Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:02:18

Ep. 65: Tanner Cross; Facebook State Actor? Covid Orders STRUCK DOWN! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to master it one day.
	I think I have to press go live with two and a half seconds left before going live.
	Good evening, people.
	I am wearing my other shirt.
	This one.
	It's not quite as good as the maroon and blue and white checkered shirt, but it's good to switch it up.
	The other one sometimes has a musky odor to it.
	All right, people, how's everyone doing?
	Hope everyone's enjoying the weekend.
	It is...
	I've noticed there hasn't been a lot of rain.
	And I hate talking about the weather.
	But I just noticed that I don't remember the last time we've had a serious rainfall.
	And I'm getting a little nervous in advance for my ability to procure a massive pumpkin for next Halloween.
	How dare some people say that about my shirt.
	F, good.
	F's in the house all around.
	I was not late.
	You were late.
	Go.
	At Hill.
	Goat Hill.
	G-O-0 at Hill.
	I very rarely am late, but thank you for the Fs.
	Okay.
	Got a bunch of rain in Michigan lately.
	Yeah, I'm just hoping because we do Halloween seriously here, but we couldn't get a massive pumpkin last year.
	The year before that, we had a 1,200-pound pumpkin.
	Or the year before that, I forget which.
	But apparently I was told that if there's not enough rain in the early stages of the summer...
	That the pumpkins don't put on the required mass to be ginormous.
	Now I don't know if there's actual audio problems.
	Audio is a bit low.
	See, this is what happens, people.
	Now I don't know if it's serious.
	Is the audio good?
	No jokes.
	Oh, hold on.
	My mute button is on.
	Okay, there we go.
	Well, we have a good show tonight.
	And before I get into these standard disclaimers, let's just read the first.
	Okay.
	All right.
	See, I didn't read that one before bringing it up.
	I did read that story.
	Tim Pool put out a tweet about it.
	Tim Pool's tweet was the meme, which we all know.
	Someone's response was, Christopher Sine suffered from mental illness, and people who knew him know that, and so politicizing these events is not necessarily the right thing to do.
	And it's the meme.
	Everybody knows the meme.
	I don't know enough details.
	It's just, look, I know the meme, and I know the...
	The reporter.
	I know the story.
	And I know that everyone's thinking it, even if there is another explanation to it.
	Okay, let's just get a few of the chats before I go into my intro rant, which I'm sure everybody knows about.
	Did they put the rain on lockdown?
	No, but what's going to happen is climate crisis is going to warrant lockdowns.
	Because last year, by the way, air quality in Quebec, it was either Montreal, Quebec, or Canada.
	I think it was Quebec.
	Air quality in Quebec was twice as good as the year before.
	So whereas last year we had only 21 bad air days, the year before, I guess we had 42. And so the general consensus is that because people weren't driving as much, because industry was not producing as much, we had fewer bad air quality days, half as many in Quebec.
	And Lord knows that this is going to be the pretext in the future for a crisis, emergency, whatever, to lock it all down so the air can get good again.
	Okay, I'm reading some of the chats and now I really can't tell if the audio is good or not.
	Okay, the audio seems good because there's not enough people actually saying you can't hear the audio.
	So here is the deal.
	We've got a great stream tonight.
	We've got a lot of amazingly interesting and actually, I dare say, good judgments this week that are optimistic judgments, at least for the United States.
	It doesn't change much by the way of Canadian direction.
	And I'm getting a little depressed as to the direction of Canada for reasons that you all know.
	But you've got some good decisions coming out of the States, well-reasoned decisions, and decisions that are making points at the tail end of these lockdown measures.
	And it's an interesting strategy, which we're going to discuss with Robert.
	But let's get to Canada, peeps.
	Maxime Bernier, the leader of the PPC.
	And I've said it before, so I'm not hiding it.
	The party for which I will be running as the candidate in the Westmount Notre Dame region in Montreal as MP, Member of Parliament, I've hit a wall in terms of what I can tolerate witnessing of the decline of democracy in Canada.
	And I'm sorry, I'm going to do my explanatory video when the website is up and I can take donations and the party makes the announcement.
	I understand politics ruins everything.
	I understand it.
	I understand the irony and almost whatever.
	I'll make my speech when we're going to go public.
	But Maxime Bernier, the leader of the PPC, arrested for holding a rally.
	And I'm putting rally in quotes.
	And I'm not saying that to be demeaning.
	It was 20 people, maybe 30 people, in a place called Niverville, Manitoba.
	Some people were mocking the size of the rally, saying, yeah, it has to be a political arrest because with the amount of people that showed up here, No risk of anything.
	Hardy har har.
	Make fun of the fact that Maxime Bernier is actually visiting small-town Manitoba.
	The population of Niverville is 4,038.
	So if you have 30 people showing up, that equates to tens of thousands of people in a big city, if you want to go that way.
	But it's a small town, and he's going through small-town Manitoba to talk to the citizens that some politicians fly over on their way to Europe, or wherever the heck the G7 is.
	We know the public health orders that are in effect.
	I don't exactly know what they are in Manitoba.
	I think public gatherings are limited to 10 and yada, yada, yada.
	So, look, whatever the public health orders are, they're excessively restrictive.
	And excessively restrictive 15 months in.
	Manitoba, by most accounts, is having a tough time dealing with their people.
	The healthcare system, I think, is...
	Probably the problem when you have a population of 1.3 million and we're in the low hundreds of hospitalizations and COVID in there, from what I could tell by their stats, and they're airlifting them to Ontario hospitals.
	The problem is not necessarily the virus people.
	The problem might very well be the healthcare system that can't accommodate and that somehow warrants locking people down and restricting public gathering outdoors to 10 people, which incidentally is not doing anything to combat the issue.
	So you might want to rethink the methods, whatever.
	Those are the rules.
	Maxime Bernier knows the rules.
	Wants to do political rallies to raise awareness for the party and for Canadian rights.
	Gets a warning letter from the Manitoba health officer, whomever that is, saying, if you come to Manitoba, you've got to do your first two weeks in quarantine in a hotel.
	This is interprovincial travel in Canada of a political leader traveling from one province to the next and they say, you've got to be in your hotel for two weeks before you can go out quarantine.
	He says, no, I'm not doing it on Twitter.
	Goes out, does a couple of rallies, 10, 20, 30 people.
	Gets a few tickets and then gets arrested.
	Gets arrested.
	Quite literally at the same time, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, the Queen are rubbing elbows and yucking it up in some place in the seaside resort in the UK.
	You can't make this level of idiocy up.
	Quite literally the same week, by the way, Maxime Bernier is arrested.
	They are literally holding a vigil for thousands.
	Thousands of people are holding a vigil in Ontario for that horrendous act from London, Ontario, where political speakers from all parties are giving speeches to thousands of people.
	And people are saying, well, Ontario doesn't have it as bad as Manitoba.
	Hogwash, because Ontario apparently has it so bad, schools are still closed.
	They went basically into martial law lockdown house arrest.
	It's so bad the borders between Ontario and Quebec have been shut down.
	So anybody saying Manitoba's got it so much worse that Maxime Bernier should get arrested, but Justin Trudeau and all the other political leaders should be giving speeches at public vigils.
	That's what we call cognitive dissonance there.
	And so he was released the same day.
	Apparently the bail conditions were sufficiently onerous that I think he's upped and left and has come back east.
	That's Canada these days.
	It's, you know, oh my goodness.
	And literally at the same time, I forget who it was from the Canadian government tweeting about the concern for political arrests.
	I think it was in Argentina.
	I forget where it was exactly.
	Literally the same day.
	Concern for public arrests of political party members in Argentina.
	Someone correct me if it wasn't Argentina.
	Okay, rant over.
	It's upside down world we live in right now.
	And a lot of people seem to be supporting this.
	And a lot of people seem to say, just follow the rules.
	And, Maxime, just follow the rules.
	It's the law.
	The law is the law, right?
	And I want to say, you know, I don't want to draw any hyperbolic analogies to another time, but I'll just say, yeah, awesome.
	Now do Rosa Parks.
	The law is the law.
	All you have to do is respect the law.
	People break the law for civil disobedience.
	They know what they're risking.
	Maxime has the courage or some people might say the temerity to do it.
	Okay, let's get some super chats.
	I like the shirt, pajama top, right?
	Saves time when you go to bed.
	I sleep in Viva Fry merch.
	All right, and what do we got here?
	I see Robert's in the house, and oh my goodness, he's in a different location.
	This looks good.
	I got the notification this time.
	I actually did a test.
	I released a video that deals with tonight's subject matter 20 minutes in advance so that anybody who doesn't get the notification will get the video in which I say we're going to talk about this video tonight.
	So maybe that works.
	We're up to 4,000 people, and we're live on Rumble before I forget.
	Live on Rumble, where we've been netting about 20% of the viewers from YouTube.
	So it's amazing.
	And Rumble apparently has chat as well.
	Okay, so watch us on Rumble if anybody has moral objections to YouTube.
	And speaking of moral objections, what legal pushback can we do to get rid of this COVID segregation policies which look to segregate vaccinated and unvaccinated people which neglects herd immunity and harms those incapable of vaccination?
	I know what you meant there, Jeremiah.
	We're going to talk about it.
	So first disclaimer.
	Super chats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, don't give a super chat.
	I don't want anyone feeling that someone is taking money from them without them knowing why.
	I won't get to read all the super chats.
	If you're going to be miffed, if I don't, don't give the super chat.
	I don't like people feeling miffed.
	I try to bring them up casually like this as we go through, but I don't get to all of them and I don't want people feeling bad.
	If you want to support us and you don't want to give YouTube 30%, you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You're going to hear Robert say that five times tonight.
	What's the other one?
	Yes, the super chat is not a paid access to insult or berate, so I still do have some discretion as to whether or not I want to bring up offensive super chats.
	Okay, and I missed the super chat from...
	No, from...
	Who did I miss it from?
	Cal L says, I'm planning to buy a truck and RV in about five years before my retirement.
	It would be my typical bad luck if governments start regulating gas guzzlers out of the market.
	Yeah, I can't bring that super chat up, but...
	What seems to be the solution to everything is more government regulation.
	These guys are on a beach.
	They've literally flown private jets to the G7 summit in whatever seaside resort that was.
	And they're lecturing the rest of the world on climate change and CO2 emissions.
	And they're prepared to cripple the economy of Canada and the US.
	Canada itself, which is a fractional polluter.
	But all of whom are...
	Less than the number one polluter.
	We're going to cripple our economies for the benefit of the number one total aggregate polluter of the world, China.
	Makes sense.
	Makes sense.
	Let's cripple the economy of a country of 36 million people.
	Okay.
	I see, Robert.
	I've ranted enough.
	Let's bring him in.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Hey, how goes it?
	Okay.
	Do I ask where you are?
	You look like you're in an airport hotel.
	Miami.
	Okay, cool.
	Now, the only thing I'm going to ask so that people don't complain about it the entire time, can you turn your camera so that the window is on your side more?
	Turn it like this way, and then unless there's something in the background that you don't want us to see.
	Like that?
	Yeah, a little more, a little more.
	No, the other way.
	Oh, I got it.
	Yeah, that's better.
	That's better.
	Get a little more again.
	Or that.
	That is better, and that's as good as I think we're good.
	Everyone, that's good enough?
	That's good enough.
	Oh, yeah.
	So you're in Miami.
	I do recall that.
	How are you doing out there?
	That's good.
	I was here for Rebel Capitalist Live.
	It's a George Gammon conference.
	He had a lot of fascinating people on economics, politics, and law.
	People can look him up.
	They can look up Rebel Capitalist and George Gammon on YouTube.
	Has a lot of very interesting, cool, fun crowds.
	So I've been here since early Friday morning.
	Okay, amazing.
	To Vegas tomorrow.
	And what does freedom...
	Tastes like, Robert.
	I remember what it smells like.
	I just forget what it tastes like.
	Well, I'm behind the lines, apparently, because the people that got trapped Apparently work the reception desk here at the Hilton downtown Miami Hotel because they're like, they're masked Nazis.
	They're, you know, they're crazies.
	They don't know the rules have changed.
	They don't know the pandemic's over.
	They don't know that the lockdown logic is gone.
	They don't know the governor has abolished these rules here in the free state of Florida.
	So I'm behind the lines.
	The people that, you know, still want to go back and...
	You know, work in Castro's regime for a different purpose than the people that escaped.
	That kind of personality.
	But the rest of the state is free.
	It's, I mean, it all looks, even that sounds good by comparison.
	We are in Canada.
	I mean, you know what's going on.
	You've seen it.
	But, like, we're at the point now where we're talking about vaccine passports for interprovincial travel.
	And I read a story.
	I couldn't get it confirmed from either anything more than two sources, which we're sort of cross-referencing.
	In Pakistan, I've heard that they are deactivating SIM cards in the Punjab province for those who are not fully vaccinated.
	I've only read it in two related sources, so I don't have any independent or multiple confirmation, but hey, why not?
	The insanity continues unabated.
	And then for us, if we want to travel and not have to go to the...
	Trudeau quarantine hotels.
	Apparently, Canadians are going to have to be fully vaccinated.
	And even then, there's some talk about them maybe potentially having to quarantine anyhow, even if they're double vaccinated, but not at the quarantine hotels.
	But maybe that's going to be the carrot that they're going to float in everybody's face.
	Anyhow, I'm looking in retrospect at what we discussed a year ago.
	And I'm remembering what I discussed with my father 14 months ago.
	It's gone light years past what anyone thought.
	It could have hit, even in the most insane of times.
	We got a good menu tonight, but let me see.
	I saw one super chat that I think I missed.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Nan Nosedi says, had the honor of meeting Robert this weekend in Miami.
	He was so generous with his time and even snapped a picture with me.
	Thank you, Viva, for the introduction through your show.
	You guys are awesome.
	Hey, that's amazing.
	Fantastic stuff.
	It's great.
	It is great.
	It's great that people see you, Robert, and they...
	They see what we do and they appreciate it.
	And it's great actually to feel like we might be doing something with a net positive on the world.
	Once they take down the walls in Canada, they take down the Berlin Wall, then do maybe either a locals conference or a Viva Barnes conference, something like that.
	Because the fun part of this is the people who get to meet each other is, I think, the best part.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Someone asked if I lose in my run for parliament, do I defect to the United States?
	No comment.
	We'll see what the world looks like in the future.
	All right.
	So let's start with the good one.
	I mean, let's start with the best decision coming out of Florida.
	Good segue.
	The Court of Appeals is overturning or has overturned a lower court decision, which I posted a snippet of this judgment.
	It would be comic if it weren't tragic.
	The lower court judge in his ruling, What do we call it?
	We want to say sanctioning as in authorizing required face masks says that there is no constitutional right to not wearing a face covering in public locations because somebody was contesting the face mask mandate.
	I forget what district it was or what county it was.
	Alitua County, where Gainesville, the University of Florida, is located.
	Okay, so the guy's name was Justin Green was contesting these face mask requirements.
	There was the issue as to whether or not it was moot because the mandate had been lifted.
	Court said it wasn't moot because it could come back any time.
	Bottom line, lower court says it's not a constitutional infringement.
	They did not apply strict scrutiny.
	I guess they applied intermediate scrutiny or maybe I don't know what's less than that, but we'll get there.
	Court of Appeal comes in and says this is all wrong when there's a privacy, when there's a right to privacy.
	Constitutional question, automatically presumed unconstitutional, and you have to prove that it is constitutional, and you have to apply the criteria of strict scrutiny.
	And the court basically came in and said everything this lower court said was wrong.
	This is fundamentally an issue of privacy.
	In Florida, you have a right to be let alone by the government, which I effing love.
	And you're going to have to explain that.
	So, first question in all of this.
	The three levels of scrutiny.
	You have strict, intermediate.
	What is the lowest level of scrutiny?
	Rational basis.
	Okay.
	And so the three levels apply to what types of laws?
	To any government action.
	So that if the government is in some manner infringing upon some protected interest, then the degree of scrutiny depends on what interest that the government is infringing upon.
	Okay.
	And so then I guess the...
	What was the first one?
	I forgot the first one already, but no scrutiny, intermediate, strict scrutiny.
	Intermediate is for what?
	The more invasive it gets, the more scrutiny it's subjected to.
	Exactly.
	Or the more core protected freedom it affects.
	So there's a big difference between, say, freedom to travel and freedom of religion, as an example.
	Okay.
	I will not ask the same question I asked last week, because now I know, and knowing it's half the battle, Thank you very much, TRDS.
	Thank you.
	So here's the question.
	The right to be let alone, is that common to states or is that unique to Florida?
	And explain what that is, because it blew my mind and I love the idea.
	I think fundamentally it's a right that's always been there, but it hasn't always been recognized as part of the constitutional protection.
	So my view is the combination of the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press.
	Petitioning your government.
	Your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
	Your Fifth Amendment right against your property being taken without just compensation.
	And the right to due process of law and equal protection of law.
	That those in their aggregate mean a right to be left alone and a right to dictate what you, within reason, but a right to choose your own dress.
	That medical Sharia law, which is what I considered mask mandates to be, were constitutionally offensive for that reason.
	However, in Florida, it's easier.
	Because Florida explicitly protects the right to privacy and includes within their constitution, literally the language, the right to be left alone from the government.
	And that's what the...
	It's not a surprise that the trial court judge in Ellicott County didn't find that right or decided it didn't apply somehow, because that's one of the liberal democratic strongholds in the state of Florida.
	That's why it also has all these rules.
	Now, the appellate decision was fantastic.
	Just because some of its language, it talked about all the rats and the informers and used wonderful verbiage and pointed out that really simply weaponizing and deputizing the entire city and the entire county against the local populace was its own invasion of privacy.
	Its own, because they point out this particular mask mandate could apply to you in your own home.
	That's how insane this particular one was.
	And thanks to the individual who continued to challenge it and the lawyers who continued to fight for it, they found a conscientious appellate court that recognized the law as clear.
	That this has to pass for scrutiny, and it's presumptively unconstitutional under Florida law.
	And interestingly enough, they're citing abortion-related decisions.
	So where some liberal Florida Supreme Court justices have broadly expanded the meaning of the right to privacy in order to protect abortion rights, these are some smart judges who are like, well, then that sure should apply in the context of any other context.
	And because the liberal Florida Supreme Court had previously lectured that Florida appeals court for not giving due deference to privacy rights, they were very vigorous and very intelligent about how they went about it.
	And I think that it's a great decision for everybody for the future.
	I think it's universally applicable.
	They do cite several federal U.S. Supreme Court cases.
	But it's easier to establish that right in Florida because of the explicit language of the Constitution in Florida.
	All right.
	And now, Robert, I said I'd ask after you finished, are you able to close the blinds?
	It might eliminate some of the...
	Ambient light?
	Yeah, well, some of the flickering.
	It's going...
	Yeah, if you can do that, that might be even better.
	And now, just so everybody knows what Robert's talking about, I skipped that paragraph.
	They did use verbiage like diktats, which I didn't know what it meant.
	D-I-K-T-A-T.
	So the court was immediately offended off the bat.
	And they were saying, you know, that the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution effectively, that everyone has the right to be let alone.
	And they said it wasn't just the egregiousness of the mask mandate itself.
	The government was literally putting out, you know, what do they call them?
	Not advertisements, but publicite.
	What is it called for goodness sake?
	Ads.
	Brochures and pamphlets.
	Pamphlets, brochures saying...
	Here's a number you can call if you see people breaking the law, breaking the mask mandate.
	And they're like, that's great.
	This is one thing I've been observing.
	It's actually the most depressing thing.
	I've never been able to fully appreciate how a government or how anybody can pit citizens against citizens.
	I'm seeing it now in real time and it's very depressing because you get people who are so nervous.
	Going back to the Mad Max intro, people literally think Mad Max is literally risking people's lives by hosting an outdoor rally of 20 people.
	You've got people who believe that.
	And when you've got people believing every violation of a mask mandate is an existential threat to their health and existence, you can get people to do pretty much anything.
	And it goes back to Nietzsche who says if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities.
	So the judge is like, yeah, this is not only a ridiculous mandate, the government is getting people to rat on their neighbors, snitch on their neighbors.
	And they were really, it was great.
	The question is this, what district appellate court was that?
	So it's a Florida state appellate court, so it applies, its ruling applies throughout the state of Florida at this point.
	Okay, I'm sorry, it's not a federal court.
	Say that again?
	Unless the Florida Supreme Court were to reverse it, which I don't anticipate.
	Okay.
	Great.
	You think in the states, do other states get to use this as some form of precedent?
	Every litigant should look at it because it's got favorable language and it's got analogous principles that, in my view, are universally applicable in every state.
	It's not as strong in other states as it is in Florida, but that doesn't limit the utility of this precedent for other jurisdictions to consider as persuasive argument in its favor.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	If anybody has any questions on this, get them in now.
	I think that's pretty much it.
	Oh, that was my question strategically.
	I think there's been a couple of decisions now that are coming out which are favorable, but they're all coming on the tail end of mandates and restrictions.
	So the question is this.
	Some people are hypothesizing that it's going to be easier for the courts now to come down with these decisions that are going to slap the hand of the government because the mandates expire in a day or two, so there's no harm, no foul type thing, but they get to set the good precedent.
	Is that the case, or is the next time there's another emergency, they're going to say, it's just different, so this doesn't apply?
	I mean, I think every argument is going to be helpful, because any case that deters and discourages the future use of these rules is going to be helpful.
	Absolutely.
	So just because they waited until the kind of the ship had sailed to finally do something about this doesn't make it...
	Without impact or consequence for future governmental powers, because these will become the governing, deciding cases for the future.
	That's why I encourage people to continue to march on with these cases, even when they may appear to be moot, and this court made the point that they keep coming back over and over again with emergency declarations of this, that, or the other, so we're not going to consider anything moot in this context.
	And so, I mean, this was an over-a-year-long emergency order by the local politicians.
	It was extraordinary how this works.
	But similarly, it's almost as insane as the Kentucky governor, who even after the legislature strips him of his powers, he ignores their stripping of his powers and says he still has them anyway and has issued one crazy rule after the other.
	And we had a great trial court ruling from Boone County in Kentucky with a stickman-like decision because it was one that went all the way through trial.
	And this was a judge who had previously I mean, the guy's guaranteed he's got no future left in Kentucky.
	He just doesn't know it yet.
	So they went back to a full trial in front of this judge, and this judge and two experts testified.
	So it was like stigma.
	Both sides got to present substantial evidence.
	And once again...
	When the state is put to trial, they cannot produce hardly any evidence in support of their provisions, these mask mandates or lockdown rules or capacity restrictions or vaccinations or anything else.
	They just can't find the evidence somehow when it actually has to meet the evidentiary standard of a trial, whereas two of the top experts in the country testified for the plaintiffs against the state.
	Including one of the top industrial health experts, who the court had some great evidentiary findings that people can use for future cases, where he said, based on his review, and this is a guy who's testified in over 100 cases, been a certified expert without question, hesitation, reservation, or doubt.
	And he said neither the mask mandate nor the social distancing rules had any evidentiary foundation whatsoever.
	As being good for public health.
	And then, in fact, there was substantial evidence it was more detrimental than beneficial to public health, if that was the only metric used.
	And based on that, the judge struck down the rules.
	Said these rules just can't conform to any...
	They don't even meet rational basis.
	It was like Judge Dickman's decision.
	He's like, even the lowest possible standard they can't even meet when given the opportunity to present expert evidence.
	They can't find it.
	They can't amount.
	To any of it.
	So another great ruling from another southern court that hopefully will be helpful.
	And it shows the tide continues to turn as people become more awakened.
	Yeah, the tide turns when people are out of the pool already.
	I'm trying to think of a good analogy.
	Now we're at the tail end of it.
	People are getting vaccinated.
	The virus itself might be tailing out.
	But now people get brave.
	We needed to get here in order to get here.
	I just want to read.
	Ziggy Shrugged said, I am in Alusha County.
	I'm pronouncing it wrong.
	Even after the ruling, the Alusha County School Board is still insisting our children stay masked for three more days until the end of the school year.
	They are doubling down in their opposition.
	Ziggy Shrugged, thank you.
	I can't bring it up again.
	Yeah, it's...
	But that's the other thing.
	It's like, what do you do?
	And what do you do as a parent?
	I mean, this is a question I ask myself because...
	I object, but I'm not going to ostracize my children and I'm not going to turn us into the neighborhood pariah where we're going to become demonized by everybody and it's only going to be the kids that suffer.
	I don't mind not having friends.
	I mind my kids not having friends.
	What do you do?
	Do you send your kids to school without a mask, have them get kicked out and make a big stink about it, or do you begrudgingly sit through it and hope that at the end of the day, in the long run, it levels out?
	I don't know the answer to that question.
	Maybe just get some special edition masks.
	You know, Trudeau is a crook.
	Maybe things like that.
	I've got a neighbor who's got a very unique Trudeau bumper sticker on his car that I won't be putting on mine.
	I still have to stay moderately respectful in my disdain for what's going on.
	Let's see what he hears.
	There is less glare off Robert's face than off my forehead.
	Yeah.
	It's been hot here, okay?
	It's hot in the basement and I don't powder.
	I don't have a makeup person.
	Okay, so how many of these decisions now have we seen?
	Because there's one you just spoke about.
	I didn't read that one, but I know of it.
	Florida.
	What other states are coming up with these favorable decisions to basically say you guys have been behaving like whatever?
	These are the two big ones.
	The good Florida ballot one and recognizing the right to privacy includes the right to against medical Sharia law or what I call medical Sharia law.
	And the...
	Kentucky won just be another statement.
	The second case to go to trial, where once again the state loses, because they can't even put basic evidence of it.
	I mean, they can't even withstand basic cross-examination.
	That's the extraordinary thing about all this.
	Aside from the constitutional liberty deprivation that's frightening, it's the complete evidentiary lack of foundation for their claims.
	They're not following science.
	They're just following people in white lab coats pretending that they're doing science.
	But when they're put to trial, they can't produce the so-called science.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	I mean, the courts in the States, you've had a few trials that have gone to evidence.
	In Quebec, in Canada, we've had a few-ish.
	The Pastor Coates one out of Alberta, where there was some evidence presented.
	Sorry, no, it would have been more the quarantine hotels where there was evidence presented, but still on an interlocutory basis, injunctive basis, not on the merits.
	So we really haven't gotten to the merits of lawsuits yet.
	But even on the injunctive basis, the courts.
	If they want to be convinced by the evidence, they can convince themselves.
	I mean, this court convinced itself that quarantine hotels were justified based on the evidence because there was a case of one person testing positive two weeks after testing negative who infected their roommate who did yada, yada, yada.
	Even if we believe that, and I don't know how they determine all those facts, but in the pastor coats, I mean, with that pastor that was locked up.
	They've convinced themselves that there are no constitutional violations to even adjudicate on on an interim basis.
	So it requires judges with some courage and some backbone, but it also requires the evidence to come out that it's difficult to justify what's been imposed.
	Well, you got a sense of who the Kentucky judge was because he started off by quoting the Magna Carta.
	So that was a good indicator.
	Yeah, and that is a good indicator.
	I mean, that has come to that, where you literally have people who either respect the Constitution, or you have people who defer to diktats and the ostensible immediate legitimacy of whatever the government decides to do in a state of panic.
	As if limiting outdoor gatherings to 10 people is going to produce results, or as if it's going to remedy what is the underlying problem, which might be a system exacerbated by a virus.
	There was another good decision that we had, Robert, which was Tanner Cross.
	Do we move into the Loudoun people?
	Everyone says Loudoun like louder with Crowder.
	The Loudoun County Public School Board who put Byron Tanner Cross on administrative leave because at a public board meeting that the school board called to get public feedback on proposed policies as relates to transgender students because of what they called and invited people to speak at.
	Someone spoke at it who happened to be a teacher at the Leesbury School, and he didn't approve of the policy that the school board was talking about implementing, and he voiced that disagreement.
	48 hours later, put on paid administrative leave, with three weeks left of school apparently.
	Not only did they do that, they email all the parents at Leesbury School to let them know they've taken care of this whippersnapper who dares speak his mind at a board meeting, called for that purpose.
	He sues.
	Is issued a temporary restraining order, provisional injunction, reinstating him immediately until December 31st, 2021.
	You'd think maybe the school might step back and say, okay, we'll take a deep breath, damage control.
	But no, like all good ideologues, double down and double down harder.
	They say we're appealing the decision.
	Students have the right, many students and parents have expressed hurt, fear.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Coming to school and students have the right to be taught in an environment that is welcoming and supportive.
	As if to suggest what Tana Cross is creating by way of environment at the school is the opposite.
	So they've announced the intention.
	But I think there's a few things we need to flesh out before we even get here.
	The public school board, are they unionized workers?
	It varies.
	I mean, but Loudoun County, to give you a sense of it, is in northern Virginia.
	That's near, that's the heart of the D.C. Suburbia federal workers.
	So that gives you an idea of why these parents were like, oh my goodness, someone disagrees.
	This is scary.
	We better keep our kids from being around that person.
	That's the nature of our ranking federal government employees.
	So that's the bigger determining factor there than unionization.
	Alright, now, I'm just bringing this up for the joke.
	Okay, you win.
	How much will it cost you to get you to close the curtain?
	Robert, I don't want to...
	If I close it, it gets real dark.
	It's one of those hotel rooms where the only light is the outdoor light.
	If you could turn it a little more, it would be great.
	If not, I'm not entertaining another chat on that.
	Okay, there you go.
	And by the way, what's the cigar?
	Someone said it's glorious, and I assume they can identify it.
	Someone gave it to me as a gift here.
	It's KDORSA.
	It's based on that part of Paris, you know, where Oliver Wilde lived for a little while in one of those little places along that.
	That actually means like bridge or something, K, Q-U-A-Y.
	K is a dock.
	Oh, K-D 'Orsay.
	It's the dock or the pier of D 'Orsay.
	Oh, okay.
	No, I thought you said, the way you pronounce it, I thought it was K-A-Y.
	I'm joking.
	Okay, so if they...
	It seems that there's diverging forces here because the parents of the school sounded offended, but the board isn't.
	So how does it work?
	I mean, where is the break in terms of the miscommunication or the non-alignment of ideas?
	Who gets involved in school boards in the States and how is it so radically different than what appears to be the common belief of the school parents themselves?
	Almost all school boards in the United States are elected officials.
	So there's some that aren't, but most are.
	Okay.
	You never know when you're reading the news where they say parents are up in arms.
	You don't know if it ends up being a minor, small percentage, or they're vocal, or there's a lot.
	They're just all outraged.
	Tim Pool did a video, and so did Nick Ricada, of an agent, I think she's from China, lived under the Mao Cultural Revolution, saying that this is exactly how it starts.
	This is a bad start, and we don't need this.
	Okay, I guess this is one of my questions.
	The teacher's been there for three years.
	Does he not have some sort of either statutory or contractual right to due process that the school objectively violated by doing what they did?
	He may have, but he...
	Does everyone see Robert?
	I feel...
	I don't know whose internet is...
	Uh-oh.
	I don't know if it's my internet.
	It's my internet.
	Does everyone see?
	Who do people see here?
	Do you guys still see me and not Robert?
	Let me know with no Fs and no sarcasm in the chat.
	Robert is stuck.
	We see but not hear.
	Do you hear me?
	If you hear me...
	Okay, but great pose, Robert.
	What I'm going to do, I'm going to bring Robert out.
	I brought out the wrong person.
	See Viva, no Robert.
	You guys still hear me?
	Let me know in the chat.
	Robert is stuck.
	Maybe he's going to try to come back in.
	And now I'm just going to start.
	Now I'm going to start.
	Viva is fine.
	Robert is frozen.
	Okay.
	The question that I just asked was whether or not the teacher had any statutory...
	Whether or not Tanner Cross had any statutory rights that got violated.
	I see Robert has been disconnected.
	So I'll bring him back in.
	What do we talk about in between?
	Let's go for an impromptu.
	Q&A in the chat.
	I'm still good.
	Okay, well, that's...
	All right, don't give anybody any ideas.
	I think we've gotten off that subject.
	What do I tell you?
	Let's talk about a Canadian one while Robert is reconnecting.
	And then if we can't get Robert back, it's going to be sort of an impromptu live stream with just Viva.
	No Barnes feels naked.
	Let's see here.
	What do we talk about?
	Oh, no.
	Okay, look.
	The teacher, Tanner Cross, the school is appealing, but in their decision to go and say we're going to appeal, they say things which can't be unsaid.
	They set up a situation which can't be undone, and it seems that they're digging a bigger hole if they already got spanked by the judge of first instance.
	I don't know what the composition of the higher-level courts are.
	In Virginia.
	But we'll see.
	They said some things which are going to be problematic.
	So it's an interesting situation.
	And we'll see what happens and where it goes.
	But I want to read their appeals memo and see what happens.
	I don't want to be giving anything that appears to be legal advice or medical advice.
	And so I brought up another chat earlier.
	Nothing in this is legal advice.
	And it's even less so medical advice.
	And I see Robert and he looks.
	Unfrozen.
	Yes, on my back.
	All right, good.
	I was prepared to turn this into the first ever AMA Q&A, but good.
	We'll put that one off for another day.
	So where we left off, Robert, was the statutory or contractual rights that may have been violated, due process, yada yada.
	Yeah, and he just didn't go there.
	So either he did...
	Not have those rights, or they just weren't considered consequential, because he just went right to the First Amendment claim, and he had a pretty straightforward First Amendment claim, and he went on that right out of the gate.
	Also, in state court, you get your attorney's fees if you win that claim.
	So sometimes that's why people pursue a First Amendment claim instead of other claims.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	And what's the timeline for people who don't know?
	I mean, I know Quebec rules for appeals, but does it have to be filed within 30 days?
	Are there any timelines that we should know or look forward to?
	I mean, for an injunction like that, they can challenge it to the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals doesn't have to hear it.
	So sometimes the Court of Appeals, they filed it within the Virginia state court system, so that will all be within the state court system.
	Okay, excellent.
	All right.
	On the substance of that, incidentally, is there a risk?
	I guess there's a risk.
	Is there an argument to be had if people view Tanner Cross or Byron's speech in its entirety?
	Is there an argument that they can make that he's speaking in his role as a teacher, or are they going to have to defer to the lower court's assessment of fact on that particular issue?
	I mean, for the most part, it was pretty clear he was speaking.
	Even if he was speaking in his role as a teacher, that still would be constitutionally protected in a lot of contexts.
	They have to show that his speech is disruptive, and not disruptive as in people are offended by it, but disrupted.
	Disruptive in some other way.
	So they're trying to misapply the disruptive language to go places they're not supposed to go.
	So in my view, what he did was purely protected speech.
	I mean, it was the point of the whole school board meeting was to get opinions like an opinion from a teacher.
	So it made no sense to punish him for it.
	Well, and what I love is the disruption is not necessarily coming from what he said, but rather from what the school did.
	And then it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	Look how angry everyone got.
	When we fired, when we put him on paid administrative leave, people were up in arms and then he sued us.
	Look at what, terrible.
	Okay, it's a great one.
	I mean, what's amazing is that we've come to a point in society where you can have a position one way, but not the other.
	So Tanner Cross could have affirmed, he could have said, I'm going to affirm.
	The gender identity.
	I'm going to affirm that aspect of the child's identity, but I can't challenge them on it as if that's what support means.
	As if to be supportive, it means to agree with everything a child does and not to potentially push back and have an open discussion with them.
	And it's the exact...
	I'm not the best parent in the world.
	There's no but to that.
	I'm just not.
	One thing is you have to come to grips with the fact that being a parent and being a good and responsible parent does not mean...
	Just agreeing and reaffirming everything your kid does, it means challenging them and making them think about what they're doing and appreciate it, and that sometimes means telling them what you think, even if you happen to disagree with what they think.
	It's coddling, and they're expecting and perpetuating the idea that teachers should coddle as opposed to challenge and build strong kids.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't know what...
	The idea that Bart Simpson should be able to tell you what gender he is is not a good system of public education, no matter what you think about trans rights.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	Here we go.
	I'm in central Pennsylvania.
	We had a school district, Cumberland Valley, have parents present evidence to end the mask mandate to the board, and they won all the while almost every other district kept theirs.
	Insanity.
	All right.
	Now, there was another.
	Wisconsin Supreme Court did make a decision this week also that said Dane County did not have the authority.
	That's Madison.
	So it's another place where you have a more conservative court.
	Against a local liberal jurisdiction.
	That's the common trend in a lot of these places.
	And they said Dane County did not have the authority to just shut down schools in the name of COVID.
	And so that was another good decision.
	So they're starting to push back across the board.
	And courts are starting to restore constitutional order.
	And hopefully that constitutional order will stay in place the next time this comes around.
	Okay.
	It is interesting.
	We're seeing more.
	It's as though people have had time to draft the lawsuits, to get frustrated enough to file the lawsuits, and the panic has subsided where the courts can now assess the facts and not the panic.
	Fingers crossed, but I'm not saying this.
	Canada doesn't look any better.
	Canada, it looks like not only are the courts still...
	The courts seem to be finding justification from Nova Scotia to Alberta to Manitoba.
	We'll see.
	And people seem to...
	Not mind all that much.
	They don't mind, and they don't mind the hypocrisy where they see hockey teams crossing the border now because they found a scientific exemption for the playoffs, but better arrest a politician for talking to 20 people outdoors in the middle of Manitoba.
	Let's get to another interesting one.
	The Fauci emails colluding with Fauci Facebook seemingly working in tandem.
	And for anybody who doesn't know...
	You know what?
	Hold on a second.
	I saw this.
	Okay, Viva.
	I have a serious question that needs adjudication.
	Option one.
	Tahitian vanilla.
	Option two.
	Rocky Road.
	Option 100.
	English custard.
	The public can weigh in.
	Tahitian vanilla.
	I love Boer Boer.
	Boer is a beautiful place.
	So anytime I have Tahiti in it, I usually have to go that way.
	I hope these are ice cream flavors because if they are locations for vacation, I don't know what they are.
	I don't do ice cream because it makes me feel guilty, and then I have to hit the treadmill afterwards for an extra 10 minutes.
	Okay, Facebook, Zuckerberg, Fauci emails.
	This is like part three of the Fauci scandal.
	If this has not been the biggest release of the week, let me know what has been, but what we've found out in the most recent release of emails.
	Zuckerberg, not only discussing with Fauci, but he's on the Tony first name basis with...
	Anthony Fauci, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	And we got an email from Zuckerberg to Fauci saying, it's not public yet, but we've got this thing going on on Facebook where we're going to prioritize authoritative news.
	We would love for you, government official Fauci, director of the NIH, NAIDS, we'd love for you to come on and do a Q&A, be the government official that we're going to use as authoritative news.
	Let's talk offline when you have a chance.
	Moving on from there.
	The question I had was, There was a lawsuit that talked about state actors.
	It said that public broadcasting was not a state actor, even though they received public funding.
	But are we not getting to a point where, at the very least on this particular issue, Facebook could be deemed to be a state actor for the coordination with the state to promote a message?
	Well, I think it provides further support for the Children's Health Defense case against Facebook that is currently pending in the Northern District of...
	California brought by Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	And the claims that they were making six months ago was that they had been targeted by Facebook in collusion with state actors.
	And they had some evidence, but a lot of it just reasonable inference.
	And now evidence just keeps accumulating that there was clear collusion between at least Facebook and Fauci about controlling the narrative.
	And dictating what was allowed to be heard and said during this last year.
	And basically, Facebook was asking Fauci, and there was Zuckerberg, the CEO, the head of Facebook, his pal Tony, giving him his mobile phone number, that that was one of the few things they kept out.
	He also said something in there they still retracted as if it was national security information.
	I'm a little curious what that was behind that retraction.
	Maybe it was a conversation about that lab.
	And keeping things quiet about that lab.
	Who knows?
	But it shows that without a question there was a great degree of collusion between big tech and the government's operations that raised questions about whether or not they were acting as an agent of the state.
	Because the rule has always been the government cannot circumvent the First Amendment restrictions on it by enlisting a private actor to do its work for them.
	And I believe this is further evidence that supports Bobby Kennedy's case.
	Further evidence that should support other people's cases.
	And my guess is if you go deeper, you'll find more.
	Now, incidentally, I don't know if I'm allowed to say it.
	Are we allowed to discuss the potential upcoming sidebar?
	Sure.
	I mean, I am.
	I mean, I was up to...
	I don't know what authorization you had.
	Oh, no.
	Let's do it.
	Is it confirmed?
	Which one?
	The one dealing with the lawsuit of the...
	I mean, Bobby Kennedy Jr. is scheduled for July.
	And this month, we have both Jack Posobiec and, I believe coming up, Mr. James O 'Keefe.
	It's going to be a good one.
	Holy cows, it's going to be a good one.
	Now, I want to bring this up.
	Viva Frye, would the right of Tanner Cross to misgender a trans kid extend to their first name?
	Or chosen first name?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, we're talking about the name of a child versus a gender that a child...
	First of all, I can't speak...
	Yeah, those are two different things.
	Because I don't think he's referring to these kids as Mr. or Mrs. So, I mean, he's either saying Julie or John.
	And I think that's...
	But what he was talking about was the right to do so in the context of against a public policy to discourage that right.
	He wasn't yet in his classroom, so it wasn't in the context of his classroom that he asserted this.
	He was saying that he should have the same right that Jordan Peterson talked about four years ago, three years ago.
	Remember when he first brought this up, everybody laughed at him?
	It's partially what made Peterson famous.
	He wasn't that famous before then.
	He was just a little Canadian professor who was like, you know where this is going to go?
	They're going to try to make it a law to force me to say somebody's chosen identity.
	And people are like, oh, Peterson's crazy.
	That will never happen.
	Here we are.
	Well, and I did a video on it.
	I think it was Bill C-16, if I'm not mistaken, the bill, which was amending the criminal code to add as aggravating factors gender identity.
	And just to answer Hontest's question, I can't find it again.
	There's a difference between...
	The distinction here is not changing someone's name, whatever their name happens to be.
	It's the question of someone who has religious philosophical beliefs being asked to identify someone as a gender.
	That is different from the biological gender at birth.
	So you may disagree with the distinction, but it's biologically different in terms of name versus biological gender versus identified gender.
	So I don't think the analogy works, nor do I think it disproves anything.
	There's plenty of, you know, Bobbies or whatever.
	There's plenty of people with names which are genderless or gender counterintuitive.
	It's not a question of choosing the name of the individual.
	Did you say the name Bobby is genderless?
	Well, I've only known of a few females with the name Bobby, but...
	Yeah, I know what you mean.
	I just went by Bobby as a kid.
	No, in my head I saw B-O-B-B-I, not B-O-B-B-Y.
	But no, so it is the difference between not calling someone by their name versus not referring to someone by a gender, which by all accounts is not the biological gender, it's one they identify with, which might conflict with religious and philosophical beliefs.
	I can understand it.
	The other issue is...
	Not whether or not you decide not to do it out of rudeness or spite, whether or not you can be compelled to speak certain things.
	You can't be compelled to call someone by a name anyhow.
	I can't compel someone to call me David.
	It's somewhat different.
	And Jordan Peterson raised the flags.
	We haven't gotten to that point in Canada.
	There have been two decisions where the police were sanctioned for misgendering someone.
	But I read the decision and I think it was more harassment misgendering as opposed to...
	Bonafide misgendering.
	And I think there were other issues at play in that particular case came out of British Columbia.
	So it wasn't just as simple as saying, I'm going to call you he when you want to be called she.
	It was more akin to verbal harassment and coupled with other actions in the lawsuit than just that.
	Jordan Pearson flagged the alarm.
	He may prove to be right yet.
	And whether or not he's right or wrong, at the very least, the issue is coming to the forefront of the legal world as we're seeing right now.
	But we were on something else when we were talking about that.
	It was Facebook colluding with Fauci.
	The question I had is this.
	We know it's Marbury versus Madison.
	Which one was the corporate city?
	Oh, I think Marsh.
	Marsh v.
	Alabama.
	So that is the standard example that everyone thinks of when they say, okay, this is when...
	A private enterprise gets treated like a government entity.
	The question is, we know state actors, if they're acting in their capacity of or colluding or cooperating or collaborating, whatever, can get treated like the state for the purposes of constitutional protections.
	The question is this, even in this context, hypothetically, would any sort of recognition or determination that Facebook can be deemed to be a state actor, would it be limited to this specific question?
	Or do you cross a threshold and it becomes sort of corporate entity, It would be limited to the specific question.
	So it's kind of like the weakness of the MLB lawsuit against Major League Baseball was they claimed that because Major League Baseball has been treated as a state actor in other capacities because they receive state and federal funding, because their stadiums are often treated as state actors when their stadiums do something, because a lot of their stadium facilities are actually private-public partnerships.
	That doesn't make them a state actor in everything they do.
	And so it would only be in the context of when Facebook took an action were they doing it as an agent of the state.
	So in the context of Fauci and other health-related issues concerning COVID, when they took adverse action against someone in censorship or suppression of information or demonetization, they may have been doing so as an agent of the state and thus can be held responsible to First Amendment standards.
	But that doesn't mean they can be held responsible across the board.
	Okay, so it's not the tipping of the iceberg, sort of like, now they don't have 230 immunity, it's going to be, this might help Candace Owens in her lawsuit against Facebook on the issue of COVID censorship, but Trump-MAGA censorship, no deal, you'll have to fight that battle on a separate front.
	It highlights the importance of the Children's Health Defense Bobby Kennedy case going forward.
	Because if it prevails, then they'll get a lot of discovery.
	They'll figure out just how often have they been acting as state actors when they've been suppressing information.
	And now that brings me to another question.
	Is there a certain threshold after which, look, you've been state actor on COVID.
	We determined you to be a state actor on elections.
	We're just going to determine you to be a blanket state actor.
	Can it get to that as well?
	Most likely, no.
	Most likely, no.
	But what it is is people could allege it.
	People could say they were acting at the behest of the state, and here's all the examples where they've been caught doing so, and then lay out their evidence as to why they think so in that instance, and then that should help them get past motions to dismiss, and then they get into discovery to see what's happening.
	So it opens the door to a lot of risk for Facebook if this turns out to be a pattern across the board.
	Very cool.
	Okay, I'm going to bring this one up here.
	It says, Sexual Tyrannosaurus says, Just got here.
	A little love for you guys for inspiring me to go to law school.
	Finished the LSATs about an hour and a half ago.
	Keep fighting the good fight.
	Well, not knowing where you are, I would say go out and celebrate, but you might not be able to do that if you're in Canada.
	Did I miss Super Chats here?
	Okay, Ian Hall says, okay, so treadmill sucker aside, looks like I'll execute the nuclear option on all three because three scoops better than a lame single one.
	I don't know if I can find that Super Chat, but apparently it was ice cream, so I didn't fall into another trap of...
	A, it's Pride Month, so a rainbow ice cream probably makes sense.
	Well, what was going on with Pride Month?
	There was a big issue.
	This is a question that people have been asking, Robert.
	We don't discuss the non-law stuff, but it's a legitimate question.
	People ask, does anyone get offended by corporate enterprises?
	What is the word?
	It's not hijacking, it's co-opting, I think is the word.
	Is the sudden monthly interest in...
	Pride Month, do people find that to be patronizing, offensive, or do they find it to be supportive?
	And the question was, it was one of the fast food chains taking a shot at another fast food chain who had the ties to the Christian food chain that had issues.
	Chick-fil-A.
	Chick-fil-A.
	So I think it was Wendy's taking a shot at Chick-fil-A saying, come get our Chick-fil-A during Pride Month.
	You can get it on a Sunday.
	And then people were asking, Is this offensive, cheap, tawdry, or is this good business, or is it the support that the community actually wants, or do they feel patronized by it?
	I think that most of the woke advertising has backfired.
	Look at how Coke had to quickly get away from it.
	Disney had to get away from it, at least in certain aspects of their policies.
	Some of their TV and films are still inundated with it.
	And so far, wokeism has rarely been a popular marketing technique.
	But the problem is the people who dominate advertising and marketing departments are all wokesters.
	So they convince everybody that it's going to be popular, just like the Disney people convinced the CEOs and the corporate types and the stockholders that rewriting that set.
	I mean, that has now entered judicial fame.
	So I think it was the Ninth Circuit judge.
	Who said, who compared something to being as bad as the last three Star Wars sequels.
	I mean, that's where it has now entered legal lexicon.
	But you look at all of them, they've backfired.
	They've not been popular.
	They've lost billions and billions of dollars.
	I mean, Gillette almost was facing a crisis because of its ridiculous toxic masculinity TV ad spots.
	So I think it's mostly negative.
	And then at some points, it's just badly humorous.
	When you have people like Jimmy Dore and others making fun of it, saying, you know, Raytheon's going to be sending its missiles with You Go Girl, you know, banners on the side of that missile right before they bomb them, it's a bad joke.
	So I don't think it's popular, but it may be popular with that constituency, because they're overwhelmingly, a lot of wokesters are within the, whatever, there's like, I mean, pretty soon it's going to be the whole alphabet.
	It was LGB, then it's LGBT, then it's LGBTQ.
	Well, I mean, LGBTQZ.
	Just put all the letters in there, I guess.
	But I don't think with the broader populace, it's very popular.
	I'm not of the community.
	I feel that if I were, I would feel exploited because I know that whatever...
	Linguistic or whatever identity community I know that I'm a part of, I don't like it when people...
	It's co-opting, I think is the word.
	I don't like them when they co-opt certain things for their own political gain, for their social media points.
	I hate it.
	But it might just be a totally different perspective.
	We got Alyosha says, Boy named Sue came to mind.
	Question.
	At what point does declaring certain mainstream Shian perspectives illegal establish a religion, is there a developed legal doctrine of this in the US?
	I mean, you really can't declare any speech illegal or any religion illegal.
	Now, whether something constitutes a religion meets a whole bunch of tests, because that was particularly debated in the peyote context.
	And so when does a tribal tradition constitute a religious tradition sufficient to have constitutional protection from, say, drug restrictions and things like that?
	All right.
	And that question actually brings us to a decent question about...
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, political discrimination, Robert.
	It's a good segue into the...
	Now I forget to say it.
	I think it's Minnesota.
	Minnesota, yeah.
	Because I talked about it with Rakeda, Nate Brody, on Eric Hundley on Friday.
	So this is a phenomenal one.
	And I would love to see more of them because I think this is the way to go.
	But I got so many questions about this lawsuit.
	I forget the name of the law firm.
	It's Cain Wood or something along those lines.
	Bottom line...
	A senior partner or a 50% partner at a Minnesota law firm after the Jan 6 riots doesn't like the fact that some employees, and we're going to get to it, partners at the firm, had had pro-Trump posts on their social media.
	So this guy summons an employee, says, fire this employee for those posts.
	The person says, you can't fire them under Minnesota law for political expressions of views.
	The guy then fires this person.
	And then there's a falling out, fires three other people who happen to also be 50% owners in the partnership.
	They sue for wrongful dismissal, political discrimination, whatever.
	They seek the dissolution of the partnership.
	The poop has hit the fan, left, right, and center in this case.
	The first question is, and you've got to explain this, Minnesota law seems to be unique or at least particular in that it prohibits political discrimination, whereas we don't necessarily see this in other states.
	Correct.
	So most states have a limitation on firing people against the public policy of the state, but most states don't have an explicit public policy against politically motivated discrimination.
	Minnesota does.
	So the common law cause of action is wrongful termination and violation of state public policy.
	The specific state public policy is expressed in a separate statute.
	Which says you cannot take economically harmful action.
	So it goes beyond the employment context based on someone's political activity.
	And it's amazing that a law partner would not know that and when told of it would say, screw it anyway.
	It gives you a sense of their mindset and mentality.
	But, of course, you know, when you screw lawyers over, they're really going to sue you.
	So, I mean, I don't know why he thought he would get away with it necessarily, but I think he thought he was on the morally righteous cause and he was tired of these Trumpers, these would-be insurrectionists being in his own office, and so terminated him accordingly.
	But the clearly illegal, in my view, under Minnesota law, because a lot of employers don't know this area of law, they think they can get away with it generally.
	They think everything's at will employment.
	And there's always been public policy exceptions to at-will employment, and more and more states have added political discrimination to that over the last two decades.
	That's an interesting distinction.
	I made this mistake back with that ABC reporter who was fired for allegedly leaking some videos to Project Veritas.
	I didn't fully appreciate at-will employment in the United States because Quebec is like the most pro-employee province in the world.
	Explain the difference between at-will employment and...
	What's the alternative?
	Or what's the flip side?
	So, I mean, at-will employment, the argument in favor of it is that it maximizes economic freedom for employers.
	I've never been a fan of it because I think it inevitably empowers power more than it empowers rational economic choice.
	People often make dumb decisions in the name of power.
	And so I've always been for a four-cause limitation.
	And many countries around the world, probably Quebec and others, as a province and probably most of Canada, Have four cause limitations.
	And once you hire somebody, you can't fire them unless it's for cause, though that economic justification can be part of that cause.
	And in the States, we've mostly been at-will employment.
	We've mostly allowed people to be fired for any reason the employer wants.
	And then we impose limitations under the civil rights laws, sometimes state-analogous laws, say you can't do it for health reasons, for race reasons, for gender reasons, for religious reasons, national origin.
	Some states have added gender identity.
	To some degree, the U.S. Supreme Court has added gender identity for employment to the definition of gender under the laws.
	But that usually is limited.
	But some states, California, D.C., other places, Have said political discrimination is part of that.
	What's interesting is it started out in liberal states trying to protect liberal employees, and now it's overwhelmingly needed for conservatives and Trumpers.
	But it's on the books, and it's on the books in more places than people know.
	It's on the books in California.
	Is it not on the books in California?
	Oh yeah, the UNRWA Act.
	In fact, it's very broad in California.
	It passed in the 1970s.
	Because that was one of the things that I was discussing is just that that is the way to go after certain types of discrimination.
	Arguably, can you go after social media platforms for that type of discrimination or not because of immunity?
	They've effectively made Section 230 immunize them from that because that's been tried and unfortunately hasn't gone anywhere yet.
	All right.
	Now, the question I had with this particular lawsuit.
	Partnerships are not employment contracts.
	So how does a partner fire the other partners who are 50% shareholders?
	I mean, are they also partners?
	So I don't know how partnership law works in the States or even less so in Minnesota.
	It'll be very similar to Canada probably because it's based on the same old English common law constructs for the most part, unless there's a specific statute that addresses it.
	But usually it's not.
	Usually it's just old partnership law principles.
	Same rules.
	I mean, unless the partners also have an employment contract that the 50% partner thinks he can terminate, how do you fire the partners?
	You can dissolve the partnership.
	But the question is whether you went through the right dissolution procedures, and then you've got an asset dispute on your hand, because all the existing revenues, clients, brand name, etc., will be at stake.
	I mean, partnership disputes can be really nasty, in particularly legal partnership disputes.
	Especially, some people don't appreciate, but some of the partnerships, you have to actually invest in the partnership.
	You have to buy your portion of the partnership.
	You have big loans, and when the poop hits the fan, it's the end of the law firm.
	It's going to, by and large, be the end of the law firm.
	The three 50% partners who look sane in this will probably start their own firm, and this guy's going to be up, as we say in Canada, shit creek.
	S-C-H-I-T-T creek.
	It's the name of a show, people, without a paddle.
	Do you know offhand what other states have the political discrimination as a basis for discrimination?
	There's almost 20 states that have something that you can call that.
	So it varies by state, and it varies by the nature of the action.
	Sometimes they only protect consumers.
	Sometimes they only protect vendors.
	Sometimes they only protect employees.
	Sometimes they only protect employees of a certain scale of employer.
	So if it's two employees, five employees, maybe not, 10 or 20 or 50 does.
	So it all depends on the state and the specifics.
	All right.
	And now, Gene...
	Fucarino says, do you two realize that below this YouTube video is a push advertisement from Google about getting the facts on COVID from the CDC?
	I have no doubt.
	What I love is that it's our government buying this ad, I suspect.
	Well, no, that would be the U.S. ad.
	But I get ads from our government on our videos.
	The moment you mention anything, they run that banner.
	The moment you have the word anywhere in the description title or as they pick up the audio in the audio.
	The only thing that I'm interested in is thus far, I've been very lucky though so far, we're still monetized because we're still just speaking facts and law with a little bit of humor and opinion.
	Speaking of which, that may be a good transition.
	I think these ads, if these are not paid-for ads, and Facebook and Google and YouTube, in this context, for example, Google and YouTube are really promoting the government's message at the government's request whenever a dissident message is interpreted to have been heard, I think that raises questions for people like Brett Weinstein, who put on a YouTube show last week.
	It had one of the top medical experts in the world on it.
	It was a German guy.
	Someone's going to get me.
	Fulheimer?
	I forget the name of the doctor.
	If anybody knows, please put it in the chat.
	I'm not going to get near pronunciating that.
	I get pronunciating wrong, so I'm not even going to try it.
	But apparently the video was taken down a day or two later, eliminated from YouTube.
	And YouTube even said, told him, you know, they're getting close to defamation.
	Told him it violated, it was misinformation.
	And they told him that in response on Twitter.
	Which, in my view, calling it misinformation is slander of Weinstein and the other doctor.
	And I think maybe they were acting as a state actor.
	So I think he has a potential actionable claim against him.
	It would be interesting if he thinks about pursuing it.
	Because he's a liberal doctor, a liberal scientist.
	He's the guy who had to leave Evergreen because of the insanity there.
	And so I've represented him in some other context, political context.
	But I hope he looks at least at the possibility of it because I think that's another potential situation where Google is acting as a state actor and a state agent.
	And acting as an independent actor and slandering people.
	So it goes right to the two legal intersections of where they could be liable.
	Independent of the common carrier question that's now up in Ohio.
	Because that's the Facebook Fauci case, but mutatis mutatis to YouTube is if they remove the video on the basis that they are censoring misinformation and promoting authoritarian...
	That was actually straight up Freudian.
	Authoritative news.
	But they're doing it.
	Behind the doors colluding with whomever.
	Well, then you have the same argument as to whether or not Facebook becomes a state actor by virtue of their cooperating with Fauci as YouTube with whomever.
	But we're not stupid.
	I mean, we all know that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and who else is out there?
	We all know what they're doing.
	We saw them testify.
	We know they have each other's data.
	They cross-reference and whatever.
	But it would be an interesting lawsuit.
	Yes, Brett Weinstein's video is gone.
	And I didn't see it.
	I've heard the news, but on the one hand, if they're colluding with government authorities to say, this is what we're taking down, and are you happy with us, government master, state actor, defaming them while they do it, defamation.
	And then the question is, and we know that 230 doesn't protect against defamation, and Twitter's had a decent learning lesson there.
	Yeah.
	It's good.
	Cameron Vesky says, David, just got here.
	I want to say, keep your chin up.
	I'll keep my chin.
	I mean, it helps me breathe easier, but it gets depressing.
	It gets depressing seeing what we're seeing, but there's a light, hopefully, at the end of this tunnel.
	Where do we go, Robert?
	So, it was the one...
	Oh, Ohio and Google.
	So, the state of Ohio, the Attorney General has brought a court action in state court to declare their Google search function a common carrier public utility.
	And because...
	And then...
	As part of the same action to prohibit them from discriminating in favor of their own preferences and to give honest responses to public inquiries and their algorithms.
	And, of course, that's going to go further.
	It will go further if they win.
	But so they're taking what Justice Thomas recommended in his footnote in one of his opinions and running with it.
	So the state of Ohio is going to be determining whether or a court.
	Whether or not Google is a common carrier.
	And it turns out, apparently, the definition of common carrier under Ohio law is very broad.
	It's whether or not it's an entity that's open to the public that impacts public welfare.
	Well, that's a pretty broad group.
	Well, question here.
	I mean, the definition of common carrier, is it, I'm going to show my ignorance, is it defined by state or is it not defined federally?
	State law?
	No, totally defined by the state.
	They're bringing this action solely pursuant to state law.
	There are federal common carriers, but they're not bringing it pursuant to federal law.
	They're bringing it solely to state law to have Google, not all of Google, but to have Google search their internet search function called a common carrier, equal to an internet service provider, equal to a phone company, equal to a lot of public utilities.
	So now, I mean, I guess by the law, there's a recognized list of common carriers.
	Is it finite?
	Is it a half dozen?
	Or is it actually just determined on a case-by-case basis?
	Apparently in Ohio, it's a matter of public policy.
	And so the commission that regulates common carriers can call someone a common carrier and they can try to contest it.
	But their determination, because they have determined not to consider Google search a common carrier.
	But according to what the Ohio Attorney General identified, the law in Ohio doesn't require that the regulatory agency make any specific declaration.
	So it's only are they a public entity open to the public that impacts the public welfare in a particularly unique way.
	And they're arguing that Google search is indistinguishable from a phone company or an internet provider in that regard.
	Okay, very interesting.
	And so what's the process?
	What's the timeline?
	What's the plan going forward on that?
	So they've already filed the declaratory and injunctive relief request in state court in Delaware County, where Columbus, Ohio is located.
	Pretty liberal county these days.
	Didn't used to be.
	Or maybe it's right outside of Columbus.
	And then it'll be up to Google to answer it.
	And it'll be the state attorney general's office against Google to see what will happen.
	But it's a precedent-setting case.
	There's pretty broad law that supports the Ohio Attorney General's position.
	So it would really make a great impact.
	It's one more place where big tech is on the legal defensive.
	And if he prevails, it's consequential.
	And declaratory is on the merits.
	So this is going to go full trial.
	This is not injunctive, provisional, interlocutory.
	They're also asking for injunctive relief, but they're asking for permanent injunctive relief, not temporary injunctive relief.
	So this will go to a bench trial.
	All right.
	And just so everybody appreciates, permanent injunctive relief is, after all evidence is adduced, the permanent injunction, which is the judgment, not a temporary, provisional, or interlocutory to get to the trial.
	Right.
	Okay, excellent.
	And so we got Barnes.
	What's your opinion on Brendan Herrera's take that the new ATF...
	I don't want to get in trouble here.
	Pistol Brace Rules sounds like they are going beyond the scope of their ability to make law.
	I don't know what that is, Mandir.
	I'm unaware of that case.
	So I can't comment on it yet.
	We'll look it up and maybe have it for a future show.
	Yeah, and I might break down that lawsuit because I didn't have time to get to the Ohio lawsuit.
	And that sounds exquisitely interesting because people have been raising the common carrier.
	It's been getting a lot of traction.
	And if Internet and if Google, I mean, if Google is not a common carrier or I guess you have alternatives, but you also have...
	Passenger pigeon as an alternative to telephone lines.
	But if it's not a common carrier at some point, I mean, I'm curious to know what that line is and inform me, court, because I'd love to know.
	And they point out Google search has a 90 to 95 percent dominance in the market space.
	So it's as dominant as any public utility has ever been.
	And what their right is, is that it's that monopolistic power.
	That has not only was originally the predicate for establishing First Amendment limitations on their action that now are only limited to whether or not they're a state actor, but that same monopolistic principles where utility and common carrier principles came from.
	Because the problem was going back to railroads when one of them would knock out the other.
	I mean, most people went into railroads and lost everything because most of them failed.
	But once you had one that was effectively a monopoly.
	They could manipulate freight rates that would completely screw local farmers and merchants.
	And that's where a lot of our common carrier and public utility legal principles derive from.
	The railroad problem, I used to call it in law school, the railroad rule.
	Whichever side the railroad's on, they win.
	That was the case from about 1870 to 1895 or 1900.
	But Teddy Roosevelt came in trying to break up, in part, those kind of monopolistic practices because it was unhealthy for the public economy and civil society.
	And I think this is a good step in the direction of we've got to find some way to control these people that monopolize the public square because they have proven they will abuse their power over the last four years.
	Well, they've proven it.
	We know it.
	The only question is, we're literally so dependent on it, and I'm not saying this is a coward, like, oh, use DuckDuckGo, but there's a number of reasons we saw in the antitrust suit, like, things become pre-installed, uninstallable, and they become reflexive, and they also just become, they become the standard, like, DuckDuckGo.
	I was just saying, the highlight case does a really good job of explaining how that works, too.
	The reason why nobody can ever compete with Google Search.
	That because the algorithms build on prior searches, that the monopoly is going to only get stronger, never grow weaker.
	That you really can't compete with it.
	The competition is not the answer.
	So the same way like phone lines.
	You can't like lay down two phone lines.
	That's just not practical.
	Not economical.
	So it's the same that Google Search is the same thing.
	Google Search is arguably even more monopolistic than internet providers are.
	Yep.
	And incidentally, It makes me think I have to follow up with Chris Pawlowski about the Rumble lawsuit against Google, but it's so dominant that they manipulate their own results in terms of bringing up what they want to bring up and suppressing what they don't, that a video that is only on Rumble, search results will only bring up other videos on Google.
	It makes it impossible to compete.
	It makes it impossible to get free access to information or free access to accurate search results.
	In a way that only favors Google and its financial and economic interests.
	It is complicated but fascinating.
	Speaking of technology, as I've always told people, be careful of people who promote too aggressively encryption protection.
	If they're open source, great.
	If they're not open source, you should be very careful.
	You're going to need to explain the details on this because I know I don't understand it and I don't know it.
	FBI encryption, I understand the gist of it.
	FBI bad encryption for the benefit of the FBI.
	Explain it to us and then I'm going to take some questions to see if anybody can flesh out the details of this.
	So the official story, and I have reasons to doubt the official story, but the official story is that a Fed, a G-Man, and an Aussie law enforcement officer were in an Australian bar having a conversation, and they said, why don't we come up with an encryption app and sell it to criminals around the world?
	And what they won't know is that the encryption app is owned by us, the law enforcement officials.
	And apparently, now my guess is that this actually came from somebody who was high up in the criminal world, who got caught, who pitched this as his get-out-of-jail-free card, and that's probably, and they're just covering up the source.
	They always cover up those kind of sources.
	But either which way, sorry, go ahead.
	Let me stop you there.
	An encryption app, for anybody who doesn't know what that means, what does that mean?
	Let's start from the top floor.
	Yeah, and encryption phones.
	So they thought they were getting phones that were protected from eavesdropping of any kind and that wouldn't have any third-party access so that the feds, the local law enforcement, or any other form of law enforcement would not know what they were saying over those phones in terms of text messaging particularly.
	Now you have apps like Signal, which are open source.
	Not governmental or corporate controlled, that don't have any internal storage, that do have encrypted communication, that they can only intercept if they have the receiving phone or if they seize the phone messages.
	You'll see people say they've seen...
	I mean, it was the security director for the National Security Council for President Trump who introduced me to signals.
	That gives you an idea how good signal is.
	Signal's legit.
	But these other things are not.
	Always be careful.
	I mean, if something sounds like it's perfectly pitched for criminal use, it probably means it's law enforcement on the other side.
	And explain open source versus closed source, I guess, is the alternative.
	One is, I think I understand, is the general public can view and modify and tinker with?
	Is that close enough?
	Yeah, and it's just it doesn't have any control of any company or entity.
	So it's how I interpret it.
	I don't know as much about the tech either.
	I just know that if it's open source, it means that you don't have to worry about some government agency being behind it or controlling it.
	Whereas you do if it's not open source.
	And you better double check who it is that's pitching it and promoting it.
	And so now the issue is...
	That in the U.S. Supreme Court just a few years ago said that getting someone's cell service identifying information to track their locations retrospectively requires a Fourth Amendment search, and you can't just get that information regularly.
	It appears that the feds are claiming that they're not using any of this information.
	Against anyone within the U.S. domestic borders to get around.
	Because when I first saw it, I was like, that's a patent Fourth Amendment violation.
	You're entrapping people into communications.
	You're searching their communications without a search warrant.
	That's clearly illegal.
	Even though you're the company, they don't know you're the company.
	So they don't know they're disclosing this information to you.
	But the way they got around it is they are saying, this is how we trapped everybody else around the world where there isn't such a Fourth Amendment protection.
	My guess is that they used it here, too.
	They're just going to fake the sources.
	They're going to disguise and come up with bogus stories like the TV show The Wire.
	Or the reality of the FOIA.
	I mean, I guess they didn't use fake sources there.
	They just didn't disclose the original sources.
	So the FBI is saying, phenomenal.
	So they create an app, which is an encryption app.
	So people who are saying, hey, dude, I want to do something illegal.
	Let's get an encryption app.
	Instead of using Signal, they use Signal.
	And they had it put on phones that had high-level distributors, criminal distributors, give it to their criminal friends and allies.
	That's how they got it into the criminal marketplace.
	I mean, it's devilishly genius, but it relies, like you say, it relies on a lower-level criminal who's going to fall for this, whereas the higher-level criminal...
	I mean, why wouldn't anyone just use Signal on a...
	I don't know another thing, but why wouldn't someone use Signal?
	You're relying on...
	Lower level criminals who are going to buy into this and make themselves easy to catch.
	You know, like the ones who got involved in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping scheme, I guess.
	Okay, phenomenal.
	So where are we at now with this?
	So far, no U.S. cases.
	But my guess is there will be some U.S. cases down the road because they're probably disguising some of their U.S. prosecutions under disguise.
	But mostly it's just a warning sign, warning signal to people out there that don't trust something that's pitched and promoted too well.
	Well, so I've had people invite me on Signal.
	And I'm next-level neurotic.
	I said, I don't care if Signal is perfectly encrypted.
	I would say nothing on Signal that I won't say on Google because that's how convinced I am that I'm always being watched and listened to.
	It makes for a very defensive lifestyle, but...
	Well, just in general, you know, never in writing and always in cash.
	Oh, and what was the big one that came...
	Oh, well, that was Fauci from last week.
	Okay, let's see what we got.
	There's nothing that says open source can't have backdoors built into the community programmers.
	Cameron Benson.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	That's why never in writing.
	Grandpa's play says, I don't get it.
	The Constitution does not say only for U.S. citizens.
	It says the government shall make no law.
	Okay, interesting.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	And I think there's problems, and some of these other countries are supposed to have at least somewhat analogous provisions.
	So, I mean, they were so eager to brag about it.
	Usually they hide this.
	I've had suspicions about some other promoted apps in the past, promoted phone companies in the past.
	And so I was just very intrigued to see this go public because I think there's serious constitutional and legal problems with gathering the information in this way.
	Also, usually the intel agencies want to keep this stuff secret.
	So it was interesting that it became so public.
	Somebody was just too eager to brag or somebody just put it in, you know, some other country had too honest a cop or something happened for this to become so public.
	I mean, that's fantastically interesting.
	Thus far, we only know of the news-breaking story.
	There has been no real-life implications on American citizens, but Canadians who may...
	What was the name of the app again, Robert?
	I think it was called Anon.
	A-N-O-N or something like that.
	The government always comes up with dumb names like this.
	It's always a sign, by the way.
	Somebody tells you that they're Michael Jordan from Chicago, don't talk to them.
	They're an undercover agent, without doubt, who thinks they're being super cute.
	Was it you who said that the CIA agency...
	Oh, I think it might have been a hush-hush.
	The CIA agencies always have a very generic name like ABC...
	Global Imports, Worldwide Exports, things like that.
	You know who you're dealing with when they give you that kind of business card.
	Oh, that's phenomenal.
	What about the case in Beverly Hills with the safe deposit boxes?
	They weren't allowed to check boxes, but they did it...
	And confiscated millions in gold cash.
	I didn't hear about that.
	And I believe lawsuits are already starting to be filed on that.
	So these broad John Doe summonses that they got away with in some IRS cases, they're now trying in other cases.
	And what they're doing is they're just seizing wide-ranging assets.
	And they've got away with it in seizure context because they know a lot of people don't want to come forward and fight for the return of their money or property.
	And some naive people thought Bitcoin wasn't traceable or seizeable when it's actually more traceable and sometimes more seizeable than cash is.
	Just ask those supposed colonial pipeline hackers who put their Bitcoin, their ransomware Bitcoin in a U.S. West Coast server to sit for seven days.
	Nobody's going to tell me that was some sophisticated Russian government hack.
	That's for sure.
	Or Russian sophisticated hackers, period.
	Because anybody that's sophisticated in the internet would know not to have the Bitcoin to sit in a US server for a week.
	It was the easiest thing to seize in the world.
	Yep, that's amazing.
	I got two super chats here that are good.
	Seems YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
	are practicing medicine without a license or IRB oversight per 45 CFR 46, the common rule.
	Interesting observation.
	Interesting avatar as well.
	Now, this is the one I wanted to get to.
	Basil, the pumpkin seagull, says, Viva, I'm the one that asked if you could have Ian Runkle on a stream and you delivered.
	You saw our class act.
	You have earned a meaty seagull's undying devotion.
	Well, you have a big bicep seagull.
	But that Ian Runkle livestream, and I watched it again.
	I don't often watch my own stuff.
	I don't watch it because I feel awkward watching myself.
	But that was eye-opening for me, even on Canadian law.
	Eye-opening, somewhat depressing.
	And I appreciate, Robert, what you said during the stream, is that this is what Americans need to see as to where this all goes if it goes where some people want to bring it.
	We live in Canada.
	For anyone who didn't see it, my highlight, you live in an area where you get a warning that there might be serial assaulters out in a certain district, but the victims and the most vulnerable victims are warned.
	Don't bring your own self-defense items.
	We're not even talking about the pew-pews.
	We're talking about the zzzz and the pepper sprays.
	Don't even bring them because you'll get charged.
	And that's what fighting with your hands tied behind your back looks like.
	Okay, what do we do now?
	Speaking of, I guess if we're on the issue of government, maybe we do some FOIA requests.
	There was a couple of cases.
	There was a Supreme Court case on immigration, a Supreme Court case.
	That they declined on women in the draft.
	But there was, on the FOIA side, on the importance and value of FOIA, the Ashley Babbitt family is taking a FOIA case because they're hiding every piece of information about her death.
	They're hiding.
	They're not disclosing.
	They're just now disclosing a lot of film footage from what happened on January 6th, which appears to clearly contradict the official narrative.
	It appeared the first people to enter the Capitol building looked like they come from Black Bloc, not like they come from any other movement.
	So explain that.
	Sorry, because I read that.
	I don't know.
	I looked up what Black Bloc was, but I suspect most people don't know what that is.
	Oh, sure.
	So the Antifa originated as the name of the communists to sort of dominate the street violence in the 1920s in Berlin.
	That's the first phrase for Antifa.
	It's a longer anti-fascist phrase.
	But the communists and the fascists recognized that they could get moral legitimacy for their street theater, which was often violence in pubs and public places, by saying that they were either anti-fascist or anti-communist.
	Each one needed the other.
	There was a good discussion on Eric Hundley's Unstructured podcast.
	I think it was the News with Booze with Alison Morrow.
	You can also find it at unstructured.locals.com and basically talking about some aspects of this.
	So that's where it originated from.
	It had a rebirth in the 1970s in West Germany, but they didn't call themselves Antifa at the time.
	They were just known as the Black Block because they used the Black Block technique of everybody dressing and looking the same so that no one could be arrested for their criminal activities at public protest, usually around May Day.
	Labor Day in Germany.
	That expanded to protesting against the World Trade Organization and other groups late '90s in Seattle, also in Europe.
	And then it took on a new form in the United States after the Occupy movement.
	The Occupy movement devolved in part into an Antifa movement, and that's where it's at today.
	But one of their names to fame is wearing all the same black clothing that's non-identifying so they can engage in criminal behavior and not get caught or identified.
	They would say it's to do political protest and not be harassed by the state.
	But that's, you know, I have a different interpretation given their history.
	And people can look up what Alison Morrow's experience was with Antifa, just as an everyday reporter in Seattle.
	In that context, it looks like the first people that entered the building, and there's been a lot of good work by Julie Kelly of American Greatness on this, the first people to breach the Capitol inside, according to video footage that has been hidden most of this time period, all appeared to be dressed in all black, which raises questions about exactly who was doing what there that day.
	And for that, if you want my original interpretation, which more and more of it keeps coming true, you can watch Hush Hush at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	And because almost everything I said I made a joke about the moon, but other than the moon, everything else is coming accurate.
	So in that context, they're making FOIA requests for the death of Ashley Babbitt.
	She was the only person who died from any kind of violence that day, and it was violence from the...
	You have teachers being suspended for just discussing transgender policies at a school board meeting, while you have a man who shot and killed a woman in cold blood who didn't even face a day of suspension in the Capitol.
	And so they made a FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act request, to get that information in Intel, the same set of requests that Judicial Watch had brought that led to Fauci needing to release information to BuzzFeed to get ahead of the negative news cycle that was coming to them because of the FOIA request by Judicial Watch, which is also how Clinton emails were first exposed, and Benghazi scandals first came out, in part, in terms of what Hillary knew and didn't know.
	And so in the same context, they refused to respond at all.
	They didn't even give an answer to the Ashley Babbitt family's request, so they have filed suit, and they should win that suit, because why is it she's not entitled to know what happened that day, or her family, that is, not entitled to know what happened to her that day?
	The FOIA laws don't exempt this, in my view, so now it is a very liberal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, so that's the uphill battle they have.
	But I believe they brought it in state court, and in state court, those judges are appointed.
	Many of them were appointed by Trump.
	And many of them still lean liberal, but not as liberal as you might imagine the District of Columbia otherwise being.
	So I think it's a good case and hopefully her family will finally find out who exactly shot her and under the circumstances of that shooting and whether there was a real investigation or not.
	So FOIA requests, if they don't respond, that's sort of like a certain time lapses and then you get to file suit.
	Yes.
	Robert, I mean, I even hate to ask the question, but there's some people who ask.
	If it was not a senator, like if the whole issue here is that it might not have been an undercover, not an undercover, but a plainclothes cop, but somebody else.
	Well, it appears to be, some people have, Jim Hoff, the Gateway Pundit, and some others have done some very good work on this.
	Cassandra Fairbanks does work there too.
	And they've identified who it likely is.
	And it's a highly ranked Capitol Police officer.
	That's part one.
	And part two is...
	Someone who's had very overt politics publicly hostile to Trump supporters.
	And that's probably why they're hiding this information about him.
	They don't want the world to know that this was a politically prejudicial individual who shot someone in cold blood, not in self-defense.
	Okay.
	And we don't need to repeat the name, but I know that...
	I've seen the name.
	I've seen the name.
	I've heard other theories and had to ask the question.
	I'm just going to bring this one up.
	Open source basically just means the code is public.
	A company can still be in control and most open source projects have some form of control.
	Closed course.
	Code is private.
	Proprietary.
	And Ian, I brought up the chat, said, tell me something beautiful about Canada.
	I'm posting the video right here.
	I should say good things about Canada because I love this country.
	I just posted a link to the most glorious fish story you're ever going to see.
	100% true.
	And I'm not wearing a shirt in it at one point.
	And Newfoundland.
	One of the most beautiful places I've ever seen with the friendliest people on Earth.
	So it's not all fascism, tyranny, communism, lockdown.
	It's a beautiful country.
	We just have to be able to travel interprovincially to see it.
	So, okay, so a FOIA request.
	We'll see where that goes.
	It should be one that should be easy enough to win.
	We've seen success on the FOIA fronts.
	It'll take time.
	More people can do it.
	We'll be issuing FOIA requests throughout the summer to the Federal Reserve to start the Federal Reserve cases that I'm part of, that I was talking about here in Miami.
	Let's give an update on that.
	We talked about it a while back.
	You're going to audit the Federal Reserve.
	Who's the plaintiff in this case?
	George Gammon.
	My joke here in Miami was, if anything, people are asking, why aren't you worried about your well-being, so on and so forth.
	And I said, if it really gets bad, I'll just point, I'll say it was all George's idea.
	But he's a nice guy.
	But I think there's good reasons to believe we'll be successful, at least at some level.
	But those will start going out throughout the summer.
	Some will go out in June, some July, some August.
	They have 20 days to respond in some cases, 45 days to respond in other cases.
	We're asking for information that goes all the way back to the foundation and formation of the Fed.
	I want their legal memorandums in particular.
	Some of that they will likely object to.
	And they may object to everything and make us go through all the hoops.
	I mean, about a month after we announced our intentions to use FOIA to audit the Fed and then sue the Fed, it was the Fed suddenly changed their FOIA policies and procedures for the first time in eight years.
	So I'm sure that they may have been responding to the public attention that was brought to the case.
	But all they're doing is putting They have legal limitations on what they can do.
	And so that case is going forward no matter what.
	And we'll be putting up on probably the Barnes Law firm website, also probably some other sites that George is going to have, public information as we go along.
	So we'll show them here's the request we made, here were the responses, all the lawsuits, all the memorandums, all the briefs.
	And the goal is once we litigate it, which will probably take about a year in full as a hope.
	Then people can look at that and use it to file their own cases.
	Don't want them filing cases early because the Fed will use that then to create some bad law somewhere.
	Let us try to establish the best law possible.
	And then everybody else can start doing it.
	And it would be nothing better than to have 10,000 people all across the country filing their own FOIA request of their local Federal Reserve branch.
	I think all of that has benefit to it.
	And there's a lot more.
	As what people should see, even when they're sort of, you know, taking the black pills, you know, what happened, why is the truth about Fauci coming out?
	Bottom line is because he put stuff, you know, he forgot.
	Well, he really couldn't do nothing in writing and always in cash.
	He had to send that money through government grants, and that's federally trackable, traceable information through a FOIA request.
	And the same with the emails and the text, and people like Zuckerberg are happy to yip with him.
	And people like Judicial Watch and others had a bunch of complaints and FOIA actions that they had filed all the way back to last year.
	That information was coming out one way or the other.
	So it's, you know, the Clinton email scandal came out because of the FOIA.
	The parts of Benghazi came out because of FOIA.
	The Ashley Babbitt issues will probably get uncovered because of FOIA.
	What really happened on January 6th is starting to come out because of FOIA.
	People should not underestimate the power of FOIA for their own lives.
	People can do FOIAs on their own name, find out what the government knows about them or what they're tracking and tracing about them.
	So it's a very powerful tool, part of the post sort of anti-deep state reforms of the early 19, mid-1970s with the church committee and the others.
	And so people should really utilize Yes, my apologies.
	I was looking at our list and we had another Fed-Foya lawsuit at the end.
	But before that, I wanted to say, Robert, we're at 8,200 here.
	2,700 live on Rumble now.
	That's 11,000 people watching, which is magnificent.
	And people are getting information.
	I dare say, we haven't seen the chat that says Viva and Barnes is the most important podcast in the world right now, but people are getting information and details.
	I don't think they're going to get anywhere else, and I'm happy to be a part of it.
	What was the other Fed FOIA lost to it?
	That was the Fed case I was talking about.
	I'm the only one right now bringing a Fed FOIA case.
	But my hope is to use it well so that a bunch of other people imitate it in the future.
	And there's good bases.
	If people want to have fun, they can go on YouTube and search C-SPAN, C-SPAN in the courts, the Federal Reserve, and they should find the 2010 oral arguments.
	And you can see the Fed's inability to answer basic questions from federal judges.
	And you can see that a lot of federal judges...
	Are not sympathetic to the Federal Reserve, which may surprise people.
	But it's because the Federal Reserve has lied so long and often about who they are.
	Some judges believe those lies, and those lies don't help them when it comes to FOIA.
	So I think there'll be some fun there as well.
	All right, now we've got Gary Herman says, Weekend at Bernie's.
	Speaking of FOIA, did Legal Legal ever video response to the new revelations about Lafayette Square clearing investigation?
	So first thing, Legal Legal, I don't think, has done a follow-up on his initial FOIA request.
	He hasn't done a follow-up video either, because remember, his whole FOIA request and his video defaming and libeling Trump, which you can only get away with because of the circumstances, was that Trump deliberately cleared Lafayette Square.
	To have a photo op.
	That was always a lie.
	It's now been confirmed last week to the whole world that it was a lie.
	But waiting for legal legal, to be honest, you're going to be waiting a while.
	You're going to be waiting almost as long as you would have to wait for him to actually win a case of consequence.
	Or for the feds to respond to a FOIA request.
	I saw the story.
	I saw a bunch of people who...
	Everyone jumped on the story about...
	They lied about using pepper spray to clear the...
	Yada, yada, yada.
	This is the problem.
	I'm guilty of it sometimes myself.
	Sometimes you just rely on the news instinctively, reflexively, without thinking.
	And then you get made a fool of.
	And then it happens once or twice, and then you really get sufficiently burnt that you don't do it again.
	But yeah, it's...
	Unless you're legal ego.
	And then all you do is make mistakes.
	In which case, you double down, or you just ignore it.
	It's either double down or delete.
	Although you can't delete, just...
	Nothing happened.
	Nothing to see here, people.
	There were two Supreme Court cases this week of consequence.
	One was the Supreme Court recognized a 9-0 unanimous decision.
	Kagan actually wrote it.
	And it's just that if you enter this country illegally, you can't later pretend you entered legally and get legal permanent status.
	And what happened was someone had entered illegally.
	After they'd entered illegally, we'd given one of our many quasi-amnesties.
	That said, if you come from these countries, these countries are all, you know, there was a Trump word for it.
	It wasn't a legal word, but, you know, it's the Trump equivalent.
	They said, if you're from one of those countries and you're here illegally, we're going to give you legal temporary status.
	Some of those people have said, well, since we've got temporary legal status, let's pretend we're really here legally all along and enter the country legally.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said what the law clearly always said, which was, no, that doesn't.
	Us giving you generous amnesty at this period of time didn't suddenly magically whitewash your illegal entry into the nation.
	So there's a legal process that millions of people wait for and follow each year, and their rights and their respect for the law is disrespected when we circumvent it in these other capacities.
	Unanimous tells you how clear the law really was and how the lower courts were butchering the law to get a politically desired outcome.
	But, I mean, what impact is it going to have going forward on policy and application of law?
	Because they're unlikely to change the immigration law, it means their efforts to get legal citizenship for people that enter the country illegally will not happen through the back door.
	They're going to have to change the laws to get that done.
	Okay, very interesting.
	And now...
	Yeah, go for it, go for it, go for it.
	I'll say briefly, the other Supreme Court case was just that three justices said it was time to reconsider the men-only draft.
	The argument was that since women now enter armed forces and do everything that men do, that women should not be exempt from the draft.
	Now, I'm just against the draft, period.
	I don't think it's constitutional.
	I understand the Supreme Court.
	Ignores that provision, but if you can be forced to go shoot and kill somebody, you don't have any rights, is my view.
	So that draft has never made constitutional sense to me.
	To put it the other way around, also, if you could be forced to go out and shoot and kill, or, flip side, to go out and be shot and killed if you don't want to shoot and kill, then you're not a free citizen.
	You're a pawn of the state.
	Absolutely.
	You're just chattel.
	And that's different than people point out the militia provision.
	I understand they have a right to call up the militia, but we scrapped that a long time ago.
	We decided not to have functional militias.
	So my view is they don't get to get around that by creating a draft in lieu of it.
	Get into the details, or we won't get into the thick of the weeds, but rather the draft, it was being challenged.
	I sort of got confused as to the parties that were challenging it, the ones that didn't want to challenge it.
	But bottom line, the draft as it's currently, it's not codified.
	It's the draft as it's currently interpreted or as far as the policy?
	Yeah, it's by statute.
	So everybody when they're 18 in the United States has to register.
	For the draft.
	Now, there is no functioning draft happening, but you have to register once you turn 18. But only men do.
	Women don't.
	And so a men's group, I believe, filed the suit arguing that was gender discrimination, that it should require that to be men only violated the Fifth Amendment.
	And three justices across the political spectrum, I think it was Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh.
	Dissented and said, no, really, this does violate.
	In 1981, when the U.S. Supreme Court said that it was okay, it was because women couldn't serve in combat.
	Now they do.
	And so what is it?
	They're using feminism against women.
	They're saying, hey, the feminist principle is that women can do anything a man can do.
	Okay, that means you can be drafted just like men can be drafted.
	And I swear to you I'm not asking this question to be facetious or sarcastic.
	No trans groups got involved in this lawsuit in terms of biological birth females who identify as male that want to be included in the draft?
	I mean, is it too hypothetical to be an actual lawsuit?
	I mean, to my knowledge, they weren't part of the suit.
	But the Supreme Court turned down the case.
	Just those three justices said they would have taken it, but they're going to let the Congress see.
	Congress is thinking about changing the law to draft to make everybody subject to the draft.
	And now this is the question that I was asking in reading this.
	I understood the rationale.
	They say, okay, it's not up to us to make this decision.
	It's up to Congress.
	If they want to legislate a solution, they can go ahead.
	But that rationale doesn't apply in other cases of legislative discrimination, right?
	So how do they arbitrarily make that distinction here, but not in other federal statutes or regulations that are themselves deemed to be discriminatory?
	Usually, I mean, in the past, it was because women couldn't participate in combat.
	And that was the reason for it.
	And so the question is, now that women are given equal access to the military and serve at every single level of the military, is the prior rationale for their exclusion still make sense?
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	As long as we have a birthright citizenship, the backdoor amnesty has simply delayed a generation.
	Interesting.
	But I think birthright citizenship is constitutionally correct still.
	There are arguments against it, for certain.
	But there are a lot of good arguments in its favor, too.
	All right.
	And now Gary Herman says, can you mention how I can purchase access to a Hush Hush on Locals as a gift for a friend?
	Robert, there's a way.
	There's annual subscriptions for $50, which means you get two months basically free because it's $5 a month.
	And you can gift subscriptions to other people.
	There's a little button that says Gift Subscriptions, and you can gift it to them whenever you want.
	And all of the Hush Hushes, I think there's 19 of them currently up.
	And they are completely available to anybody who joins at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, people have been asking me to do a Canadian equivalent of Hush Hush.
	I can't.
	I know the limitations of my capabilities.
	I can give you a hyperactive summary of something, but I can't give you the in-depth.
	You're traveling through history when you listen to Robert do a Hush Hush.
	What would be some of the Canadian topics for a Hush Hush?
	What would be some of the leaders suspiciously killed?
	I don't know.
	I mean, the immediate one I go to reflexively is MKUltra, which has firm roots in Canada.
	Oh, that's true.
	Oh, you know, Oswald spent some time going through Canada.
	Not only that, James Earl Ray spent time going through Canada.
	Actually, Canada has a lot of spook connections.
	Well, there's one that, Robert, maybe you might be interested in it.
	I mean, I should do it.
	Omar Khadr, who received a $10 million settlement from the Canadian government.
	I mean, there's a hush-hush in...
	You know what?
	Trudeau himself is multiple hush-hushes, right down to his birth, to his parents.
	I mean, there's a lot, but I can't do it.
	I know the limitations of my capabilities.
	I don't know how you store the information and how you digest it and access it, but the hush-hushes are gold for me as well.
	What do we do here?
	I think we missed one.
	The MLB lawsuit.
	The problem was he tried to claim the Major League Baseball was acting as a state actor.
	And just because they get state funding, federal funding in their stadiums can make them state actors.
	They're not generally state actors.
	So that was the problem with the suit.
	So he also brought claims of interference with contract and other aspects like that.
	But it wasn't clear he was representing the actual businesses.
	Now, the judge was a hostile judge, so you never know whether the judge was being fair in that depiction or not.
	But the weakness of the suit was it wasn't clearly laid out which contracts of which businesses were impaired, and he tried to make Major League Baseball a state actor, and that was a reach.
	Okay.
	And we're going to get to this in a second.
	Texas just ruled you can force employees to get shots, but I just want to bring up the Avro arrow.
	I don't know what that means.
	I can mention briefly that decision, the Texas decision.
	That's one of the dumbest judges in America, which is really saying something.
	And so he has been sanctioned repeatedly for doing dumb and crazy things.
	He comes from the Reagan libertarian era, which basically they thought corporations are God, employers are God, the military is God.
	I mean, they can do no wrong.
	He comes from that school of thought.
	So he right away was like, you're trying to sue a hospital for wanting to vaccinate employees?
	I mean, he'd find that ludicrous.
	And that's why he issued a four-page opinion.
	So his opinions are not well respected anywhere in the federal court system.
	And he's a reminder to the folks out there that think, you know, sort of Reagan, what they think of as Reagan corporate libertarianism.
	In the judicial arena, that was mostly negative.
	That rarely worked out for the positive, frankly.
	But there are key problems.
	The case, as we mentioned at the time, this is the Houston Hospital employee case, was not the best worded case.
	It was kind of loose.
	It was trying to allege Texas public policy violations in ways that didn't quite fit the facts.
	For example, that hospital did provide for religious exemptions, did provide for medical deferrals, did provide for other means of accommodation.
	Now, the craziness of the hospital's ruling was that even if you had had COVID, you had to get the vaccine.
	Which now from the Cleveland data we know makes no sense at all.
	That you're actually less likely to transmit COVID if you previously had it than if you didn't and got the vaccine.
	From that data at least.
	I mean, so there's at least an evidentiary argument on their side of the aisle.
	In addition, there were people that said they thought they could do their job with reasonable accommodation who weren't afforded it.
	The judge's focus was on the emergency use authorization statute.
	The way he got around that was to say that the Nuremberg Code and the emergency use authorization statute only applies to the government.
	It doesn't apply to a private actor.
	I don't agree with that interpretation, where he went, because his whole thing is you're not being coerced.
	You're just being fired if you don't get it.
	Only an old-school corporate libertarian thinks this way.
	That, no, no, I'm not forcing you to get anything.
	I just won't allow you to eat or allow you to be clothed or allow you to get water.
	This is corporate libertarianism run amok.
	So it's not a surprise, given who the judge was, that the decision would be both stupid and based on questionable policies.
	And it turned out to be that in spades.
	But there are good grounds to appeal it.
	The stronger ground still to challenge some of these things, I actually asked the Texas governor.
	The Texas governor said that his vaccine passport law prohibited private businesses from forcing the equivalent of vaccine passports on anyone.
	Apparently the law, according to what some people have told me, only applies to customers, doesn't apply to employees.
	The Texas state legislature should come back and use this case as the predicate because several states That have passed these laws have prohibited employers from imposing it on their employees, not just limiting their ability to do so to customers and vendors.
	And so in some states that will still apply, but the ADA claims are still the big ones here, which is it's not clear they provided reasonable accommodation.
	The judge made no finding of evidence at all in favor of the hospital.
	So there's a good reason to believe that.
	It'll go up on appeal, hopefully get overturned at some point, but by no means will this be a precedent a lot of other lawyers will want to cite in other cases in favor of vaccines because you're citing one of the dumbest decisions of one of the dumbest judges in America.
	The idea that the natural immunity that seems to come from having been infected is not a relevant factor in anything allows you to question a lot of things, science, policy, logic, and basic common sense.
	Okay, that's good to know.
	People are asking me as well.
	I got an email from someone in British Columbia asking about the legality of employers forcing vaccination province by province, and I'm in a civil law province, so I can't even comment on that, nor would I, but at least we know what's going on in the States.
	And I'm going to have to look up Avro Arrow because we've got a lot of recommendations for hush-hushes from the Canadian side.
	I just want to say, I think that nose of a dog is a Portuguese water dog or a cockapoo.
	That'd be impressive.
	I'm going to some of the questions on the vivabarneslaw.locals.com and somebody on Twitter complained because I put out a link to it and they're like, oh man, you have to be a subscriber to ask questions.
	Yes, that's one of the benefits of subscribers is those are the questions I'm reading, not the questions of randos on Twitter.
	And just to let everyone else know.
	We're going to put these videos out on Rumble, YouTube as well.
	You have to give perks to the people who actually support the channel.
	Otherwise, you're doing an injustice to the people who are supporting us.
	Absolutely.
	It'll be on Rumble.
	90% of everything is still free.
	But for the community, you've got to pay the toll if you want to troll.
	The same logic is true for those who are partaking and participating.
	They get rewarded.
	That's life.
	It's a good free market lesson.
	It's like when your kid comes home with Halloween candy and you take half of it and say, that's for the government, honey.
	They learn quickly about taxation.
	And hiding it before they get home.
	Yes, exactly.
	I remember your middle one got agitated when her mom tried to take just a little bit of the candy from her after one of the house.
	No, the worst thing is that they end up eating so much of it they feel sick, but they don't learn.
	Kids are sort of like, I won't draw any analogies, but kids don't learn from their mistakes.
	And I was just thinking today that what makes a kid a kid is what makes an adult either a jerk or a buffoon.
	If you're an adult and you don't learn from your mistakes, that passes in childhood.
	And if you're an adult who only thinks about yourself and doesn't realize that there's a world around you, like children tend to do, makes you a bit of a jerk of an adult.
	That is my parentheses closed.
	Yeah, so the first question is from Greg76.
	How can the DOJ interfere legally in the way states conduct their elections?
	They have the authority under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, but it's limited to that.
	But it's amazing to watch Garland interfere with the Arizona audit in ways that while Barr was hiding under his desk, the only thing he interfered with were people trying to actually monitor the election results, or people who identified corruption.
	So he's limited in what he can do.
	Garland can only use the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
	I think it's more big talk.
	I don't think he's going to follow through on much action because that will create a state-federal conflict I don't think he wants to get in the middle of.
	But that's their legal authority, is if some Voting Rights Act is being violated, some Civil Rights Act is being violated.
	Something like that is being violated.
	There's no evidence that's happening at all in Arizona, so he has no authority to be using that powers to try to interfere with the audit.
	From Tom Mulder, the state of Texas plans on trying to enforce the border.
	It's going to be tricky because the old sheriff there in Phoenix tried to do the same thing, and the state of Arizona tried to do the same thing during Obama's reign, and the Ninth Circuit said federal law preempts their ability to even regulate their own citizenry.
	I think they'll run into some legal problems, but it's probably worth a try and see what happens.
	Some questions about the vaccine cases.
	People have been asking, there was a template on VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	I pinned it again because a bunch of people had asked about it here in Miami.
	It's pinned at the top of the board.
	If you go to VivaBarnesLaw.com Locals.com.
	Don't even have to be a member.
	It's there free.
	You can just go through on what's pinned, and it's toward the top of the board.
	You'll find the reference to the letter that came to me in a bottle one day.
	All right, and let's see this.
	I know this is a sacrilege in Canada, but the getting rid of the Ever Arrow was a good idea.
	Oh, incidentally, I haven't said it yet.
	We're at 3.1 thousand thumbs up on YouTube for 8,000 views.
	I think that's very good.
	But I should ask.
	Thumbs up and, you know, let's explode the comment section with lots of comments now.
	Fake science supports global warming.
	Fake history as the basis for the 1619 Project.
	Fake news 2016-2020.
	Lack of info of no video regen 6. How can we overcome this?
	We're using FOIA and public information and continuing to support independent platforms.
	Best example of this is Richard Barris did a public opinion poll that was funded by the public.
	It's a part of the public polling project.
	You can find it at peoplespundit.locals.com.
	That has all the crosstabs and everything.
	Most of his information also free on the board.
	Don't even need to be a subscriber in most cases for most of the intel.
	And it showed that two-thirds of Americans believe that the COVID-19 is man-made and came from a lab.
	And that's despite massive censorship and manipulation of that information for the last year.
	So the government's ability to keep people from knowing independent information is getting less and less and less.
	And the Freedom of Information Act is still a great legal remedy to try to deal with problems where secrets are still being kept in improper ways.
	It's an amazing thing, Robert.
	We've come to the point now where when the mainstream media says something and comes out radically against an idea...
	Everyone reflexively now thinks there's got to be truth to it, and a year later, to the censorship and the shutting down of the alleged potential man-made nature of the origins of coronavirus, it's only going to reaffirm it, and I don't know how much lower mainstream media can sink, but it's amazing.
	It's come to the point now, whatever mainstream media says, assume the exact opposite, and you'll be right more often than not.
	No doubt.
	I think most of the other questions, the most liked questions, all were of the same topics that we've now addressed.
	But I will for the after party.
	We'll be at a live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com after the show.
	If you go to the top of the board, you'll see something live chat.
	Click on that, and I'll be in and out of there over the next hour.
	As will I. I'm going to do my best when I walk the dogs.
	But Robert, another phenomenal stream.
	Everyone, thank you very much for tuning in.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thanks for the comments.
	Chat was relatively civil tonight.
	Thank you for keeping it civil, even though we disagree on some things.
	Robert, end our week with something good and give us some optimism for the week to come.
	Sure.
	There's always a little bit of light, even in a shadowy world, as was revealed by the various FOIA requests that unveiled Frautzee's bad acts over the last year and in a history and a career of doing so.
	And so everyone fighting for that, working for that, continue to find achievements for that.
	And that's reason for optimism by itself.
	The law sometimes works.
	And as honest information gets out there, more and more people are finding it.
	More and more people are red-pilled and white-pilled every day, even in a world that might look like a black-pill world.
	Excellent.
	With that said, Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, enjoy what's left of the weekend, and we will see you next week for the sidebar, and enjoy...
	Yeah, I think Wednesday...
	Is Wednesday going to be James O 'Keefe?
	I'm going to...
	Double check and confirm.
	It might have been Friday of this week.
	I'm going to confirm.
	At some point this week, we'll have a sidebar.
	And then after that, Posobiec, and then a whole bunch of interesting people over the next several weeks.
	Amazing people coming up.
	It's amazing what the sidebar's turned into.
	It's just beautiful.
	So, stay tuned, everybody.
	It's going to be a good one this week.
	We have to figure out the day and the person and the whom, but it's going to be great.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend, people.

▲