All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 7, 2023 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:00:14
Brannon Howse Joined By Attorneys Kurt Olsen, Nicole Pearson and Dan Eastman
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Lindell Report, bringing you news combined with hope by offering practical and achievable action points to assist you in defending and preserving faith and freedom.
And now, here is your host, Mike Lindell.
All right, good evening.
Glad you are with us.
I'm Brandon House in for Mike Lindell.
We're going to be joined by attorney Kurt Olson tonight with news out of Arizona.
We also have news, good news out of Arizona.
We have very good news out of Wisconsin.
We'll be joined by another attorney a little bit later in the broadcast, Dan Eastman.
A big decision by a judge related to illegal behavior by the Wisconsin Election Commission.
We have that.
Then we're gonna be joined by another attorney.
I'm just now kind of realizing all my guests tonight are attorneys.
Not everybody's a fan of attorneys, but I'm a fan of all three of these, and I know you are as well.
My other attorney friend tonight, which will make number three, is Nicole Pearson.
She'll join us from California tonight, because as goes California, so goes much of the nation.
Also, Governor Newsom of California is being talked about as a presidential candidate.
And what are they doing in California?
Well, they are going after parental authority left and right.
There is a bill that could actually have parents criminalized for using the wrong gender on their child.
If your child is transitioning or in the process or transitioned and you use the wrong pronoun, could you actually be prosecuted?
There's also other bills breaking tonight that she's going to tell us about that I don't even know about because things are moving so quickly today in California.
Again, you say, well, I don't live in California, Brandon.
Why do I care?
Because, folks, number one, again, California is often the Petri dish.
Number two, there's talk of Newsom being a presidential candidate.
And number three, the school curriculum in America is often Often dominated by what is popular in California and in Texas, two of the big states that buy textbooks.
So again, this is relevant to all 50 states.
Joining me first is attorney Kurt Olson.
Kurt joins us via phone.
He has just landed, I believe, in Arizona.
Oh, look at that.
They've got him by Skype.
Well, it doesn't look like Arizona.
No, that's a picture.
That is a picture.
So I thought, wait a minute.
I recognize that setting.
That's not Arizona.
I think he's joining us by phone, and I think he just landed in Arizona with that lovely picture of him up on the screen.
Kurt, welcome to the broadcast.
Thanks for joining us.
Thanks, Brandon.
Thanks for having me.
I'm actually in Oklahoma, by the way.
Oh, are you on your way to Arizona?
Nope.
We're, uh, have some business here right now.
Okay.
Someone told me you were headed to Arizona.
Okay.
Well, let's talk about Arizona.
What is going on?
Did I, did I hear something about a case going to the ninth circuit?
Well, if you recall, we filed an injunction against Maricopa and Pima County seeking to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines because they're inherently insecure.
And they violate a constitutional right to have an accurate vote, as well as equal protection.
And we filed that with Carrie Lake and Mark Fincham as the plaintiffs.
They were candidates at the time.
Carrie, of course, was candidate for governor and Mark Fincham was the candidate for the Secretary of State office.
And we had a full hearing last summer in July, where five experts testified.
As to why these electronic voting machines should not be used in elections, how they're insecure and therefore cannot provide a trustworthy, accurate vote.
The court dismissed that case based primarily on a purported lack of standing.
Of course, you heard about many other election challenges.
It's always a lack of standing and standing is where where a court has ruled that the plaintiff cannot allege An injury that a court can remedy, and so this is a. It's it's used quite frequently by courts on election cases.
As we know, we have appealed that decision and it is going to be heard by a panel of the 9th Circuit on September 12th.
Andrew Parker will be arguing the dismissal of that action.
We think we have very, very strong grounds to have that decision reversed.
And if it is reversed, that would open up Maricopa County and Pima County to discovery.
In other words, the case would go forward with full subpoena power, with full discovery, and we would be able to put people under oath.
And as we know from Carrie Lake's election contest, there is a significant evidence of wrongdoing, unlawful conduct, And in particular, with the machines themselves, precisely what we argued before the November 2022 election, that, for example, malware could be implanted without anybody knowing.
We found evidence of malware put on the printers that were used at the vote centers, at 223 vote centers.
And those printers are what caused the election day chaos.
They were printing defective ballots and also thousands of ballots that were a 19-inch image was printed on 20-inch paper.
And what that causes the tabulators, when those ballots are inserted, they can't read them.
So they reject those ballots.
And the system log file, to tell you the extent of this problem, the system log files for those tabulators Show that there were over 7,000 ballot rejections every 30 minutes beginning at 630 a.m.
all the way through 8 p.m.
when the polls even after the polls closed.
It's it was insane on election day.
That's over 200,000 ballot rejections on a day when there were only 248,000 votes cast.
And so what happened that day where there was huge lines A lot of frustrated people.
People were giving up voting lines out the door because they couldn't cast a ballot.
And we know that there is strong evidence of malware because after the election in January, Maricopa decided to try to do an independent investigation into the printer issues.
So they retained former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor.
To lead an investigation.
And in that investigation report, which was released on April 10th of 2023, they recounted an anomaly during their testing, which was extraordinary.
And that was they took 10 printers and they said that during our testing, four of the printers began randomly printing fit the page ballots.
That's the 19 inch image on a 20 inch.
ballot paper that prevents it from being tabulated.
They say four of the four of the printers began printing random random fit the page ballots.
And here's the kicker.
And this is a quote, none of the technical experts we consulted with could explain how or why that occurred.
Close quote.
And as a Parikh, who is an extraordinary expert on cyber issues, testified, That kind of random printing can only occur because of either malware being put on the printers or what is called remote access or colloquially hacking.
And since this was a test that was being conducted by Chief Justice McGregor's team, remote access is unlikely.
And the most likely explanation would be malware.
And that's precisely what we warned about in the injunction.
That's at issue on oral argument on the 12th.
Wow.
That's the 12th.
That's in Arizona.
That's before the Ninth Circuit.
And what are the rules of the Ninth Circuit?
Will that be audio only, like the Supreme Court, or is that also video?
I have been told that that argument, which Andrew Parker is going to be arguing, is going to be live streamed.
So video and audio?
That's my understanding.
I'm not sure what time the argument is set to begin, and typically they don't give a time for specific arguments.
12th, what time, Arizona time, is that going to be done? I'm not sure what time
the argument is set to begin, and typically they don't give a time for
specific arguments. There'll be a kind of a cattle call, and you'll find out the
day of that you get in there that's a precise time that the argument is going
Well, obviously, we're going to carry that here on Lyndell TV three.
And then, of course, we'll capture a lot of that and play it back on Lyndell TV one with the highlights.
Hopefully, counselor, you can come back and provide the legal commentary, color commentary to that taped proceeding that we want to carry during prime time, central and eastern time.
What do you think your chances are here, Counselor?
I think we have a very strong case that Kerry and Mark both have standing.
I think that that was the wrong decision.
I think what's really interesting, and to emphasize this point of malware, the District Court held that the injury was speculative, that we were alleging that the machines could be hacked or manipulated or misused.
And here we have within months, because the November 2022 election, Was held three months after the court dismissed the case.
And lo and behold, we have strong evidence showing that there's malware on these printers, which is precisely an issue that was raised on the injunction before the election.
And so it really illustrates the constitutional infirmity of using electronic voting machines.
And to give you a, you know, another example.
Of all places in Berlin, Germany, and this was publicly reported in September of 21, when they conducted elections, there was a similar debacle with the machines where the tabulators were not processing ballots, and it caused a lot of chaos at the vote centers there.
In November of 2022, the court there ordered a new election because of that chaos, because it disenfranchises people's vote.
I mean, voting, this is, you know, this is our sacred right to vote.
You should be able to go in there on election day and cast your vote.
And on November 8th, 2022, people in Maricopa County could not do that in large part.
Similarly, in Berlin, the same thing happened, but there the court ordered a new election.
And then in February of this year, the party that lost actually won.
The party that lost actually won in Berlin, Germany.
Fascinating.
Yeah, because they held a fair vote there.
What about the paper size?
The ballots were being printed on the wrong size paper as well in Maricopa County, were they not?
Well, it wasn't just wrong, it was the wrong weight of paper.
So a printer, and each of these 223 vote centers had printers that were ballot on demand printers.
And so the weight of the paper affects how well the ink will fuse to the paper.
And Maricopa ordered a hundred pound paper, which was beyond the spec.
And so 80 pounds was the max spec for those printers.
And then the wrong image was put on that paper, wrong size image, right?
There were a number of issues.
There were speckled and faded ballots where the print did not take to the paper.
And then there was also, Thousands of 19-inch ballot images printed on the 20-inch paper, which is significant because the tabulators, there are such things that are called timing marks on the ballot paper.
And that's so the tabulator can read the ballot, can orientate itself so it knows which oval that is filled out corresponds to which race.
And so if those timing marks are not precisely aligned as the tabulator is programmed, It will reject the ballot.
Because of the 19-inch image, the timing marks were placed differently on the paper.
That caused the tabulators to reject those ballots.
And there were thousands of those 19-inch ballot images printed on 20-inch paper, as well as the speckled and faded printing.
Like I said, there were Those tabulators were rejecting ballots at a rate of 7,000, more than 7,000 ballots every 30 minutes from 6.30 a.m.
to 8 p.m.
How many of these issues will you be able to bring up during the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit?
How many of these?
I mean, you've got so many.
Are you limiting how many you bring up?
Are you going to give them the whole kitchen sink?
Well, because the injunction was filed before the election contest, We're going to be limited to the record that existed at the time.
Now, if the court opens the door and asks a question about speculation, you know, whether the injury is speculative, then some of the information that I'm just, you know, I've just been telling you about, uh, could potentially be raised at oral argument, but on an appeal, you're limited to the record below.
And because the election took place after the, uh, the, uh, complaint was dismissed.
It's not something that we can affirmatively bring up.
But I say this because the court, the district court said that the injury was speculative.
And this shows exactly why that injury is not speculative, because it arose on election.
I mean, the irony is powerful here.
The court says it's a speculative injury, and then all of a sudden we get to election day and it manifests.
So the Ninth Circuit, Kurt, that's known for being kind of liberal at times, the Ninth Circuit.
I mean, I don't know if things have changed.
I don't know if things have changed over the last few years, but at one time when you heard the Ninth Circuit, you kind of like, oh no, because they made so many bad rulings when it came to, you know, the conservative side, the constitutional side.
What is the makeup of the Ninth Circuit now?
I mean, the makeup has changed because President Trump did make a number of appointments.
That's what I was thinking might be the answer.
But the panel, as I understand it, is a Trump appointee, an Obama appointee, and a Clinton appointee, is my understanding.
But look, these judges, they're very, very bright.
And don't forget, the biggest critics of electronic voting machines have been Democrats.
And the facts are the facts.
And this is where, you know, a case should.
It should be judged on its merits, on the facts.
And we think that we have the winning argument here.
And let me just clarify again for us laypeople, this is not going to be the full Ninth Circuit.
You just listed, I think, three judges.
So it's a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, correct?
Correct.
And then if they make a decision, does it go to the whole court?
So a party can request a hearing en banc, and that is a panel of nine.
There's a lot more than nine justices on the Ninth Circuit.
But it would be a panel of usually typically nine for an en banc hearing.
Either a losing party can request that, or they can take a direct petition for redistriction to the Supreme Court.
Whoa!
Are you thinking this case may end up at the Supreme Court?
I mean, it's certainly a distinct possibility, yes.
Wow.
Wow, so this is a big deal.
Let me ask you before I let you go, because I know you're on a tight schedule here.
The Federalist reported yesterday, if you guys want to show this, the Federalist reported yesterday, September 6, court, Arizona's sloppy ballot signature verification guidance contradicts the plain language state law. An Arizona court found on Friday that ballot
signature verification guidance issued by the Secretary of State's office does quote does
quote not have the force of law in quote. In the ruling from Judge John Napier, the Superior
Court of uh how do you say that?
Thank you for that help. Denied motions to dismiss a complaint filed by restoring integrity and trust
in elections against Secretary of State uh Adrian Fontes, a Democrat that alleged Arizona's election
procedures manual contains unlawful signature match guidance.
In Arizona, the EMP governs how elections are run.
In the state under Arizona law county recorders are required to compare the signature on a voter's ballot envelope with the quote signature of the elector on the electors registration card in quote Arizona current EMP however instructs county recorders to quote consult and review not only registration forms but also additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voters registration records such as signature rosters or early ballot permanent early voting list request forms in quote as the court noted.
Does this strike you as a good ruling?
No, it's definitely a good ruling.
It's actually a good ruling with respect to our appeal in Kerry Lake's election contest.
Because what the court focused on was the plain meaning of material terms in the statute.
And so in this case, it was what constitutes the registration record.
And the statute says, you know, you look at signatures that are on the registration record.
Not anywhere else, which is where Secretary Fontes was pulling signatures from, whether it was from DMV or some other location.
So what the court said is, under established law, the plain meaning of registration record is very obvious.
And if you're looking at signatures outside of that registration record, that's the form that voters fill out with their signature, then you're violating the law.
And so, for example, in our appeal of Kerry Lakes, The signature verification requirement requires the voter's signature on the ballot envelope to be, quote, compared to the record signature.
And we had the electronic logs show that signature verification workers were verifying, verified 70,000, over 70,000 signatures at less than two seconds a signature.
That's like a flash.
And so the issue there is, what does the word compare?
Well, Maricopa has training.
The Secretary of State has training, how to compare signatures.
And as our expert Eric Spikane testified, you can't compare two signatures in less than two seconds, a signature.
And they did over 70,000 of those.
They did over 276,000 in less than three seconds, a signature.
over 276,000 in less than three seconds a signature.
And so that claim, just like the court in Yalipi, turns on what is the point?
How do you look at the plain meaning of material terms in the statute?
So that's a very good decision on that score for everyone, but also for other cases like this one.
And there's also another case pending by Kerry, as well as We the People Arizona Alliance, to get the ballot envelopes from 2022.
So that the actual envelopes so that the signatures can be compared.
You recall that Shelby Bush of We the People Arizona Alliance.
Get a presentation to the Arizona Senate in January and they found I think it was something like about 15% 1570% of signatures did not match.
From the 2020 data and they have the actual data that was used to compare signatures in 2020 and so 17% Out of 1.9 million ballots, that's a huge number of ballots that, if they're not cured, would be illegal.
And so, we're now seeking the ballot envelopes for 2022.
How do you know they still exist?
Well, they better, because under federal records retention laws, as well as Arizona, they should have been preserved.
If they don't exist, there's potentially even a bigger problem.
But I think they do exist.
And that decision defines what the signature is and whether or not that is confidential data that can't be released.
And it's very good for us in our argument that those records are not confidential and should be released.
Again, this gets into the whole issue of transparency.
I mean, every time You look, whether it's to look inside the machines, to get log files within the machines, to get voter signatures.
How, how on earth can a ballot envelope with a signature on it, which is put in the mail system for everybody who's touching it to see, how could that be considered private information?
Yeah, that is what, that is what Maricopa has been arguing.
So this gets to the larger issue of transparency.
And compliance with the law.
And so the decision by the Yavapai Court was a very, very Welcome and strong and correct decision.
So we have two good decisions right there.
We'll have another one we're going to touch on with Dan Eastman.
Wisconsin's unauthorized use of federal voter registration form violates state law.
That is a third good ruling today.
Persistence is paying off, Counselor.
Let me ask you this in closing.
How are these cases being funded?
I mean, this is your time.
Andrew Parker arguing on the 12th.
It takes a lot of money to do all this.
How are these cases being funded?
So, the Lindell Legal Offense Fund does support many of these cases.
And full disclosure, I do not get reimbursed or paid out of the Lindell Legal Offense Fund.
So, other attorneys do, who are doing this great work that's necessary.
And so, That fund has been instrumental in supporting a number of cases, including the injunction action that is being argued on September 12th, including, I believe, the case that Dan Eastman is working on, and many others.
And this is a test of wills.
And it's going to be who has the staying power.
And look, truth, at the end of the day, truth wins.
And so what we need to do is to keep pushing and pushing and pushing, because we are on the right side of these cases.
And even though it is a long slog, and the wheels of justice turn very, very slowly, and it's very frustrating, we are making progress.
And I think that progress is accelerating, just as you're seeing by these court rulings in the past few days.
Absolutely.
So LyndellOffenseFund.org if people want to make a contribution.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
You're hearing it right here, folks.
The proof is in the pudding.
And it's not like you are getting a pig and a poke when you go to LyndellOffenseFund.org and make a contribution.
You're getting the results right here.
The big date coming up, September 12th, before a panel of three judges at the Ninth Circuit.
Counselor, I know you just landed.
You've got a full evening of meetings.
Thank you so much for making time to be with us tonight.
This is big news.
Mike really wanted me to get you on, and I think our audience is really happy you were able to make it.
It's my pleasure, and anytime.
Thank you, Kurt.
Kurt Olson checking in, folks.
A great American, great patriot, former Navy SEAL attorney.
Kurt Olson.
Again, big case.
Big case.
All right?
Let me show the page.
Lyndell Offense Fund.
There you go.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
There you go.
And you'll find out All about what they're doing.
I mean, again, look at the great results coming in.
Patience is paying off.
All right, joining me now, and we will talk to another attorney in a minute about the Wisconsin case.
But first, my third attorney, or the second attorney of the three tonight, Nicole Pearson joins us out of California.
Nicole, welcome back to the broadcast.
Thanks for joining us.
So good to be here.
Missed you guys.
You as well.
And you know, I reached out to your representatives today to get you on, but you're always free to reach out to us because you know what's going on in your state.
I try to keep up, but you're always welcome here on my broadcast and on Lyndell TV and on us tonight.
You're on the Lyndell Report as I sit in for Mike.
I want to go to one of the cases here.
This is one that was reported September 1st.
I'm talking about it in my news tonight, the Worldview Report.
California mom wins settlement against school district that socially transitioned her daughter.
Here is the actual case right here.
She won $100,000.
Very troubling.
What I'm reporting tonight is that there were two teachers that were actually kind of Stalking, if you will, kids during the COVID lockdowns and watching their work, watching what they were searching online, according to the reports, and then would go after these kids and were starting to transition them, if you will, with pronouns or whatnot, behind their parents' back and then recruiting them into this club, if you will, and then keeping a lot of this from the parents.
Have you followed this case at all?
Yes, I have.
And that's an accurate description of what happened in that case.
Well, tell us about it.
What more?
I mean, this is a big victory.
And by the way, this is a state court, a county, County of Monterey, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey.
So does this set any precedent for the whole state?
Is this just related to this county or is this a victory for the whole state for parents' rights?
So actually this, this resulted in a settlement, a private settlement.
So unfortunately there is no final court ruling that could serve as legal precedent, but I would say that it wasn't a superior court.
So, it could be used as guidance for other courts in the state, but it wouldn't have been precedent.
It's when you go up, you appeal a case, or it goes to the California Court of Appeal, and certainly the US Supreme Court, then that would serve as precedent, but not here.
We don't have that in this instance.
It was a private settlement of $100,000.
Which we were actually a little bit disappointed in.
We wanted them to take it all the way to the California Supreme Court so we would have that kind of legal authority.
But unfortunately, at this time, we do not.
Look at this.
This is a sub-stack.
I think this is a sub-stack.
I don't know.
It's the Truth Fairy.
How activist teachers recruit kids.
Leaked documents and audio from the California Teachers Association Conference revealed efforts to subvert parents on gender identity and sexual orientation.
This was back from November of 2021, and here you have how we run a GSA in conservative communities.
I guess GSA stands for Gay Straight Alliance Clubs.
Quote, we miss them when they don't join us.
Quote, we totally stalked what they were doing on Google, end quote.
So they're watching what the kids were doing.
Quote, next year we're going to do just a little mind trick on our sixth graders, end quote.
What is all this about?
Here's one quote what happens in this room stays in this room in quote these are direct quotes where these coming off of this recording of these teachers are a presentation at the California Teachers Association meeting or what what's going on?
What's the content or the source of these quotes?
Well, that that's my understanding that it was it was taped It was recorded during one of those meetings and I to be totally honest with you.
I'm always honest with you.
Um, it's really upsetting to Have you read those?
Because what's happening in California, it's truly happening across the country, but in California, we are seeing a, an overt and direct onslaught of horrifying bills, which could become law, which will make what you just read legal, um, and really tie parents hands and remove any, um, any procedural safeguards that they might have any rights that they might have, or any recourses they might have.
To protect their children from information or interactions, such as the ones that you were just reading.
So that is already happening without laws in place.
And right now, within the last 24 hours, I'm speaking as of right now, today, we have seen three horrifying bills pass through the California legislature, AB 957, AB 665, and just today, AB 1078.
AB 1078 passed off the Senate floor and is on, um, is back in the assembly for its final concurrence vote.
Give you chills.
Literally gave me chills when you were saying what you were just saying.
Here is what caused me to get you on tonight.
If you go to worldviewreport.com, folks, that's our daily aggregated news site where we put up all kinds of new articles every day at worldviewreport.com.
in place allowing that.
Gives you chills, literally gave me chills when you were saying what you were just saying.
Here is what caused me to get you on tonight.
If you go to worldviewreport.com folks, that's our daily aggregated news site where we put
up all kinds of new articles every day at worldviewreport.com.
Okay, so as we are searching out the news and trying to give you the news that you're
not going to find in other places, and we do search about 200 places a day to grab these
stories, here's one that popped up.
California's on the verge of making it illegal to misgender your own child.
You click on it, it brings you to an article dated today, September 7th, 2023, from American Thinker, and that led us to reach out to Nicole.
Well, in the process, We find out, as she just talked about, AB-957.
And I'm thinking, this is bad.
This is really bad, right?
But in the process of communicating with Nicole, we find out, no, it's not just one bill.
We now have not only AB-957, but now we find out from Nicole, we have AB-665 and AB-078.
Okay, so let's start with the first one.
AB 078. Okay so let's start with the first one AB 957. Are you telling me that this bill says that
if a parent misgenders their child if their child is transitioning or has declared their pronouns
without I don't know you have to tell me do that does the child the child says comes home and says
I don't want to be uh him anymore I'm going to be a her.
And if the parent doesn't follow the correct pronouns and misgenders them, are you telling me the child can be taken from the parent?
What I'm going to tell you is this.
AB 957 by Lori Wilson, who has a transgender child, and Senator Scott Weiner, who has no children of his own, seeks to amend the Family Code, Section 3011.
And that code section is what guides judges when they make custody decisions, when they award custody.
So we're dealing in dissolution proceedings where there's an actual dispute regarding custody of a child, whether it's physical custody or legal custody.
And what the law, it's actually really interesting to see the different iterations of this bill because Scott and Lori wanted the law to say affirmation is in health, safety, and welfare.
Excuse me.
Affirmation is always in a child's best interest.
It forms part of their health, safety, and welfare to affirm.
They wanted to make affirmation law, just a direct blanket statement and assert an assertion like that.
Well, with a lot of significant pushback from all of us, They have changed and watered down the language so that a judge, when he or she is awarding custody, they always look at four factors.
The first factor, which is the most important factor, is the child's health, safety, and welfare.
The judge is always going to award custody in a way that protects the child's best interests, that furthers the child's best interests.
And so when they're trying to determine what is a child's best interest, they look at four factors.
The first factor is health, safety, and welfare.
And the other factors are, You know, abuse, physical abuse by one of the other parents or either of the parents, substance abuse, time spent with the child, time they can spend with the child.
But that first factor, the most important factor that the California legislature has declared the most important factor is health, safety and welfare.
And so what 957 did, which passed off the Senate floor, it still needs to go back to the assembly for concurrence vote.
And then if it wins out of there, it'll go to the governor's desk for signing.
Is it will say that health safety and welfare includes affirming a child self-selected gender identity or gender expression, whatever that might look like given a totality of the circumstances.
It's very nebulous language.
It's very dangerously ambiguous language.
It won't be able to be applied.
And what it will do is if you do not affirm it will mean that you are acting Contrary to a child's health safety and welfare or jeopardizing their health safety and welfare What does it mean if you're jeopardizing or placing a child's health safety and welfare?
in danger at risk in California under the penal code that means that you are guilty of child abuse or child endangerment or neglect so Not only will you lose custody, but given that court's order saying this parent won't affirm they're acting contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the child.
It's not in the best interest of the child to have be in their custody.
Not only will you lose physical and legal custody, then certainly with that order, your vindictive ex is going to take that to the prosecutor, take it to the police department and open up a criminal investigation of you for abuse, neglect, or endangerment.
It is a horrifying, horrifying bill.
There's a sister bill SB 599 by Angelique Ashby out of Bakersfield, which also says that visitation will be tied to affirmation.
So now not only do you not have custody of your child, not only are you fighting off an investigation, but you could potentially lose the right to visit with your child.
I'm at a loss for words of what is happening in California.
That this is happening in California, the United States of America.
So what you just told us is that now the parent is looking at possibly criminal charges and going to jail, having a record, finding themselves on probation.
Maybe they say, well, we'll suspend the jail sentence, but you're going to be on probation.
You're going to pay a fine.
Now you have a criminal record.
I mean, wow.
I mean, can you believe this is happening in America now?
You told us all this, counselor, in the context of what sounds like in a custody dispute between, you know, a set of parents, right?
Right.
How does this apply to the parents that are not in custody dispute, that are married, that are living happily together, and their child wants to transition?
We've got a school program behind their back, transitioning them, encouraging them to change their pronouns, and the child says, you know, I'm no longer He, I want to be her, and the parents say not going along.
How does this law apply to parents not fighting each other in the court for custody?
And is this, again, part of the puzzle pieces being built in order to assemble that, yeah, we're going to deal with it right here, right now with fighting parents, but once we get this done, that will lay the legal foundation and the, you know, the case law theory to move to the parents that aren't fighting with each other.
Correct.
It's the first tumble down the slippery slope.
It's what you call in the law.
It was the foothold.
And now this definition of health, safety and welfare, which is used in the penal code, which is used in other sections of the family law code, which is used in the health and safety, the health and safety code.
Yeah.
Health and safety code.
Also the welfare and institutions code.
They just needed to define health, safety and welfare as including affirming a child of any age, by the way, of any age.
Okay, Lori Wilson in her testimony gave the example of a seven-year-old.
So we're talking about seven-year-olds whose family, whose worlds, whose identities, not just their gender identity, but their entire identity has been ripped out from under them because their family is dissolving.
Not only that, the parents are fighting over custody.
The child doesn't have gender confusion.
They're not confused about their gender.
They're confused about their entire identity.
It's totally natural.
We used to see this manifest itself in eating disorders or substance abuse or cutting.
It just so happens that right now, It has to do with, it's manifesting itself with a social contagion, which is gender confusion, allegedly, in air quotes.
But that's because they're injecting it with these clubs and brainwashing the kids to think of something they would never think of if someone wasn't injecting it and brainwashing and confusing them at a time where they're extremely Vulnerable.
And, you know, I've produced series on brainwashing.
Brainwashing part one, brainwashing part two, and guess what?
The experts, so-called psychologists and others, particularly those at the Tavistock Institute, studied POWs, people that have been in war, and guess what they found?
They could get people to accept ideas they otherwise may not accept, When they are in a state of trauma, fear, anxiety, when their world is unknown and unsteady.
So voila, if you want to brainwash someone, subject them to trauma and then you can get them to implant ideas that they'll maybe accept more readily during that time.
Well, what's happening with these kids right now?
You just described it.
Their whole world is being ripped up.
Now comes the teacher and the clubs that they're talking about, and they start injecting this brainwashing.
If no one had brought this up, they wouldn't even be thinking about it.
Right.
And it's children of all ages, these clubs and these questions.
We have people whose children are in kindergarten reaching out to our firm, Facts, Law, Truth, Asking us for help because their children were singled out or not even singled out, but pulled aside, asked what their preferred pronouns are, asked what name they wanted to go by.
We're talking about kindergarten.
They're conducting illegal clandestine secret surveys in violation of the education code.
It's already happening.
They are trying to indoctrinate your children.
They're planting seeds in your child's head.
You also, you know, you brought up that prisoner of war study, but there's also the Biedermann chart.
Of coercion.
I don't know what we talked about this maybe two years ago with covid you isolate the individual you turn that individual against their comrades and then you get them.
I mean, it's a little bit of falling in love with their captors, but you can get them to keep themselves in prison and to accept ideas and do things that they never would have done before.
I mean, it's just basically manipulation and abuse mental abuse psychological abuse.
101, it's the narcissist, you know, abuser's playbook.
But yet the parent, the Christian family, the Catholic family, they will be, again, psychological projection, they will be the abuser, right?
So this is so typical, the abuser is the savior, and the real abuser, they will say, well this is what the Bible says, you know, good will be called evil, and evil will be called good.
Right, and let's not forget, again you were asking about the difference between parents getting a divorce or not getting a divorce.
We're talking about the last three years which have been some of the most psychologically and emotionally damaging to all of us.
But imagine our children, we have seen the studies come out about how terrible the last three years have been to our children.
Our children have experienced three years of... children are suffering...
I don't know if you can hear me.
You were breaking up for a minute, but we got you back.
Okay, so I was just saying, I know we're focusing on children, 957 focuses in children who are subject to a custody dispute during dissolution proceedings, but all of our children have been subject to significant emotional trauma the last three, four years with COVID.
So we have already seen the studies coming out about just how damaging the masks were, the mandates were, contact tracing, keeping them out of school, keeping them locked up with their abusers.
The trauma is significant.
This is exactly why they are going super hard on all of these policies To ram these ideas into our children while they are the most vulnerable, like you just described.
And of course, California, a lot of textbooks are written based on what California does, what Texas does.
So as goes California, often goes the country.
You have a governor who has presidential aspirations, so people better pay attention and wake up and wise up.
This is a Petri dish.
This is a test ground.
Let me get quickly, before I go to my third attorney of the night.
AB 957 is what we just talked about.
Tell me quickly about the last two, AB 665 and AB 1078.
AB 665 has to do with kids can run away and parents don't have to be told?
Yeah, I'm really grateful for the opportunity to speak about all of these bills at the same time because it makes the agenda in California so clear.
The agenda is to remove children from loving two-parent homes, whatever that might look like, and imperfect family homes, okay?
We are not perfect.
We raise our voices.
We lose our tempers.
We set firm but loving boundaries.
We have fights with each other.
We challenge our children.
Our children, Lord knows, challenge us.
But that is how we grow.
That is how they learn to develop self-esteem and self-confidence and learn how to navigate the world.
AB665, which is Wendy Carrillo's bill, and Senator Scott Weiner, again, his bill, Um, neither of whom have children allows 12 year olds.
Please let me be clear.
12 year olds in the state of California who are deemed to be mature can already receive mental health services without their parents knowledge or consent.
However, the only way that they can remove, remove themselves out of their homes and move into a government shelter is if there are allegations and proof of abuse, incest or danger either to themselves or the others.
They either want to kill themselves or they want to kill their parents or their sibling or their teacher or their friends.
Okay.
What Senator Scott Weiner and Wendy Carrillo want to do is remove those requirements.
They're basically, we call them the danger requirements.
They're guardrails.
And the reason they're called guardrails is because they're in place to protect parental rights and also to protect children from making knee-jerk reaction decisions, running away from home and moving into a government shelter that's government custody, a government system, because they had a bad fight with the parent about TikTok or about their grades or about smoking marijuana or about having sex with their boyfriend.
Or whatever the case may be.
What Senator Scott Weiner and Wendy Creole have done now, because that bill is on its way to its last vote and then potentially Gavin Newsom's desk for signing into law, is made it so that any 12-year-old can move out of their home for any reason, without any notice to their parents, and move into government custody, where again, we will see these CPS investigations and these criminal investigations of parents for emotional and psychological abuse, for refusing to do whatever, or what I like to term, Setting firm but loving boundaries.
I don't know if you heard that.
Got it.
Okay, so then let's go to AB 1078.
That's the one you said passed today.
And the state will dictate curriculum of what kids will read in school.
I thought there was a federal, I mean, my first book in 1993 on education, my second one in 95.
I was always citing Supreme Court cases and there's a Supreme Court case about, you know, they use a legal term for parents in there and that the parents are the primary educator for their children and the school is not to impose values onto the children that are contrary to that of the parent.
I mean, I'd have to go back to one of my books to figure out which Supreme Court ruling that was, but I mean, has the Supreme Court changed their mind on this?
And how can California go against what's already been ruled by the Supreme Court in this regard?
No, it's Parham, Skinner, Yoder, the list goes on and on.
There is over a hundred years worth of Supreme Court precedent, which is the supreme law of the land.
Establishing parents' fundamental constitutionally protected right to direct the education, care, the religious upbringing and to nurture their children.
There are actually Supreme Court cases that say even where the state is doing something, wants to break up a family in the best interest of the child, believing they're acting in the best interest of the child, they cannot violate or disturb this fundamental constitutionally protected right unless There has been due process and there has been a finding that that parent is unfit.
What these laws are doing, let me be very clear.
These laws are unconstitutional and illegal.
We will challenge them.
We will take them up to the Supreme Court.
That is the plan.
We will win because the law is on our side.
I have no doubt about that.
But what the California state is trying to do is to take as many children as possible.
In the meantime, it is going to take us years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get there.
We will get there.
We will win.
But how many children will be maimed, mutilated, And honestly murdered in that time.
So I, you are absolutely correct.
The law is on our side.
You cannot have the state dictating what materials, uh, local school districts are distributing to children.
You know, from our Peggy Hall lawsuit against the Orange County Board of Supervisors, what is the point of local control of local governing bodies?
If the state is going to dictate what everyone needs to do up and down the state, regardless of what their individual and unique needs are.
So again, 1078 is horrifying.
It violates many, many constitutional rights.
It violates the education code, the government code, and it violates federalism and separation of powers.
We will win on these lawsuits.
But in the meantime, again, people need to stay vigilant.
And if you are not in a district with a board that is passing parental notification policies or parents' rights policies and standing up for parents and ensuring lines and channels of communication between parents, Absolutely.
teachers and administrators and staff you need to pull your kids out of the school.
Your children are currently in danger and they are now more in danger
because these school districts and these teachers are emboldened now
with these bills and the lawsuits and the actions of the governor, Tony Thurman,
the superintendent of public instruction, Rob Bonta, the attorney general, who are coming after,
investigating and suing districts who are standing up for parental rights
and quite frankly for children.
And by the way, this is all laying the foundation for really piecemealing in the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, which is something I've been writing about
since the early 90s.
We're one of the last nations not to ratify it, thankfully, but they're putting it into law, state by state, as you're talking about right now.
Where your child is treated as an adult.
There is no such thing as parental authority.
It's called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
And they're just going ahead and doing it.
I mean, the Children's Defense Fund, Donna Shalala, Hillary Clinton, they were all part of this.
I mean, this is really, really scary.
This has been one of the most disturbing interviews I've done in a long time.
I do a lot of interviews.
I do a thousand hours or more of television a year.
This has been one of the most disturbing 30-minute interviews of 2023 thus far.
It's hard to believe we're even talking like this in the United States of America.
But if people want to support your work to fight this, They can do that.
Let's put our website back up there, please.
It's a long one.
I remember, what is it?
FactsLawTruthJustice.com.
Do I have that?
Look at that.
I got it right.
FactsLawTruthJustice.com.
FactsLawTruthJustice.com.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think about four minutes ago while you were talking, I could be wrong, I sensed you were about to get a little emotional.
Is that true?
Yeah, it's bad in California.
So you're a mother, you're a parent.
Every now and then, I sense your eyes are about to fill up with tears.
So this, is that right?
Is that right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you're doing this as a mother, as an attorney, as a Californian, as an American, but this is emotional work for you, isn't it?
Yeah.
Yes, it is.
Wow.
Those are the shortest answers you will get from me.
It's about children, really, at the end of the day.
And it's not even about my children because I have clearly the knowledge and the tools and the resources.
I have alternatives.
I have options.
It's for those children whose families do not believe, they don't know, and they don't have the tools or the resources to remove their children and protect their children.
If you are truly a Christian, if you are truly a liberal and you're a Democrat, you need to care about these children who are the target.
These are political pawns.
They're being used to extract, extort, you know, billions of dollars to further this agenda.
And I have always fought for children and I will always fight for children till the day I die.
FactsLawTruthJustice.com if you want to support her fight.
FactsLawTruthJustice.com.
There's many reasons we like you, Nicole, but one of them is the fact that you are sensitive.
You know, a lot of people that are in certain lines of work, whether it's the news business or police officers or judges or attorneys, can kind of get a little jaded and hard.
I think what our audience, and I know our staff here, likes about you is that you have a sensitive, tender side that reveals why you're fighting.
And I think that's very contagious, admirable, and I think it's very winsome.
I think people appreciate a strong fighter that also has a sensitive side, which shows their dedication to their work and the seriousness of it.
So there's a lot of things I could say complimentary about you.
So thank you for all you're doing.
Thank you so much for having me and thank you for leading the way.
Absolutely.
I'm going to be talking about this on my 63 terrestrial radio stations tomorrow as well and playing some of this.
This is so disturbing.
We've got to get this out to more people.
Thank you, Nicole.
Support what she's doing, folks.
FactsLawTruthJustice.com.
That's her website.
Wow.
Hmm.
Well, again, that's attorney number two.
Let's go to attorney number three for the night, Dan Eastman.
Dan joins us out of the great state of Wisconsin.
Here is again over at worldviewreport.com tonight.
Here's the case.
Court, Wisconsin's unauthorized use of federal voter registration violates state law.
This is from The Federalist.
This is a big, big case.
A big win.
We got some good news tonight from Kurt Olson.
Let's get some good news from Dan Eastman.
Dan, welcome to the broadcast.
Tell me about this case, please.
Hi, Brandon.
Thanks for having me on.
So it's great to talk with you.
This is an interesting case that arose from research that was done by grassroots investigators in Wisconsin who were looking at how registrations, voter registrations, were occurring.
And what they discovered is, first of all, Wisconsin is a State because we have same-day registration.
The NVSA statute doesn't apply.
So Wisconsin, if you register to vote, you have to use the EL-131 form that the Wisconsin Election Commission had approved.
And for some reason, the administrator of the Wisconsin Election Commission, we call
it WEC, she decided to use these federal forms that are used in other states, but they're
not used in Wisconsin because the Wisconsin Elections Commission never adopted the form
as an official form.
So therefore, there was no rulemaking involved.
So the form was illegal to use in Wisconsin.
But the administrator of WEC got caught up in the moment, and this started in 2019, before
the 2020 election.
So this is a year before.
They started using these forms in Wisconsin.
But the scariest thing about it is they knew that these forms were not legal for use in
Wisconsin.
So the staff created what is effectively a fake mailbox dropbox operation, where they
put on the return envelope, elections commission, instead of Wisconsin Elections Commission,
and the proper street address, but then the zip code that directed the mail to a UPS store
in a suburb of Madison.
And those forms were intercepted and given through either WEC or EREC, and those registered names, 250,000 plus, were put into the state voter roll database with the direction of the Wisconsin Election Commission staff.
It was illegal!
And when the judge saw this, basically the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the case And the Waukesha County Judge properly ruled that WECC never approved the form.
So here you've got WECC staff, and sending out guidance to clerks.
We have 1,852 municipal clerks, 72 county clerks, and the WECC staff slips into this instruction book to these clerks, which of course is approved guidance as well, that these forms could be accepted and used.
Now when we looked at the forms, They were computer-printed.
The name was computer-printed, the addresses were computer-printed, the signature was computer-printed with a dot matrix printer.
Oh, wow.
Humans never even signed these forms, but yet the WECC staff, caught up in the zeal of, you know, their passion, this was supposed to be non-partisan, they created this whole scheme.
This is our government doing this.
And this is the problem we have in Wisconsin, because the WECC is simply an unconstitutional structure.
It's run by six part-time citizens.
They get paid a hundred bucks a meeting.
You get an administrator who is just so passionate about the pro-partisan politics that she would go to the length to create this illusion that these forms, A, could be used, and B, she had to create a fake dropbox To slip them past other people in the agency.
This is who runs our elections in Wisconsin.
So, the good news is that this has made national news, but when you look at the number of registrations and registered voters, and we've got technology available to run those names, and we're going to find out if those people exist or not.
Are these phantoms?
Are they fake voters?
Do they really live there?
But at the end of the day, this has gone on in multiple states that we've noticed in the United States.
Somebody is stuffing the voter rolls with fake registered names and casting ballots.
And this is organized.
It's organized by state, at least in Wisconsin.
We've got state employees that we're doing it.
And it's just amazing to us that this is what we're fighting to preserve and protect our democracy, in air quotes, against our own government, who sees nothing wrong with doing this because we've got to get people registered and they've got to vote.
But at the end of the day, they're not doing that according to law.
And this is a huge problem for us.
Because it's tearing the fabric of our democracy.
When people watch this over and over again, where WECC people and WECC has made them say the drop boxes were illegal, these forms were illegal, fixing ballot envelopes were illegal, and this is our government doing illegal acts in the administration of elections.
This is what we're dealing with.
It's quite stunning, actually.
But it's great news.
It's a great ruling out of Wisconsin.
Something we should be very thankful for.
We'll take all the good news when we can get it.
Absolutely.
Dan Eastman, as always.
By the way, Dan has a daily show on my channel over at worldviewtube.com.
Worldviewtube.com.
You can hear Dan Eastman over there.
Dan, as always, thank you for all the hard work you're doing on this.
You're relentless.
You keep going.
You and Kurt Olson and others.
He made reference to you tonight as well in his interview.
Thank you so much, Counselor, for making time for us tonight.
I know you're busy, have a meeting, and were able to only join us by phone, just like Kurt.
Both of you are on the move.
So thank you for being with us, Dan.
OK, thank you.
Thank you, Brandon.
Have a great night.
You too.
Dan Eastman checking in, folks.
Before we go, let me ask you this, folks.
Look at all the great reports tonight from Kurt Olson to Dan Eastman right there.
We're talking about a couple of good cases that are moving forward, but it's taken a lot of hard work.
If you appreciate what Mike Lindell is doing, let me again take you over here so you can support his work and get something great for yourself or a family and friend.
We have six-piece towel sets right now as low as $39.99 with the promo code L77.
$29.99 with the promo code L77.
Luxurious Giza Dream Sheets as low as $29.98 with promo code L77.
The Mattress Topper 2.0 3-inch coil hybrid topper.
By the way, this comes in a twin size for those college dorms that a lot of the kids have just been introduced to and are now complaining about.
So get one for them.
We have a mattress sale going.
Save 50% when you shop now.
Use that promo code L77.
It'll show up at your door in a box.
And I love to show the video because it shows that the mattress, you know, can be compressed thus it can be shipped but when you take it out of the box you open it up voila look at all of that fluff that you know expands and now is that soft layered comfort that you can sleep on again this is five layers of comfort there is a 10-year warranty six month money-back guarantee so you can try it for six months
Promo code L77.
There's a lot of other sales over there.
The slippers, they were like $140.
You can save $90.
Again, great Christmas gifts.
Now as low as $49.98 with the promo code L77.
So get something for yourself and support the work of Mike Lindell at the same time.
Won't you do that?
Alright, I'm Brandon House in for Mike Lindell, who's out on business.
Thank you so much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection