All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:28:38
The Raw Deal (15 March 2024) with John Carman and guests Casey Whalen and Jason Van Dyke
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
career or just the planet check out my show the cosmic oracle here on revolution radio at freedom slips.com
oh
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern Time on Studio B with most Zellen R.C. at 3SF.com the People Station.
Thank you.
Thank you.
John, you want to go to Zoom?
I've sent you the Zoom link.
...on this radio station.
Its programs and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners are solely the opinions of the original hosts 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... Click on the other one.
Well, I'm hoping John Carman will be able to join us right here on Zoom.
Otherwise, I have him still here on Skype, and we should be able to proceed nevertheless.
John, if you check your email, you should have the Zoom link in your email, okay?
And join us.
I'll be there in a second.
Thank you so very much.
Meanwhile, I have Casey Whalen and Jason Van Dyke, who have been involved in some sticky legal issues.
I want, Casey, you go ahead and give us an introduction and background to what you and Jason have been engaged in here, trying to get straight.
Sure.
Thank you so much for having us on, James.
I really appreciate it.
I live in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and a couple of years ago, I'm sure many of the listeners will remember that 31 members of the group Patriot Front were arrested in the downtown Coeur d'Alene area as they were en route to a drag event in Coeur d'Alene Park every year in June.
This happened on June 11, 2022.
There was an event hosted by the North Idaho Pride Alliance, and at the event, They hosted a drag queen dance party in which children were present.
Of course, this enraged many people in the community and garnered some national attention.
Long story short, I went to go film the Pride in the Park event, the drag queen dance stuff there.
I happen to notice around 1.30 in the afternoon on June 11, 2022, there was a large law enforcement presence on Northwest Boulevard about a block from the downtown Coeur d'Alene area, the park where the event was being hosted.
And of course, that's where the 31 members of Patriot Front were arrested outside of the U-Haul that they were traveling in.
And since then, most of the members of Patriot Front stuck to their guns and had a jury trial, and they were charged with conspiracy to riot.
Most of the members, I don't know the exact number, I'd have to look into it a little bit, but most of them were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to riot.
And so there's been a couple of appeals now.
And there's two cases in this Patriot Front trial that are really interesting, and the main purpose of why I was covering it is because I live in Coeur d'Alene, and ultimately it led to another larger story where the federal government is targeting people for being quote-unquote nationalists, Christian nationalists.
They're trying to create this, you know, a way to go after people for For being nationalists, essentially.
So Patriot Front basically fits the bill, and in my eyes the DOJ is trying to go after Patriot Front for this charge of conspiracy to riot.
They never made it downtown.
We can go into more of what happened at one of the trials, but I met Jason.
He's a lawyer for Thomas Rousseau in a couple of other trials in the nation, and he's been kind of standing in the gap and trying to stand up for people's civil liberties.
So I'll leave it there, and I'll let Jason pick it up.
Yeah, let me just add, it seems to me there's been a systematic effort that it had to do with January 6th to demonize militias and independent groups, veterans, Trump supporters, as domestic terrorists, so that should there be a declaration of martial law, they could all be rounded up and subject to summary trial and even execution.
Jason, would you agree with that in general, as the background against which these events are unfolding?
Yeah, I generally would.
Now, I'm licensed to practice law in Texas, Georgia, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, so I was not personally involved in any of the trials of the Patriot Front members in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
I've represented, I've never represented the group, but I've represented a number of their members in various legal matters in Texas, as well as I'm working on a case in North Dakota for them right now, which is a civil case, and I did assist with some of the investigation of what was exactly going on in Port Elaine.
About 55% of my practice is criminal defense, and what was happening was the prosecution was playing hide-the-ball with the evidence.
They said they had turned over, apparently, some cell phones and some other electronic devices to the FBI.
It looks like, from what we've seen since then, before a warrant was even obtained for it, a warrant was eventually obtained under some highly suspicious circumstances that Casey has been involved in exposing.
But the posture of the case in Coeur d'Alene Is that one member, Richard Jessup, he appealed, well, as I was, he was, the charges against him were dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct.
There was an appeal that was already heard by an appellate court, where my understanding is the appellate court poured out the state on that, found that there was prosecutorial misconduct.
Now, the Thomas Rousseau case is interesting because It's a conspiracy case, and if there was anything that was going to be alleged at trial in this case, it would have been that Mr. Rousseau, who is my client in several other cases, was the leader of the conspiracy.
I mean, everyone knows Mr. Rousseau is nationally in charge of Patriot Front.
They would have alleged that he's the leader, but the charges against Mr. Rousseau were also dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct, Uh, and I believe there's some other attorneys who are currently working on appeals in the cases where people were convicted after a jury trial because these are the same case.
It's the same evidence.
If there was prosecutorial misconduct in one case, there was certainly prosecutorial misconduct in all of the other cases.
And when you look at a conspiracy case, if they're dismissing the case against who they're going to clearly allege, is the leader of the conspiracy.
That just throws an incredible degree of taint on the other cases.
We as citizens of the United States were protected by the Constitution.
The rights of the accused under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment, they exist for a reason.
And if they were violated in particular with respect to some members of the conspiracy theory, I don't see how the state's gonna take a position that they weren't violated with respect to Everyone who is allegedly involved in this conspiracy and how it's not going to mandate dismissal of those charges.
And also I use the word conspiracy.
That's because that was the charge.
Let me be clear.
I'm familiar with the facts of this case.
There was no conspiracy to riot.
What there was was a conspiracy of 31 young men To go and to peacefully demonstrate, as is their right under the First Amendment, in opposition to something that they were opposed to.
And in this case, that was the Pride in the Park event with the drag show to which children were invited to.
They have an absolute right to do that.
And my position would be that the government cannot lawfully charge people for engaging in a conspiracy to do something which is perfectly legal.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, conspiracy.
Classically, two or more individuals collaborating together to bring about an illegal hit.
Joining together to protest something like this is obviously not illegal, and therefore charging under conspiracy is simply absurd.
Conspiracies, by the way, are as American as apple pie.
Most Americans don't seem to appreciate that the vast majority of Conspiracies, which is the most frequently charged crime in the United States, happen to be economic, especially business efforts one way or another to defraud, to steal, to cheat, you know, could be a scam.
Probably you may be receiving as many calls as I do on virtually a daily basis from someone who's trying to scam me, and I guarantee you they're not operating alone.
They're engaged in a conspiracy to defraud.
John, I believe you've heard most of this.
Would you like to comment?
Yeah, I'm trying to dissect it very carefully on those things like I usually do.
It makes sense, you know, if they're out doing one thing, yeah, you have every right to go out and protest.
But unfortunately, this is where this country does not sound like it's our country anymore.
We're under communist rule standards.
So In communist countries, you can't go out and protest.
In fact, I'll give an example at the border where we had these mom-and-pop marias, we call them, these old ladies that are dressed like Catholic women with their rosaries.
They're coming up to the border walking, candles, maybe one actually carried an American flag, and I had some people backing me up from Border Patrol.
We're just out there doing security type stuff.
And once they cross the dip, which was a certain area in the roadway left to right, which is actually part of the border line itself, then they come into U.S.
territory, which is a good 50 yards, basically, depending on the angle.
And once they came into the U.S.
territory, somebody lit up the American flag and tried to get us to react to it.
And I told this Border Patrol guy, he was a big black guy, real big guy.
He was trying to stomp it out.
And I said, no, brother, stay back.
It's already desecrated.
Leave it alone.
They're just trying to take pictures of you stepping on the American flag.
See what I mean?
That's what they do.
They pull these situations where they're trying to get people to react to it.
It's set up.
It's standard CI scenario type tactics.
Communist tactics.
You can't go down to Mexico and protest and burn their flag.
Pause.
Think about it, folks.
Go down to Mexico.
Protest their country.
See what happens to you.
You will get locked up the hard way, and you won't come out for a long time.
Casey, give us your further thoughts about how things are developing.
I'm very impressed with Jason.
He seems to know his stuff, and he's showing a lot of integrity and courage, in my opinion, in dealing with this issue in a forthright way within a legal framework.
Give me your thoughts.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you.
That's why I like Jason.
He's very centered in what he's doing, very principled, and I appreciate that.
And we really need more people like him right now.
But I wanted to talk more about the first five that were on trial in the Patriot Front trial.
And so, the first five were found guilty of conspiracy to riot.
Those people were James N. Johnson, who I interviewed.
He was the oldest member of Patriot Front, and he's no longer with the group.
But another member, Forrest Rankin, Robert Whitted, Devin Center, and Derek Smith.
Now, Devin Center is one of the people appealing his case and that's in April.
I'll be following that.
We also have Thomas Rousseau who's appealing his case.
His case was dismissed by a judge also after Richard Jessup's case was dismissed in August of 2023 so we're keeping an eye on that but in Jessup's case the judge actually just ruled in issued a decision in his case in the appeal and it was very it's a 133 page decision so it's very long and the last 10 pages are basically an admonishment against the state of Idaho against deputy attorney for the city of Coeur d'Alene Ryan Hunter who
Multiple issues are brought up in this decision by the judge who ruled in the defendant's favor and Patriot Front's or Richard Jessup's favor.
So, for instance, what the Ryan Hunter did not appear for one of the hearings.
He basically was trying to say that the trial court was biased on multiple occasions, withheld exculpatory evidence, some 3.5 terabytes of information from the defense.
And so that's basically one of the reasons why the judge threw this case out.
And the plaintiff is basically guilty of Brady Act violations.
The bigger story, though, real quickly, is that the DOJ and the FBI are trying to cast this narrative about white nationalists, essentially.
They're trying to, in a tongue-in-cheek way, say that white supremacists, if you listen to a lot of the way a lot of these people talk nowadays, they'll say white supremacists, and then in the next breath, in the next sentence, they'll say white nationalists.
So they're trying to muddy the waters, and this story is so important.
Because, you know, they're using Patriot Front.
Once they demonize Patriot Front, then who's next?
It's going to be the CSPOA, the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association.
Who's after that?
It's just going to get worse and worse, and they're coming for you eventually.
Yes, yes, yes.
Jason.
Yes, sir.
Would you like to add?
Yes, and I think it's important to understand that We've all heard about COINTELPRO, the operation that the FBI had during the 50s and 60s, which targeted the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, and a lot of people want to think that COINTELPRO has gone away.
Make no mistake, COINTELPRO has not gone away.
They're using the exact same tactics Back then, the civil rights groups were the disfavored groups, and they're using the exact same tactics to target the groups that they deem to be white nationalists or white supremacists today, which they say are disfavored groups.
Now, make no mistake, I say that white nationalists have a right to protest.
That civil rights, like people who would have the same views as Dr. King, have a right to protest.
That's what the law says.
That's how it's supposed to work, and that's how it does work.
And one of the things we're dealing with in the civil case in North Dakota is we've also, in addition to having to fight the DOJ, local prosecutors, and stuff like that, They're also having to fight some of these big law firms.
I call them virtue signalers at law.
They're filing civil cases under the Ku Klux Klan Act that are essentially, on the surface, the case looks pretty good.
But if you look below the surface of some of these civil cases that have been filed in Patriot against Patriot Front, there's three of them right now.
I'm involved in one.
They're trying to use the Ku Klux Klan Act essentially to establish a hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
And that's something that I obviously stand against.
The Supreme Court has rejected on numerous occasions the notion that there is a hate speech exception to the First Amendment and for every good reason.
Because if you establish a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, well, who decides what is hate speech?
I mean, it's essentially the same thing as, I believe, a justice a long time ago said about pornography.
I know it when I see it.
Well, what the heck does that even mean?
The law doesn't give any fair notice to what's prohibited and hate speech or what people might deem to be hate speech by its very nature is political speech.
Political speech is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to protect.
I mean, one of the analogies I often see is the First Amendment's not there to protect people that are sharing cute pictures of puppies on their social media.
Well, that is no doubt protected.
That's not controversial.
No one cares about people sharing cute pictures of puppies on their social media.
But people do want to stop people from saying things that they say, oh, well, this is hateful.
This is bias.
This is wrong.
I think this is disinformation and stuff like that, or something like that.
We got a lot of that during the pandemic.
That stuff has the same First Amendment protection as sharing pictures of cute puppies.
And that's what people don't understand.
And that's what the left in this country is trying to get rid of.
And me and some other lawyers are standing against it.
It's very important work.
Oh, Jason, I would underline that emphatically.
I mean, First Amendment isn't to protect popular or uncontroversial speech.
It's to protect unpopular, controversial speech.
Even white supremacists ought to be entitled to march.
Ku Klux Klan ought to be entitled to march.
I don't have any problem with that, but we have in America If I may say so, it's a form of Jewish supremacy that goes perfectly accepted and is allowed to exercise censorship over, for example, any criticism of Israel when Israel is committing genocide—Christie Noem.
The governor of South Dakota, many of whom thought would be a good running mate for Trump, has just signed the most severe anti-hate speech law in America that won't allow you to criticize Israel.
Well, what the hell is that all about?
What a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
And as you well know, they pass these blatantly unconstitutional laws, and all the mischief occurs before the time it can be brought into court and work its way up to the Supreme Court to be rejected.
In the meanwhile, our rights are being trampled and violated grotesquely, as in your case.
Outrageous!
Yeah, that brings up an interesting point, which you guys just said, and I was just reminded.
They're trying to bring up the stuff about hate speech regarding Jews or Hebrews or whatever.
It's the same thing what they did after World War II.
You cannot deny the Holocaust, and if you do, they will arrest you.
And I remember a guy that was in a picture when Elie Wiesel was claiming he was a prisoner in Auschwitz, and he never, ever, ever had a tattoo on his arm.
And Nicholas Gruner, I believe the guy's name was Nicholas Gruner, Hungarian descent, He was in the photos that they claimed this other guy was in the photo, which was obviously it wasn't him.
He went back to Europe a couple of years back, and I believe he got into trouble because he was one of these people that they just wanted to target.
He was actually an Auschwitz survivor.
But yet again, they're trying to get into this part about speech.
Speech can be very passionate, and I've heard definitions, and you could ramble on about how passionate And how almost cruel and mean and threatening it could be would be almost tantamount, I guess, to saying a quote by Thomas Jefferson that I, you know, used to quote quite a bit.
The tree of freedom needs to be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots from time to time, as it is its natural manure, unquote.
Okay, that's Thomas Jefferson.
It takes you way back to Lisbethan times.
To when Shakespeare, if you said something negative about the king or queen, they'll cut off your tongue.
If you wrote something bad, they'll cut off your hand.
Stuff like that.
They did do that.
So, we're going back to the old-fashioned things where they're just like, oh, you can't say this about Palestine.
Well, maybe I want to.
Well, you can't say this about Israel.
Well, maybe I want to.
Maybe I know something they don't.
I keep wanting to pull up the name Proud Boys.
Was Proud Boys mentioned tonight or today on the Connected People?
Because that was another case that was probably, doesn't feel very close.
Yeah, I think there's a parallel there, but it's not the same case.
Yeah, Jason, go ahead, Jason.
I was having a hard time hearing what he said, but I mean, we're absolutely all on the same page about the First Amendment here.
Did the drag queens in Coeur d'Alene have a right to protest?
Absolutely.
I don't have to like it.
I have the right to say what I want in opposition to that.
But the dangerous road we're going towards in this country is where we have kind of two systems of justice.
We've got one for the right and one for the left.
The left can go out and say whatever they want.
We've seen some of these protests.
I remember the funny quote was fiery, but mostly peaceful protests where people are burning whole sections of towns.
I think in Portland, Antifa destroyed a police precinct.
We're not seeing prosecutions for that.
We're seeing prosecute, but instead we're seeing prosecutions for Patriot Front, which is by all accounts a nonviolent group.
They've never been credibly accused of committing any violent acts during their protests, and they're going after them.
It's insane.
And in fact, there was a recent decision out of a district court in California, where A gentleman by the name of Robert Rundo, who is alleged to be the leader of a group called RAM, the Rise Above Movement, I think is what it means.
I'm not exactly sure.
I'm not super familiar with the case, where a federal district judge dismissed, for the second time, a prosecution against Mr. Rundo based on a selective prosecution.
So, it's good to see that certain judges are starting to understand where the right's coming from in this country and that they're trying to do something about this, these two different systems of justice that we're seeing now, of course, the Ninth Circuit stepped in after this judge ordered Mr. Rundo released, they had him rearrested within 24 hours. they had him rearrested within 24 hours.
But I mean, that's just another example of what's going on here.
I I'm not super familiar with the facts of Mr. Rundo's case, but we see it all the time.
The J6 protesters were prosecuted very diligently by the Justice Department.
And it was not an insurrection.
It was a riot.
I mean, that's what I saw.
We all saw it on TV.
And yes, it was unlawful.
But at the same time, they're not going to protest the people that are burning entire parts of cities and stuff like that.
We need to have the same laws applying equally to everyone across the board.
That's what the Constitution demands, and that's what I as an attorney and officer of the court demand.
That's the most central principle of America.
We don't have equal justice for all, we have nothing.
In my opinion, we're a disgrace to the nation.
John, go ahead, add another thought.
Well, I was trying to compare some of the stuff This gentleman was talking about.
And I worked up in San Francisco at the U.S.
Mint right off Market Street, 88 5th Street at the Old Granite Lady.
And after I got off work one day, I think it was probably either Friday or Saturday, but I came out and they had just finished having a gay pride parade of some sort.
And I was interested.
I had my camera with me, so I thought I'd take a few pictures in case I saw anything of interest.
Like, you know, this really pretty female San Francisco cop in her uniform.
And the trolley goes right by that area anyway, or down below the Bark Bay Area Rapid Transit is below ground.
But I did see some military ladies there who were actual military people that were there, and they just happened to be there, and I just engaged them in conversation.
But this is all friendly stuff.
It's not wild, crazy stuff like I've seen before.
And I will communicate with people and just talk to them at a certain even level.
No problem.
Those are good people.
But then, on the extreme, I've seen the extreme in certain areas in other parts of the country, including San Francisco, which goes totally wild.
I haven't seen it personally, but I've seen it on video, where they've had people off on the streets doing stuff they shouldn't be doing out in public, which basically is against the law in the state of California and most other states.
You're talking about, like, fornication?
They're pushing the envelope, Jim.
They're constantly pushing and pushing to see the reaction that they get.
That's what you have to keep thinking about.
It's an operation, a PSYOP, and they're constantly pushing to see how the reaction is.
We got a hard break here with Revolution Radio.
will continue in just a few minutes with jason and casey and john listen revolution radio freedomslips.com we'll be riding
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on billboards 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. - - For one second, but the capital will never treat us fairly.
You are lying to yourself.
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do.
- No. - 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?
Eye open.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
change, that 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
it is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda can 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.
Well, Jason, this is a hugely important case.
I can't emphasize that too strongly.
I myself have been subject to censorship under the First Amendment for publishing a book the government didn't want, where I brought together 13 experts to review what had actually happened in Newtown, Connecticut.
And we discovered that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
I brought together 13 experts.
We discovered the school had been closed by 2008.
There were no teachers or students there.
And we even had the FEMA manual for the exercise.
It went on sale with Amazon on the 22nd of October 2015 and was banned on the 19th of November after selling nearly 500 copies.
They didn't want the world to know nobody died at Sandy Hook.
And then after I released it for free as a PDF, they brought a fabricated lawsuit against me, where in Wisconsin the judge can set aside evidence if he thinks it's unreasonable.
So even though I had this massive evidence, In order to effect a summary judgment, which is only applicable if there are no disputed facts, the judge created an absence of disputed facts by setting aside all my facts.
And then they went ahead and found me guilty of a defamation I hadn't committed based upon a death certificate I'd never even seen or commented upon.
I mean, the situation was outrageous.
I went all the way to the Supreme Court.
As a 7th and 14th Amendment case, you have a 1st and a 14th Amendment case that is of enormous importance.
I can't tell you how strongly I believe in what you are doing, Jason.
I can just compliment you to the sky.
Thank you, Mr. Fetzer, and I want to stress to you and your listeners that the criminal cases that Casey's discussed with respect to Coeur d'Alene, what I mentioned with respect to Mr. Rundeau, there's some other criminal cases in Charlottesville, Virginia about the Tiki Torch March that I'm not sure if Jason, I published a whole book about it.
I wrote to every member of the Department of History at the time about the car crash and all that, how there were two different vehicles, two different drivers, two or even three different takes.
They dismissed it all.
You would think the History Department at the University of Virginia would have some concern about the accuracy of reporting of an event occurring right in Charlottesville, where, by the way, I taught twice at UVA, Mr. Jefferson University.
I was brought in as a visiting associate in 77, 78, then brought back as a visiting full professor in like 81, 82.
I mean, I have a great respect for the institution, but the Department of History is a sham.
I reached out to members of the city council with the same evidence, but I've now published a whole book, which of course has also been banned.
So, Jason, I'm with you.
I mean, I'm telling you, this is just outrageous.
I know quite a lot about the Charlottesville Tiki March, the whole thing, and of course they've taken down the statue, and I believe they've actually already melted it, if you can believe.
Well, I read about that.
The Tiki March case is not about the murder that allegedly occurred in Charlottesville.
It's about The Tiki March cases are about bringing charges against the participants in the Tiki Torch March.
Saying that they burned an object with intent to intimidate.
Now, my understanding of this... The torches themselves, Jason?
Yes, Mr. Rousseau... They were permitted, you know.
Yeah, that was the night before.
Yeah, go ahead.
Mr. Rousseau, my client, has been accused wrongfully, I believe, of violating the statute of burning an object with intent to intimidate in Charlottesville.
He was actually picked up on this sealed warrant.
They didn't even know about the warrant.
And in fact, to my chagrin, they knew that I was representing Mr. Rousseau.
It was public record.
I was representing Mr. Rousseau in the North Dakota civil case.
Had the district attorney reached out to my office and said, hey, we know you represent Mr. Rousseau.
We've got this warrant.
He needs to turn himself in.
I would have been we were more than happy to arrange for his surrender in Virginia.
They ended up picking him up on this warrant during a traffic stop in Texas in McLennan County.
That's Waco for your listeners that might not be familiar.
I was able to secure Mr. Rousseau's release from confinement in Waco on an extradition bond, where the following week he was in Virginia, turned himself in, was given a PR bond by the judge there, so we were able to save Mr. Rousseau some time in jail on that.
But this statute that they're using in these tiki torch marches, they're saying that they burned an object with intent to intimidate, which I think is
Really a bunch of nonsense because, again, what the Tiki Torch marchers, regardless of whether you or your listeners agree with what they were saying during the march, they're saying that this, what was protected speech, ultimately turned into unprotected speech because they were doing it while holding a Tiki Torch that was something you can get at a hardware store, not to mention something that's designed to be lit on fire.
And my commentary on this case Okay, let's say they hadn't marched with tiki torches.
Let's say that instead they marched with lit candles or with lit cigars.
Other objects that are designed by their very nature to be consumed by lighting them on fire.
I mean, it wouldn't have been reasonable.
I mean, I've always thought it'd be funny to maybe do another protest in Charlottesville where people just have some Monte Cristo No.
3 cigars and they gather and they protest against, I don't know, regulations on tobacco or something, just to kind of see if they would follow their logic in these cases to its ultimate and idiotic conclusion.
You can't turn protected speech into unprotected speech because someone's carrying an innocuous object such as a tiki torch.
Jason, you have a first-class legal mind.
I've been dealing with enough attorneys and enough contacts to recognize a real deal when I see it.
You are it.
Casey, you're so fortunate to have this guy.
He is good.
He is great.
He knows his stuff.
And in the same vein, I want to mention Senate Bill 1086.
And this is the genesis of a DOJ program called United Against Hate.
And this was passed by the Senate in 2022.
And the title of this, you'll like this, this act may be cited as the Khalid Jabara And Heather Heyer, National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equity Act of 2022, or the Jabara Heyer No Hate Act.
And in this act, it gave the DOJ, it says here, the Attorney General may make grants to states and units of local government to assist the state Anyways, it goes on to talk about a national incident-based reporting system to train employees in identifying and classifying hate crimes in the national incident-based reporting system.
And it goes on here, if I can find the right page, where it states that the DOJ may establish a liaison with formal community-based organizations or leaders I conduct public meetings or educational forums on the impact of hate crimes services available to hate crime victims.
So essentially, this was what spawned what's now known as United against hate and that was launched in 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
And it was to order all 94 of the U.S.
District Attorney's offices to now participate in this.
I've been to two of these events over the last year or so.
I don't know if you can see that on camera there.
But at one of these events, it was hosted by the FBI, DOJ, and some of our local Human Rights Task Forces, which are implementing the LGBTQ ideology, essentially are also the hosts, ipso facto, of the Pride in the Park event.
So just to make a long story short, at this United Against Hate event that two of them have been hosted in North Idaho, the AUSA, or the Assistant U.S.
District Attorney of Idaho, or A DOJ employee, her name is Tracy Whalen, has been hosting these events.
The reason that this is an issue is because at these events, they're informing the public of how to report hate incidents and hate crimes so that they can be documented, essentially.
But the reason that this is important with Tracy Whalen, and she's part of the DOJ, is that she was at Pride in the Park, allegedly, according to FBI whistleblower Kyle Serafin.
She was at the Pride in the Park event with a trans relative, apparently.
She also, allegedly according to our whistleblower, authored the warrant for the FBI to search the cell phones of the 31 members of Patriot Front who were arrested.
So this is a huge story which hasn't really, you know, it's been talked about a little bit, but essentially the very person who's asking the public to report hate incidents and hate crimes is authoring this warrant for these 31 members of Patriot Front's cell phones.
John, did you want to comment?
Can't hear you.
No, I was following, I'm following the words very carefully.
And I kept going on this tiki torch thing.
I was trying to show you a picture of a tiki, because I'm into tiki, too.
That's the back side of a tiki.
If I was to go to a special location where there's a lot of Hawaiians, and I do happen to know them, and I started torching these up, you don't think that would enrage people?
Because those are their gods, and their history, and their ancestry.
It's a very serious thing.
I study all kinds of cultures, but it's just the idea that when they do something, no matter what it is, to enrage a certain particular group, or they've targeted a certain specific racial group, belief system, religion, all the categories of the First Amendment, then that's where it goes into the hate speech.
That's where it becomes a violation.
I wish I had Jason represent me as a whistleblower case, I'm still suffering.
Hell of a guy, I'll tell you, I'm impressed.
Yeah?
And what Mr. Whalen is talking about as far as this United Against Hate task force, I think is important.
My understanding of Casey's reporting here is that what essentially occurred with these search warrants is that One FBI agent reviewed these warrants and said, hey, I'm not going to sign off on this warrant because I don't believe there's probable cause to believe that an offense was committed.
And my understanding that we learned from Mr. Seraphim was that that agent was subsequently disciplined and they gave it to this
I think it was Tracy Whalen that they mentioned to sign off on the affidavit for this search warrant, even though they knew that there was no probable cause for an off that an offense said that had actually been committed by Patriot Front and that and that that creates a huge problem.
Again, Casey's a lot more familiar with the background on that, but You know, I think that demands an investigation by the Justice Department if they've got agents who are knowingly signing off on search warrants against politically disfavored groups with full knowledge that there's no probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed or is about to be committed.
Yes.
Yes.
So basically what happened just really quickly is that there wasn't a warrant at the time when the, so the Coeur d'Alene Police Department had possession of the phones.
Apparently the phones were then given to the FBI.
The state was trying to say they don't have the phones, they're not in possession of the phones.
So when the defense was trying to acquire the names or just information off of the cell phones, the state would just say, well, we don't have them.
Well, the court basically ruled that, yes, it is your responsibility because you allowed the Coeur d'Alene Police Department to let the FBI have the phones, essentially.
So the FBI had the phones.
There was not yet a search warrant.
And then when one was produced by Tracy Whalen of the DOJ, three of the line agents apparently said that they were not going to follow through.
And then supervisory agent, his name is Zach Show Stahl refused to sign off on the warrant.
Basically, he was then removed from the Coeur d'Alene office here locally.
I guess he was sent on a temporary assignment and then he was fired.
Disciplinary move.
I want to interject because I've got lots of experience with these FBI agents, some good, some bad.
And I need to talk to Jason off the air sometime about stuff too, because I could also maybe allude to some other illegal activities.
FBI agents have what they call a White Hat team and a Black Hat team.
That's why some agents I knew left the agency after a certain case, and they went to work for Dell Computer Company in Texas somewhere.
White Hat team will call up, I'm sorry, the Black Hat team, the bad guys will call up the White Hat squad leader, And say, yeah, we're we're the bad guys.
We've got information or we're the snitch.
We've got information on contraband in the third drawer over to the right of the suspect.
OK, great, thank you.
Can I get your name?
Click and then they you know it goes different ways.
Then the White Hat team will go and get a warrant based on probable cause PC or information they allegedly got from an anonymous informant or reliable informant or even an anonymous phone call.
Different categories there too.
They then go perform the search warrant with a legitimate sign by a judge.
The judge, sometimes they don't care.
They'll just go ahead and do it anyway.
Perform the search.
Maybe they might not find it, but if they get in there and they can't find it, they will drop something in there.
That turns them from a white hat to a black hat team.
Sounds like Mar-a-Lago to me.
And if I was stationed there that day at Mar-a-Lago, In Secret Service, and I am former Secret Service, I would have told those guys outside with the badges and their warrants to go pound sand and to move their vehicles out of the way because they're disrupting my view.
Period.
That's it.
I think Trump made a mistake on that one.
That's just my personal opinion, but we could talk about that another part of it.
But make no mistakes about it.
The FBI does illegal stuff.
And if you're trying to fight it in a court system that's already corrupt, I don't see it going anywhere.
You know what I mean?
I am a whistleblower that's been burnt by the government.
I had commendations, Secret Service, San Diego PD, private investigator, U.S.
Mint, and then U.S.
Customs.
That was my big joke mistake.
So I've got experience with how they actually act, and we're presupposing that they're going to follow the rules.
Well, even though, based on my own experience, the courts have not followed the rules, I think we need to press them hard and lay out the case so clearly that anyone who reviews the bidding can see that it was the courts that were acting with malfeasance and not the parties who have been accused.
I think we have to establish the record.
And perhaps at some point in time, the Supreme Court, for example, will perform its duty and act in accordance with the Constitution.
Cases like these that are of such immense importance to our freedom as a republic.
Jason?
Yeah.
It's a we have a difficult road ahead, especially if we're wanting to get some of this stuff before the US Supreme Court.
Very probably 1 100th of 1% of if not less of cases ultimately end up before the before the US Supreme Court.
There's a lot of there's a lot of different ways to get there.
The thing about criminal law is it's A lot of people rightly believe that criminal law in this country is pretty well settled.
I mean, there's always going to be variations of it.
It's in the civil cases that we're getting more stuff before the U.S.
Supreme Court and getting the kind of rulings that we need out of this Supreme Court.
I mean, finally, for the first time in my lifetime, we have a court that is dominated by Uh, justices that, uh, at least seem to want to follow the constitution, uh, that aren't, uh, we don't have a majority of us on the court that are activist judges.
Um, so I mean, sometimes we're going to be disappointed with them, but, uh, that's, uh, that's the system that we live in.
And, uh, that's kind of why I've, I've, I've, I'm helping along with some other very good attorneys like Glenn Allen.
take the lead on some of this civil stuff like the one in North Dakota where we've got activist law firms and activist organizations attempting to hijack the Ku Klux Klan Act in a manner that's going to essentially establish a hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
Now, if you'll stay with me for a minute, Mr. Fetzer, I'm going to explain what's going on in the North Dakota case.
My clients are alleged to have been in... Isn't that in the Ninth Federal Circuit also?
I'm sorry?
Isn't that jurisdiction in the Ninth Federal Circuit?
That's incorrect.
North Dakota would be in the Eighth Circuit.
OK, because 9th is the most atrocious.
I just thought I'd ask, so go ahead.
Yeah, we're in the 8th Circuit.
I don't have much familiarity with the 8th Circuit.
I know it covers the Dakotas.
I believe it also covers all the way down to Missouri.
I think Nebraska as well.
I'd have to double check all the states that it covers, but I know for North Dakota we're within the 8th Circuit.
But what's alleged to have happened in this North Dakota case is Members of Patriot Front supposedly tagged a building belonging to an organization called the Immigrant Development Center.
Now, we can all agree spray painting private property is against the law.
From what I've seen in this case, I don't even think Patriot Front guys were involved.
Anyone can make these stencils.
I've spoken to my clients.
Both of them deny having any knowledge or involvement in this thing.
But that's not even what's most important here.
It's that they're using and expanding the Ku Klux Klan Act, which was a Reconstruction-era law, to bring what's an act of vandalism under the purview of the federal courts.
And what they write in their complaint is very interesting.
They state that The spray painting of a URL for the Patriot Front website was a threatening message, and they're saying that what this message did was it infringed upon the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs to enjoy the International Market Plaza, the building that was spray painted, a place of public accommodation without fear or intimidation On account of race.
And again, some people might say that sounds reasonable.
But again, let's follow the plaintiff's argument to its ultimate and idiotic conclusion.
The Supreme Court has said that, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at funerals.
The right of the Ku Klux Klan to protest in front of a courthouse has been well established.
We don't have to like it.
I frankly am not a supporter of the Klan.
I wouldn't like it if the Klan showed up in my community and protested in front of the courthouse, but I would understand that they had a right to do exactly that.
Well, if they're saying that they've got a federal lawsuit anytime they feel fear or intimidation in any place of public accommodation, what they're essentially saying, when we follow to their conclusion, is These groups don't have a right to protest anywhere that's a place of public accommodation.
Because if they've got a cause of action for this, so must everyone else who would experience similar feelings, entirely subjected to feelings of fear or intimidation.
Essentially, whether the activity is legal or illegal becomes irrelevant at that point.
And that's what we're fighting against in North Dakota.
I'm willing to bet the spray painting was done.
It's like the ADL sending out some of its ops to kick over a few Jewish tombstones or monuments or spray paint a swastika.
They do this and then make a big deal out of anti-Semitism when they're the perpetrators so they can play the victim card.
It's getting worn out because of the genocide they're conducting and It is real.
I don't think anyone has any sympathy, even for the holohoax any longer.
Once you see what they're doing to the Palestinians, this is what they claim the Nazis were doing to them.
But this is manufactured, Jason.
I'm with you 100%.
I mean, this is outrageous, and it's a subjectivity.
There's nothing about freedom of speech that says you can't say something that makes somebody feel uncomfortable.
You can't say something that causes someone anxiety.
You can't say something that makes somebody feel as though...
They're unhappy.
Who gives a GED?
That is not the point.
It's to let all opinions be expressed, which was the founders' conception and totally right.
Sir Karl Popper has emphasized how if we're searching for truth, rational debate and discussion is our most important instrument in discovering the truth.
And if you're having half the side or evidence suppressed, you can't have an engagement.
You can't find the truth.
We're under totalitarian suppression.
It's even reaching the point in Canada where you can't have thoughts that the government doesn't approve of.
I mean, it's reached a point of absolute absurdity.
Well, Mr. Fetzer, I do want to be clear.
There is no evidence in the North Dakota case that the ADL or some other group did this.
There's no evidence.
Oh, I know.
I was drawing a parallel.
I was drawing a parallel.
I just want to make that clear because I'm still an officer of the court and I want to make sure that was clear, but you make an interesting point about thoughts.
Because let's examine that.
You had mentioned the South Dakota law which defines anti-Semitism for the purpose of considering a hate crime.
Well, when you think about what a hate crime is, let's take one that everyone In my age and probably older is familiar with, I mean, the Matthew Shepard case, he was a gay man who was murdered, I think, in Oklahoma.
I'm not sure which.
I remember the case growing up.
We all agree that murder is illegal, okay?
I mean, everyone, okay, murder is illegal.
You can't be out killing people.
But then when you introduce this hate crime element to it for an enhanced punishment, You have to look at what is the government really punishing there.
What they're punishing there is thought.
I think when it comes to these hate crimes, we need to punish the act.
Obviously, there's premeditation so we can punish free planning and stuff like that, but When you get into the notion of hate crimes, something we're going to need to decide as a society is whether we're prepared to allow the government to punish thought.
And whether we really think that's a proper role of government.
I don't think it is.
I don't think the government has any proper role in policing what people think.
Can they police acts?
Absolutely.
If someone kills somebody else and it's not in self-defense, they need to be punished for that.
And no one's denying that.
If they pre-plan it, And hate goes into the pre-planning.
Yeah, there's different degrees of murder or assault or stuff like that that can be based on those type of things, and no one's arguing that.
When you have the whole notion of a hate crime, that we're going to say, we're going to punish this crime more severely because of your thoughts and your motivations, Then we start to have a problem.
Now, of course, there are times where crimes can be aggravated by motivations, like murder for hire in Texas is a capital offense.
And so that if that's a motivation, we punish that.
But that's something a little different than punishing a crime based on the fact, oh, well, this person was motivated by bias.
So we're going to punish that more severely.
Right now, the law in this country says the government can do that, and I think there at least needs to be a conversation about whether policing someone's thought is a proper role of government, at least in the context of a hate crime.
Because at least for now, hate is not illegal, and nor should it be.
That's why we have a First Amendment.
We don't, I mean, I certainly, I mean, I'm a criminal defense attorney, and it's kind of funny because, I mean, the Constitution says that everyone's entitled to a defense.
I represent people accused of sexual assaults, of child abuse, of all manner of crimes.
And when I represent people like that, no one really bats an eye because they understand that these people are entitled to a defense.
But If I were to represent someone who, and I have done this, if I represent someone who's supposedly, whether it's true or not, I mean, it doesn't seem to matter anymore in this country, but if I represent someone who's supposedly a white nationalist accused of spray painting something, all of a sudden, oh, there's a story here.
We need to write a story about this.
Shut up!
My job as a defense attorney is not to condone anything that someone's alleged to have done.
My job is to make sure that the government follows the law.
And if the government follows the law and can't meet their burden of proof, it's my job to call them out on that, regardless of who they are or what they're accused of doing or what their motivation is.
Yes, yes, yes.
For some reason, the break we didn't hear.
I'm going to get you, John.
I'm going to open the line to callers, but we're going to continue our conversation.
The number is 608-957-8727.
608-957-8727.
If you want to call in and participate in the conversation with Casey, Jason, John, and me.
John, go ahead.
And if you want to call in and participate in the conversation with Casey, Jason, John, and me, John, go ahead.
Your point.
Oh, yeah, I was biting at the bits here because I've actually worked cases.
And it's very similar to what you said about the ADL.
These groups, I'll mention a specific case where a black group put KKK sprayed on a white church.
It's just the look of the church.
It's a white church, but there's a black congregation, so the blacks, the undercover bad guy, black guys would go and put KKK Or even go to the extreme of even burning a cross on the lawn of a church attended by a black congregation.
It's the same thing BLM is all about.
It's all part of the FBI.
They're doing all this stuff undercover to create a problem, to make it look like they're a terrorist group, and then they don't do anything about it.
It's an imaginary boogeyman.
So I see it repeating itself in history over and over.
These are many false flags, you know, where you hold someone responsible who had nothing to do like Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK, Sirhan, Sirhan, RFK, and the like.
I mean, it's being applied here on political purposes.
Ubiquitously, but I'm here.
Casey, I'm just really impressed with this whole case, and it's enormously important that we have someone seeking to join.
Let me see if I can bring him in here.
Echo 406, is that you, Paul?
Go ahead, join the conversation.
No, it's me, Keith.
Keith, good.
Yes, go.
I got a question for you there, Doc.
What's the difference in a government that prosecutes you for, say, drawing a swastika on a building or whatever like that as a hate crime versus the same government giving Israel 2,000-pound bombs to drop on people?
Is there a difference in a hate crime?
Well, I would share all and both.
You know, hate crime is a category I think is going to be found to be unconstitutional.
It's a fabrication.
It's a chimera.
There should be no such thing as hate crime.
But if you talk about conventional understanding, I'd say the one grossly outweighs the other.
Dropping 2,000 bombs on people to kill them is obviously a grossly more serious offense than the other.
Continue, Keith.
Well, if you recall, under UN Article 19, under basic human rights, incitement to genocide is a crime, and it's even more of a crime if the genocide is carried out.
And that's what they're calling for.
Yes.
No, you're 100% correct.
Jason, would you want to comment on this observation?
I have not followed the whole Israel-Palestine-Gaza Strip thing probably as much as I should have.
My whole perspective on that is, can't they both lose?
Here's another one for you.
I was called for jury duty once.
They asked if I had anything against the court, and I said, no.
And they said, well, do you have any questions?
I said, yeah.
I said, is the judge going to instruct the jury about jury nullification?
That threw me right out.
These so-called hate crimes of swastikas or KKK, whatever, they're all victimless crimes.
They become a category of the mind when people have built into themselves so much That they're being oppressed or something like that.
Well, you know, when people felt that way, they either moved, got away from it, or they dealt with it.
I can't remember how many times I've grown up like that.
School bullies and stuff like that.
Hey, we're all alive today, you know?
These are all categories of the mind that they use to try to create crime with, to victimize more people, to pass more laws and regulations.
Yes, yes, yes, agreed.
John, can you see the picture on chat?
Yeah, I saw that picture where there's a built into the wall is a swastika.
I mean, that's a lamp.
It's a lamp post structure right at the federal building US Mint where I worked in San Francisco that 88 5th St.
And it was one of the first things this guy took me on a tour to show me around.
I said, oh, that's very interesting.
So that building.
Probably as far back as 1906 when they had the San Francisco earthquake and fire.
It was the only building standing in the area, but it still stands today.
It's been converted to a bed and breakfast thing.
What was the history of the swastika?
I know it's an ancient symbol.
It goes far back.
Oh, yeah.
I imagine it didn't represent the National Socialist Party of Germany.
Exactly.
It goes back to Tibetans.
It goes back to Native Americans.
It's been there for 100, 120, 150 years, right, John?
Yeah.
- Is this a Swastika?
- Yeah.
- Is this a recent Swastika put on a building? - No, it's an old one on a federal building, the federal minute in San Francisco, Keith.
- Yeah, look it up, Google it, 88 fifth street.
- It's been there for, been there for a hundred, 120 or 150 years, right, John?
Yeah.
- Yeah, it's been there a long time.
If you go back to- - The bear is on a Swastika. - It's a Swastika embedded.
It's embedded in the architecture.
I mean, it's a permanent feature.
It's not something that was spray-painted.
It's a permanent design feature that had nothing to do with the National Socialist Party of Germany.
Well, is that like the Bellamy salute?
The Bellamy?
Yeah, that's the...
Yeah, Google it Bellamy Salute.
That used to be the early 1900s school salute.
Are we talking about giving the finger?
The Roman.
Oh, you mean the Sig Heil, the Sig Heil, the Sig Heil.
Yeah, I got it, I got it.
Casey, Casey, you guys are fighting the good fight.
I think this is tremendously important.
Where does the case stand now?
Where is it now in the legal process?
You're muted, you're muted.
Operator error.
How's that?
Sorry about that.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, so there's three different cases here that we talked about today.
But the one in Coeur d'Alene, you know, that one's still, we're still waiting on that one.
Like I said, the judge, Judge ruled last week, Judge Mitchell, in Richard Jessup's case, he appealed, or he dismissed the appeal in his case.
So that's My source states that that case will now be kicked off to the Supreme Court.
My source thinks that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the appeal, and then ultimately they hope that the AG will do away with it.
So we'll see.
That's the Idaho Supreme Court?
Correct.
Jason, what's your assessment?
Yeah, I'm not licensed in Idaho.
But based on what I know about the law generally, it sounds like that's probably what's going to happen.
And there's going to be something similar that's going to happen in Mr. Rousseau's case in Idaho.
As far as the other cases we've talked about, the North Dakota civil case, I filed a motion for partial dismissal of that case under Rule 12b-6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
We're going to be waiting to see what the court does with that.
We really just finished briefing that.
I filed my reply to their response just yesterday, so we're going to be waiting on that one for a bit, I think.
Mr. Rudeau's case I know is before the Ninth Circuit, and as far as Mr. Rousseau's case in Virginia, he was just granted bond.
I'm not going to be representing him in Virginia because I'm not licensed there.
It's my understanding he's either hired an attorney or is in the process of hiring one, and that I don't even think has gone to pretrial yet.
The North Dakota case and Mr. Rousseau's case are in the early stages.
Mr. Rundo's case is before the Ninth Circuit.
The Coeur d'Alene cases, like I said, we've got appeals for Mr. Jessup's case and Mr. Rousseau's case in Coeur d'Alene.
I really wouldn't know, as far as the other appeals for those that were convicted at jury trial, where those stand at this point.
I do know that Devin Senter, one of the first five that was convicted, his appeal is in April.
And then Thomas Rousseau, they had an extension there a couple weeks, about two weeks ago now.
So that one's, we're probably looking at about two months out for Thomas Rousseau's appeal in the quarter length.
Yeah, so these cases are at various stages.
Go ahead, Jason.
Yeah, these cases are all at various stages.
Both me and the other good attorneys who are doing work on these cases, there's still a lot to be done.
I'm sure that anti-fascists and the leftist media are going to try to intimidate us.
The more successful we are, the more intimidation there's going to try to be, but that's fine.
I'm used to it.
I've been doing this a long time.
Um, they don't, they don't scare me and they're not gonna keep me from doing my duty.
Excellent, excellent.
I'm very impressed.
Keith, go ahead.
Well, I'm just gonna say, if this is, if this deals with free speech or something like that, whenever you stifle free speech, then you, uh, you incite anger.
And so by any court that is stifling the free speech, or any government, it pents up anger inside people instead of being able to sit there and talk about things.
Like two men would sit down and say, hey, look, you know, I don't like the way you're cutting your lawn or whatever like that, you know.
But it gets to the point where it goes to blows.
And this is why it's important to have free speech.
And this is what they're trying to do all over, especially up there in Canada right now.
Yeah, Canada's just extraordinary.
How bad can you get?
I used to think it was a more civilized version of America, but it's anything but.
It's a more fascistic tyranny than America, but we're getting there very fast.
That's why this case is so bloody important.
Canada's basically a loft apartment over a really great party.
Say that again, Jason.
Canada's a loft apartment over a really great party.
They're up there yelling, turn it down, eh?
Yeah, embarrassingly bad.
John, did you want to add?
Yeah, there's a comparison with what the other gentleman was saying.
He mentioned Canada.
And I've talked to my buddy Nick Mancuso in France.
Remember they had riots just last year.
And apparently a Moroccan kid, 17, 18 years old, was confronted by the police.
Something happened.
It's unclear.
He got hit by the butt of a rifle or something, drove off, and then the police shot him and killed him.
And right after that, at the drop of a hat, and you don't need much of a hat drop on that one, they all rioted.
Well, they also went after all the people.
that have their cell phones on in those locations and they trap their information to arrest those people in that specific area.
But in Europe and other countries, it's like it has to happen in France first before the Americans will react another way on another issue.
But yet other countrymen in other countries are very adamant about it.
It's like, no, you're violating your rights.
They go out and they protest and they get on with it.
And get these things going.
In other countries, they say, well, I'm kind of busy this week, or no, I've got an appointment that day, I can't make it, blah, blah, blah.
Excuses.
Eventually, the rights will disappear.
And then they won't have anything left.
But it's very interesting to compare.
And that's why we'll try to get people to look outside the United States.
What would they do in another country?
You wouldn't be able to get away with stuff that they're doing.
And they were right out there, and they're going to protest and Turn cars over and start all kinds of fires like Antifa did.
lived it.
Keith, go ahead.
Well, we know the ultimate goal is they want a civil war so they can invoke their Continental Government, bring in their martial law, suspend the Constitution.
That's why a lot of people, even you, Jim, have even cited the fact that we speculate whether or not there will even be a November election process like this because Trump is getting too close and, of course, you know me, I'm a realist and I don't vote, but Trump looks like he might be I'm a realist and I don't vote, but Trump looks like he might be the shoe-in like that and they'll do anything they can to stop that, just like when you see this with George Galloway over
Whenever the underdog, like that, boy, they go berserk.
This is what they want, though.
They want a catalyst, whether it's As a matter of fact, I don't know if you caught that email I sent you there, but these so-called Haitians that were rioting and stuff, wasn't it interesting at the State Department being questioned that says, well, you just installed that government there the day before.
So again, it is one of these ulterior things to cause the uprising, to get Mayorkas, to get these guys on a boat or something like that, to come in here and cause more hate and discontent.
The immigrants were being invaded and stuff, and of course they're paying them to come here, you know?
So, again, they want an uprising, and this is why the hate crimes and stuff are so prevalent for today, is they want to keep this in the news, you know, like the white society is being destroyed or whatever like that, you know?
Our culture is being wiped out.
But it all comes down to Hegel, where it's the...
Where he talks about this cunning of reasoning.
A lot of this stuff has been turned around, just like with all the multiculturalism.
Suddenly all the whites and the Hispanics and the blacks and the Muslims are all united in this Palestinian cause.
We'll see that backfired on them.
Now they're all united.
So now they're trying to find out, how can we do this?
Well, they're relabeling the pro-Palestinian groups to pro-Hamas groups.
And now they got the cops out beating up the pro-Hamas, which is the same people.
It's just that they've changed the title.
But they want an uprising.
And they'll probably get it too, because people are so stupid.
Casey.
Yeah, one of the aspects I wanted to discuss real quickly is that basically in my local community, I found that the Department of Justice, FBI, they have liaisons, like I mentioned earlier, with these human rights groups.
And through emails, I found that on the day of the Pride in the Park event on June 11, 2022, In a nearby park, not very far away, there was a Catholic rosary walk in opposition to the Pride in the Park event.
And the people that were hosting the Pride in the Park event asked through an email to report the Catholic rosary walk to the FBI.
Now, one of the board members of the North Idaho Pride Alliance who hosted the Pride in the Park event is Michelle Beach, and she is an Idaho State Patrol officer.
So she's on the board of the actual organization hosting the event.
She's asked through email from the people that are hosting the event to report the Catholic rosary walk to the FBI.
She reports it to the FBI along with another lady who runs the local Human Rights Education Institute.
So that's what's happening in our community, and it's happening in your community too, where patriot, you know, constitutional activities are proactively being reported to the FBI and DOJ as quote-unquote hate incidences, that if a crime is committed, those hate incidences can retroactively be charged as hate crimes.
So that's something that I want to stress, and this has been documented in my work on my sub-stack, just KC Wayland.substack.com if people want to read more about it.
Yeah, this whole idea of making something illegal in the past that wasn't illegal then is just unbelievably bad.
I mean, how horrific can you get?
You can surely only probably be held responsible for violating laws that were in existence at the time you committed the act that allegedly violated them.
Jason, I want you to go ahead and give us kind of an overview of the cases with which you're involved or are familiar that matter here.
These are so important, please.
Yes.
What Casey's talking about is, there is obviously, the FBI does not want to discourage people from reporting stuff to them.
In my experience, and as a criminal defense attorney, I've found that Investigative agencies like the FBI, they like to build files on people.
That's just what I've discovered.
And as Casey was saying, There's a tendency by law enforcement to take a bunch of perfectly legal activities, put them together, and say, well, when you look at all this legal stuff together, it becomes something that's illegal or that shows hate or a bias-motivated crime.
Well, that dog doesn't hunt.
Maybe instead of talking about how much money we're going to be spending overseas on foreign wars that we don't need to be involved in, we need to be pressuring our legislature to have essentially watchdogs for some of these law enforcement groups we need to be pressuring our legislature to have essentially watchdogs for some of these law enforcement groups to make sure that they're not keeping records of constitutionally protected activity and keeping an eye on them to
protected.
As far as the cases I'm involved in, Mr. Fetzer, I My job as a defense lawyer, and I think it's important for people to understand this, is to protect people's constitutional rights every day.
No matter what color they are, no matter what they believe, that's what criminal defense lawyers do.
When you or I break the law, we get a ticket, or we go to jail, we pay a fine, we might have to do some time, or something like that.
But the criminal defense lawyers rule Is to make sure that when the government violates the law, we all agree the Constitution is the law, that there's consequences for the government for violating the law.
And those consequences are the exclusion of evidence, the dismissal of their cases, because that's what's supposed to motivate the government to not violate the law.
So it's very important that The people not think that criminal all criminal defense lawyers that we're just trying to get people off that we're trying to that we want there to be more crime in the community.
That's not what we're trying to do, because it's easy to hate on criminal defense lawyers until you need one.
And we're really just out there trying.
We're not trying to We're not out there, oh, we want guilty people to go free.
No, what we want is we want to protect the Constitution.
And if that means guilty people have to go free because the government violated that person's rights, well, that's just what needs to happen here.
And so me and every other defense lawyer across the country, we're doing that every day on the criminal side.
And on the civil side of things, what we're doing is We're making sure that these groups, because it's not just the government, that's what I've been trying to stress, it is not just the government that wants to take our rights away.
It's these special interest groups like the ones in Idaho that Casey mentioned.
There's one called Task Force Butler or Veterans Fighting Fascism.
They've been at the forefront of trying to take away free speech rights.
The ADL, the SPLC, they've been doing this for years.
The ADL and the SPLC have conned the public into believing that they're civil rights organizations when the reality is that they're nothing more than attack dogs for the far left.
These battles have to be fought in court, and what's distressing to me as an attorney is I hear people say, you're fighting the system, you're fighting a battle that you can't possibly win.
Yes, you might be right on the law, but because of your client, you shouldn't even bother fighting this fight because you're wasting your time.
The answer to that is no.
We have to fight this stuff.
We have to make it difficult for them.
We have to make sure that if they're going to try to violate our rights, that there's going to be some type of price paid for that, and that they know that if they try to attack People know that they attack my clients, so I'm going to fight for my clients until the bitter end.
They better be really good if they're going to want to take away my clients' rights, because I'll fight them on it.
We need young people in this country.
The other thing is, there's been this narrative that People shouldn't be going to college?
Well, I got news for your listeners.
There's not a lot of attorneys like me out there.
There's maybe a dozen in this country.
We need young people who still respect the Constitution to be going to college, going to law school.
I know it's expensive, but if we don't have lawyers who are willing to stand up for everybody's rights under the First Amendment, under the Fourth, Fifth, every amendment to the Constitution, if we don't have lawyers willing to stand up for it, we are going to lose our rights.
Period.
That's what's going to happen.
Jason, you're absolutely right.
Yeah, give us a final thought.
Very concise.
Yeah, I'm just curious.
In your courtroom proceedings like that, if you get a jury, does the judge, after whatever testimony is heard and stuff like that, does the judge instruct the jury to follow the case and to deliberate everything as the way that the judge instructs them?
or does he let the jury decide between themselves?
I think I heard all that.
The judge's role is to instruct the jury to follow the law.
The judge is not going to give instructions on jury nullification because that would be improper.
That would be the judge telling the jury.
Yeah, not that.
But I've heard judges say You've heard the testimony like that, but you will weigh this case in the way that I instruct you, which basically nullifies all the testimony.
That was the case in Coeur d'Alene, from what I understand.
Yeah, I wasn't familiar with the... I was not familiar with the jury instructions in that case.
Again, I wasn't the attorney on that case.
But ultimately, it is up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the testimony and decide what way, if any, to give it.
I don't know what the laws are in Coeur d'Alene.
That's how it works in Texas and the other states where I'm licensed in, but I'm not familiar with those jury instructions that they got in Coeur d'Alene, so I'm not ready to comment on that.
Casey Whelan, Jason Van Dyke, Keith Rogers, John Carman, I can't thank you enough.
Everyone out there, spend as much time as you can with your family, your friends, the people you love and care about.
We do not know how much time we have left.
Have a great weekend, and thanks for being here on Revolution Radio.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fetzer.
▲
Export Selection