Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 5, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:39

The Raw Deal (5 December 2022)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody.
	Help!
	Not just anybody.
	Help!
	You know I need someone.
	Help!
	When I was young, so much younger than today.
	I never needed anybody's help in any way But now these days are gone and I'm not so self-assure But now I find the genuine and open up the doors Help me if you can, I'm feeling down And I do appreciate you being around Help me get my feet back on the ground
	Won't you please, please help me - This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal with very mixed feelings today because the Supreme Court has denied my petition for a re-hearing, I have just learned.
	I find this profoundly disturbing because in the appendices, I not only had submitted to the Supreme Court the FEMA manual for the exercise of Sandy Hook, That would be Appendix B, but also the Connecticut FEMA agency's own schedule showing they had the drill,
	Exercise Vail-366 scheduled for 14 December 2012, at 12 Dickinson Drive, or 12 Dickinson Drive, 12 Dickinson Drive.
	I mean, they even had a map to show you how to get to Sandy Hook Elementary School right there on the blog.
	And then in Appendix C. I had this.
	Wonderful piece by Brian Davidson, a licensed attorney from a licensed private investigator from Texas who's done sensational work about Buffalo, about Uvalde.
	In this case, gone into the Connecticut State Police files to study the photographs in relation to the police report, and found that their own photographs contradict their report.
	For example, there's a hallway where, according to the report, the bodies of Don Hawksring, the principal, and Mary Sherlock, the school psychologist, were found in a pool of blood.
	We have a photograph down the hallway.
	Not only are there no bodies of Don Hawkspring or of Mary Sherlock, but there's no blood.
	The hallway is perfectly wrapped of any bodies or blood, though it showed signs of lack of maintenance, which is unsurprising in the extreme, since, as I previously reported, we discovered the school had been closed by 2008.
	And indeed, further research Substantiates it was closed actually by 2006.
	Not only that, when Brian looks at photographs in one of the classrooms, we expect to see a pile of bodies of kids and blood all over the place.
	There's not only no pile of bodies of kids, there's not only no blood, but there aren't even any school desks.
	There aren't any school chairs.
	There's no teacher's desk.
	There's no American flag.
	There are no photographs of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, in other words.
	What I submitted to the Supreme Court not only proves there was no mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012, but that it wasn't even a functioning school.
	It wasn't even operating.
	There weren't any students or teachers there.
	How much more proof would they need to recognize that this case deserved to be sent to a trial by jury?
	Not only that, but during my efforts to recover my blog, jamesfetzer.org, and the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which was given
	To Leonard Posner by the Circuit Court right here in Wisconsin in violation of the statutes of Wisconsin regarding taking to satisfy a monetary judgment of $450,000, where according to the statutes, monetary judgment can only be satisfied by monetary awards.
	Can't say tried to take a recreational in ground trailer.
	I have out by Rock Lake and make bills.
	Vacation.
	45 minutes away.
	Lovely situation surrounded by pine trees.
	1760 or 70 foot pine trees on my own.
	Little chunk of property which actually leased from the city on the in ground trailer, but you have to leave some property.
	On a very picturesque or very near proximity to a very picturesque lake.
	We tried to take that.
	Because my retirement income such as i have in my social security and in my home are not vulnerable to attachment.
	So they had the sheriff put it up for sale.
	I originally paid $60,000 for it.
	It may have been too much, but that was quite a long time ago.
	They put it up for $30,000.
	Didn't get any bids.
	Half of that would have gone to my wife because the judgment is against me and that's joint-owned property.
	So what did they do?
	Bosner came into court to take the book on the block.
	Now they had improper motives.
	They wanted to take the blog so that when the Alex Jones show trials, and there's no question about it, these are kangaroo courts, these are really for public consumption as a political theater, began to take place.
	And on the 28th, was it, of April, they began trashing Sandy Hook Skeptics, including me, referring to me.
	In a letter from Paul Joseph Watson to Alex Jones, we got to stay as far away as possible from that batshit crazy fencer.
	They took the blog that morning.
	So as soon as anyone heard about this batshit crazy guy, they might want to figure out what made him batshit crazy.
	They might have wanted to go to my blog.
	What a mess of stuff about Sandy Hook.
	Including several of the most recent blogs about the Alex Jones trial.
	They did not want the public to have access.
	I pointed out, for example, that the very first trial of Scarlett Lewis and Neil Haslam against Alex Jones And mind you, all this is for him expressing an opinion that is alleged to have hurt the feelings of the parents, which is just as absurd as it gets.
	There's nothing about the First Amendment that says you can't say anything that upsets somebody.
	In fact, the whole idea is to protect unpopular speech, speech that no one wants to hear.
	That's the whole idea.
	That's the motive behind the First Amendment.
	Thus has been observed.
	Though I may disagree with every word you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
	It's intended to be provocative.
	It's intended to stir up the pot.
	It's intended to make you think things through.
	It's intended to make you consider another side, a different aspect, another point of view.
	But political correctness It's had a profound effect.
	We're not supposed to say anything that's going to hurt anyone's feelings.
	Well, F that!
	How ridiculous can you get?
	Hurt somebody's feelings?
	Sometimes the truth hurts.
	And I guarantee you, this Hesslin-Scart-Lewis thing was ridiculous.
	Right in my petition, I point out That Neil Heslin claimed to have held his dying son, Jesse, in his arms, which contradicts what Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, reported when he said the parents weren't even allowed to come into contact with their children.
	And, of course, That's right, they weren't allowed to come into contact with the children, because there were no children.
	They were only identified on the basis of photographs.
	You may recall, he said, I've got very good photographers.
	Well, these children were makeup.
	Noah Bosner, for example, was the subject of my lawsuit with regard to a death certificate.
	It was a fiction made out of photographs of his purported stepbrother, Michael Vabner.
	Half-brother Michael Vatner when he was a child.
	Larry Rivera done absolutely sensational work by superimposing photographs of Lee Oswald over the man in the doorway and a Billy Lovelady over the man in the doorway.
	Where the government claims the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady.
	But where was, in fact, Lee Oswald?
	Now, interestingly, Billy Lovelady was also in the doorway near Lee, and they blacked out his face.
	They obfuscated his shirt, because he was wearing a completely different shirt, actually.
	A red and white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt looked nothing like that of the man in the doorway, long-sleeved, tightly woven, worn and tattered.
	Marina would rater say, yeah, she remembered having laundered that shirt.
	He was wearing it the day he was arrested.
	He was wearing it in the doorway.
	Jim Garrison knew Lee was in the doorway.
	Oliver Stone apparently was not allowed to know by Robert Grodin, who was hired as a special counsel for the House-elect committee when they were investigated and fabricated photographs to make it look as though it wasn't Lee Oswald based upon an analysis of the shirt.
	By having a fake shirt put on Billy Love Lady.
	I mean, this is just, I can't begin to tell you the despicable actions of individuals who have frequently been venerated as heroes of the JFK research community like Robert Grodin and Josiah Thompson.
	and I'll see you next time.
	Josiah Thompson, for example, maintains that the whole movies are authentic.
	Closest thing to absolute truth we have.
	Well, they've been massively edited.
	So, Larry Rivera, once again, has done sensational work here.
	He rediscovered interviews with the four motorcycle escort officers and their supervisors, Davis Ellis, that have been recorded by Fred Newcomb Beckham.
	1971, no one had ever transcribed them.
	Larry went through the painful process of transcribing.
	All four of them got from the limousine stop.
	The limousine was brought to a complete halt.
	Officer Hargis, riding to the left, parked his bike, ran between the limousines, which would have been impossible had they been in motion up to the grassy knoll.
	Douglas Jackson on the right motored up.
	Onto the grassy knoll, you hadn't heard that before, right?
	Until his bike fell over and they proceeded on foot.
	Five agents got out of the Secret Service limousine surrounded.
	Took a chunk of skull from a little boy and threw it in the backseat, probably the Harper fragment, a big triangular chunk of skull from the back of JFK's head.
	All of which, it seems to me, cannot have taken less than 20 seconds.
	I mean, just start recounting.
	20 seconds at roughly 20 frames per second is 400 frames.
	The turn from Houston onto Amos is also removed.
	That was another 100 frames.
	The extant version of this improver is only 487 frames, so they removed more frames than they left in, and then they edited what they had there to boot.
	So I asked Larry, I said, without any identification, are these the same person?
	Because if you have two images from the same perspective, and you can set the inter-pupillary distance the same, the distance between the pupils the same, then if they're the same person, all the features fall into line.
	And if they're not, they don't.
	And we did it with a man in the doorway.
	They all fell into place for Lee Oswald, and they did not for Millie Lovelady, who was physically very different than Lee anyway, two or three inches short, 15 to 20, I think, even more pounds heavier, who himself said he didn't imagine how they could possibly be confused.
	Well, it was because it was a typical government action, obfuscation, lying, cheating, deceiving the American people.
	That's what the government does.
	They cheat, they lie.
	The theft of his Alexa has been just staggering.
	Staggering.
	The enormity of the theft, the blatancy of the theft.
	In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman prevailing over Muhammad Oz?
	Give me a break.
	Completely incompetent, brain damaged, literally suffered a stroke, began his debate with Oz when he was asked what were his qualifications to be Senator, United States Senator, and he replied saying, hi, good night, everybody.
	And it went downhill from that, like 82, 83% said Oz had won the debate.
	17, how could anyone think Fetterman won the debate?
	Have you watched any part of it?
	And then in Arizona, you got this fantastic Carrie Lake, just a dynamo articulate on top of the issues, fearless, fearless experience with the media, delivers a powerful message.
	The woman against whom she was running, Katie Hobbs, didn't even have a campaign.
	She didn't make it.
	She wouldn't debate.
	Carrie Lake.
	She was Secretary of State.
	In that position, she was supervising the election for Senator, where she herself was a candidate.
	How absurd is that?
	On the day of the election only.
	17% of the turnout was Democrat voters.
	Only 17.
	But Katie Hobbs got over 50% of the vote.
	Can you believe that?
	This is just absurd.
	The United States has turned into the world's largest pile of shit.
	I'm furious about it.
	It's brought to us by the goddamn Democrats.
	Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.
	I won't even say Joe Biden.
	He's just a puppet.
	It's not even the real Joe.
	Barack Obama, there's a nasty piece of work for you.
	You know, all this stuff about transgenderism and drag shows and all that, I'm convinced it's because Barack Obama and Michelle are both men.
	They are Or used to be described as perverts or perpetrating a massive fraud.
	Barack Obama had a torrid affair with Rahm Emanuel in Chicago in the bathhouses there.
	Everyone knew about it.
	And when he went to Washington as well, he brought Rahm Emanuel along as his chief of staff.
	Michelle Obama was born Michael LaVaughn Robbins that played football at Oregon State before He adopted a female persona, changed his name to Michelle, went to Princeton.
	I've got photographs of Brock and Michael together, obviously two males.
	Before and after, Michelle had breast implants.
	So she'd appear more like a woman.
	That was revealed by a physician who walked into her in a campaign shot, trapped near a trailer where she was taking a leak, standing up.
	Women can't do that.
	And of course, too, men can't have children.
	They borrow the children.
	Students have actually tracked down their actual parents, and yeah, by God, the older girl looks just like her father, the younger girl looks just like her mother.
	In the Hunter Biden laptops, and I say God bless Elon Musk, God bless Elon Musk, he's revealing all the way the use of Twitter to abuse and conceal Hunter laptop information to protect In this case, Hillary Clinton from the Expo said, in the Hunter Biden laptop, you have all kinds of sordid events.
	One where he's cavorting in a bed with two nubile young black girls.
	And sitting on the bed is a little dog.
	A little dog that Barack Obama gave to his daughters.
	And of course, Hunter would have met them.
	For God's sake, Joe Biden was vice president to Barack Obama.
	Remember?
	Do you have any idea what Barack Obama actually said about Joe Biden, his vice president?
	He said, never estimate Joe's ability to fuck things up.
	Well, this isn't even the real Joe, but man, is he fucking things up.
	There's no doubt about it.
	So here you have Hunter cavorting with the girls in videotape on the laptop.
	And everyone knew it was authentic from the beginning.
	Everyone knew it was authentic from the beginning.
	We get all this bullshit from the FBI.
	You had 50 intel or former officials claiming this was Russian disinformation.
	Bullshit!
	And now it's coming out how massively they manipulated.
	I don't know what the hell to say about the United States Supreme Court.
	I can tell you I gave them more than enough evidence to conclude that this was a gross injustice.
	And what I find most incredible, it turns out that by circuitous history, The Supreme Court has never affirmed the application of the Seventh Amendment to all 50 states.
	I discovered this when in the process of appealing the wrongful taking, well, it turns out by Wisconsin statutes, you can only satisfy a monetary judgment by a monetary award because books and blogs are intellectual property, they're not monetary awards.
	What happened when the judge gave them directly was a violation of Wisconsin statutes.
	It says they must be given to a receiver.
	The receiver must put them up for bids and then take the money received from the bids to secure the property to satisfy the judgment.
	But they made the argument there.
	This is after I'd already submitted my petition.
	In fact, the day after.
	They made the argument that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to jury trials in the states.
	I mean, how absurd is that?
	How absurd is that?
	And it turned out to be true!
	I embarked on a course of research and it turned out to be true!
	Peculiar!
	So I was teeing it up for the Supreme Court to use this opportunity not only to fix the absurd summary judgment procedure in Wisconsin that allows a judge on the basis of his own subjective opinions to decide Whether or not facts are reasonable.
	If the judge thinks that facts are unreasonable, he can set them aside as though they did not exist.
	You cannot have a summary judgment if there are any disputed facts.
	Well, in this case, the dispute could not have been more egregious.
	He was maintaining that his son had died at Sandy Hook, for which he had an authentic death certificate.
	I was maintaining nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	For which, therefore, there could be no authentic death certificate.
	That was a conflict before the court.
	And yet the judge ruled during the conference hearing that I couldn't pursue the line of defense that the official narrative was wrong.
	And would you believe the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld it so that in consecutive paragraphs, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals said, it is reasonable to believe That Adam Lanza shot his mother, then went to Sandy Hook and shot 20 kids and six adults.
	And in the same paragraph, they mentioned Neil Hesselin held his son in his arms as he died.
	I mean, give me a break.
	And in the following paragraph, it says, it is unreasonable to believe that it was a FEMA drill.
	Presented as mass murder to promote gun control, that the school had been closed, blah, blah, blah.
	I'd even got my book, the whole damn book, into evidence.
	It was the very last admission at the end of the oral hearing where he declared there were no disputed facts.
	And in order to do that, by the way, you had to set aside the report, the reports plural of two forensic document experts.
	The defense oppositor team didn't have any rebuttal.
	Two forensic document experts testified in their report that then four different versions of the death certificate.
	Can you imagine four different versions?
	And then the plaintiffs would introduce a fifth during the oral.
	You got five different versions of a death certificate.
	That doesn't smack on its face of something being terribly wrong.
	Two forensic document experts testified in their reports, affidavits, sworn statements, all four of the death certificates that have been introduced were fake.
	All four.
	Well, the judge just set them aside as unhelpful.
	He just set them aside as unhelpful.
	This is how the authenticity of documents is determined in a court of law.
	You rely upon document experts.
	Those are all in the record.
	So in order to find there be no disputed facts, he had to simply ignore all the facts I had presented and substantiated, because I had evidence for every damn thing I claimed.
	And now today, going before the Supreme Court, even more evidence than before, because at the time I did not have.
	the Connecticut State report on the schedule back after the break.
	www.freedomslips.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.
	It 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.
	FreedomSubs.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 and pose 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 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 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.
	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 FreedomStitch.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.
	Well, one of the most important persons in my sorting things out at how I should approach the Supreme Court is a fellow from Texas who's had a lot of experience in the Texas courts with summary judgments.
	And when we fell into conversation about it, I learned how different were the summary judgment protocols in Texas as opposed to those in Wisconsin and why the Wisconsin protocols were
	In my opinion, legally absurd, because they do not apply, they do not involve the objective application of the law or the principles of evidence, but merely allow subjective opinions to decide matters by a single court, by a judge.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	In any case, Ron Avery, my name is here with me now.
	And I want to begin by asking Ron his sense of what's happened here with the Supreme Court denying my petition for a re-hearing.
	Ron, I'm so glad you could join me this morning.
	Well, thank you.
	I'm glad to be with you, too.
	Yes.
	Go ahead.
	No, I was just saying, I don't know if you heard my review of the bidding here before you came on, but I was spent.
	I heard the introduction, you know, about talking about the absurdity of the summary judgments you got in Wisconsin.
	That's the part I've heard.
	I just, you know, it was two or three minutes before 1130 when I got in.
	Let's go for it.
	You go for it, Ron.
	Yeah, well, I just, I agree with you.
	And I really, I have, I just can't believe that SCOTUS is pretending.
	That there's more important cases in the United States.
	I mean, we are talking about national interest here.
	We're talking about, we've just seen three or four trials of a gun manufacturer who lost $73 million, lost his entire insurance policy, $73 million.
	We've had the Alex Jones cases where they were up to, what was it?
	I can't even remember the numbers.
	They're astronomical.
	I think one of them was 45-something million, and that group is asking for, oh, didn't they win a billion?
	Almost a billion in one of them.
	That's right.
	A billion dollars for expressing an opinion, Ron.
	I mean, what the hell has happened?
	Let me finish here how insane this is.
	I mean, it's been all over the news.
	You couldn't watch the news and not know about the Alex Jones trials.
	And then the same group that won almost a billion dollars, and that was not the punitive damages, they won $3.2 trillion for punitive damage.
	Well, that's what you would charge a country for blowing up the Capitol.
	And what is this?
	What are they really doing?
	This is about scaring the people to death.
	And about, you are right, it is about disarmament.
	The people that have overthrown our government and dissolved it do not want an armed public.
	They want a disarmed public that cannot defend themselves against tyranny, because we've already seen the tyranny imposed with this COVID-19.
	That was nothing but tyranny, abject tyranny.
	They had no authority to make you stay home, to close your business, or to operate it in a certain fashion at different percentages when you reopen.
	They didn't have any authority to make you wear a mask.
	They didn't have any authority to make you get a shot.
	None of that.
	They had none of it, and they can't get it because In a lawful government, the government cannot obtain more authority than is in each individual.
	And you have a right to stay home and wear a mask and close your business and do all of that, but you don't have the authority to tell your neighbor to do that.
	So what that means is you cannot delegate to government an authority to tell your neighbor what to do in a viral outbreak.
	You just can't do it.
	And that means the government can't get it.
	You and I don't have a right to tell our neighbor to do those things.
	We can do them.
	We have authority to do them ourselves, but you can't make your neighbor do it.
	And that's why the government cannot make everybody do it.
	And because America has never been taught those principles that our governments were originally founded on, it's even written in the Texas Constitution.
	It's It's Article 1, Section 2.
	It tells you that all free governments are based on the authority of the people, and they have at all times a right to
	alter or abolish their government as they see fit at all times, as long as it's in the form of a republic, meaning that the government can never acquire more authority than is in each individual, because that was stated right up in the beginning.
	All authority for lawful government comes from the people, the individuals.
	Now, some people think, well, you just go down there and everybody votes on something.
	That's what they mean by the people.
	No, it means the authority must be in each individual because what's voting?
	I mean, if you don't have it, you can't go in a magic booth and make something come out of it that you didn't take in there.
	So voting doesn't help you.
	So what they're talking about is that authority and people talk about limited government.
	Limited government is based on limited authority in the individual.
	It's a necessity.
	Government must be limited because the authority in each individual is limited.
	So, and you are right, they simply want to pick up the guns because they don't want—you know that they've got something in store for you that you ain't gonna like, and you will not be able to defend yourself from it if If you don't have firearms.
	And I mean effective firearms, not these.
	See, they don't mind you having ineffective firearms, but the Second Amendment covers all firearms, military firearms.
	That's what it's about, because it's about defending ourselves from tyranny.
	So they want to have effective firearms, but they don't want you to have effective firearms.
	I think that's absolutely right.
	I went a little wild, didn't I?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Ron, that was all totally appropriate.
	How?
	You're very familiar with my petition.
	How could they possibly have?
	Jim, before we get into it, I want to say one more thing that's very important about this.
	It has to do with Sandy Hook and all these shootings we see.
	These so-called mass shootings.
	You know, they've developed this concept called conspiracy to commit terrorism, and what terrorism is, and they have a definition of it.
	Terrorism is the use of harm or violence to alter the law of the land or to alter the law.
	Well, what do they always say after these shootings, these mass shootings?
	They're always talking about disarmament.
	Well, what is that doing?
	It is using the harm done by somebody and trying to alter the law of the land with that harm.
	Well, and if you agree with the point that you can use some killer's violence to alter the law of the land, that is terrorism.
	Because you're using violence to alter the law of the land.
	You're not using logic and making sense, making an argument.
	You are using violence.
	And so what it does, it makes these so-called survivors of all these shootings, they convert themselves into terrorists.
	They joined a conspiracy to use violence to alter the law of the land.
	Because the law of the land is, it is unlawful to disarm the American people, period.
	Now, so what are they doing?
	They can't stand that law.
	They want that altered, and they're using the violence of one to alter the law of the land.
	Now, a lot of people think conspiracy means they all have to get together in a smoke-filled room with the lights down low and talk about doing it.
	That's one form, but to form a conspiracy, you don't even have to know the other person, or even the person that did the harm.
	You may even be somehow a result of the harm that that person did.
	You may be suffering from part of it.
	But if you agree with the object of this, to disarm the American people using violence, You have joined a conspiracy to commit disarmament terrorism.
	Well, I think that's absolutely right, Ron, and what they're doing is they're using the whole purpose of acts of terrorism is to instill fear into a population and to make it more amenable to manipulation to promote a political agenda.
	And in this case, they're using faux-terrorism, but it's having exactly the same effects.
	In other words, these actions, these staged shootings, which were legitimized by Barack Obama when he nullified the Smith-Munk Act of 1948 to legalize the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that heretofore were only allowed to be used without, By the Smith Modernization Act of 2012, just in time for Sandy Hook, is using acts of terrorism.
	I mean, the fact they're staged does not alter the fact that they're acts of terrorism that are intended to instill fear into a population, and they have had that effect.
	They're people, I'm astounded how psychologically they can't even talk about Sandy Hook.
	The very idea it didn't happen just leads them to their jaw drops.
	They look at you aghast.
	You know, you could not have said to them anything they would find more offensive, Ron.
	I mean, the power of the psychology here of the way these events were designed is just stupefying.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	You know, first of all, we're in America.
	You have a right to see things, to observe things, and to investigate things and say, you know, I don't know that I believe that.
	So are we supposed to not have any brain at all?
	And then whatever the mass media cartel says, we must agree to it.
	Uh, rather than say, well, that's a story.
	That's the story they told.
	That's, that's one view of it.
	Uh, but that, that, uh, it hadn't made up my mind.
	I have a mind.
	I can use it.
	I can think about it.
	Uh, when I don't see evidence of, of ambulances, I don't see evidence of helicopters.
	I don't see the evidence of, uh, of the things that you'd want around after a mass shooting.
	Yeah.
	I question it.
	I think it's natural, so we don't want natural man doing any thinking here in this new world we're creating.
	And I think when you combine that with the theft of the elections, that they are, you know, JFK said it best, those who make peaceful reform impossible.
	Make violent revolution inevitable.
	I just had a phone call this morning from someone very well connected who understands the events.
	He believes the situation as it's evolving here in the United States makes civil war inevitable.
	And it's by the Democrats stealing the election of 2020, then swindling 2022.
	The American people, the reform inherent in the Constitution by periodic elections, recalls, impeachment, and the whole like, gives a corrective mechanism.
	It allows the public to reform the government, to change direction, If it doesn't like the way it's going, eight out of 10 Americans in polls before the midterm said they thought the country was out of control.
	Seventy five percent said the country was moving in the wrong direction.
	Those historical have been bells as to how a midterm is going to turn out.
	Barack Obama, who didn't carry any of the heavy baggage or nothing like that, saddled on the Biden admin, lost 65 seats in his first midterm.
	James Carvel said we saved 57 seats because Trump was involved.
	No, they saved 57 seats because they stole the goddamn election and the techniques they used were overwhelming.
	I am disgusted, just disgusted, and the Democrats are consigning the United States to what I now believe is increasingly likely a civil war.
	A lot of people are going to die.
	Well, I think this is a real danger.
	I'm glad you brought this up because what I've been advocating for 20 years and showing through the principles of property that were promulgated by John Locke in 1689, which our countries are based on, is that dissolution has which our countries are based on, is that dissolution has occurred.
	They have altered the law of the land by law without amendment or approval of the people.
	So the government has no authority today, and most state governments are in the same condition.
	Most states are dissolved, and the federal government is most definitely dissolved.
	So we have unlawful governments, which is nothing more than tyranny.
	And we already have that.
	That's not coming.
	We have that.
	Our governments have been overthrown and dissolved.
	Now, all of it was done unlawfully, for sure, but it means that it is dissolved.
	And we have no obligation to it to conform to any provision of the construction or constitution of it.
	So, but if they could get a revolution to go blame us for something, and they already have, they've done the January 6th thing, they even stirred that up and created it.
	So, they create an incident, blame us for it, we're the insurgents, insurrectionists, and you just heard this, what's his name, the big Jewish lawyer, can't remember his name, He comes on and says that somebody said the Second Amendment was giving a lie to the people to overthrow their government.
	No one has ever said that.
	I've never heard that in my life.
	The Second Amendment is about militia and doing militia.
	Militia is a verb.
	It means defensive activity.
	So the Second Amendment is about defense from tyranny, not overthrowing anything.
	It gives you no right of offense.
	It gives you a right of defense, but it gives you the right to have any type of armament and certainly any kind that you think would be used against you.
	Now, the next thing, though, that's important here is that we should be coming together and constructing Identifying and actually creating a new constitution.
	We should be creating a lawful government.
	People need to think about, it's one thing to tear down a government or to get out from a dissolved one.
	It's another thing to create a new one, one that will protect your property, which is the very purpose of government.
	A government that does not protect your property is not a lawful government.
	And we've lost our property.
	We pay rent for everything we have.
	Now, that's a tenant.
	That's a serf.
	That is not a free people.
	And that's what we've become.
	And they are pushing us around all the time.
	So, instead of thinking about focusing on guns, Because when I say government is dissolved, most people say, oh, well, we've got to have a war, you know?
	No.
	First of all, you've got to construct lawful government.
	You've got to come up with what it is in the Constitution and describe what it is, and everybody understands it, everybody agrees with it.
	It's for the protection of everybody.
	Now, that's what we need to focus on.
	And if you try to play with those people that have overthrown our government, and dissolved it and are sitting in the dissolved season exercising the power they do not have authority to exercise, we will never get anywhere.
	And unfortunately, that's where these elections have taken us, nowhere.
	Rod, I'm so pleased you're here.
	And of course, you spoke at the Volkswagen conspiracy conference held this weekend and indeed, you spoke on the importance of my petition before the Supreme Court when What does it mean that the Supreme Court has denied my petition for rehearing?
	It basically said your case wasn't important.
	And I do not see, and they know that's a lie.
	Your case was the most important case of all the cases involving the Sandy Hook incident.
	You were saying that it didn't happen.
	Posner was saying it did happen.
	I lost a son.
	Here's his death certificate, even though he had five of them and and the one that you commented on was incomplete by his own evidence.
	He submitted evidence himself of a more complete death certificate.
	The death certificates you saw and you commented on was incomplete.
	The judge should have dismissed the case immediately because Posner attached a different death certificate to his complaint.
	The one you commented on and published was incomplete.
	It was incomplete by his Well, they let it go on.
	And then, like you say, the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin does not require the judge to accept all your allegations, all your allegations the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin does not require the judge to accept all your They don't take it as true.
	Well, if you're going to dismiss a case with a motion to dismiss, you must accept the non-mover.
	You must accept everything they say is true, as long as it's got some evidence to back it up.
	And the same thing applies for a motion for summary judgment.
	The non-movement, the judge must accept everything the non-movement says as true.
	So the only way they could have had a lawful summary judgment against you would have been if the judge had said Sandy Hook, the shooting, the mass shooting at Sandy Hook did not occur.
	It was a FEMA drill.
	Here's the evidence to show that it was.
	And though this death, it couldn't even be a death certificate because of someone that was supposedly killed at that event, which is what he had, which was showing what he had.
	But let me give you an example.
	Had you said at the same time, That Mr. Posner was an alcoholic, and he sued you for saying he was an alcoholic.
	Well, all your evidence about Sandy Hook would be irrelevant, because if you had the same evidence you have now, and you'd call him an alcoholic, that's what summary judgments are about, because the judge could have said, Ron, stand by.
	Hold that thought.
	I want everyone to know we're opening the phone lines early.
	540-352-4452.
	You may call in after the break.
	540-352-4452.
	Ron and I will field your questions, whether it's about the conference or the summary judgment, the denial of the petition.
	We're here for you.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	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.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	You're lying to yourself.
	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. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. 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 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. - and now we return you to your host. - Ron,
	- Ron, you are continuing, and then we want to turn and talk about the conference, which I was just astonished by the quality of the presentation.
	I mean, it was phenomenal.
	In any case, let me reaffirm.
	Mitchell said there had been several requests for us to open the phone lines early, so I have opened the phone lines early.
	540-352-4452, 540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	Ron, continue with your thoughts about what it means for the Supreme Court to have denied this petition, which by the way, State of the Nation published.
	This may be the most important issue before the Supreme Court in our lifetime.
	And if State of the Nation can perceive it, how can the Supreme Court not?
	Ron, I'm just blown away.
	Well, this is more evidence.
	The only thing you can come up with, the only thing that explains this is what ... I'm turning out to be the only real prophet around that has been claiming something that actually explains what we are seeing.
	The government is dissolved.
	And first of all, you can't overthrow a dissolved government.
	You can't insurrect a dissolved government.
	You can't—it's already done.
	We have to realize what we are dealing with.
	These people are in a defense mode.
	They know that it's the most important case that they could possibly have at this time because it deals with this whole idea of the disarmament thing and the so-called assault weapons, which, of course, is a joke.
	There's no such thing as an assault weapon.
	Everything is just a tool.
	You can use anything to assault somebody with.
	It becomes an assault weapon when you use a rock to hit somebody in the head with.
	And so and guess what?
	That same instrument can become a defense weapon.
	Do you ever hear them calling the AR-15 a defense weapon?
	Well, that's what it is.
	I mean, if you use it in defense, it's a defense weapon.
	So they don't want you to have an effective defense weapon.
	And they know that the Wisconsin thing is a bad summary judgment.
	They know what a bad summary judgment is.
	It's one where the judge doesn't take what the non-movement says is true.
	And then see if the guy still has a case.
	Now, had you called him an alcoholic, the judge could have said, well, Dr. Fetzer, I agree with you that the event didn't happen at Sandy Hook.
	Nobody was killed there.
	But what does that got to do with calling Mr. Bowser an alcoholic?
	And he could have granted a summary judgment.
	And had you had a jury, they would have found the same thing.
	That's the basis of the summary judgment.
	So all of these judges knew that.
	You've had a bad summary judgment that could not have passed the rules of the Texas court system on summary judgment.
	But what we discovered is that the Wisconsin system actually allows a judge to do that.
	They're not required in Wisconsin to take what the non-movement says as true.
	And then to see if the movement agrees with you.
	A judge cannot find facts, period.
	They cannot find them to do a summary judgment.
	The only thing they can find is agreement or disagreement.
	They can't find which facts to be true or false.
	or they can't find facts to be true or false.
	All they can do is find agreement or disagree.
	And in a motion for summary judgment, they must accept the non-movement facts as true, and then see if the movement agrees with them.
	If the movement agrees with them and he has a case, he can grant a summary judgment, a lawful one.
	Mr. Posner did not agree with you that Sandy Hook did not happen.
	He did not agree that no one was killed there.
	He did not agree that it was a FEMA drill conducted to promote gun control.
	He didn't agree with one thing you said, and therefore the judge should have thrown that summary judgment out the window immediately.
	You there?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I am, Ron.
	I am.
	I just don't know what this means.
	I mean... It means we have a decided government, and they simply don't want... They are going to keep coming.
	See, they are going to keep coming against the people.
	They aren't in a defense mode.
	And they're going to keep trying to take our lives, keep trying to take our or means of defense, and it's yet to be seen if they're going to try to prevent us from creating a new lawful government in a land that does not have one.
	Well, Ron, at one point you talked about, you know, something along the lines of revising, having a constitutional convention or something like that.
	I don't believe there's anything wrong with the Constitution.
	I believe it's simply not being followed and that, you know, having a new set of rules that might not be followed could, Could be much much worse or or no improvement and alternatively i think provisions attempting to change.
	The construction of the Constitution would more likely than not be for the worse and deprivance of rights.
	I think it's an extremely well crafted document in a very suitable document.
	Yeah, it's a wonderful document, but here's the problem with it.
	It's dissolved in and those who are sitting in the seats of the dissolved government are not going to to.
	Turn over all the damage they've done over 200 years and allow you to just walk in there and alter all of it.
	That is not the tyrants that have overthrown the government, knowing what they were doing at all times, knowing that it was unlawful what they were doing.
	They're not going to, since they're sitting in the seats of it, You're inviting the tyrant to sit at the table to revive lawful government in some way.
	I'm saying you can't do that.
	You can't let the tyrant sit at the table to determine what new lawful government consists of.
	Something isn't sinking in about this, Ron.
	It seems to me if you had a Supreme Court that was adhering to the Constitution.
	They would have taken this case, they would have ruled in my favor, not because it's me, but because the issues are so egregious that the summary judgment procedure here in the U.S.
	is so ridiculous and indefensible that there's a conflict between the highest courts of different states that it's both a publicly and legally significant issue.
	and that it involves correcting a major error.
	I just cannot see how they could fail to take it, Ron.
	I mean, can there be internal politics?
	I mean, go ahead.
	Well, you definitely got the cognitive dissonance going, and that's what everybody runs into when they cannot explain what should be done.
	And what I'm doing is explaining why you're seeing the things that should not be done.
	You're seeing it because we live in a dissolved tyrannical condition.
	The government is dissolved, and they're not going to do the right thing.
	They are not going to reinstitute lawful government from the dissolved one.
	You can't create lawful government And you're talking about something that's occurred in a progression over a very long period of time.
	There's so many laws and so many precedents that have perverted it over the years, they're not going to go back to it. - And you're talking about something that's occurred in a progression over a very long period of time.
	I'm wondering whether it's in effect in a declaration of national emergency in the wake of 9/11 that's never been repealed.
	I mean.
	Well, there's some people that would say we've been in a national emergency since the Civil War.
	There's I know a lot of people say that.
	And you know, there's there's some evidence for that.
	But here's, and I know one person that said the whole, everything would be solved if you just removed the emergency declaration that was done during the Civil War.
	And then everything would be fixed.
	No, all of these things are just different descriptions of a dissolved government.
	That's all it is.
	And everybody can debate about how it happened, when it happened, why it happened, and all that, but you still come back to the same place.
	We have a dissolved, unlawful government.
	And they beat up everybody.
	They beat up the wrong people.
	You're a nice guy.
	You just made comments about what you saw.
	You don't want people buying something that doesn't make sense.
	We have a right.
	We have a First Amendment right to say what we see, to talk about things.
	I mean, we're not fronts.
	I mean, we can see a thing, and if they don't, we have an obligation to say things to warn our neighbors about things Impending harm.
	Well, I mean, all you were doing was doing that.
	That should have been protected.
	But what is happening?
	It's simply that we have this dissolved government and tyrants in office exercising power without authority, and they're cheating on every level there is.
	The whole thing is a cheat.
	In essence, you can't overthrow something that's already overthrown.
	And they act like you can.
	They try to make us into some kind of insurgents.
	What a laugh!
	What a laugh!
	This guy named Raskin, Jermaine Ben Raskin, said that Ron, let's talk about the conference.
	You were broadcasting, we were coordinating and getting it out to the public.
	The guys are clean.
	Ron, let's talk about the conference.
	You were broadcasting.
	We were coordinating and getting it out to the public.
	I was overjoyed with the quality of the presentations.
	And I just, I think it's, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I thought some of them were really exceptional.
	And, you know, I was afraid maybe we'd have some duplication by people that had been in them before, but this was all fresh material.
	So I enjoyed it all.
	Joe Olson, I was impressed with him debunking the Green New Deal.
	And Colestrone, he's a great guy.
	from Europe commenting on the Euro terror.
	Some of these were fun too.
	This guy's fun to listen to.
	He's humorous, he's got some dry lip.
	I mean, I had a blast listening to Nicholas Kohlerstrom. - Oh, excellent.
	Nick actually just called when we were on the air.
	That's why I was delayed in getting back and commenting at one point to tell Nick I was on the air and that I'll call him as soon as I get off.
	But speaking of the devil, there he was right on the phone.
	Great.
	And Holly Seeliger talking about the central bank conspiracies in early America.
	Well, that was impressive.
	I didn't know as much detail.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And you know, I started there.
	as well as I'm sure all of us did.
	You know, Ron, something interesting about Holly's presentation and Shea's rebellion is how many issues she was addressing from early American history that still remain current today.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And you know, I started there, I didn't want to slow things down too much, but the two people she talked about being executed as part of the Shea's rebellion.
	There were only two executed.
	And I do know something about that, because these things also involve property taxes.
	And they were taking these soldiers' property for not paying property taxes, and they had never been paid for fighting the British in the American Revolution.
	That's why they couldn't pay their property taxes and they were foreclosing on them.
	Well, that led to the Shays' Rebellion.
	But the other thing was that these two guys that were executed for their part in it, supposedly, well, actually, they were not executed for their part in the Shays' Rebellion.
	They had committed other crimes, heinous crimes, outside of that, and that's what they were actually executed for.
	In fact, everybody that actually just participated solely in Shays' Rebellion, every one of them were part of it.
	Stand by.
	Stand by, Ron.
	We have a couple of callers here.
	Brew from Chicago.
	Brew, join the conversation.
	It's great to hear from you.
	Long time.
	Well, um, I'm disgusted.
	I'm just, I'm just disgusted that, that they turned this down.
	I can't believe it.
	This, what's this country coming to?
	We got to stop it all now.
	Hey, Ron, how you doing?
	Hey, good.
	Hey, was that, was that, was that, was that a parody?
	I'm not quite sure how to take that, bro.
	It was you from the first hour.
	I'm just disgusted.
	Just disgusted at all this.
	Anyway, sorry.
	Go ahead.
	No, go ahead, Ron.
	Well, yeah, we should all be disgusted.
	It's just another sign that this thing is not redeemable.
	Because what do you have?
	You have three branches of government, okay?
	You got the executive branch, you got the judiciary, and you got the legislature.
	Well, how have we been doing with the legislative branch?
	You've been seeing really some big improvements there?
	No.
	How is that going with the executive branch when they're going out and doing things that the legislature should do?
	They're making laws, they're pushing people around.
	This is not an executive.
	An executive can only execute the law.
	He can't do another damn thing.
	He's not an artist.
	He's not any of that.
	He can only execute the law.
	So the executives are lost.
	You can't do anything with them.
	It's like we're electing kings.
	These people act like kings.
	And then the legislative is useless.
	They don't do anything except create more laws to tie down people further.
	And then if you complain about it and show how all that's wrong, and gets beat up for saying the truth out here, and you seek judicial justice out of it all, this is what happens to Dr. Fetzer.
	So here we have an example.
	The whole thing is dissolved and tyrannical and has only one purpose, to subdue and dominate and crush the American people.
	Let me bring in Paul, too.
	I'm sure he's going to want to have a lot to say.
	Paul, join the conversation with Brew and Ron.
	Well, I'm sorry, Jim.
	It looked like Paul got disconnected, but you know, I'm here and I just like to say, you know, even without the Supreme Court taking up your re-hearing, I just wanted to say happy birthday, Jim.
	God bless you.
	Well, you're a day early, but I take it.
	I take it.
	I take it.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	We can't draft you in here tomorrow, but yeah.
	Yeah, Paul and I were having an argument.
	Paul was saying you were 69, but I, you know, I had to combat that.
	That's your, you know.
	82 now?
	82 now?
	82 tomorrow, Brew.
	Yeah, 82.
	Yeah.
	I had some fans in Sandy Hook looking at the photograph of me coming out of court saying they thought I couldn't be over 62.
	So I'll take that too.
	Paul's back.
	Paul, join in.
	Paul.
	Hey, so you guys ready to join me?
	Brew, Mitch, you ready?
	Here we go.
	Happy birthday to you.
	And many more without the court cases that we may have to all talk about some more.
	Yeah.
	And many more.
	I like that.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Your thoughts.
	Your further thoughts.
	And I do appreciate those birthday greetings.
	Thank you.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	We're friends first, right?
	Enemies second.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Even in the family, we can have disagreements.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah.
	Of course.
	So I just have two things basically I want to say.
	First, nobody died.
	It's Sandy Hook.
	And second, may Noah Posner rest in peace.
	God bless his little soul.
	A fiction, a fiction can't actually be put, you know, put to rest because he never even existed.
	Then, you know, It was just a fantasy.
	The whole damn thing was a drill promoted by the mass media.
	They did such a thorough job of it.
	Most Americans cannot even imagine that they could have been played.
	Cannot even imagine.
	Brew.
	Brew.
	More from you, Brew.
	Did we lose him?
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Well, he said he was on a job site, so I wasn't sure if he was going to call in.
	I tried to arrange to have him and Mona, maybe Dave Scorpio, all join in so we could all sing Happy Birthday together.
	Oh, that's nice, Paul!
	I get it now.
	I'm glad Brew called in, though, because initially he said he might not be able to because he was going to be on a job site.
	Yeah.
	And I didn't hear back from Mona.
	I'm not sure what's going on.
	Normally, if I call or I text, I get a response, but I hadn't heard anything back from her.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	That was nice.
	That was nice.
	Rounding out the chorus.
	I'm sure she would have joined in, though.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, we're in contact.
	Yeah.
	She's hanging in there.
	Paul, what are your thoughts?
	You're not surprised, I know, that SCOTUS would turn me down.
	So, you know, what does it mean?
	Does it mean anything?
	Well, no.
	I mean, what can you read into it?
	I've been telling you for years that we have a phony system where the law doesn't matter.
	You know, it's like a private club.
	They make it up.
	If you had seen what I'd seen over not just the years, but the decades now, it's pretty, pretty easy to draw the obvious conclusion.
	And it's just, Whatever they feel like and whatever suits them at the moment, you know, the traffic court system, the traffic ticket is what I call the gateway or the entryway to this, you know, this what I call kangaroo court, you know, star chamber justice system we have because it's most people, the vast majority of people, it's their interface with the government and with the court system.
	And if you explore it long enough and well enough, you will clearly see what it is that they do.
	And I'm firmly convinced that many of my so-called victories were just, you know, they just gave it to me because there was other times where, you know, I lost or got ruled against or other people I know, quote, lost or got ruled against and it didn't seem to matter.
	What issues they brought up or what what they brought to bear in terms of the motions or actually even using, you know, their own code against them, the vehicle code or, you know, the penal code here in California.
	There's multiple different protections built in.
	And, you know, it's just one of those things where I remember the look one time and this is many, many years ago, the look on one of the judges faces when I made a particular argument in a particular set of questions.
	This was a case where The officer was there with the actual court trial.
	You know, a lot of times they didn't show, and other times they did, and it just all depended.
	But I thought ahead of time a particular line of questions, which I thought were going to be really, really good, and just sort of, you know, open this whole thing up.
	And the judge gave me this kind of a look.
	Like, one, he appreciated the logic.
	You know, I could tell he thought, okay, this guy's not so dumb.
	He's a little sharp.
	And two was, all right, enough of this.
	And, you know, it was just that one of those moments where you realize there was like a communication more like he knew that I knew.
	Okay.
	And so he was basically going to put a stop to it.
	And, uh, and he did.
	And that one happened to go in my favor.
	He said he was going to take the matter under submission, which there was no reason to do with a simple enough.
	You know, concept, you know, there was no, no reason for him to take the matter into submission, except to keep, you know, everybody else in the courtroom.
	We got it Jim, hold on.
	There it is.
	know what had just happened.
	And then a few weeks later, I got a notice in the mail saying that the case was dismissed.
	And I had something similar happen here in this county that I'm at, where the case disappeared from the court record.
	We tried to kill the break with no success.
	We'll continue on the other side.
	We got it, Jim.
	Hold on.
	There it is.
	Way to go, Mitchell.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Continue.
	Persevere.
	Well, so anyway, you know, just making the point that I was, the fact of the matter is, is that there was another case here.
	You know, again, there's been over, over the better part of three decades, I've dealt with multiple, you know, cases.
	I used to basically, you know, get tickets now and then, and also drove with no current tags on my plates and that sort of thing.
	I was essentially a magnet, like some people are.
	So you get involved in these things and you find out and you, you know, you try to try to glean different lessons.
	And the lesson that I gleaned, you know, once I really started to understand the way things were laid out, is that they will not give up this system, this revenue raising system, no matter what you say, and no matter what the law says.
	And the fact of the matter is, as I've mentioned on this show before, okay, and I've been on other shows a couple of times with Roger Sales on his weekend shows.
	Where he understands quite clearly what it is I'm saying, because there's provisions in the vehicle code that essentially make the average traffic stop unlawful.
	Paul, I appreciate all of that.
	We got Joe Olson joining us.
	He was one of the speakers.
	I'm very keen on getting feedback.
	Joe, Joe, join the conversation and give us some thoughts about the conference.
	Uh, well, first of all, you and I had a miscommunication and I had sent you a video that we needed to download that I ended up having to play on my tablet in a really reduced impact format.
	And the other thing is I'd sent you several articles.
	Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe.
	Ron is here.
	- Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe.
	- Yes, yes. - Ron is here, he was just praising your presentation.
	I'm not looking for-- - Well, let me tell you. - Which it could've, I'm not looking for ways that could have been better.
	I'm asking you what you thought of everything.
	Let's finesse yours.
	Talk about everything else.
	I just want to say, the article that I had sent you last week is called, What is Stokes Shift?
	It's produced by the Edinburgh Instrument Company.
	And we posted it today at Principia Scientific, and I want to read the comment that I put underneath that post, and then we can discuss the other thing.
	Okay, my comment, and this is what the authors of Slayin' the Sky Dragon and the founders of Principia Scientific have been saying to the phony baloney climate skeptics for over 12 years to completely deaf ears, but this is what my comment is.
	No gas molecule can capture, store, redirect, or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light.
	The term atmospheric, quote, absorption, unquote, is an intentional misnomer.
	The billionth of a second energy transfer is, in fact, resonance.
	And by the laws of conservation of energy, it demands a longer wavelength, lower energy, quote, emitted So I encourage everybody to go to that and we can discuss it tomorrow on the Need to Know Show and bring it up as an actual slide.
	in 1852.
	The atmosphere can only cool by day and delay cooling by night, but delayed cooling is not emphasis warming.
	Climate clownology is scientific fraud.
	So I encourage everybody to go to that, and we can discuss it tomorrow on the Need to Know show and bring it up as an actual slide.
	Yes, sir.
	You're not appreciating the success of your presentation.
	Take it.
	Listen to me.
	Listen to me.
	It's hot that of all of the speakers, where you and I have done hundreds of shows together, that yours was the one where I didn't have the slides.
	And it was my mistake.
	No, listen to me.
	Ron is here and was praising your presentation before you came into view.
	Ron, tell Joe what he did do as opposed to what he didn't.
	Well, I just liked your whole presentation about, uh, and you're a bit of a scientist.
	I am not much of a scientist in terms of, uh, you know, the weather and, and all the things you talk about, but it is convincing.
	Uh, well, about the oil, about how all that, how that's created and, and, and the weather and temperatures and all of that.
	It was fascinating.
	Uh, and let me tell you, I'm going to say this.
	I didn't, I did not, uh, absorb everything that was said in a 26 hour marathon over two days.
	So I'm like a burned down pile of.
	I'm going to have to go.
	There's a lot of material in here and I'm going to go.
	But Joe, when I was asked to recount, one of the very first he mentioned was your presentation, and that's after seeing all those others, 20 others, after he heard yours, and yet you are stuck in his mind.
	So look, I contacted my webmaster, and we're going to put those nine series of interviews that we have on BitChute and we're going to put those nine series of interviews that we have on BitChute that are spread out over a six-month period on global warming up on a separate BitChute channel where
	So they'll be really easy to reference and find, and they were in a logical nine-deferent-episode series at this point.
	You and I need to do one more on proxy data, because that will blow an additional hole And whatever arguments they've got.
	But this Stokes thing is really important.
	Now, as far as the rest of the conference, right after I got finished with my call with you guys at noon, I got an email from Owen Stevens at TNT Radio saying, can you be a fill-in guest for me at 4 o'clock this afternoon?
	It was like, well, I'm doing my two-hour program at 5 to 7, and so I didn't have any time on Saturday available for preparing before the show.
	But yesterday, I did listen to Brian Davidson's Symbolism thing, and then I listened to all of the ones after him.
	Olie Domengard and William Benny and Scott Bennett.
	I listened to them.
	Excellent program.
	You guys just knocked it out of the park.
	Oh, and Horton.
	I listened to her stuff.
	And so, you know, I'm flattered.
	I'm honored to be among this number of patriots.
	I just wish we had a wider audience, but you know, that may come in time.
	And so I'm trying the best I can to get the global warming fraud because that's the tip of the sphere, the canard on all of the energy controls.
	And if we can overturn that particular fable, then the green energy and the peak oil will be very easy to overturn.
	And that's one of the key fundamentals of the reset, is that they want to have total control over energy, because that gives them total control over freedom of movement, and that controls freedom of speech.
	Ron, you want to pick up on that?
	Well, I mean, I think it's a necessary thing.
	They're lying about it.
	Like I said, there's one on here that talks about everything's a lie.
	I don't agree that everything is a lie, but if it's coming out of your eyes... I haven't found anything that's not.
	You can bet your booties it's a lie.
	What?
	I haven't found anything that's not a lie.
	I have a question for all of you.
	What evidence is there right now that you can think of That says that they don't already have, essentially, near total control.
	When they can get the heads of these corporations to go along with their various schemes, and you know that's what's occurring, right?
	Then how are they don't have control already?
	I mean, you think these oil and gas companies aren't in on it?
	Oh, heavens yes!
	Yeah, when I first started researching this, 20 years ago, I was going on a camp out, a guy's weekend out with some of my buddies.
	And, you know, we'd go get drunk for a weekend and paddle boats around.
	And one of them was the vice president at Shell.
	And I started explaining to him how it was impossible for carbon dioxide to warm the planet.
	He goes, yeah, we know.
	He said, but we're going to make money both ways.
	And I go, what do you mean you're making money both ways?
	Well, if we put carbon into the air, then we can also take it out of the air.
	We can take it out of the engines and we can Get paid to pump it back into the ground.
	So it's a double dip for us at Shell.
	And so that's why they roll over on this stuff.
	They're planning on being in charge of the carbon capture crap, or in charge of dispersing the carbon credit tax money, whatever it is.
	Yeah, they're irredeemably evil.
	But what they don't have is there's such a large mass of people That if we can wake them up to this particular flagrant violation of physics, and we can start teaching a generation of college kids that they've been hypnotized by what I call Pied Piper professors using chicken little science to sell Jack and the Beanstalk energy solution.
	If we can wake that group of kids up, they will never fall for this shit again.
	And that's what we need to do.
	They're in a really vulnerable position.
	I would say my response to that would be good luck with that with the current group in charge.
	As long as the current group, okay, we know who a lot of them are.
	Some of them we don't.
	They're behind the scenes, but a lot of them we do.
	As long as they're still around, walking around, still in charge, there's zero chance for that to occur.
	You know, and just quickly, if I might, you know, just going back to the legal stuff, because it all relates, and I'm sure you'll appreciate this, Jim.
	So I'm on this email list for this local place here, and they send me these updates.
	So here in California, there was a recent ruling, November 30th, the Supreme Court of California denied the petition fashioned by Santa Clara County, which sought to protect the constitutional violations committed by County CEO Jeffrey Smith, Counsel James Williams, and Health Officer Sarah Cody.
	In its petition, the county launched a last-ditch effort to convince the California Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth District Court of Appeals ruling, which rightly voided the county's temporary restraining orders, injunctions, and $217,000 in contempt of court fines unlawfully imposed upon the leadership of Calvary Chapel here in San Jose.
	So basically, the California Supreme Court declined to hear the case at all, essentially.
	That's the headline that says they did not hear it, okay, which means that the Sixth District Court of Appeals stand.
	Now, there's a brief excerpt from that, and I'll read it.
	One of the district court judges said the following, the U.S.
	Supreme Court has clarified the law over the last two years, and I intend to abide by the law as described.
	As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.
	So this took place.
	I didn't see anything about it on the news.
	I didn't see anything about it in the papers.
	And guess what little trick they pulled down later when I continue to read it.
	It's a lengthy article, right?
	They decided not to certify the decision.
	How nice is that?
	So nobody can use it.
	So can you imagine all the possible lawsuits out there if people could go ahead and take this court decision and say, hey, look, what they did was void unenforceable and violated the Constitution.
	Now, you can still make those claims.
	That's the same trick they pulled on Sarah Westall with their suit against YouTube and Google.
	Right.
	So the point being is that you can still bring those claims.
	Okay, again, to try to finish my sentence.
	You could still bring those claims, and they're valid.
	They've always been valid because everything they've always done from the beginning is a fraud.
	But you cannot use the validation of the system to reinforce your claim.
	So as I've mentioned so many times, this whole thing is a house of rotten crap from start to finish.
	And it all has to come down in my humble opinion.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Is this Carl?
	No.
	Anyway.
	This is Paul.
	Yeah, right after that.
	Is this Carl with a K?
	Who are you talking to?
	Well, I don't know.
	There's somebody talking in the background.
	Sounds like Ron on another call.
	Yeah, you.
	The guy that was just speaking.
	Are you Carl with a K?
	This is part of a... I don't know.
	Well, if you'd be interested, there's a site on YouTube put on by a guy named Eric Hundley and Mark Gobrell, and it's called America's Untold Stories.
	And they recently put up one about the RFK murder in Los Angeles and the amount of corruption there.
	But they've got a dozen programs that they put up about JFK in Dallas, and the enormous amount of corruption with LBJ in the state of Texas.
	I mean, it's just an overwhelming amount of evidence.
	And so I would encourage you to see that.
	What was the name of it again?
	America's Untold Stories on YouTube.
	And they're fascinating.
	They're usually about 90 minutes long, and it's two guys, Hunley and Groberg, G-R-O-U-B-E-R-G, Groberg.
	But they're really good, extremely well-researched history articles.
	But the guy's read dozens and dozens of books, number one.
	Number two, he's been involved in politics and the entertainment industry his whole entire life.
	So he knows an enormous amount to contribute in first-hand evidence with this stuff.
	Right.
	No, America's... Oh, the JFK thing?
	He interviewed the guy who's 90 years old now, who was in the kitchen and was shot in the head By the security guard that actually shot RFK, and he said unequivocally, and he brings up the evidence that was presented in public testimony when they finally managed to get something done, but enormous amount of detail about the corruption in all of these cases.
	Right, it's St.
	Eugene Caesar, if I remember correctly, and I'm fairly well read on RFK, it was an absolutely fascinating case.
	I guess the point being, and I'm sure you'll agree with this, is there's no amount of law and no amount of so-called constitutions that can overcome criminals in charge, criminal corruption.
	They don't care about any of that, unfortunately.
	Well, you know, we're facing an enormous increase in sudden death and unexpected death increases that are going to be impossible to paper over.
	And so there's going to be an enormous number of people that are going to awaken as their relatives start dropping dead, and they are going to want exact revenge.
	And so I don't see how much longer they can keep this under wraps.
	The FTX thing is blowing up on them.
	Ukraine is in total collapse.
	And that will unfold a whole bunch of additional stuff.
	Biden and the Congress just ran down a railroad act that's going to piss off a bunch of union people.
	And I guarantee you, out of those 54,000 mules that were running fake ballots in 2020, a lot of them are union members.
	And when they see how they were treated by the Biden White House and the democratically controlled House and Senate, they're going to be willing to provide some information.
	And if they decide to turn state's witness, there's going to be an enormous amount of blowback from that.
	So I think they're sitting on a powder keg of just incredible potential.
	And I don't think they've got any way to cut all of the multiple fuses that are going on.
	Well, you know, I'm not sure I share your optimism.
	I agree with your point of view, but the problem that I see is that they've already shown they're willing to do anything.
	I mean, just imagine, for example, that if one of the main motivations for the Building 7 collapse was to destroy all those records, okay?
	Or that if one of the main motivations was to destroy that part of the Pentagon that contains certain records, or to destroy that part of the Oklahoma City Federal Building that contains certain records, this is how far these people will go.
	So I'm not sure if a few angry Americans or a few pissed off, you know, mules are willing to, you know, quote, turn state's witness is going to make any difference at all.
	I think the problem is much, you know, deeper, but also much more simple and that these certain people are in power and they have to be removed by any means necessary.
	That's just the only issue that I see.
	Well, I think you reach a point with critical mass.
	I said that in the American Revolution, it was what, 10% of the people that were actively involved in overthrowing the British rule.
	And there was about 50% that were supportive of the crime and didn't want to have that change.
	So what we got to do is continue to increase the base of people that are informed and that can form that critical mass.
	And I think we are past that point.
	I think we've passed the 15% red pill point.
	And so it's just a matter of of amplification, and at a certain point, things become self-resonating.
	Truth is self-resonating.
	My website, I had nothing but 56 megabyte download online service when I first started doing my research.
	It would take me an hour to do a megabyte of download in order to read an article or to print it out the next day.
	And so I would log on at night and hope the power didn't go off so that I lost my connection and then come in in the morning and it goes download successful after six hours.
	And so I started writing articles posted at Canada Free Press, InfoWars, Drudge Report, Breitbart.
	My website was number one out of 119 million searches on multiple screensavers in the time when I was limited to that amount of digital technology.
	Translated into 25 foreign languages because truth is self-resonating.
	People can recognize truth.
	They hunger for it.
	They share it with their friends.
	I haven't never joined.
	I got joined LinkedIn only so I could find a couple of past business clients that I had lost contact with that I have never participated in yet.
	But I might decide to jump into Twitter and see if I can't do a magnificent amplification of my message and the message that Jim and I have been sharing in over 300-bit shoot videos.
	So I'm contemplating doing that.
	I'll just wait for the smoke to clear and see if Musk is really turning out to be who he wants to be and if he's able to dodge all the bullets that they're throwing at him and Matt to be he.
	I expect another Andrew Breitbart or Michael Hastings.
	I would highly suggest that you read Miles Mathis' paper on Elon Musk.
	There's other people that have published similar information, so he's nothing more than a... Oh, I'm very cautious about him, and I'm very well aware of Miles Mathis.
	I've read his stuff for 20 years.
	Yeah, he's brilliant.
	I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but I don't get a chance to debate him, so it doesn't really matter.
	I don't disagree with him on a lot, but on some.
	But when he published his paper on Elon Musk, it just said all the things that were out there to say, and multiple people have said similar things.
	I don't see him as any more than a front man for Intel and a front man for power.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Same thing as Zuckerberg and the same thing as Eric Schmidt.
	They were all hand-picked puppets.
	So what happened to the call?
	I see that we're on the same number, you know, the 540 number, but nobody else is here.
	It's odd.
	Well, I... I'm here, Paul.
	You just got it going.
	Oh.
	Hey, I sent that link, Paul.
	I wanted to let you know I sent that link to your phone for that RFK stuff.
	Oh, cool.
	Cool.
	- Oh, the American stories? - I love the RFK stuff.
	So is Ron Avery still here?
	Yes, he is.
	And so am I. And I just must say...
	Based on my experience, Musk is actually living up to his promises regarding Twitter.
	Now, there may be a covert agenda, but I'm just telling you, I like what he's doing on Twitter.
	I'm back on Twitter.
	I'm doing my thing.
	I put up on Pizzagate.
	I put up on the New Zealand Christchurch.
	I put up on how to spot a false flag.
	Part one, how to spot a false flag.
	Part two, I'm having no trouble at all.
	I'm getting feedback, notifications.
	So far as I can tell, it's working.
	Ron may have dropped.
	Actually, Mitchell says he doesn't see Ron, so he may have had to go.
	Go ahead.
	Well, one other little threat vector that Elon's facing is that in the last 30 days, there have been like zero sales of Tesla in China, and that's their largest production plant.
	And Scotty Kilmer, who does a daily auto program and is an absolute legend, got millions of YouTube subscribers, said that their plant in China has no more places to park cars.
	They've got over 16,000 in excess inventory sitting there at their plant.
	And then we've got the stuff going on with Apple and the protests by Fox Fire and their group.
	And so, you know, We don't know which one of these vectors is going to fall, but Tesla and Musk have some vulnerabilities that the deep state can pressure him on.
	I mean, he's highly funded on his SpaceX from the government, and if they decide, hey, you're telling too many state secrets, we're going to financially cripple you, they can do the same thing to him overnight that they did with Ye.
	So one of the reasons I asked about if Ron was here, I would love to get his commentary on what occurred here in this in this county with this decision that I just made that I just mentioned.
	And I'm just going to read you this little bit, which, of course, just kind of says it all about these these people and the way they operate.
	Right.
	Essentially, this is the CEO of Santa Clara County, basically the head of the Board of Supervisors.
	And he's speaking about what this decision to decertify did.
	And this is the California Supreme Court that decided for whatever reason and however, whatever legal basis they have, I can't claim to understand any of these arcane rules of operation that these people go by.
	But they decided to decertify the Sixth Circuit's decision, which means, of course, that in future legal challenges, nobody can bring it up.
	And here's what this guy, the CEO of Santa Clara County, said.
	I'm certainly disappointed that they did not review the petition.
	But in ordering the decision to be de-published, it can no longer be cited.
	That means it will no longer affect the rule of law.
	I think the California Supreme Court sent a strong message.
	It's like, okay, fine.
	So what's the message that they sent?
	On the one hand, they said that everything that the county was trying to do to sanction or collect fines from this church that never closed and that defied the orders and remained open That that was unconstitutional, and that these measures were void and unenforceable, but yet, nobody can cite this court case for any other legal case.
	This is the game that these people play, and in my opinion, there's no other way to deal with them.
	It's insane.
	Thank you.
	Anyhow.
	Alright Jimbo, well, you and I will talk tomorrow on Need to Know News, and I forwarded the Thanks for joining in.
	I appreciate it greatly.
	up at your website in addition, and then we can talk about it a little bit more.
	And then I'll put a link in it in the comment section when we post tomorrow's need to know.
	So, great conference. - Thanks for joining in.
	I appreciate it greatly.
	Paul, your further thoughts, my friend, your further thoughts. - Well, I wish we'd had a bet about the Supreme Court thing.
	I would have collected again. - I'm basically undefeated.
	Did you get a word from them tonight, Jim?
	Say again?
	Did you get a word from them?
	It was denied, Joe.
	It was denied.
	Okay.
	Well, not the birthday present you deserved.
	Not what I was hoping for, but there it is.
	Yeah.
	Okay, my friend.
	We will press onward and upward.
	Thanks for joining, Joe.
	Thanks for joining today.
	Yes, sir.
	Bye-bye.
	See you soon.
	Well, final thoughts as we're wrapping things today.
	Not quite the outcome I was hoping for, needless to say.
	You and I will never have our final thoughts until, I guess, we draw our last breath, as they say.
	You know, we'll get interesting here.
	We'll see what happens.
	I mean, things can either get worse and worse and worse, and they can, you know, stoke the fires of civil unrest, or they can decide not to.
	I mean, they have the tool at their disposal, the distribution and dissemination of information, as you know, the propaganda tool.
	So they can basically lead us around with the stage play they're putting on.
	You got it right, Paul.
	You got it right.
	Mitchell, any final thoughts you'd like to add here today?
	We can find the truth if we choose.
	You know, we have access to more information than anybody in the history of this planet.
	But too many people say, let's play a game.
	And that's, you know, the story of, well, our society.
	Let's play a game.
	Reality rules, though.
	Well, I appreciate it all, Mitchell and Paul.
	You're being here.
	Wonderful.
	And we shall persevere.
	I think everyone would really benefit from watching, and we're going to have a $5 special.
	You can pick and choose the shows you want to watch here for the Falsifying Conspiracy Conference.
	We're putting them all together.
	So just go do a sampler, figure out which ones you are most interested in, and I've given plenty of links to where you can find it, and I'll be adding others.
	I can only hope we shall survive as a nation.

▲