Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 9, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:46

The Raw Deal (8 September 2023) with Ana Louisa Toledo

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I never needed anybody's help in any way.
	But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured.
	Now I find I've changed my mind, I'll open up the door.
	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?
	This is Jim Patzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
	I have a very special guest today.
	Before I introduce her, I want to mention an update or two about what's going on in Georgia.
	The situation is about as absurd as it gets.
	Where Donald Trump and 18 other co-defendants are being prosecuted under RICO statutes for protesting the outcome of the election in 2020 and trying to get it set right.
	I mean, this is about as ridiculous as it gets.
	If this were a bona fide criminal offense, Hillary Clinton would deserve a life sentence.
	Even Stacey Abrams still declares that she is the governor of Georgia.
	I mean, the Democrats have just politicized what's a practice that's as American as apple pie.
	Get this.
	Georgia grand jury recommended charges against current former U.S.
	senators.
	A report released on Friday revealed that a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn Georgia's 2020 presidential election results actually Just intended to make sure they were fair and accurate and honest, which they were not.
	Recommended indictments against a much larger group than Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis ultimately charged, including one current and two former United States Senators.
	She was casting her net very widely.
	The nine-page report showed jurors recommended charges against 39 people compared to the eight that were charged along with former President Trump.
	The names of those not indicted, so these are unindicted co-conspirators, include Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia, and former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
	You remember.
	They had to get rid of Flint.
	He knew too much.
	He'd been the director of the National Intelligence, and he was going to be able to keep Trump out of trouble by being played by the National Security State, because he knew where all the bodies were buried, and they wouldn't let Trump be baffled by the smoke and mirrors, so they had to get rid of him ASAP.
	Parts of the report have been released in February, but a judge delayed the release of any recommendation for specific charges against specific people until after last month's indictment.
	While most of the intrigue in the inner workings of the case has diminished with the filing of the charges, it's notable the special grand jury recommended many who are not actually indicted.
	In my opinion, this is just further evidence about the abuse of the judicial system by the weaponization of the DOJ and the FBI by the Biden administration.
	Frankly, I've never seen anything like it.
	I mean, unreal, absolutely unreal.
	Well, we've been talking a lot about directed energy weapons, Maui, Paradise, California.
	It's pretty obvious these are directed energy.
	I've been given a lot of reports about it.
	We had also about 9-11, Morgan Reynolds and others here to talk about it.
	There are other applications of directed energy weapons, however, that are directed at individuals.
	They're known colloquially or even technically as targeted individuals or TIs.
	Dr. Catherine Horton has internationally led an effort to bring this to a halt in terms of legal cases.
	She herself Subjected to, you know, the use of these weapons.
	I've even interviewed her while it was going on.
	That's really, truly outrageous, whether or a whole lot of other ramifications.
	And we have a new lawsuit that's been introduced in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	By a woman attorney, Anna Louisa Toledo.
	She has an extensive background, including the study of environmental law, University of Vermont, study at Columbia College, New York, where I did my outside minor as a graduate student.
	And it has a legal practice out of Puerto Rico.
	Anna is carrying the ball here with a lawsuit to try to get Basically, as I understand it, DHS, Homeland Security, and related organizations to not list individuals as though they were presumptive terrorists, unless they have.
	And it's trying to get the government to act in cooperation with the law, then which I cannot imagine a more worthy project to undertake.
	And it's a great pleasure to have you here.
	It's my pleasure.
	It's my pleasure, Jane.
	Thank you so much for the invitation.
	I want you to give us kind of a thumbnail sketch here.
	I have the suit itself before me.
	Introduction.
	Unlike dozens of prior cases challenging the terrorist screening database, TSDB, This case calls for a different legal analysis.
	This appeal is not about the plight of individuals who undergo inordinate obstacles and hours of additional screening when traveling because their names appear in a terrorist watch list that contains the names of known and suspected terrorists.
	The case is about the right of America to be free from defamatory government labels that infringe upon the most fundamental constitutional civil and human rights.
	Very worthy objective.
	Anna, tell us more.
	Yes, well, the first disclaimer I want to make is that all the information I'm going to provide you comes from official, uncontroverted government documents.
	I didn't make up any of the information I'm just going to give you, such as that that terrorist screening database contains two secret categories that are named handling codes three and four, where they put what they call, what the FBI calls as non-investigative subjects.
	And the word is pretty descriptive.
	It means it's people that don't have to be investigated.
	However, they are put there for many of them, most of them, are whistleblowers that in retaliation are placed secretly in this list.
	And the evidence of the secrecy of it is that when the police stop you, and they do, for example, a traffic stop, they run your place and the criminal is there.
	Investigation Service that the FBI runs?
	Well, your name comes in there as a suspected terrorist, but with a little note saying, do not tell them they're on the terrorist list, but contact the screening center.
	Lara Loomer this week put a video on Twitter about exactly that, and the policeman was saying, you know, I had never seen that.
	And the reason why is because of the proliferation, as you have been following Mr. Whistleblower Steve Friend, the pressure that the supervisors at FBI were putting on special agents to classify as domestic terrorists, people that were churchgoers or parents going to school board meetings, well,
	the reason is to put them on this TSTV because those categories, the reason is to put them on this TSTV because those categories, when you fly, when targeted individuals fly, they don't encounter problems when flying because they are not told that they are being labeled as suspected terrorists by our own government. - And so what happens with this is that these people are subjected For example, you have the InfraGuard.
	You have the citizen corps people acting as vigilantes against them.
	You try to wire money through Western Union, you can't do it.
	You try to get ambulance service.
	Well, the sheriff comes in and says, wait, I was told there was a suspected terrorist here.
	We first have to secure the area.
	Meanwhile, you're on the floor almost dying.
	Okay?
	So it is terrible.
	It's done secretly without any due process.
	You are basically accused, put on trial, sentenced to a life of torture without you even knowing.
	And that's when they place you on that terrorist screening database.
	Yes.
	Let me read just another couple of paragraphs here from your submission.
	The names of plaintiffs, along with those of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including toddlers and grandmothers, that defendant MBI admits do not represent a threat to national security, yet they appear on the TSDB under a secret exception.
	Since they do not present a terrorist threat, they are not denied boarding or subject to additional screening when traveling, precluding them from discovering they are on the terrorist list devoid of grounds or legal authority.
	Unbeknownst to them, when encountering a routine traffic stop, the law enforcement agents treat them as suspected terrorists and are instructed to conduct an on-scene investigation without telling them.
	The placement of innocent Americans such as plaintiffs, and you have a very substantial list of plaintiffs here, on a terrorist list is an illegal abuse of authority.
	Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 authorized the TSDB, stating its purpose was to develop, integrate, and maintain thorough, accurate, and current information about individuals, quote, Known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.
	They do not provide room for secret exceptions or the inclusion of non-terrorists on the list for any other purpose.
	This is really awful and another way in which the The government has been abusing its position, dereliction of duty, in my opinion.
	I'm so glad you're calling them out and seeking to hold them to account.
	Well, this is the utmost weaponization of the government, and I am very sorry to say that Jim Jordan's committee is not looking into it.
	Even though, yes, the FBI has been weaponized against our own citizens, but this is that on steroids, because here's what happens.
	It's not just that your life, your daily chores are affected by it, but also people are subjected to directed energy weapons attacks.
	Now, let me tell you, our internal polls at Targeted Justice, because I represent Targeted Justice and I am a I worked intimately with them, helping targeted individuals that undergo these directed energy weapons attacks.
	What our internal polls say are, first of all, it's five times more likely the person is a conservative than a liberal.
	So, it's a weaponized program done against, you know, people that affiliate or identify with conservative values, like the Christians that listen to Latin math.
	14% of targeted individuals are homeless, even though the national average is 0.5%.
	Two-thirds of the targeted individuals are women, most of them middle-aged on because they are easier To be deemed crazy because the type of torture and things they do to targeted individuals, they do it with the mantra of, you know, under the guise of plausible deniability.
	And so, you know, when men are assertive or denounce things, they are not called crazy, whereas when women do, most of the time, you know, since the Middle Ages, they're called witches and they're just called crazy.
	And that's what the program relies on, discrediting people that are denouncing the abuses happening to them.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	You make so many excellent points here.
	The ever-growing list of individuals on the TSDB in the national security threat categories exceeds the legal authority that the executive were designated to defend an FBI by including non-terrorists in a terrorist screening database without executive or congressional approval.
	Despite this, Defendants and their predecessors acting under a color of law included and or maintain names within the TSDB that belong to Americans that do not represent a threat to national security and are not screened as such.
	Defendant FBI and US DOJ refer to these individuals as non-investigative subjects.
	But their inclusion on the TSDB's handling, Codes 3 and 4, labels them as suspected terrorists to the world.
	Defendants concede that these innocent Americans, such as plaintiffs and TJ members, make it to the TSDB under watch-listing exceptions Created by executive fiat for the limited purpose of supporting specific screening functions such as determining eligibility for immigration to the United States.
	It sounds like the bureaucrats are just extending the law in improper ways to benefit their own agenda, not adhering to the Constitution or the rights to which all Americans are entitled.
	Anna, have I got that right?
	You certainly do, but let me clarify something.
	They are not extending the law because this is not a law.
	This was an executive order.
	And the executive order said you can only make this list for known and suspected terrorists.
	However, they used it because they consolidated 12 terrorist lists from different agencies And these secret two categories, Hedlund Coase three and four, nobody was supposed to find out.
	But what happens here is that two of the plaintiffs were told that they, you know, a in the preponderance of the evidence, right, that they were on the list.
	And that is how they connected because these are Karen Stewart, who is a retired NSA whistleblower.
	And Richard Lighthouse, who is one of the founders of Targeted Justice, and he was the one that was on the ground with blood clots in his lungs because of the directed energy weapons attacks he was receiving.
	And his mother, 87-year-old mother with whom he lived, called the ambulance and the ambulance said, You know, to take him to a hospital, and then two sheriffs show up and say, look, the ambulance is out there in the driveway, but I cannot let them in here because we were told the terrorists lived here.
	So I have to secure the premises.
	And so while he is almost dying on the floor, the terrorists, the sheriffs are going around checking for terrorism.
	When they are, when he's on the ambulance, he tells me how
	The medic is telling him, you know, what you have is so, you know He's like told the ambulance driver step on it and just put the alarm and this this he's not gonna make it Okay, because of this man being illegally placed on this list little Three-year-old babies are being burned with directed energy weapons a because you know many of these targeted individuals are generational one of the
	One of the ones that I have really dear to my heart is a lady in Ohio.
	Her daughter has sat down syndrome and the way they torture both of them is that they do voice to skull technology, which I don't know if you're familiar with it, but for those of your audience that don't know, it's called the microwave auditory effect or the fray effect.
	And it is a patented technology and what it does is that it, you know, you hear voices as if you had gone mad.
	But the thing is that schizophrenia starts usually in the twenties, not in your fifties.
	And so, uh, and medication works for it.
	And, and for this, this medication doesn't shut it down.
	And so what they do is that they torment and torture her down, her daughter that has Down syndrome.
	Well, she's trying to go to sleep, and she hears her fighting with the voices on the room next door, and she falls asleep out of sheer exhaustion.
	And of course, the mother cannot explain to her that these voices are not real, that it's a technology called, you know, the voice to skull.
	So, the people that carry out this, they are beyond psychopaths.
	They are beyond evil.
	I have yet to come across A word that describes such malfeasance and atrocity?
	Yeah, I mean, it has a sadistic aspect to it.
	I mean, it's not only undemocratic and illegal, unconstitutional on its face, but it's so selective and it's abusive and it's harming individuals without justification.
	Completely in violation of the principle of no loss of freedom or liberty or property without due process of law.
	This is clearly abusive.
	Moreover, you also add, once included in the list, there's no way to get out of it.
	Congress provided a futile redress process for KSDs, that is travel inconvenience, but not one for NIS listed on the TSDB that are not detained or thoroughly screened at airports because they were never supposed to find out.
	Defendants have not provided a legitimate and constitutional reason for adding to the TSDB the names of American citizens who do not represent a terrorist threat and are not subject to screening or immigration proceeding.
	A 2007 United States Government Accountability Office report found that defendant FBI rejects only approximately 1%
	Of all nominations to the TSDB, the report also revealed 45% of the TSDB records related to redress complaints reflected that the information on the individuals used to include them on the list was inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, or that they had been incorrectly included.
	45%.
	Anna, that's just staggering.
	Well, and what I didn't, I cited later is that Inspector General Report 08-16 stated that FBI does not comply with its own regulations when placing people on the list.
	That is outrageous and let me tell you that the information, the original information that innocent people were being put on this list came from a statement under penalty of perjury signed by
	Um, Mr. Timothy Groh, who was a former Deputy Director at the Terrorist Screening Center, at FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and he is the one that said, oh, there are these special categories of people that don't meet the terrorist criteria, are not a threat to national security, and are not screened as such.
	That statement was submitted in the discovery in the El Haiti versus Cable case.
	That was in the District Court of Eastern District of Virginia, Federal District Court.
	So let me clarify that when I am talking about the uncontroverted facts, I'm talking about these, about these facts that are contained in that brief and that I told you, I tell you about like the document, not because they deny, obviously, they deny the directed energy weapons attack.
	But all of the information regarding the placement of innocent Americans on a terrorist list, labeling them as suspected terrorists, let me tell you that this list is distributed among 18,000 state, federal, and tribal law enforcement. state, federal, and tribal law enforcement.
	233 of the biggest corporations like World Rings, like Fogor, like Airbnb in the nation.
	1440 organizations, including universities, including credit report agencies.
	Okay.
	So multiply that by the number of employees of these entities that get access to this and what happens.
	Staggering.
	and also through the fusion centers.
	What happens is that all of the people in that list, that we estimate the United States, based on El Hady versus Cable Discovery, we did the math, we estimate there are between 300,000 and 400,000 Americans that have been illegally placed in these two secret categories. Americans that have been illegally placed in these two secret Yes, yes, staggering, staggering.
	Anna, we're coming up on a break, but I just love what you're explaining here and the fact that you're taking on, I mean, FEMA, the FBI, These are, in my opinion, organizations that have gone rogue.
	I do not believe DHS ought ever to have actually been created.
	It was actually modeled after the East German Stasi, and I think that's the role they are coming to play.
	You even draw such comparisons in some of your Arguments and laying out the facts in your brief.
	So this is really, it seems to me, very central to the issues that are most threatening freedom and liberty in the United States today.
	That's exactly right.
	The way DHS, you know, supervises and dictates the policies and regulations for the fusion centers, They sent vigilantes.
	It's a German Stasi.
	And not only is the German Stasi going on, but it's a silent Holocaust.
	And people in the United States have to understand that you are being told that your neighbor is a pedophile, that your neighbor is a criminal, that your neighbor is a terrorist.
	And that's a lie, what they are.
	Ace targeted individual.
	We'll be right back right after this break.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	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 supporter radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio.
	Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern. 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSledge.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, my special guest today, Anna Toledo, has just filed what many regard is as an historic lawsuit challenging the authority has just filed what many regard is as an historic lawsuit challenging the authority of To treat American citizens willy-nilly, to put them on lists as though they were suspected terrorists, I don't know.
	Identifying them there by that way, in many cases interfering with their right to travel, communicate, free from suspicion or intervention.
	It's outrageous.
	She mentioned a fusion center here.
	Part of the passage from her brief reads as follows.
	Plaintiffs argued that the National Network of Fusion Centers is a rogue law enforcement operation devoid of required legal authority for the nature of the work it carries out, virtually unsupervised and without limits or controls.
	The Fusion Center Network, under the direct funding purview and control of defendants Mayorkas and Weinstein, have become the stassy arm, have become the stassy arm of defendant DHS.
	In October 3rd, 2012, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation report issued after a two-year investigation led the commission to conclude that fusion centers have too often wasted money and stepped on American civil liberties.
	No doubt.
	Anna.
	Well, the way they have organized the fusion centers throughout the nation very silently They're like invisible, you know?
	And when you look at the contracts that they have executed with cities, like I attached the City of Houston one with one of the documents I filed with the complaint, you notice that DHS has control, and they have their personnel, and FBI has personnel, just like FBI put personnel in Twitter, you know?
	They have personnel there sort of controlling and monitoring and regulating what happens there.
	A lot of, like I was saying before, a lot of these fusion center people, they are dedicated to going around and they have these confidential sources that go around saying that, you know, people are pedophiles or people are criminals or they're terrorists and they're basically defaming you in your community.
	Uh, so that people, uh, stay away from you.
	Uh, that's, that's one of, uh, of the tactics they, they utilize.
	I have to clarify that, um, I, uh, what I filed in the fifth circuit is an appeal because the district court, uh, dismissed the complaint without addressing the main, the crux of the matter, which is the illegal placement of innocent Americans on a terrorist database.
	And instead, uh, the court decided to deem Fantastical and bizarre the allegations regarding the Stasi part of, you know, the program and the directed energy weapons, even though one of our plaintiffs, Dr. Len Bear, is the first civilian that has been diagnosed with Havana syndrome.
	And National Academies of Sciences have mentioned, you know, that it's caused by directed energy weapons.
	So the most important part of the lawsuit, which is Innocent people cannot be on a terrorist database, let alone placed there secretly, and without notice, and without the opportunity to confront any evidence against them, and without the opportunity to defend themselves, and without the opportunity of getting out of it.
	That is the crux of the matter, and the District Court did not argue or even look into that aspect of it, because obviously it's unconstitutional.
	The Supreme Court, in the TransUnion v. Ramirez case, In 2021, very clearly stated that anyone that is labeled as a suspected terrorist has a concrete injury.
	In fact, that grants them standing on under article three of the constitution of the United States that the district court did not, um, did not discuss.
	And that's why we are appealing.
	That's one of the reasons we're appealing.
	Jim.
	Keep keep going with.
	I'm a producer.
	You might have got a phone important phone call.
	I had a question.
	Yes, I really did have a question because.
	Long and many years ago.
	I was put on the list.
	And when my computer was broke down.
	When I took it to a shop, the Department of Homeland Security actually had requested a copy of my hard drive.
	How long do you think people stay on those lists and how long are they, you know, does the government keep tabs on us?
	The short answer is forever and that's why we filed this lawsuit because it's like the Hotel California.
	Once you're in, you never get out.
	And many people go through their lives when they realize, here's the thing, there's Handling Coats 3 and 4.
	It is our opinion, right?
	Our educated opinion that, you know, a lot of people are targeted and they don't really know it Because it's very light.
	It's very, it's not the overt.
	And so it's a shadow on them.
	Yeah.
	Every place they go, everything they touch has a shadow.
	And, and if they are involved in any kind of, um, I don't want to call them risky activities because today just being an activist is a risky activity because you get on these lists.
	And then you get targeted.
	Yes, you're exactly right.
	For example, I tweeted this week one air flight attendant that was opposed to the mask mandates and to the vaccines.
	She was placed on the terrorist database.
	And the problem is that as a flight attendant, guess what problem that presents for her?
	And they put her on category two, which is like suspected terrorists.
	Like, you know that because they don't let you get on a plane.
	Or they subject you to additional screening.
	Okay.
	And so it is people that go against the current narrative or the, you know, the people that present dissent, they are placed there.
	And so one of the differences.
	The program has a two-fold purpose, okay?
	For people that ask, well, do you deserve it?
	No, no.
	There's a two-fold purpose.
	Number one, it's for whistleblowers or people that, like you say, if you went to a protest or something, you will be labeled.
	And then the other type of people they put in there sometimes is there's Very affluent people with the right connections that can actually put either business competitors or a former lover or a disgruntled wife, they put them there for vengeance purposes.
	So it's the ultimate weaponization of the government because the FBI is allowing private individuals to nominate people to this list.
	A and it's for life like what you asked is for life.
	That's why we are having asking the court to declare these two categories that are not authorized by Homeland Security Presidential Directive number six.
	We're asking the court to hold them unconstitutional and to order their elimination.
	Mitchell, thank you for speaking up there.
	Yes, I had muted whatever and then didn't unmute.
	What we've got here is plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens.
	None of them has ever been arrested, indicted, judged, convicted, or sentenced for a terrorist-related offense.
	None of the plaintiffs encounter security or screening obstacles when traveling.
	They discovered their secret inclusion on the TSDB after their lives were suddenly Strangely and overwhelmingly disrupted.
	And you, it appears, have been subjected to similar treatment, Mitchell.
	Fascinating.
	I'm so glad you're participating in our conversation.
	Anna, first, then Mitchell.
	Well, you know, this has been going on for In 2003 was the TSDB authorized and it began, you know, putting names in there 2004.
	However, the Inspector General reports that I have been able to locate, the last one, I'm not saying that they haven't been done, but the ones that are published public in the internet, the last one is 2009.
	At some point, they started reporting of the irregularities By the FBI in the handling of the pool of the terrorist database.
	And I want to bring to the attention that even though 400,000 Americans, between 300 and 400,000 Americans are illegally placed in that list, there's about, around the world, we estimate that would be 600 minus 400, 5.6 million people on this list.
	And, uh, a, you know, these, they, they just get FBI admits, they get their nominations with, from their legal attaches and there's other procedures that are used, but legal attaches just send the name of a person they want to put on the list.
	And these people's lives are.
	Affected in ways that I cannot start explaining to you because they are atrocious in Europe and Australia.
	In Thailand, in Latin America, Argentina, it's everywhere.
	This is a plague and it's being sponsored by the United States.
	And that's what, that is what is the most atrocious part of it.
	That the land of the free is carrying out this torture program around the world.
	Mitchell?
	Well, you're, you're absolutely right.
	You know, the really bad part about this is you don't have to be a terrorist.
	You don't have to have any malintent.
	The only thing you really have to do is to ask a pointed question that the government is afraid of or the government wants to conceal a truth.
	Then you become a threat to that government.
	And this is more.
	This is, you know, this also goes along the line.
	With the, you know, the censorship models that we see today.
	So, it's about controlling speech and then controlling thought.
	So, you know, we are under attack.
	And we, as American citizens, we must stand up and fight back.
	I, if you allow me, your audience should know this.
	We at Targeted Justice, we are making a campaign to people.
	It's twofold.
	Number one, if you have any sort of criminal accusation for any reason, you must demand to see your file at the FBI, even if it's a state accusation.
	And the reason for it is that, in our opinion, a lot of people are entrapped into crimes.
	A lot of targeted individuals are entrapped into committing crimes.
	One of the things that we see happen often is that since the license plates and the cars and the vehicles, they are subjected to more frequent stops than non-targeted individuals.
	And while the police is intervening with you, one of the effects of the microwaves is that they make you very aggressive.
	Be aware of the fact that through the Lockheed Martin satellites, every single human being, in violation of our Fourth Amendment, is being tracked by the United States Space Force through the top of your head.
	They don't need you to carry your cell phone for them to be tracking you.
	So, as you are having your conversation with a cop who is trying to make you angry, you will feel angrier, and that's when maybe a spat happens, and then you might get arrested, not for the traffic stop, but for the spat you had with a cop.
	So targeted individuals, if you have a suspicion that you might be targeted, you have to behave 200% better than the best citizen.
	You walk a very straight line, and I always watch, and I'm not saying for you to be paranoid, I'm just saying just be extra cautious.
	Because, you know, don't put your money in one same bank.
	Don't have everything in one same place.
	Because these people come, we know a lot of targeted individuals.
	When Richard started getting into, you know, being an activist as a targeted individual, he met a couple in Massachusetts that got $50,000 dollars embezzled out of their bank account.
	And this is not to scare you, it's just to tell you you have to protect yourself, and that's why this whole thing with the digital currency and all of that is so atrocious, because once you're a targeted individual, they can make you not even have money, enough money to eat, let alone have a house.
	Great point.
	You also add, in your brief, Plaintiffs have three things in common.
	First, their names appear in the TSDB handling, Codes 3 and 4, which fall outside of HSPD-6 limited legal authority.
	The second thing plaintiffs have in common is that they never encounter problems, obstacles, or enhanced screening procedures when traveling.
	The third thing plaintiffs have in common is that their illegitimate classification as a suspected terrorist interferes with their most basic civil rights.
	Since their inclusion in the TSDB, plaintiffs find it more difficult or even impossible to find a job as they find themselves blacklisted from employment, their professions, and communities.
	It is mathematically implausible that 18 plaintiffs have nothing in common except evidence of extraordinary inconveniences and damages.
	Very nicely put, and I think your brief could hardly be more clear and specific.
	Let me explain to you.
	I have to use one of my plaintiffs because I, you know, he has been an activist and Rachel Eihaus, he has an engineering degree from Texas A&M.
	He has a master's degree in engineering, mechanical engineering from Stanford University.
	He worked at NASA and when he was targeted, he was out of a job and he sent resumes to over a thousand I don't think so.
	I mean, that is how this operates.
	You are blackballed.
	You cannot get a job because it doesn't matter how talented and good you are.
	They will, I don't, and this, I don't know how to do it, but they will shatter any possibility of you deriving an income.
	In my particular case, you know, I am targeted and I admit it.
	I have a house that I rented for a living.
	I want to, you know, I have a house, my house is an old San Juan and I rented it to live in a smaller house.
	And what they did is that they put in there a criminal that destroyed my house over $80,000 in damages.
	And when I went to the district attorney to try to file charges against him, they said, no, that's a civil matter when it's clearly it was vandalism.
	And it was, it was atrocious.
	He totally trashed my house.
	Aside from the fact that he lived there for eight months for free and the judge refused to evict him.
	And so the targeted individuals have to take extra precautions when caring about their normal lives and just being extra careful.
	And I'm just going to give you one example of what just happened to me this week.
	I was writing the brief that I had worked on for over a month.
	It was due on Tuesday.
	On Monday, I decided to put on all the work It was almost ready I put it in two pen drives and I actually went to sleep with them in my pocket because these people they do break kings and they You know, it's it's horrible.
	So I slept with them in my pocket the next day.
	I I worked in the computer I had left it on but I turned it off to go meet some people when I tried to turn it on again They had encrypted The computer where I had all my brief material.
	Fortunately, and for the grace of God, I had backed it up into these two pen drives, and so I was able to file on time.
	But if I had not done that, I would not have been able to file my brief.
	Wow.
	That's really outrageous, but unsurprising, Anna.
	It's just fortuitous that you took that extra step of backing up your key documents for this purpose.
	Well done.
	Mitchell.
	Well, Jim.
	We're going to have to bring back some serious checks and balances.
	With our government and I don't know.
	I don't know, even if the people demand it, I don't think our government would do it.
	Because it would force them to give up this power.
	Some of the power that she's talking about, and of course, the power to essentially run roughshod over your civil rights and all the amendments.
	They don't care.
	They just want to have power by any means necessary.
	And they're pushing to maintain that power.
	So we're in a war.
	And it's unfortunate.
	And hopefully we can keep it a political war.
	And that Democrats, the party of slavery, the party of discrimination.
	We only hope that we don't or they don't cross that Rubicon again.
	With To drive a stake and split America apart.
	Yes, but just to show how head is on top of this regarding key players in the government plaintiffs also allege how under defendants Ray and cable discretion and.
	Purview, under the color of law, defended FBI publicly admitted it has abused its authority and carried out assessments against unsuspecting Americans as defined in Section 20.2 of the 2021 FBI Rulebook, Domestic Investigation and Operations Guide.
	These assessments include illegally intercepted, recorded, listened in, stolen electronic communication and files in collaboration with the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency for FBI probes that may involve surveillance without court order against people not accused of any crime.
	The facts set forth above are but an extract of the extensive, thoroughly researched and detailed pleadings that the District Court in its decision deemed fantastical and on their face devoid of merit.
	They not only exceeded civil procedure requirements, but some actually met Process 56's uncontroverted material fact threshold This is absolutely fascinating because that's what I experience here in Wisconsin, where the judge in my Sandy Hook lawsuit just set aside all my evidence as unreasonable.
	In other words, he was treating it as fantastical and on its face to avoid a merit without looking at the evidence, without really considering it.
	And how serious it was and how devastating to the indictment against me that's happened here clearly at the district level and in your case as well.
	And unfortunately, we are before the Fifth Circuit.
	That is the most I think it's, you know, a great a a guardian of the United States Constitution.
	Um, and so we, I don't know if you saw at the end of my brief, I put a citation there.
	It calls for their courage because we, you know, we know this is a difficult case.
	When we originally filed it in Victoria, it was bumped to Houston and there were, you know, as you can see in the brief, there was a lot of irregularities.
	For example, we never got An initial scheduling order issued and motions went for months without being adjudicated, motions to compel discovery about the TSDB status.
	So there's just a few indications that, you know, we were not, you know, our plaintiffs, my plaintiffs were not treated as everybody else is treated in that court.
	And so, you know, these are very powerful operatives that run this.
	This is a black project of the United States government, and it is up to Congress to demand, first of all, to pull the plug on the funding, and second of all, to investigate this, because as you remember, There was the MKUltra, the church committee investigated MKUltra.
	And people think that MKUltra stopped.
	It never stopped.
	It was repackaged into this program with a mixture of COINTELPRO, which we free apologized before Congress, saying that, you know, that FBI did some atrocious and even some criminal things.
	And still they continue doing it because nobody went to jail.
	And I have the hope that there will be a new Department of Justice that will demand accountability and that will put the people that have committed crimes against humanity and against innocent Americans, they will be put in jail.
	That is my hope.
	Anna, when we return from the break, I'm going to open the phone lines early.
	I'm sure there are a lot in our audience who have questions or examples or illustrations they'd like to share with us.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	Join us with Anna Toledo in this historic case appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which I'm very glad to hear.
	As a reputation of standing up for the United States Constitution and for the rights of the American people.
	Splendid, Anna.
	We'll be right back with you and take your calls.
	Yeah, go ahead. go ahead.
	Yeah.
	Revolution Radio at freedomslifts.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. - Go!
	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.
	Revolution Radio.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
	And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
	Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	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.
	Welcome back, everybody.
	We got Anna on, and we're waiting for Jim to come on back.
	We got, Paul has called in a while.
	So, Anna, where can people look and see what you do, your information and stuff?
	Yes, TargetedJustice.com.
	That's a Targeted Justice webpage where it has tabs to all the technology, to the information on the lawsuit, information on everything is there on TargetedJustice.com.
	But a very useful tool for anybody that thinks may be targeted is the Substack newsletter.
	It's free.
	You can also have a paid subscription for commenting.
	But it's free and it's TargetedJustice at Substack.
	So you can either way.
	All our information is there.
	There is just so much.
	And, you know, some people find it very hard to believe because nobody wants to believe that our government, that it's there to protect us, is doing this to us.
	But that doesn't make it false.
	You know, this is true.
	This is a, there are uncontroverted documents that establish that innocent Americans are being labeled as terrorists secretly and unfairly.
	Thank you.
	That's excellent.
	I know we got Paul here.
	I'm delighted.
	In your conclusion, you observe DHPD 6 was supposed to be a law enforcement tool to protect this great nation.
	Instead, it's been turned into a weapon of the government that curtailed ascension.
	The last paragraph of HBSE 6 expresses those good intentions that went amiss in its implementation.
	Quoting, looking at the faded names of Hancock and Adams and Jefferson, Franklin and others, you can better see the bravery behind the stirring words declaring independence.
	It was one thing to nod in agreement as the text was read and approved.
	It's quite another.
	To take the quill and add your name, becoming at that instance the enemy of an empire.
	And each of the signers, as a pen moved across a page, had already reached a great turning point in his own life, but in the life of the world.
	The true revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power, the equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all.
	You continue.
	Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court stand for these admirable values and consequently reverse the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint.
	Remain the case to the Victoria Division where the case was originally filed in order for defendants to immediately produce for plaintiff's inspection a complete, unaltered, and unredacted version Thank you, thank you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I'm here.
	Yeah, before you read those words, I was going to go.
	So yeah, those are nice words.
	Alright, they're fantastic.
	I mean, you already know what I'm going to say, Jim.
	I mean, and Anna, I mean, God bless you.
	You know, you're doing a good thing, but I mean, I'll just key in a couple of things that you just said recently.
	There's so many other things said earlier in the hour, but you said people don't want to believe, right?
	And that's, that's it right there.
	People don't want to believe a lot of things.
	Okay.
	Um, earlier, right before the break, uh, you said that it's your hope you use that word.
	It's your hope that this court will, you know, look at this, that there will be, Some sort of hearings conducted, justice will be done, people will be punished, and like I said, God bless you.
	You can hope all you want, but this is never going to happen.
	I mean, it's contained right in the bumper of this station, Revolution Radio.
	What do they always say, right?
	It's played on the half hour and on the hour on Revolution Radio.
	The governments around the world have no other desire but to decimate your entire existence.
	That's a little extreme.
	That's a lot of hyperbole.
	But make the case that it's not true.
	Look at what's going on, right?
	And the problem, you know, isn't with the good intentions of men who wrote documents a couple of centuries ago, or the power of those words.
	But in the end, we're just dealing with essentially individuals who have seized for themselves Both money and technology, and they're using it to cause harm.
	And they have to be, let's face it, they have to be killed.
	There's no court that's going to decide in his favor, any more than there was a court that was going to allow Jim Fetzer to even present his evidence of a fake death certificate.
	They weren't even going to look at the evidence!
	And I knew that going in, and Jim remembers.
	I'm not going to gloat about being right, because it wasn't about me being right.
	It was about me understanding the world that we live in.
	And unfortunately, Jim, it goes all the way back to this Constitution itself!
	You know?
	That's the problem.
	And like I said, I know you haven't listened to many, or maybe even any, of Mike Gaddy's shows on this topic, but the Constitution itself, not the Articles of Confederation, which were good, Yeah, you're laying out your case very clearly.
	hands of the people or the states, but it was the Constitution that federalized everything and basically gave unlimited taxing power to the aristocracy.
	So that's what we have today.
	Yeah, you're laying out your case very clearly.
	Did you notice when James Clapper was talking about this dirty trick segment, if you caught that, that he included the chief justice among the parties?
	I found that outrageous.
	And to me, it implies why the Texas lawsuit that was so beautifully drafted disputing the outcome of the 2020 election was declined for hearing by the court on the preposterous ground of a lack of standing What is that a difference between various states it was perfect for the Supreme Court and even why mine which state of the union described as perhaps.
	The single most important case to be brought before the Supreme Court in our lifetime because of its focus on our right to a trial by jury and on equal justice across the by due process, equal due process across the states was similarly declined.
	I mean, that just troubles me profoundly.
	So, you know, go ahead again.
	Yeah.
	So, again, to restate what I've already stated so many times going back years, it's just not the it's not reality, you know.
	I mean, it's just words, and they ignore the law or use the law at their pleasure.
	And, I mean, you know this, you know this already, and you just weren't really prepared to believe it going in, you know?
	I remember when you said on the show, on air, you said one day, you said, The truth is the ultimate defense and I just remember laughing to myself before I called in going, Oh, you're going to get taught a lesson here.
	And it's just, it's unfortunate.
	You know, I don't, I don't like it.
	Right.
	But I just, I observe it.
	I've seen it.
	I just remember as a kid and I'm talking about when you're 27 years old, you're a kid, Jim.
	Right.
	And 27 years old was how old I was when I discovered how the money system works.
	Right.
	Cause I went to a, I went to a lecture about it by G. Edward Griffin.
	I've told this story on air many times, you know.
	The John Birch Society was sponsoring a lecture by G. Edward Griffin, and I went to attend.
	It was three hours on a Saturday and three hours on a Sunday.
	I paid, I think it was $100 or $150 for it, right?
	And that six hours just completely just blew my mind, made me a completely different person.
	Because, you know, I was old enough to You know, 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	And, you know, you see the derivation of our money, right?
	Bonded indebtedness, right?
	Government, the Treasury, issues, interest-bearing bonds, promising to pay, the bankers create the money out of nothing.
	It's like, I remember thinking as a kid, like I said, a 27-year-old kid, I'm going, how could this be?
	Don't the adults know about this?
	I swear to God, I had thoughts like that in my head, like, don't all the adults know about this?
	I felt this drive to go out and I wanted to educate everybody, you know, say, hey, don't you know about this?
	But, you know, then you quickly come down to earth and you realize, oh, wait a minute, if they do know about it, then they're in on it, or they turn the other cheek, I mean, turn the other, turn a blind eye to it, because, let's face it, I mean, it's like I told you, I think I, I think I mentioned to you, Jim, I'm not sure, but I could have on another show, perhaps, what the local city councilman Make here in San Jose?
	Did you, did I tell you that?
	What they make, what their salary is?
	Go ahead, Paul.
	$400,000.
	How much?
	No, $400,000.
	$400,000?
	Wow.
	City Councilman, correct.
	Wow.
	Now, here's another example.
	Here's another example I recently learned, right?
	So, the city manager, okay?
	You know, every city, they got like a city manager, they got like a city attorney, they're on staff, you know, they got various Underlien's all on salary.
	The city manager of Santa Clara, Santa Clara is like, that's Silicon Valley.
	Basically, the lower Bay Area is all these different cities, right?
	San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, blah, blah, blah.
	So Santa Clara's not a huge, I mean, it's like maybe 120,000 to 140,000 people, something like that.
	But Santa Clara with Sunnyvale, that's Silicon Valley.
	The city manager of Santa Clara makes $700,000 a year, and get this.
	They get a, she gets a $3,500 a month housing allowance.
	$3,500 a month.
	Now there's people out there working, doing jobs.
	You go out to the public, you know, you go get a cup of coffee or you do whatever you do.
	There's people that are not making $3,500 a month.
	That's her housing allowance.
	So I don't know if you can duplicate this sort of nonsense across the country, but I bet you could.
	And the reason I mention it is it just, the apparatus, okay?
	It's in control of people that can dispense this kind of money, and it comes from the unlimited taxing power of what the government has bequeathed itself, in addition to all the other taxes, right?
	The sales tax, the income tax, the gasoline tax, the cigarette tax, on and on and on.
	These people are not spending their own money to do this gang stalking or this targeted individual nonsense.
	Imagine if guys had to spend, you know, $50,000 of their own money Or $75,000 of their own money to buy equipment and then take their own time.
	They're not working, they're getting paid by the government, but they go out on their own and they play these games and stalk somebody else.
	It wouldn't occur.
	Okay?
	It has to be, this whole thing has to be absolutely unraveled and completely, in my opinion, completely destroyed down to the ashes.
	As I told you once on your show, you don't go to a courthouse, you do something else to it.
	Okay?
	I would never go to a court unless basically I was forced to, dragged in handcuffs.
	Paul, you always make cogent arguments.
	I don't always agree with your conclusion, but you argue them very well.
	Anne has observed that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has a reputation of being very strict in its upholding of the Constitution.
	I think that's a big plus.
	When you look at the list of defendants here, It's stunning how relevant it is to today.
	Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, FBI Bureau of Investigation, Christopher Wray, Director, Charles Cable, Jr., Director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, U.S.
	Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
	Kenneth Weinstein, Department of Homeland Security's Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis.
	Talk about targeted individuals.
	These are people who deserve to be targeted legally, and Anna is doing exactly that.
	I think your point may have a greater applicability at the level of the Supreme Court, because it looks as though Chief Justice Robert is playing this gatekeeping role, and therefore, I, at this preliminary point, would be inclined to think Anna will prevail in the Court of Appeals, but that she may not be heard before the Supreme Court.
	Your thoughts?
	Just, you're delusional.
	I love you, but you're completely delusional.
	It's like you didn't hear a thing I said.
	I'm predicting that it won't happen, and I laid out all the reasons.
	Let me even be more particular.
	The reason I mention these salaries, okay?
	I mean, this is Jim for both you and Anna, anybody who's listening.
	Think about that for a moment and ask yourself this, okay?
	Even good, excuse me, even good, well-meaning people, okay, would not, shall we say, would not, not be subject to compromise with those sorts of numbers.
	In other words, you would have to be very strong, robust, independent, prone to giving people and the system the middle finger To not be compromisable with those kind of numbers.
	In other words, if you're making $700,000 a year, if you're making $400,000 a year with all sorts of other perks and benefits, right?
	You're not going to jeopardize that.
	You're going to issue the unlawful mask mandate orders, the health department order.
	You're going to order business closures.
	You're going to do all the stuff that you're told to do.
	You're going to look the other way.
	These judges will get a phone call, right?
	I don't have any doubt that judges in your case, Jim, got a phone call if they needed one.
	Now, they may not have even needed a phone call.
	They already might have known the score to begin with.
	But when you have people making this ungodly, obscene amount of money for doing nothing, right?
	I mean, a city councilman does nothing.
	They talk.
	The reason I have the attitude I do is I worked in the real world.
	I produced things.
	I only did two things my entire life, right?
	I was either self-employed or I was in commission sales, 100% commission sales.
	No base.
	So I produced.
	I had to produce.
	When I did landscaping, I worked in the real world.
	So I always had, from a very young age, a certain attitude towards government.
	My attitude was, F you.
	You're not getting nothing out of me.
	That's why I didn't file a federal income tax return.
	You know why?
	I didn't know much when I started as a kid, like 21 years old.
	I did it because of F you.
	Well, then later on in life I got knowledge and I realized, oh, it's all a scam.
	There's no law that requires you.
	Income is not defined in the code.
	It's defined as everything else other than the money that you make.
	But most people don't know that.
	They don't take the time to look, and they don't have the courage.
	They don't have the intestinal fortitude.
	So, I don't know what else to say to what I've already said.
	You can't ask the system for relief when it's the system that's doing it to you.
	You can't ask the system to punish itself or chastise itself.
	You might get a righteous judge.
	Good luck.
	I hope you do.
	I hope you get a judge that makes the right decision.
	But I got to tell you right now, I got money that says it's not going to happen because I can read the tea leaves.
	But did you get my two-part response that I believe there are reasons to think she may prevail at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit?
	Because it is the Fifth Circuit, but that she might also, after having succeeded at the court of appeals level be denied or not heard by the supreme court i mean that's what i was suggesting given the political character of the supreme court and especially the role of chief justice roberts no i i heard you i'm not um if i if i can add a little bit here is number one um
	the the facts in this case are so material uncontroverted coming from official government sources that um confirming the district court decision would entail having to reverse this circuit and supreme court precedent in in many many in too many um fields the Let me just give you an example.
	The case I mentioned, TransUnion versus The District Court in our case concluded that plaintiffs had no standing, however, and said that TransUnion v. Ramirez didn't apply for some reason that I don't even remember right now, but it's not an accurate one.
	And that case specifically says, being erroneously labeled as a suspected terrorist constitutes Sufficient concrete injury, in fact, to grandstanding.
	So, the Fifth Circuit cannot reverse the Supreme Court, you know?
	So, there is a prima facie plaintiff established.
	There is a precept that is that the pleadings of the well-plead allegations of the complaint will be read in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.
	And that is exactly something that the district court didn't do in this case.
	So not reversing the district court in this case would entail putting aside that long-standing precept.
	These are matters of law.
	And I totally hear what you're saying.
	And like I said, like you heard me very well say, it is my hope.
	It is my hope that justice is done.
	Okay.
	Actually, I said it more in the context of when there will be a new attorney general that will want to prosecute the people that have committed these crimes against humanity.
	That is what I am hoping for.
	But I am convinced that the court will apply its precedent.
	Upon doing so, in this case, we will go back to the district court and that is an informed decision.
	Now, I want to comment on something.
	I totally see, I totally understand you.
	I totally hear you.
	But if I believed, if I had the set of beliefs that we're not going to accomplish anything, then how, how is change made in the world?
	You know, I believe I am a walking miracle myself.
	They have illegally throughout the years implanted Put medical artifacts in my body.
	And I am a testament to the will and to the power of God and to the fact that miracles happen.
	And, uh, you know, I really believe, I really believe that the United targeted individual community is making a strides in, in, uh, getting the word out there.
	And when the American public realizes.
	Uh, and finds out about this program, the outrage is going to be so huge that Congress will be forced, if we don't accomplish something judicially, Congress will be forced to do something.
	Sorry.
	Paul, I know you're going to be skeptical with that.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Well, just this statement, like I said, when you laid out your case, all I could say, initially I said, okay, God bless you.
	I mean, you're right.
	This notion that when the American people find out, are you kidding me?
	Oh my God!
	The American people are never going to find out.
	It's like, I'm part of what you would call, it's just a general thing, you know, there's no organization, right?
	But I'm what you would call a nationalist or a white nationalist, okay?
	I want the America that once existed, that we once had, okay?
	But in the so-called white nationalist community, You know, we have a saying, right?
	And it's the normies are never going to wake up.
	They're never going to see what is right there for you to see, right?
	Just like the average person is never going to find out what it is I've already found out because they just won't make the effort.
	And their their minds, if you just picture their minds is like gates.
	They just can't open the gate.
	There's a great book I would recommend.
	I mentioned it on the air before.
	It's called Walls in Our Minds by Red Beckman.
	And he talks about in his book, like the title says it all, walls in our minds.
	And it just reminds me of also a great quote by William Blake.
	William Blake said, we bind ourselves with chains forged in our minds.
	Now, of course, these chains in many cases in our minds are forged by outside sources, by the media, by the schools, by the government, by courts, and so on and so forth.
	So, yes, these printed words on paper I've read court decisions, so-called case law, where it's like, OK, this is great, this makes sense.
	And I've also read court decisions that are just the most ridiculous, arcane, convoluted nonsense you could possibly believe.
	And let me get the conclusion that, OK, what's at stake here in one particular court case or another?
	And if there was any sort of monopolistic business interest at stake, You could predict with near 100% accuracy what was going to occur.
	Just like GP once said about, you know, NFL wagering, that you knew of a guy or heard of a guy or whatever that could predict with near 100% accuracy the outcome of some of these games because he knew which side was fixed.
	Right?
	You recall that?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, sure, of course.
	Well, that's all we're dealing with politically.
	Yeah.
	You're saying?
	You're saying the legal system is rigged just as much as NFL or NBA games are rigged?
	Oh my God, it should be obvious by now.
	I mean, most of the American people, if they knew of the case, they would probably be on your side.
	But it doesn't really matter, because all that matters in this world, unfortunately, is power.
	And we don't have it, but they do.
	It's that simple.
	Not once.
	Getaway country.
	Make them come out to where I'm at now, right?
	I'm basically on 10 acres up in the mountains in Northern California, so nobody's going to come up here and target me.
	Anna, we're about to hit a break, so I'm going to bring you first right off the bat.
	When we return, I just reiterate, we've opened the lines early, as you can tell.
	Paul's already here.
	5-4-0, 3-5-2, 4-4-5-2, 5-4-0, 3-5-2, 4-4-5-2.
	540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
	We'll return with Anna Toledo and Mitch and Paul right after this break.
	Stand by.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
	This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	FreedomSubs.com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio Radio Radio Radio.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m., B.A.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSledge.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 of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Well, I'm here with Anna Toledo, who has an historic appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a reputation for being principled and dedicated to constitutional government.
	I don't know.
	I'm suggesting she will prevail at the circuit court level, but maybe decline by the Supreme Court.
	Of course, maybe If she succeeds at the appellate court, though, Anna, wouldn't need to go to the Supreme Court, right?
	I mean, so it's the possibility here, I think, is real that you might actually succeed.
	Please, your thoughts.
	Well, when I say when we succeed, the government is likely, it depends on the decision, but it's likely that the government will go to the Supreme Court Because they have put billions if not trillions of dollars into this program, into this very expensive program.
	Because the success of this program to this day relies on the fact that they have recruited doctors, hospitals, all sorts of private people that have collaborated with this program.
	So they have an entitlement in it And they have invested a lot of money, and as I was going to mention before, this program was going to be rolled out to the population, because the purpose of it is absolute government control, you know, like Communist China, of everything.
	So, you know, yeah, Supreme Court is a possibility, if we prevail in the Fifth Circuit, because the government is not just, you know, you would think, for example,
	Yeah, you would think, and me as an attorney, I tell you, if my client did a negligent, I didn't do criminal stuff, but on a civil basis, if my client did anything or had any facility or something that caused the damage, I would say immediately stop it right now.
	And fix it and whatever because you know as you know that that's not admissible in evidence fixing something because it's just one of the Things that is not admissible.
	So I would I would have said, you know, I don't understand why the government when we filed the lawsuits a the Attacks a the vandalism all of it increased they increased the intensity on the program and Particularly on people that express their support of targeted justice and of us, because it's sort of like punishing people for wanting to be free.
	Punishing the slaves.
	You know, remember how it was that they would whip you if you dared try to escape?
	Well, that's exactly the same thing that they're doing here.
	They are punishing people that are demanding their freedom from this silent holocaust.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	So if the government, if you were to prevail and the government were to appeal, then the court could decline to hear it and allow the Court of Appeal decision to stand, which would be the best outcome, of course, for your plaintiff.
	Yes, yes, that's exactly it.
	And so that would be, you know, that would be the ideal scenario.
	But you just said the key thing, and that whole narrative was great.
	I enjoyed hearing it.
	But the key thing you said was, you don't know how much they spent.
	Millions, billions, trillions.
	I'm pretty sure they have trillions.
	And I would doubt maybe billions, but who knows.
	But that's it.
	In other words, you know when that occurs, you're dealing with With the Borg, okay?
	With, you know, the Beast, the Deep State, they don't lose.
	I mean, the only thing that can happen, just picture it, is they're like a dragon, okay?
	There's only one thing you've got to do with the dragon, okay?
	The dragon has to be slain, has to be killed.
	There's no other way around it at this point.
	It's unfortunate, you know, I don't like it, but like, Jim, just let me ask you a question, just for the fun of it.
	What I was telling you back in the day, back in the good old days, about your case, or Well, I knew it was a prospect, but I hoped you were wrong.
	And you're talking about all these various cases.
	You remember, you know, bringing up the Texas case and how great it was.
	And I told you on air that they're not even going to hear it.
	I mean, did you believe me?
	Did you believe me when I told you what was going to happen in your case?
	Well, I knew it was a prospect, but I hoped you were wrong.
	I mean, I could not, you know, pursue the proper resolution of my case in the only proper venue.
	Even if the odds were stacked against me, I now believe they were actually predetermined, which is very, very distressing because it implies a total lack of the rule of law.
	I mean, and we're seeing a gross form with a politicalization of these suits against Donald Trump.
	And of course, here we have Anna giving us illustration of how DHS and the FBI are targeting ordinary citizens unlawfully and putting them on lists where they do not belong.
	I mean, Paul, I think the U.S.
	in terms of lawfulness has just fallen apart.
	We have become a lawless rogue nation.
	And, you know, to that extent, I'm in agreement with you.
	We're in a dire situation.
	Yeah, the courts basically exist to give us remedy against each other for minor matters.
	And sure, there are some very large judgments in many cases.
	There's no doubt about it.
	And if you're an individual and you get beat up by the cops, you're like excessive force, all that stuff is, you know, you can get remedy in the courts for that.
	But when it comes to these sorts of issues, this system-type thing, it's just not going to happen.
	I wish it was a different world.
	You know, and best of luck to you, but I mean, I would say, really, to any of these clients, for whatever reason, they're targeted.
	I have no idea why, and I believe it.
	I remember looking into this, reading about it, probably back in the 90s, you know, hearing stories about how people would see a strange van or some strange vehicle parked, you know, on their street all the time, and this kind of stuff.
	I mean, I don't know how this goes on.
	It's very interesting to me.
	I mean, the logistics of it.
	Anna, do you know what are they doing?
	Do they need to park a vehicle on the street?
	Do they need to follow you around?
	Do you know anything about how it's done?
	Well, they do all sorts of tactics on different people.
	You know, as a targeted individual, you get your own little menu, and that's why not everybody gets, for example, harassment.
	Many people are, for example, Karen Stewart got Would get a lot of gang stalking.
	That was what they did a lot to her.
	And some of the things they do, for example, is noise campaign.
	I have a permanent leaf blower campaign here where I am living right now.
	They come every day.
	And I just laugh because I know it's intentional.
	Back home in Puerto Rico was with the chipping hammer that followed me everywhere I went.
	And it was the same.
	You knew it was that they weren't building.
	It was just to harass.
	And sometimes they put, um, yeah, there's cars that park and they're there, you know, somebody's inside the car with dealing with their phone or you get campaigns all of a sudden you get all white cars going by and around you.
	And I find that really stupid.
	That doesn't do anything for me, but some people get mortified by it.
	But the other things that are really bad, like the psychological operations they do on some people.
	They do, for example, they plant honey pots that are out there just to come and date you and hurt you.
	There is this reputational damage that goes along, not only professionally, but socially and in your family.
	They pretty much ostracize you from your family.
	And you say, oh, well, my family is so tight they wouldn't do that.
	You know, I thought I had an incredible family.
	And turns out they were all mind controlled to, you know, be, be, uh, collaborate with this program.
	So, uh, it's not that people do anything to deserve people that I, uh, there's a lot of whistleblowers that want to live in the best country there is, which is, you know, for me, it was, it was, it is still is the United States of America, but, but well run.
	And we are ideal.
	Maybe you think we're idealists, but I also think that we can make things happen.
	People together can make things happen.
	And I am very hopeful that we are going to accomplish it because our natural state is one of freedom.
	We're not supposed to be enslaved by this rogue government employees running this program.
	We have another caller from the 724 Area Code.
	Caller, please join us.
	Just give us your first name and state.
	Hi, Jim.
	This is Zach.
	So yeah, I was calling in.
	If you remember, I talked to you maybe six months ago or something, and this was when you were filing your case or whatever, the appeal, and you were before the Supreme Court.
	I think we emailed back and forth a little bit.
	I think, I don't know if you remember me, we talked a little bit.
	I work in oil and gas law.
	Yeah, yeah, I work in oil and gas law.
	Anyways, yeah, so as far as the, I thought today was interesting.
	I didn't, I haven't been able to listen a lot lately, but you know, Jim, the same thing, you know, I would just go on to kind of agree with, I forget the other caller's name, but I just agree that, yeah, Paul, Paul, As far as Anna, you know, she sounds like a very nice person, caring, etc.
	But the court system is, you know, and I'm sure she knows if she's an attorney as well, that there's a kind of hive mind in the legal community.
	And when they see things like directed energy weapons or, you know, anything like that, any kind of conspiratorial thing, these things are kind of laughed off, dismissed, and not even read.
	It's probably The order dismissing that case was probably not even written by a judge.
	It was probably written by a clerk that he didn't even read and signed off on.
	They even have templates to do that kind of stuff.
	So as far as, you know, I, you know, and I wish them all the best, but the legal system being what it is, you know, um, I don't imagine there's going to be a favorable resolution there at myself.
	And I told you that Jim about the Supreme Court, you know, and, and you didn't really want to hear what I was saying there.
	Uh, and as far as, you know, what I'm more interested in why I called actually was because I haven't had a time.
	Just if you could give like a very brief, um, kind of where you are with your case, because I remember, you know, I had told you, Jim, that at the point where you were, first of all, you, it seemed like you had the worst, like you're, you're, uh, competing with Trump for incompetent attorneys.
	Um, you know, but, but I mean, I just felt like the people, anyone, and Anna knows this, if, you know, she's an attorney, anyone that's going to defend a case, especially if it's going to be a jury, the first thing you do is you look at the jury instructions in your state and what, what are the possible defenses and what are the elements of the, of the thing of defamation, et cetera.
	And the attorneys, you know, never raised these arguments about news defendant, et cetera.
	Like, you know, media defendant for you.
	So, I mean, a lot of issues, there were a lot of issues with your legal representation, unfortunately, but not, you know, putting all that aside, then, you know, I had told you that once the judgment was entered, I didn't see it being overturned.
	And I thought that, you know, your best course forward would just be to get, you know, go bankrupt and dismiss it.
	There was like two or three things I just wanted to ask you.
	The first one was.
	I had seen that you had filed two appeals of that.
	One of them was on the garnishment where they took your website, and we had already talked, I think, about how they had done that and how they didn't actually take bids, etc.
	They just kind of said, it's worth $100,000, Jim Fetzer has to prove it's not, and then they just took it.
	The other thing was, then I guess they've now started to take your checking account Or going into your bank accounts and taking the money out of there, and I saw you file some sort of appeal about that.
	I was interested, though, because if the book or the website or whatever was worth $100,000, as they claim it was, right, and they just gave you credit for your judgment, what was interesting to me was why your wife didn't have to be paid $50,000 by them, because Wisconsin is a community property state.
	So any assets that, you know, accumulated after your, I believe Wisconsin is, I may be wrong about that.
	I mean, I'm not in Wisconsin, but, but any assets accumulated after the marriage could, you know, be seen as half hers.
	So I'm interested why, why she didn't actually have to be paid by, by them.
	That's the first thing.
	And then the other thing is if you can just give a very brief thing about where your, how, why are they, How are they taking money out of your accounts?
	I read something.
	I didn't read the whole appeal.
	I'm going to be honest.
	I didn't have the time, but just what's going on with that.
	And if you could give an update, because I, you know, I haven't been following that closely, but I just wondered what was going on.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh, excellent.
	Well, the legal representation I had, I was pro se throughout the summary judgment phase when I really needed an attorney, but couldn't track one down.
	I did have an attorney for my appeals to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and also to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but I was pro se in going to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	I think the arguments were impeccable.
	For political reasons, along the line Paul suggests, I got nowhere.
	I'm back now at the Court of Appeals over the wrongful taking of the book and the blog.
	It was time to coincide with the Alex Jones trial, because at the opening in Austin, they had a producer read an email from Paul Joseph Watson saying, we've got to stay as far away as possible from that batshit Crazy Pat, sir.
	Well, that would have incited a lot of interest in what that batshit crazy guy had to say about Sandy Hook.
	So they took my blog that very morning and redirected it to some of the legal issues here involved about the taking, which was all wrong, improper, as you correctly sketch.
	And the book, of course, which had to go to a receiver, would have put out bids and the receiver would have monitored.
	What money is it brought in and when it had satisfied the judgment returned to me.
	All this appears to be an outrageously wrong where the court did not even follow the statutes and protocols of Wisconsin and similarly.
	And you're astute to be on top of this too.
	They did try to garnish going to buy various bank accounts, but they.
	Muddled it up.
	I mean, they really didn't understand.
	And this was a failure of due diligence on their part that the accounts they focused upon were a separate retirement account that was ineligible and the other social security account, which was ineligible.
	And they took restoration of funds that I had used from the retirement account because I did not have a credit card for it.
	Well, I've written checks against them, then reimbursed to the penny.
	And they also use, you know, tax returns, half of which, you're correct about that too, were my wife's as though they were wholly mine.
	In other words, they really did a poor job on this.
	Now, believe it or not, it was only two days ago, Thursday and Wednesday.
	That I submitted my reply to the response brief, which was pretty weak and pathetic regarding the garnish.
	Now, I believe the same set of judges, I believe there will be three, will resolve both.
	And I kind of like the fact that they were so appallingly bad on the garnish because it reflects the practice that I've experienced with these attorneys throughout, that they're terrible.
	About where it appears that, you know, the law and the evidence hasn't made a difference.
	Now, you make a very interesting point that honestly hadn't crossed my mind that Jan, my wife, might be 50 percent, have a 50 percent interest in my books.
	Honestly, that's fascinating, because that hadn't crossed my mind before.
	Now I'll kick it around and see if I can get some opinions about whether it makes any difference.
	I suspect at this point it does not, but I'm mildly optimistic that the Court of Appeals, because this is Not now emotionally contaminated because Sandy Hook really doesn't figure it's just got to do with the propriety of taking and whether or not they satisfy the statutory requirements when they which they did not.
	And in the case of Garnish, the judge actually had held a hearing where my wife even testified about where this money had come from.
	And, you know, she was very explicit.
	And the judge said at the time he was not going to make a ruling now, but that either there could be a clarification of, you know, where the money was going to come from or start all over again to the to the.
	To the plaintiffs here, and yet they went ahead and submitted a motion for distribution.
	He just went ahead and signed without having an additional hearing.
	So one of the points made as I was in the process of putting together a rebuttal of their proposal for distribution of funds using arguments such as those I've just sketched when I learned it had already been done and the judge had issued the order.
	So, I mean, this is so procedurally wrong and it's so blatant.
	I don't think they're going to have any choice but to kick it back on the garnish, and I think it's going to reflect adversely on the way they handled the taking, which were also improper.
	So I am mildly, cautiously optimistic I'm going to succeed on both.
	I did include, by the way, in the taking an invitation for them to turn over the whole damn case, because it was wrong from the beginning.
	I could enumerate a dozen.
	Major lawful blunders and errors that were made by the court in this case.
	I mean, just outrageous.
	But let me turn it back to you for your thoughts about my reply.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, I think that's great, Jim.
	Thanks for the update on that.
	Yeah, it's it's really yeah, I don't know the details of it, but I mean, As far as the Court of Appeals goes, I mean, again, I've read it a long time ago, but I haven't since, and I'm not as optimistic, I guess.
	I guess the question for me, and I'll just raise this again, is why didn't you just discharge this judgment?
	I mean, it was on the table.
	I mean, it was, you know, worth considering, but we decided against it.
	- It was gonna affect our credit and other legal aspects.
	It was just a prudential judgment that it really wasn't advisable to do that for practical reasons, but it was on the table.
	- I guess I was concerned about your... - It was on the table.
	I mean, it was worth considering, but we decided against it, that's all. - Right.
	It's got to have monetary value and he's just cashed it in.
	He's even admitted in court that he just wants to destroy the book.
	I don't think so.
	It's got to have monetary value, and he's just cashed it in.
	He's even admitted in court that he just wants to destroy the book.
	That's an abuse of the law, and he's actually judicially estoppeled from the taking, which we've laid out before the Court of Appeals.
	I mean, if the Court of Appeals allows this, then you practically any process that taking has been legalized in the state of Wisconsin.
	So I think it's actually a pretty good brief, and I am going to be really surprised.
	Now, they may not go so far as to overturn the whole suit, which deserves to be overturned.
	But I do believe I'm going to prevail on the violation of the proper procedures for taking and for the garnishment because they're so blatantly in violation of clear-cut standards in Wisconsin that apply to all kinds of cases that have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, look, I appreciate Zach, who he is and what he called before.
	And we got derailed off of the gang-stalking thing, which was far more interesting radio than the particulars of your case.
	Again, all due respect, but I just put a little, shall we say, levity into my take that when you ask him why he didn't do it, I was going to say because Jim is a very, very stubborn, principled man.
	I wish he could have listened to me because of what I would have told him to do with all the time, money, and effort he's put into this, plus the $7,000 Out of his pocket that he paid for that fine, right?
	I would have printed up as many copies of that book as I could have afforded, and I would have paid guys to stand out in front of the courthouse and anywhere else you thought of it, just hand them out for free.
	Well, I'm under court order.
	I can't distribute the book, Paul.
	But let me tell you this.
	If anyone does exercise diligence, they can find it is still available on the Internet.
	Not by me, but you can still download the PDF.
	And if I get it returned to me, I'm going to make it.
	Available, you know, on a wide scale, because everyone deserves to read it.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Further thought?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I'm just making a silly point.
	It's not that silly that we all need to be like Patrick, okay?
	And attitude, right?
	I mean, all my life I've been told, you know, what to do or what not to do.
	And I mostly just did what I wanted, provided I didn't hurt other people.
	And for the most part, I did not.
	Uh, you know, believe me, I've been through it.
	Mostly tickets and taxes, okay?
	That's been my venue, but I can't tell you, I've driven around for, like, near ten year periods with a suspended license.
	Okay?
	Supposedly, I wasn't supposed to drive.
	But, do you think that that stopped me?
	So, would I have defied this so-called court order?
	I don't know.
	Probably.
	That's just my nature.
	Have you ever had a $650,000 penalty for contempt of court against you, Paul?
	Because that was added on to the $450,000 for the defamation.
	I mean-- Let me ask you this, Jim.
	Have you ever been to jail?
	Have you ever served 30 days of solitary confinement?
	No, and I don't envy you, Paul.
	I mean, that's really bad.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	There's people that are having their freedom taken away and being put in cages.
	And I actually recommend it to anybody.
	Just do 10, 15, 30 days and you will start to see things very clearly.
	So no, you're correct.
	I've never had a $650,000 judgment, but I wouldn't care.
	I would still give people the middle finger.
	Yeah.
	Well, Paul, I'm a big fan of you.
	Let me just say we got Anna here.
	I want Anna to have the final word here on today's show.
	Anna, you've been wonderful.
	Very articulate.
	I think your case is highly meritorious.
	I'm very glad you're pursuing it.
	Your final thoughts?
	Well, I want to thank you, but I want to make it very clear to your caller, SAC, that this case is not about fantastical things.
	This is about uncontroverted official document statements under penalty of perjury by Timothy Grove, former FBI director, admitting that innocent people that do not represent a threat to national security are in an illegal secret.

▲