frankly believe when he denies he read the book, that he has not read the book.
	He has to have read the book or he wouldn't know what's going on.
	But then again, he's having, he's feigning he never read the book.
	I find all that very, very strange.
	Your thoughts?
	Why would he feign not having read the book?
	Because he's controlled opposition.
	To me, he's just like Fox News in all of them.
	You know, you'll never hear Fox News talk about the Federal Reserve now.
	We don't need it.
	He's just playing their game like they all do, you know.
	To me, he's just controlled opposition.
	That's what I think he is.
	Okay.
	Mitchell, any further thoughts of your own about all these things?
	Freedom is always in peril, Jim.
	Doesn't matter when you are and I don't know who said it, but you know.
	Really does seem to take just one generation.
	To lose freedom to lose the ideals of that this country was founded on.
	So freedom is always a struggle and I was at Thomas Jefferson said that you have a. You have a Republic and if you can now, if you can keep it.
	That was actually Benjamin Franklin, I think.
	OK, so we'll see.
	But but but Jefferson was.
	You know, JFK observed to a room full of Nobel Prize winners, which I'm told didn't like the comparison that this was the greatest assemblage of intelligence ever put together in a single place in the White House during its history, except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
	Personally, I thought that was wonderful.
	Jefferson was a Political genius, inspired, perhaps the greatest of all Americans.
	He's certainly a strong candidate.
	James Madison, of course, had a great deal to do with the Constitution and so forth.
	He and Jefferson, Monroe, John Adams, a few others are among the greatest of all Americans in our history.
	I want to thank Bruce and Brian for calling, and I want to thank John Remington Graham for joining us while he could do so.
	I very much appreciate all of their contributions, and perhaps on some occasion we'll be able to have Jack back.
	Meanwhile, on the verge of the weekend, spend as much time as you can with your family and friends.

▲