Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 26, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:37

Ep. 67: TOO MUCH LAW! Chauvin Giuliani, Britney, FBI, McAfee, SCOTUS & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If everyone knew what we just went through, me as an individual and our household as a family, to go live at 7 o 'clock on the nose, it would be a humorous sitcom that no one would believe the premise to.
	How is everybody doing tonight?
	This is officially a week of too much law, or as some people are saying, so much law because you can never have too much law.
	Oh boy, oh boy.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	If the audio is good, give me the standard F. My computer is too low.
	Technically, I guess this means I'm late because I'm using three seconds of the stream to get set up a little better.
	Here.
	Boom!
	What is that that I see behind me?
	Whatever.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Too much law.
	So much law.
	McAfee.
	People hypothesizing on McAfee.
	And can you blame anybody?
	When we live in a world where people in maximum security, high security prisons manage to find ways to do, you know, the ultimate to themselves.
	Britney Spears.
	Hold on.
	The reverb of the bass was actually, my voice echoing in the bass was reverbing and it was driving me a little crazy.
	All right.
	Oh yeah.
	We just went on what was supposed to be a three-night road trip, but we cut it one day short, three good days, two good nights, because, holy crab apples, camping is wonderful.
	It brings you back to basics, where basically all you do and think about all day is cooking, cleaning, and sleeping, and maybe an activity or two to keep everyone busy.
	But when it starts raining uncontrollably, and you are five people and a dog in a four-person tent, It's time to go home.
	We had a good time, though.
	We're going to go back.
	And the video, for anybody who has not yet seen it, is on the second of my channels, Viva Random.
	That's not Viva Random anymore.
	I think I changed the name to Viva Family.
	Okay, so while we do this, let me just see what we're doing here.
	Let's go to the chat.
	Get everyone back.
	Audio is okay.
	Good.
	Thank you very much, Sean.
	Where is the...
	I don't know what that is.
	I see.
	I read that now.
	Now I got both of those words.
	I saw the word round, not rotund.
	Not very nice.
	Okay.
	Hello, fine people.
	Okay.
	Let's do this now.
	Go all the way back to the bottom.
	Free Britney, by the way.
	I've never understood this.
	I've never understood how egregious what is going on in this is.
	And now I've been boning up on Britney Spears all day.
	I remember we talked about it once before when the conservatorship came up a while back and apparently she agreed to the conservatorship at least by words and I never understood what was going on.
	I now understand what's going on.
	Bill C-36, I have to look into it.
	I don't know exactly which bill that is now because I'm confused between C-96, provincially C-10.
	There's so many bills now, but I'm going to get to it because a lot of people have been asking about it.
	Okay, I see the first super chat come up, which is the perfect segue into my standard disclaimers.
	By the way, share the link around because YouTube has been not so good notifying.
	We are concurrently live on Rumble, where we've been doing 2-3,000 live viewers, which is amazing.
	And I suspect Rumble is going to be getting a little bit more popularity because the Donald Trump has now opened an account on Rumble.
	And man, if that's not the next notch up in terms of...
	I won't say credibility because people would say that credibility might not be the right word.
	I might say notoriety, but that's demeaning to rumble.
	That is the next level up in terms of legitimacy and getting a foothold in climbing this...
	Digital corporate ladder.
	On the latest vlog, check out Steve Lito.
	He is a Michigan warranty lawyer, and he covers subjects like civil forfeiture regularly.
	He is definitely worth a sidebar.
	I've actually been in touch with Steve, and we were supposed to do a stream, and I don't see where.
	We both agreed to it, and I was happy, and we're going to.
	It just hasn't come around yet, but we messaged back and forth because, oh, geez, I forget the drama that happened.
	I felt bad about something.
	That I said, which I thought might have been misinterpreted, and then I wanted to apologize to Steve, and he didn't take it personally.
	I forget what it was, where people thought I was dissing Steve, which I wasn't.
	I watch him regularly enough, and when I need insight on something, like on...
	I got his feedback on the FBI temporary restraining order that was issued in the United States vaults dispute, which we're going to be talking about tonight.
	I like him.
	Smart guy.
	No buts.
	No, nothing bad to say.
	And his delivery is at a reasonable pace, which I think some people can appreciate.
	Time to get miffed, Mr. Frobot.
	Not right now, but let's get into this.
	And I said, someone who said they missed, I missed.
	Yeah, you know what?
	As that was coming out of my mouth, I swear to you.
	Viva, I've been born.
	I said it to myself as it was coming out of my mouth.
	And now that's going to even be bad.
	This is like the scene from Howard Stern's Private Parts where he says, you can say big blank coming out of my mouth, but I can't say big blank.
	You missed my 217th super chat.
	Okay, so the warnings.
	If I don't get your super chat, don't be miffed.
	If you're going to be miffed, if I don't get to it, don't give it because I don't like people feeling miffed.
	YouTube takes 30% of super chats.
	So if you don't like that and I can understand that, there are other ways to support.
	Me as an individual creator, but I think the best bet is to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and you get exclusive content there, five bucks a month or more if anybody wants.
	Exclusive content, but the free stuff is always going to be on YouTube and Rumble nonetheless.
	No legal advice?
	Nothing.
	What we do is legal advice here.
	It is for educational purposes only.
	I hear kids.
	I thought they had left to go to the municipal entertainment area.
	Viva, do I practice?
	I think you mean law, Stephen.
	And whenever I see caps, I either think the person is angry or I think to my aunt, who always writes in caps, despite never being angry.
	I practice very little now.
	I have a few clients, but no, I think 13 years in the trenches was enough.
	And what I do now is minimal and on a transactional basis, depending on what's going on.
	Vox Dei sidebar, we can do that.
	Actually, I should say, I have to look into who Vox Day is before we can even do that.
	Let me see here.
	Let's do this.
	McAfee and Epstein are both just proofs of a Democratic voter registration drive hard at work.
	Which other celebrities do you burn up to?
	Look, you know what I meant.
	I was researching on Britney, but that also sounds potentially problematic.
	I demand you acknowledge my $2.63 Rambler.
	First of all, I know your avatar.
	I remember your name.
	Acknowledged.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Someone just said, thanks, Steven.
	I'm not sure what for.
	What for?
	Brett Weinstein is now on Odyssey.
	Been watching a bit of Brett as well.
	So let's see if I got some more Super Chats before Robert gets here.
	Did you see the law that gives special rights to Canadians but not Canadians?
	Strange, me neither.
	That last part is the French-Canadian, French-Quebecer swear words.
	For anybody who doesn't know, by the way, there's an interesting distinction between French-Canadian, Quebec swear words, and French from France swear words.
	All of the swear words in Quebec are of religious nature.
	Osti, the wafer, tabernacles, coalesce, which I'm not sure what that is exactly, but whereas everything, all the swear words coming out of France have to deal with sex and prostitution, which is very weird.
	It's very weird.
	I don't know why it is the case, but it is the case.
	Okay, let's see.
	We got a little off topic, but Viva, can you ask Robert his thoughts on this past Friday's UFO by Will when he gets here?
	So let me just share some observations, not so much of a rant, but it might get there.
	We went on a road trip, and we left the city, and we went to the country, and you realize the degree to which watching mainstream news day in and day out, living in constant fear, it has a lasting impact on humans.
	As individuals, it has...
	It basically reshapes their brain and it reshapes the way they see the world.
	And when you get out of the big cities and you go into the countryside where people have different life habits and clearly have different concerns and have not been necessarily, I'll say, indoctrinated for lack of a better word, and you don't see people walking around outdoors with face masks and you don't see people afraid to see other people.
	On the contrary, everybody still wants to see people socialize.
	And then you come back to the city.
	And you see people walking alone in the streets on 30-degree days wearing face masks, even though they're not necessary now.
	It's disheartening.
	And you can really now feel, Robert and I have been joking, you know, joking.
	Truth in jest type joke.
	That we've been living through the biggest Milgram experiment in the history of humankind.
	And when you see...
	The effect that it's had on people, when you can actually track it because you've been in contact with people and you've seen the transition over 15, 16, 17 months.
	Are we into 17 months?
	It's amazing.
	I think Cernovich said it best, or Cernovich or someone else on Twitter, but basically said, in 15 months we've traumatized people into wearing face masks alone outside.
	Imagine if we used that conditioning for good behavior and good thoughts.
	How much better things could be.
	So, the rant was going to go into the two-tier legal system in Canada where you have certain religious figures being arrested for holding services to dozens of people and you have other figures carrying on services with impunity because it's politically expedient and it's politically correct to go after certain demographics but not others.
	This is the government creating the division among citizens of the same country by doing this.
	All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
	And you see, when the government does this, when they treat groups differently, and we're going to get into this in some of the disputes tonight, when they treat groups differently, they create infighting among those groups whom are Canadian citizens as much as the other.
	And it creates strife among citizens.
	Which, if you're cynical, one can think has political benefits for the political elite because they can use that strife, they can use that division to jockey themselves up the power poles and use it for...
	What is it when you run for office called?
	Election material.
	It's just terrible.
	It's terrible what we're seeing going on here.
	We got Raymond Shamus, who I think that is his Twitter handle.
	Thank you, Raymond.
	Thanks, Viva Robert.
	By the way, thank you very much for the Super Chats as well.
	Also, I'm a little nervous.
	I like people.
	If anyone is...
	I want everyone to give and feel comfortable with what they give.
	And if they don't give anything you don't feel comfortable with.
	So everyone out there, thank you for the chats.
	And thank you for the support.
	But there's zero expectation for support.
	I'm just happy to be able to do what we do here.
	Okay.
	With that said...
	Okay, Boomer.
	I don't know what that means.
	I see Robert.
	Okay, Robert's in the house, people.
	On the menu.
	Holy crab apples.
	Britney Spears.
	Rudy Giuliani.
	McAfee.
	Supreme Court decisions.
	More vaccine lawsuits.
	Chauvin update, obviously.
	Kentucky cops suspended.
	Some of these I'm not going to be up to speed with.
	Some of the other ones I'm going to be more than up to speed with.
	Attorney General sues Georgia over election law.
	And sentence...
	The January 6th is coming up again.
	There was a good Facebook decision coming out, which is going to be worth the discussion.
	So without further ado, let us bring in the man of the hour.
	Oh, and UFOs.
	Apparently I have to ask about UFOs.
	Trudeau's Bill 336 is an attack on democracies everywhere.
	Trudeau's Bill C10 is an attack.
	Everything Trudeau has been doing in office has been an attack on democracy.
	But that is to be expected from someone who has great admiration for the most anti-democracy of democracies.
	We shall not say the name.
	Okay, one more, one more.
	Election wizard.
	Breaking.
	U.S. launches airstrikes against Iran-backed militias targeted operational weapons and storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq.
	Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même.
	Okay, without further ado, with that said, Robert, how you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, let me see here.
	We look...
	If anyone didn't know us, they'd think I was the six-foot-tall guy and you were the 5 '6 guy, but...
	Just so everyone knows, Robert is much taller than me.
	I think the majority of the world is much taller than me, but you wouldn't know from this layout.
	Robert, how's it going?
	What's new on your end?
	Not much.
	If people see me checking occasionally on my phone, it's because I'm checking the live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So, first thing I should probably mention, we now have live stream.
	On Locals.
	And I did a live while fishing on the St. Lawrence River.
	The only problem is we have to figure out how Robert and I can get in on the same screen on Locals.
	Thus far, it's only one person.
	So if ever you see me streaming alone, it's not because Robert and I had a fight.
	And if Robert's streaming alone, we haven't had a fight.
	We get along perfectly, which is great.
	But we may go live separately just because that's all that we can do right now.
	And it's a great tool.
	Yeah, I'm working on that.
	Once it's going, the goal will be to have sort of sporadically throughout the week at 7 p.m. Eastern Time, a Bourbon with Barnes kind of live stream, and then a Breakfast with Barnes podcast that we're going to be launching sometime soon.
	But I got to figure out how to use the live streaming because technologically, not my skill set.
	It's actually surprisingly easy.
	That makes it sound even worse for me that I was able to do it.
	Just everyone out there, do not think there's any riff if either of us are live without the other.
	That's just the way it's set up right now.
	Hopefully we can go live there as well and do some serious exclusive streams of things we can't talk about.
	And speaking of things we can't talk about, Robert, let's just start with it because McAfee.
	For anybody who doesn't know what was going on, incidentally, shout out to Eric Hunley, Unstructured, who did, I don't know if it's one of the last interviews McAfee gave, but it's certainly one that's proving, it's prescient the word or relevant, where he said, and Eric put out a highlight, he is never going to pay one penny more of taxes.
	Taxation is theft.
	He'd paid over 50 million in taxes and was never going to do it again.
	Then, I forget if he was indicted before or after, but it's around the same time.
	He was indicted for tax evasion, tax avoision, if you ask Kemp Rockman.
	And what ended up happening?
	The extradition request was granted.
	He was being held.
	He was arrested in Spain.
	And we talked about this before, which we were saying, you know, if you're indicted, you maybe don't go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the United States.
	He was, a request for extradition was placed and ultimately granted.
	And I think it was the day that it was granted, Robert, he was found.
	I know what I'm inclined to think, but you have been right on so many things where you were taking a long shot being right.
	I'm going to wholeheartedly defer to what you think is going on here, and I know you have some thoughts.
	So it's a couple of things.
	McAfee faced two different indictments, one in the Southern District of New York for a kind of securities fraud that I thought was a real stretch, basically for him promoting cryptocurrencies and claiming he had inside benefits and things like that, that I thought was a real reach to try to claim that Southern District of New York had authority or jurisdiction over that, or that what he did was criminal.
	And then the other one was the tax evasion charges in Memphis, Tennessee.
	The state of Tennessee has the highest number of acquittals.
	Basically, McAfee is what the government used to call tax protesters.
	After all of the acquittals in the Snipes case, all the felonies, half the misdemeanors, the government decided that language wasn't good for them anymore.
	Because they said, man, that sounds like First Amendment activity.
	Yeah, maybe because that's what it is.
	So they changed it to tax deniers, making an obvious...
	Trying to compare them to Holocaust deniers is what they were trying to do with a little verbiage.
	It's like a bad George Carlin skit about the change of language.
	It went from calling things skittish after World War I to having a big, fancy, long post-traumatic stress disorder language by the 90s.
	But in Tennessee, highest number of acquittals in the country for tax protester cases is the state of Tennessee.
	Highest number of acquittals.
	Within Tennessee, it's the city of Memphis.
	So he was being, and I was going to be potentially one of his lawyers, at least in the tax case, once the extradition went through.
	So he told his family, he told his wife, he told people publicly, repeatedly on social media, while he was in custody, that he would not kill himself, and that if he ended up dead, it meant somebody whacked him.
	Now even, go ahead.
	No, because I'm just going to say, this is the Catch-22 I don't know if gaslighting is the right word, where the minute somebody says something like that, then it becomes already suspicious or suspect behavior in the first place, where they're in a point where they're talking about not doing that to themselves, which might mean that they're sufficiently troubled, that they have to make that public statement, or they think things that other people are going to say were delusional thoughts, that other people are coming to get them, so they have to say that.
	So just by making that statement, it's already going to justify to some...
	The conclusion that he did, in fact, do it to himself.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the one interpretation.
	The thing is...
	A couple of things.
	One is McAfee.
	So one, McAfee had good defenses.
	So there was no reason to tremendously fear these particular cases.
	It's not like it was a done deal, in my view, in either jurisdiction.
	They were pursuing novel interpretations of the law and the prosecution of them in New York and in Tennessee.
	It's called a good faith defense and a reliance defense, which we'll get into a little bit later on the Trump part of the reliance defense.
	In his part, in America, you cannot be put in prison for either debt or dissent.
	That means the mere fact you owe the government money doesn't mean you go to prison for taxes, and the mere fact that you disagree with the IRS about the application of the tax laws doesn't mean you go to prison.
	So Wesley Snipes was accused of saying far more problematic things in the public opinion perspective than McAfee had said.
	So McAfee had a robust defense on those charges.
	That's part one.
	Part two is he had been talking about this not only while he was in custody, But he'd been talking about this for more than a decade.
	People can go watch.
	He used to tell Alex Jones this repeatedly.
	He goes, you know, why am I not in the United States very often?
	It's very simple.
	I think they'll find an excuse to lock me up and I don't want to be found dead in a cell hanging from the cell.
	And he said, I think that's what they'll do to me.
	So he's been talking about this for more than 12 years.
	So, you know, he said this is the end game of what they want to do.
	That's at least what he was.
	And I think he thought by publicly stating it repeatedly.
	That would be its best deterrence from it occurring.
	But the Jeffrey Epstein case proved otherwise.
	So that's part two.
	Part three is he doesn't fit the personality of a suicidal person.
	Suicidal people are people who generally internalize blame.
	I've dealt with a lot of jail suicide cases, cases of wrongful suicide, cases where we suspect somebody else was involved, cases where the jail or prison failed to safely...
	Prevent the suicide including people involuntarily institutionalized relates to legal issues that Britney Spears is also facing currently.
	Which we'll get to.
	But in that context, McAfee did not fit the psychological profile of someone who internalized blame.
	Quite the opposite.
	Usually your grandiose personalities that promote themselves as much as he does are very rarely your suicide candidates.
	And then last but not least, these prisons and facilities, now I don't know the particular jail in Spain, but they are generally designed over the last 20 years to make it almost impossible for you to kill yourself.
	And one addendum to all of this, he had claimed that he had files on the Clintons.
	He had claimed he had files on powerful people.
	And the timing struck me as odd.
	He's suddenly so depressed that he whacks himself on the day he gets extradited.
	When he was bragging about his defenses, that just struck me as suspicious.
	It was all of a sudden when he's going to be in U.S. custody, if somebody wanted him dead, that was the time to do it once they knew he was coming back to U.S. custody.
	I'm going to...
	Actually, ask you on that before I get to what I was going to say.
	Why would that be the point?
	He's going to get extradited.
	They're going to bring him back.
	What greater risk would he be back in the United States that he had not already been either on his boat or in a Spanish prison?
	The belief that he would, now when he was actually facing trial, two risks.
	One is that they would no longer have, they may have had access to him in Spain in ways they did not believe they would have access to him in the United States.
	He might have gone to Memphis first rather than New York.
	New York's obviously under massive pressure had he gone to New York not to allow another high-profile suicide case.
	So that may have been problem one, access.
	Problem two may have been that they believe that he would, as a negotiating leverage, Use information he had to try to get out of any situation he currently faced.
	That may have been information he developed in the cryptocurrency markets because there's a lot of interesting people in those markets.
	It might not even be like deep state government type actors.
	It could just be other corrupt people that he knew who he could implicate as a negotiating leverage to get.
	Because the timing of it was always weird.
	The timing of indicting him.
	It's like he's in his mid-70s.
	Now is when you choose to indict him.
	And you sort of stack the charges from tax to the very questionable securities fraud case in order to be able to get him extradited.
	A lot of it seemed like their objective must have been something other than just him.
	So those would be the two potential reasons for the timing.
	Whereas I don't see him suddenly getting overwhelmingly depressed and killing himself because of it.
	So these are my thoughts, and they might be superficial or...
	Definitely not next level.
	I've known in the practice and in my life multiple people who have done this to themselves.
	And sometimes it's just obvious.
	Things are not going right.
	They're either mentally unwell and not taking medication or whatever.
	Other times it was as much of a shock as you could possibly imagine.
	And when I look at McAfee and he's...
	Call it a wild dog, but not in the insulting term.
	He's just a wild, free animal that now faces the prospect not only of being in prison for the rest of his life when he was on a yacht with a shotgun, living the life of an absolute gangster, for lack of a better word.
	Now he's facing the prospect of, if not the rest of his life in jail because of a conviction, at the very least, the rest of his life fighting the government who might, at the end of the day...
	Have the last laugh by seizing whatever cryptocurrencies, the millions that he might have and that he probably does have.
	And this is his last F you to the government.
	Someone who cannot possibly bear the idea of a leash of a cage.
	And the last F you is, you know, I've lived a good life and now I'm going to take my cryptocurrency and my millions with me and you're never going to see it, whereas you might have otherwise been able to seize it through whatever.
	Why would that be the superficial way of looking at it?
	I think a couple different components there.
	One is that he doesn't generally fit the profile of someone who commits suicide as part one.
	Part two, he constantly said he wouldn't do it and said if it happened, that meant somebody whacked him.
	And then third, he's 75. What he had publicly stated, and I believe this to be true for other reasons, he was very low on resources.
	So most of the cryptocurrency was already gone.
	So that wouldn't have been a particular risk for him.
	And this is a guy who always loved the limelight and loved the stage.
	And there had been no suicide attempts ever reported out of the Spanish jail.
	No suicide attempts ever before in his life.
	And he had other times where if he was crazy or where he was in high-stress situations.
	He was wanted in Belize and had to try to escape and all these different stories.
	He did say he had a personal vendetta against the Clintons and had sought out information because purportedly Hillary Clinton denied him access to an embassy when he was trying to escape some people trying to kill him.
	So it's like he's had all these opportunities to do this.
	And partially I just take him at his word, his family's word, who said that he had been saying for a dozen years, if you find me hanging in a cell, I didn't do it to myself.
	And now, I mean, There are those out there who incidentally don't believe that he actually did this, that he's still alive, that this is part of another plan.
	I will not call that the name that other people are calling it, because in the world in which we live, I guess there have been more absurd things that have actually been true.
	But what happens now?
	This is the end of it.
	Hopefully there'll be a meaningful inquest in Spain and we'll find out some answers.
	But if we don't, if we get another Epstein, Bill Barr-style cover-up, then that will increase my suspicions as to what took place here.
	No, it's like we haven't heard as to whether or not there were malfunctioning cameras, guards who were not checking in.
	I don't know where he was in Spain.
	I know people think they know of the prison that he was in.
	I don't want to venture a guess, but I would operate on the basis that the prisons in Spain...
	Or even less secure and less trustworthy than the ones in the States.
	Usually it's still hard to commit suicide in those facilities, but usually they're not as intense.
	It really depends on the facility, but they're usually not that brutal of a facility to be in.
	As to the theory that this was a big escape plan, there's always an outside chance of that, but I'd say it's pretty remote.
	Has there ever been a case like that in real life where there was either a faked or set up death that ended up being just a way to smuggle a person out?
	But why would they have to do that?
	He was being extradited anyhow.
	It would be totally useless to do that.
	Yeah, I mean, the only way I see that as credible is if they think McAfee himself orchestrated it.
	That he lied about not having any money left.
	That he bought off some guards.
	That if he was going to get extradited, that they would smuggle him out and tell everybody he was dead.
	Spain's not that kind of jurisdiction in general.
	I mean, there's some places I could see that.
	It's just Spain seems less likely.
	But you never know.
	I mean, it's not impossible.
	I have not heard of a historical example of it, but there probably is one out there somewhere.
	All right.
	Well, it's just another example, like rubbing it in the face of the general population that...
	You're not safe once the government sets its sights on you.
	You're not safe from yourself.
	And I don't know who's going to believe.
	Oh, that was what I was going to say.
	In the chat, people, let's just see what the general consensus is.
	One, he did this to himself.
	And two, he did not do this to himself.
	Someone did this to him.
	Let's see what the consensus is.
	I expect to see a lot of twos, but I think there should be a fair share of ones.
	I mean, I think what I believe is that he could not foresee the rest of his life being...
	Anything less than what it was from before.
	And it's true.
	I don't know about what resources he had left.
	I was operating on the basis that he had enough that he didn't want to see the government take it and they would have the last laugh.
	But who knows?
	Let's see what we got in the chat.
	Who says three mystics?
	Come on!
	Okay, well, look.
	We go from one imprisonment to demise to the next imprisonment and demise.
	This one has not yet, and hopefully it will not, end in...
	A McAfee or an Epstein.
	And if it does, it's going to be even more suspicious given the hell that Julian Assange has been put through over the last decade.
	But let's get to Julian Assange and some recent revelations about the reliability of the indictment that was used to attempt to extradite him and was used in court proceedings in the UK.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Julian Assange, where do we start?
	WikiLeaks founder dumped a bunch of...
	Credible information on a number of issues, including American intelligence in Iraq and exposing war crimes being performed.
	From my understanding, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think I'm wrong, they never published one inaccurate or falsified document or email or piece of information.
	Julian Assange was indicted on...
	What was it?
	It was computer charges, basically having conspired with Chelsea Manning or asked Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain computer records, which were the records that Chelsea Manning had communicated to Julian Assange.
	And so he was indicted on this in the United States.
	Apparently the Obama administration was looking into doing it, never really got very far.
	It went to the next level under the Trump administration.
	He was indicted.
	They made a request for extradition.
	Which was denied by the UK court, but the UK court relied on this indictment, which then had become a superseded indictment, which contained allegations to the effect that Julian Assange had not only conspired with Chelsea Manning to request for unlawful access to a computer to get these documents, but had done so previously, in the past, with another individual whose name I'm not even going to try to pronounce, an Icelandic guy.
	And the courts relied on that.
	Those allegations in the indictment, which were that Julian Assange had done this before with other people, therefore it was more plausible that he had done it again with Chelsea Manning.
	Turns out that this witness is basically nothing shy of a repeat, remorseless criminal of the worst kind, engaged in assault-type behavior with underage individuals, pathological, sociopathic criminal, thief.
	Liar, forger, and now he sat down with an Icelandic news outlet to explain the fact that he had basically fabricated these allegations for immunity that was in fact given to him by, if I'm not mistaken, it's the Trump appointees in the Department of Justice.
	And now we're finding out that basically the indictment is probably totally falsified, if not materially falsified, to have gotten him indicted and requested for extradition.
	In the first place.
	Did I miss anything and take it from there?
	Yeah, just one addendum to that is that he was working as a FBI informant while he was doing some of the illicit hacking activities.
	So it was one extensive, expansive entrapment effort against Assange at the behest and the behalf of the FBI, including hacking into U.S. databases.
	So that raises some very interesting questions.
	I mean, some of these people are connected to other, there's some other hacking cases that they're connected to that raise questions, raises questions about what exactly happened in certain respects in 2016, a lot of other things.
	The FBI's complicity, this was Mueller who was behind this at the time, and Mueller has a long history of this kind of activity, and no shock that he's using another pedophile as his source.
	Mueller loved pedophiles as a source.
	Epstein was likely an informant for him.
	Go back and look at the Asimov case in San Francisco that was very peculiarly hushed up by Mueller.
	A lot of those files disappeared and were returned back to the person, which is shocking.
	We'll have Eliza Blue on in a couple of weeks for a sidebar, and she's one of the leading advocates against human trafficking in the United States, follows a lot of these cases.
	We'll talk about the Facebook case a little later in that regard, too.
	But Mueller was one of the biggest people complicit in this kind of activity, and this guy ends up in the middle of it.
	And maybe most interesting will relate to our January 6th cases.
	There were some people out there running around saying it's not possible for the government to ever hide an informant as an unindicted co-conspirator.
	But if you read the second superseding indictment...
	This guy was referred to as a teenager.
	And then later on, he only has one other reference.
	If you understand where it is, it's as an unindicted co-conspirator.
	But I thought they never did that.
	And just to clarify, Robert, for everyone, he was referred to as teenager as a defined term, even though he was 28. And by country, I think, what was it?
	By NATO instead of the country.
	It was not an attempt to conceal the identity, but it certainly would mislead people into thinking, That this 28-year-old, who, while being the informant for the FBI, was being given immunity for crimes he was committing contemporaneously with being the informant.
	I do wonder, if it doesn't already happen, when do these informants, when does the FBI become active participants and active, not entrappers even, but the active participants in the criminal activity that they are supposed to be stopping?
	That's basically the upshot of his allegations is that he did a lot of this stuff at their behest and behalf, at their request.
	So that, you know, these extraordinary, you know, some of the allegations were just purely fabricated out of thin air.
	Other allegations were things that he was doing at their request, not at Julian Assange's request.
	So it is just one more evidence.
	I mean, all the other charges against Assange were deeply problematic under the First Amendment.
	All along, even the Obama administration ultimately conceded that.
	They called it the, quote, New York Times problem.
	And the only reason he ever got indicted is because of the many, many idiots Donald Trump put in power.
	This is a place where Trump deserves criticism, frankly.
	And one of those people in this particular space was Rick Grinnell, who did do a lot of good work in certain spaces, but not in this space.
	He helped orchestrate.
	I mean, he was a guy who was begging to be on Mitt Romney's neocon team.
	He was rejected because he was gay.
	And then Grinnell was...
	And at times, Grinnell did good work while he was at ODNI, but he did a lot of questionable work in this capacity.
	He helped orchestrate the...
	Arrest and extradition of Assange.
	The DOJ, under both Sessions and Bill Barr, orchestrated the indictment of him.
	Pompeo was one of the huge people pushing for it.
	And Mike Pence helped derange it, including effectively, in my view, bribing the country of Ecuador.
	And as we saw this week with people like Milley, Trump kept trusting the wrong people when choosing people, and he needs to show a capacity to improve in that respect.
	It's one of my few criticisms of Trump, but it's a deserved one, in my view.
	And just to explain to everyone what the New York Times problem was, is that if they were going to indict Julian Assange and if they were going to go after him for what he did, the main issue was they would, in theory, have to go after the New York Times for the same reasons, for having published the same information, the same documentation, the same stories.
	And so the question was, how do you go after one political adversary for having done the same thing as your political ally has done?
	And they went after it by basically really tailoring, for lack of a better word, that particular accusation, the charge against Julian Assange as being one of instigating Chelsea Manning to commit a law, to commit a crime, to communicate the information to him.
	So that was how they could justify going after Assange while allowed.
	The New York Times a pass.
	The problem is they're criminalizing.
	Basically, anybody in the press or any investigator who requests a whistleblower blow the whistle can now be put into prison for life.
	I mean, that's the effect of it, because that's what they're criminalizing.
	And that's why it's so deeply problematic.
	A lot of constitutional scholars have said this indictment violates core First Amendment freedoms and is the greatest threat to a free press and an investigative press, ordinary, everyday investigative folks, ever.
	Because, I mean, think about it.
	I mean, everybody at some point that's in that space is going to request, hey, tell me what the story is.
	You know, like this good book by Seymour Hersh, The Killing of Ozama Bin Laden.
	A gift of a local subscriber, by the way, which many thanks to him for.
	Won't disclose his name or anything else like that because of maybe where he works.
	But Seymour Hersh has disclosed more scandals than anybody.
	They would love to put the Seymour Hershes of the world in prison or threaten that so that there are no more Seymour Hershes or Julian Assange's.
	And that's why this prosecution was always deeply offensive.
	What Julian Assange did was disclose government secrets.
	It reminds me of the movie Sneakers, Seacrest Industries.
	Too many secrets.
	And that's how the corruption of the state survives.
	It survives off of secrets that Julian Assange recognized.
	And that's what he did more to expose than any single human being in human history.
	And that's why they want to make an example of him by making his life as utterly miserable as possible based on these bogus charges.
	But classic prosecutors, they were in trouble with their extradition, so they fabricated an entire second superseding indictment against him.
	And it's deeply disturbing.
	But, you know, people will be, hopefully this will be further information in the court of public opinion that will motivate the British courts to affirm the denial of extradition and finally free Julian Assange.
	Now, Aaron asked a good question here.
	Robert, what is the common thread in Trump's crappy appointments?
	Is there a common thread of...
	Yeah, deferring to Bushites and the Federalist Society types.
	By the way, many people told him he was making the wrong choice, but he just didn't listen.
	He used to say, I hired the best people before he got to the White House.
	That was true.
	After he got there, he hired some of the worst people.
	There needs to be more criticism of it because, frankly, he hasn't heard enough of it.
	Especially if he's going to run again in 2024 or earlier.
	So the issue with Assange, where is he now?
	Because the extradition was denied, but he has still...
	They won't give him bail pending the appeal.
	So he's still in one of the...
	He's in severe isolation in one of the worst prisons in the world.
	And this is shocking because we've talked about it before, but the judge denied extradition on the basis of health issues, the trauma that it would have on his being.
	And meanwhile, is still keeping him locked up in perhaps one of the worst conditions possible in the UK.
	What does anyone make of that in terms of sense?
	That they want him to Epstein himself.
	You know, but that they don't have enough.
	But it's not working.
	They want him to go out the McAfee way.
	I mean, that's a reasonable interpretation.
	You describe something as torture.
	So much torture that you're not going to allow him to extradite.
	Be extradited, but then you turn around and continue to torture him for years while the appeal pins?
	What other interpretation is it?
	Someone says it was him listening to Jaron Kushner.
	Kushner didn't recommend 90% of these people.
	Kushner was not the key problem.
	It was a source of long grievance, and some of us didn't complain enough, frankly, including myself, during the time it was there.
	And, you know, watching Bill Barr do his routine has been a reminder how, you know, more of us should have said more.
	There was, hey, don't worry, Trump knows what he's doing.
	Nope.
	In some of these cases, he had no clue what he was doing.
	All right.
	And so, what's the timeline on the Assange appeal?
	Because he's, other than the fact that he's been in there in some form of detainment, detention for over close to a decade now, what is the appeal process for the extradition proceedings in the UK?
	I mean, they've just been sitting on it, the appeals court, as far as I know.
	But what I think it will do is it will put more pressure on the Biden Justice Department to whether they really want to pursue this, whether they want to go down in flames over this, potentially, and it'll put more pressure on the British courts.
	And so this is where the court of public opinion constantly matters, and credit to that Icelandic journalist who just dug into part of the story and uncovered it.
	I'm going to send the link.
	I'll tweet the link.
	We'll share it in the community tab and on Locals.
	I forgot to do it before.
	It's an amazing piece that you just don't see here.
	I had to Google.
	It was the article of the day at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Good.
	So Locals has gotten already.
	I'll just send it out on Twitter.
	I had to Google the law publication to make sure it wasn't illegitimate in the eyes of the mainstream.
	It's legitimate.
	It's very serious.
	Yeah.
	No, no.
	It's thorough.
	But you appreciate now that, you know, at first, and for anyone who doesn't know the history, they tried to get Assange on allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.
	I forget the term now for removing or breaking a condom during the act.
	There's a word, stealthing, which is what he was accused of having done in Sweden.
	And that was the basis they were trying to extradite him from the UK to Sweden, where he, in theory, thought he was going to be extradited from Sweden to the United States.
	Eventually, you know, they dropped those charges and they alleged it was because of the period of time for which he was out of the country.
	They couldn't conduct an investigation.
	And then you have this indictment with the superseding indictment coming in, alleging him, alleging him of having conspired with Chelsea Manning.
	And now you find out that basically the superseding indictment was based on admitted lies from a recognized potato file.
	Compulsive criminal, there's no other way to describe it, who was given immunity for those allegations by the FBI for whom he was acting as an informant while committing crimes on what can only be described as a crime spree.
	There's your faith in the system, people.
	And try not to get jaded as you learn that this is how it works the older you get.
	Okay.
	Just one more illustration.
	And again, hidden as a person identified.
	He was the only, and for certain parts of the indictment, the only other co-conspirator, unindicted co-conspirator, and he was acting as an informant during that time period, which Andrew McCarthy and a bunch of other people said couldn't possibly happen.
	Well, on the ugly subject of adults doing things they're not supposed to be doing with underage people, I guess we go to the Facebook decision which just came out of the Supreme Court of Texas.
	Was it the appeals level?
	It was the appeals level.
	A lot of the appeals courts in Texas are not that great.
	The Texas Supreme Court, though, is generally a pretty, very constitutionally oriented court.
	There were three judges on the panel, right?
	I thought there were more than that.
	Usually there's, I think, I want to say seven.
	Okay, no, but there was more than one.
	That's why I did realize that I presumed it was appeals.
	So for anybody who doesn't know, I think there's three or four plaintiffs suing Facebook for damages and other issues resulting from the fact that Facebook apparently...
	I don't know if it's knowingly or unknowingly, but was allowing profiles of people who basically got these young people involved in sexual exploitation.
	Human trafficking, basically.
	The allegation is that Facebook knowingly profited from human trafficking.
	And in fact, I think it's Eliza Blue, but some others have also pointed out that Facebook's one of the primary means of human trafficking around the world.
	Well, and that is the issue.
	I guess it has to be knowingly because these individuals created profiles, friended the people.
	Yeah, given the law that they enforced, knowingly is required.
	Okay, yep.
	And it makes sense because they were basically saying that these profiles were catered to and tailored to trafficking, human trafficking.
	And so these three individuals or four individuals are suing Facebook.
	Sure as Sugar raises the Section 230 immunity defense.
	They move for a mandamus to enjoin the court to dismiss the lawsuit on Section 230.
	I think that was the procedure they went with.
	Bottom line, the Texas court said, no go.
	The Section 230 does not create a lawless no-man's land, and they're going to get to move forward with their lawsuit.
	It's an interesting thing because...
	We know what I think about Section 230.
	We know what we've discussed about Section 230.
	This seems like it was the very thing that Section 230 was intended to provide immunity for, to the extent that Facebook was doing its best to remove and eliminate unlawful content from its platform.
	So the issue here has to be that Facebook knowingly allowed it despite warnings, despite whatever.
	And I guess if they profited from it, that's some form of tacit recognition that they knew what was going on.
	And so the court basically said no, but does this simplify any lawsuit against a platform to say that, just throw in the allegation that you knowingly did it to escape 230 dismissal?
	The big part of the legal aspect of the ruling was they said Section 230 only immunizes social media for what other people do on their social media.
	It does not immunize what the big tech does itself.
	And so this goes to a range of claims that are out there, whether it's about censorship, whether it's about defamation, or whether it's about facilitation of human trafficking or other illicit conduct.
	And that was the key component.
	They said, look, Section 230 is solely about immunizing big tech, not being responsible for what other people do on their platforms.
	It was never about immunizing big tech for what big tech chooses to do on its platforms.
	And that has ramifications across the board.
	Okay, well, I mean, and now the idea is they're allowed to proceed.
	Is there going to be an appeal of their dismissal of the mandamus?
	And why do they proceed by mandamus and not motion to dismiss?
	Is it a procedural thing in Texas?
	Procedural in Texas, they don't have a right of interlocutory appeal in most cases in Texas.
	So the only means by which you can try to appeal prior to trial in Texas is via, by writ of mandate in most cases.
	That's not true in anti-slap cases, but it's true in most other, in electronic media, some other cases, but it is in these cases.
	And so that's why, that it's a unique procedure to Texas.
	Usually very hard to get courts to pay attention to it, but because of how big this case was.
	The Texas Supreme Court stepped in and took it.
	And they still said that Facebook couldn't be sued for their negligence and a lot of other things, a lot of common law torts.
	But Texas has a specific statute that makes it illegal to knowingly traffic or profit from trafficking in human beings for certain illicit activities.
	And they said that statute is outside the control of Section 230.
	So they could appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	On grounds that it's a federal law that's being interpreted and federal supremacy is at issue, but they would be ill-advised to pursue this fact pattern before that court.
	And now, for anyone who's wondering, they're going to proceed to discovery, I presume, at this point, given the state of the file.
	What would be the incriminating information that they would be going after and hoping to discover in discovery coming from the Facebook side of things?
	Oh, my guess is there's a lot of incriminating information because this is not new.
	I mean, this is why Twitter's facing a comparable suit in California on this.
	They've been warned for more than a decade that this is happening.
	They've been told how it's happening by organizations that fight this.
	My guess is what you will find, some of it's alleged in the complaint, that they knew all about this and chose profits over protection.
	Private profits over protecting the public.
	Despite, as you note, the whole pretext of Section 230.
	Was to stop this kind of trafficking from occurring and immunize them for doing so.
	From stopping the trafficking.
	Not immunize them for profiting from it.
	It is...
	I just saw someone said Barnes is the ultimate black pill.
	But you're not.
	Barnes is the...
	No.
	But you realize that these institutions, these...
	I'm going to call them monopolies because they are monopolies for the field in which they're operating.
	They have this immunity.
	And are exploiting of this immunity to continue profiting from what they know is happening on their platforms.
	You know that it's been happening on Twitter for the longest time.
	I actually had no idea what was going on on Twitter.
	And I call it a black pill or whatever.
	I discovered what was going on on Twitter, to some extent, openly.
	It was through Howard Stern and him talking about a specific issue that I said, there's no way that this is going on on Twitter.
	And it is.
	And you have...
	It going on on Facebook.
	And at the same time, while they are profiting off of this, claiming immunity from it, they're acting as arbiters and doctors banning people for other issues and then claiming the moral high ground as arbiters and doing what they're doing while doing it as if to somehow conceal what they know is going on.
	And it really is the disgusting thing that the people who are doing the worst things in the world always are the most vocal about the good things that they're doing.
	And don't anyone accuse me of hashtag confession through projection because it doesn't work that way when I know that this is going on.
	This is what's going on with Zuckerberg and all of these guys who are pretending to be the saviors of humanity, preventing Trump from having an account because he's instigating violence, doing what they're doing and profiting from what they know is going on.
	It couldn't be more disgusting if it tried.
	It's beyond supervillainry because even the supervillain...
	You know, sort of rubs his hands, or her hands, if we want to be fair about it, and takes pride in their evil.
	These guys are, like, cloaking it in benevolence, and it's just over the top.
	So, I mean, it's great it gets to move forward, and the idea that you have to say it's great that these people get to pursue justice against perhaps the greatest evildoers in modern history, that they get to pursue it, is the victory, is itself also something of a depressing thing to have to say.
	You want to finish up on that one before we move on to another thing?
	No, but here's the white pill part of it.
	Big tech is in trouble in the court of public opinion, and increasingly that's translating to the courts of law.
	I mean, they're facing an extraordinary number of antitrust claims, an extraordinary number of these kind of human trafficking involvement claims, facing claims of illicitly accessing biometric and private identity information and other...
	jurisdictions facing information that they stole and monetized kids information against their parents consent.
	I mean, there's a new suit filed almost every week somewhere in America by a sophisticated actor, sophisticated legal actor, bringing a legal claim that has above average chances of moving forward.
	And this is just one more.
	And most importantly, it's a case that establishes a precedent of universal application in other contexts that says big tech is only immune for what other people do, not for what they do.
	And it's long overdue that they be held liable for what they do.
	I think they'll come to rue the day they decided to censor the President of the United States and the things that that triggered in the court of public opinion.
	Let me just see what this is.
	Don't give you, David.
	FFS, you like to dish and therefore...
	Okay, this might not be about me because there is no one on earth who's going to accuse me of being entitled Snowflake.
	Someone had asked in the chat, Robert, how does Facebook profit off of this?
	Oh, a bunch of ways.
	A bunch of ways.
	I mean, people will be shocked by the details.
	So the, I mean...
	In my view, it was always a little problematic to allow people under 18 to have access to social media in certain respects.
	There were always issues with that.
	They promised they wouldn't monetize their private information and commodify their private information without parental consent, and they promised they wouldn't be victimized by traffickers.
	Both have occurred and both have occurred in spades.
	And that raises serious concerns about what...
	The more people find out about big tech, the more they're going to be shocked by it.
	And I think that's why big tech is in much bigger...
	Big tech thinks because it's bought off a bunch of politicians in Washington and a bunch of lawyers and academics that they'll be immune forever.
	And they should be waking up to the fact that it's less and less and less and less every day.
	Major legislation going through Congress right now to break them up.
	Things like this can only help.
	And just so everybody appreciates, and the person who asked that question, legitimate question, it's not like they're selling ads to the potato files.
	It's not like they're selling ads to the individuals.
	It's that they're gathering the data on underage people and then marketing that and targeting those underage individuals, either for ads or just by having collected their data when they weren't supposed to.
	And we saw it with YouTube, and that's what led to the whole COPPA issue and the big fine.
	And they get slapped with a fine that represents a day's worth of profit, if that.
	When they've been illegally collecting data on miners, and this is what it lends itself to, other people exploiting the collection of that data in order to target and exploit, but that's how they made the money in the first place.
	And so it's not like they're selling ads to individuals who are running ads for trafficking.
	It's just that YouTube, Facebook, Google have collected the information on these miners illegally, by and large.
	And then have marketed that information in ways that end up harming the miners.
	So, I mean, it's more indirect, but it's equally culpable, especially when you know what happens when you do that which you were not supposed to do for the reasons for which you were not supposed to do it, those reasons being this.
	All right, where do we go to from here, Robert?
	I guess, while we're on the black pill discussion, the system being profoundly corrupt.
	Let's go into Rudy Giuliani, because I don't know if anybody disagrees with this, even those who hate Giuliani.
	I did get an invitation to have a discussion from someone who sounds like they might be on the Giuliani deserved it bandwagon.
	I'm not sure yet, and if and when we have this discussion, we'll discuss.
	But for anybody who doesn't know now, Giuliani had his law license only in New York, but I'm going to ask you some other questions on this.
	Suspended.
	In the interim of a pending complaint that was brought for statements he made before court, public statements, in the context of the 2020 election contestation, representation of Donald Trump, AGC, which was the Attorney Grievance Committee, filed a complaint against him, and they moved on an expedited basis.
	Because it's such an urgent situation.
	I don't even know how active his practice is, which is one question.
	But they moved to have his license suspended urgently, pending the final adjudication on the complaint.
	And it was granted and confirmed on appeal.
	And that appeal decision is, I say it with respect to the courts, it's rubbish.
	It was arguing from a conclusion and not towards one, and the justification in there was boilerplate, I've already drafted this, it didn't matter what the evidence was, we were going to come to this conclusion anyhow.
	First question first, do you know the extent of Giuliani's practice in law in the first place at this point in his life?
	Almost none of his, to give you an example, other than his one appearance in the federal court in Pennsylvania, prior to that time period, he hadn't appeared in court since 1992.
	So he's not a very active lawyer, at least on the litigation side that I'm aware of.
	And I don't think, and to my knowledge, he didn't have any cases pending in court, was no longer representing either the campaign or the president.
	I mean, those matters had already been wrapped up and resolved.
	And so there was simply no, which will go to one of the most problematic aspects of this ruling, is his, to my knowledge, his legal practice has been extremely limited for a long time.
	Thank you.
	I guess, second question, does this go any higher?
	Is this worth an appeal to a higher level or is this precedent going to stand as the new standard for suspending a lawyer's license pending an ethics complaint?
	I...
	My understanding is he's going to continue to contest it because this was an interim ruling, so there's always a final one later, and that he's going to contest it in the interim, and it may even bring a federal civil rights claim as well.
	Dershowitz has encouraged him to do so, and I hope he will contest it because the greatest important impact of this case...
	It's not about Giuliani.
	Giuliani doesn't care too much about court or public opinion.
	He'll fight this to a certain degree, but he's at where he's at age-wise, and his practice is not, as we've noted, very active.
	He doesn't need his law license for much.
	This is about setting an example through Giuliani and setting a precedent, and the precedent is very perilous at multiple levels.
	First, this reflects the broader problem of licensure in general.
	I don't agree with the idea of licensing lawyers.
	All it does is provide an excuse to artificially inflate payments to lawyers by creating fake monopolies that are unjustified and unwarranted in the first place.
	So that's problem number one.
	My view is, you know, have truth in advertising.
	And so tell people whether you have this background or that background, this approval or that approval, but let the people decide who's going to advocate for them in court, not the courts.
	Problem number two is our entire licensure system is corrupt.
	And the reason why it's corrupt is it completely ignores the entire point of balances and checks and balances in our system of government.
	Who decides who licenses lawyers in America?
	Judges.
	Who decides whether those lawyers face executive enforcement action?
	Judges.
	Then who gets to adjudicate whether or not their own rules and their own enforcement procedures?
	Judges.
	And who, by the way, would be better equipped to expose judicial corruption anywhere in America than lawyers?
	But what lawyer is going to have the motivation to do that?
	I'll just give one example.
	I was a young lawyer in Southeast Tennessee, had a case in a public interest law firm that the head of the public interest law firm was doing.
	It was a horrific case.
	A young kid who described in detail how his father beat him and described how his father tried to get him to beat his younger sister.
	And yet the judge came back and ordered unsupervised visitation to force the kid to be in his custody, even though he begged the judge not to have that happen.
	And I was enraged when I found out about the verdict.
	And the lawyer explained to me, you know, he goes, Robert, the judge has a sleeping disorder.
	He has a health disorder.
	He falls asleep on the bench.
	He fell asleep during two-thirds of the trial.
	And I was like, what the?
	And I was like, well, this needs to be exposed.
	And he's like, here's what's going to happen if you go out and make a big deal out of this.
	Every judge in this county is going to hate you.
	Many judges in the state will hear about you.
	Other powerful lawyers are going to dislike you.
	And they will take it out on your clients.
	And over time, they will work to discredit you, demonize you, and ultimately try to disbar you.
	And that was the day I decided I'm never going to limit my legal practice to one jurisdiction.
	I'm going to live in a place I don't practice, and I'm going to have law licenses in a whole bunch of places, and I'm going to come in like a mercenary and do what I need to do and go home.
	And the only thing that's priority is my client's interest, and then after that, I'm going to do what I think is just.
	And hopefully the two align as much as possible and as practicable.
	But that's a problem with our system.
	And this decision is deeply problematic on top of that.
	Because they did two things.
	One of them very sneaky.
	If being dishonorable and deceptive is grounds for being defrocked and disbarred, that needs to happen to every single one of those judges on the New York Court of Appeals.
	Because what they did was lie.
	Now what's nice is, it's nice to be a judge.
	You know, it's sort of like Mel Brooks.
	It's good to be the king.
	You know, you're the king when you're involved with law licenses as a judge.
	You get to lie and nobody can sue you for it.
	And look at what happened by the media.
	These judges put out a lie that says there was uncontroverted evidence.
	I'll get to how that's not true.
	But the media then gets to repeat it because the media is reporting what judges found.
	The media is now also immune from the lie.
	So now nobody can be sued for the lie.
	And this mythology will build up that Rudy Giuliani was found by a court to have deliberately lied about a bunch of things when Rudy Giuliani has not even had a hearing yet.
	None of this has been subject to cross-examination.
	None of this has been subject to discovery.
	None of this has been subject to depositions.
	None of this has been subject to a trial.
	Nothing has been admitted in a manner proper to an actual evidentiary hearing.
	So when they say there's uncontroverted evidence, There's a bunch of stuff that's controverted, and none of it's really evidence.
	But judges get away with lying.
	And here's my thing.
	Someone on Twitter, I don't know where I saw the comment, said, you can't lie in court.
	Suspension justified.
	And this is what people don't understand, the distinction between being wrong, and that's arguable.
	But let's just take for granted that Giuliani was wrong.
	Factually incorrect.
	There's a difference between being factually incorrect and lying.
	And one involves a state of fact, the other involves a state of intent.
	And when people say that Giuliani lied, it presupposes his own knowledge of the falsity of the statements, which the falsity itself is disputable, but even if we assume that the statements turned out to be false, to say that he lied to the point where he has his license suspended...
	It really makes a leap in terms of the assumption of his intent and knowledge when he made those statements.
	Now, I'm looking at the judges, and I'm not going to say they lied, because it doesn't matter.
	Lying or not, when they say that it was uncontrovertible evidence that what Giuliani said was false, therefore his interim suspension is justified, I have a bigger problem if they believe what they're saying.
	Because if they're lying, at the very least, I know they're dishonest.
	But if they believe what they're saying, They're stupid.
	And to say that it was uncontroverted is itself factually and demonstrably at the very least unverifiable because it has not been put to that test yet.
	And the idea that Giuliani said some dead people voted?
	We have cases where there have been people admitting having voted for their deceased parent and regretting it.
	So to say that it's a totally bald-faced lie?
	is incorrect, to the point where it could justify a suspension on the merits is a separate thing, but on an interim basis, that he's such a danger to the practice of law, his limited active practice of law, that they could justify the suspension of his license in the interim.
	It sets a standard that, like you say, Robert, I don't think it's directed at Giuliani, it's directed at everyone else, and it's directed at people on the political aisle, because we can think of a few examples of attorneys who have done To my knowledge, he's finally been at least suspended.
	You know, it took forever for them to initiate proceedings.
	Then the proceedings were stayed.
	Even after he was indicted, the California State Bar site now lists him as being inactive or suspended.
	But it's not clear.
	I have not found evidence of a final adjudication of its department.
	Put it that way.
	I mean, I have a current case in California with a lawyer who ended up paying millions of dollars because of his efforts to defraud my clients that the California State Bar still hasn't taken any action on.
	So, you know, it's extraordinary.
	So the idea that this is the hypocritical application is also another problem.
	But going further and deeper into this.
	My view is if courts were honest, they would continue a tradition that the deemsters in the Caribbean jurisdictions do.
	If you go back and read old Supreme Court cases, U.S. or state Supreme Court cases from the 19th century, you often have to wait to the very bottom to actually get to the ruling because there was this old obligation on courts, still followed by deemsters in Caribbean jurisdictions in particular, where they have to list.
	They have a ministerial obligation.
	to identify all the factual and legal arguments by both sides before they get to their own conclusion.
	Ask yourself, why did courts scratch that tradition?
	Why did they need to scrap it?
	Is it because they wanted to lie about what some of the arguments are?
	Is it because they wanted to create fake and false fact patterns to mislead people into what the patterns is?
	I tell people right away, never believe a court's rendition of the facts.
	Never believe a court's rendition of the procedural arguments because I've seen them lie repeatedly.
	When courts go back to that old tradition, that old common law tradition, then I'll believe what they can later say in the decision.
	But until then, there's more evidence that these judges lied than Giuliani did.
	And case in point, I will not say that the judges lie, but I will say that they selectively misrepresented or got wrong factually the summary of the facts.
	Michael Flynn, when they kept repeating the having pleaded guilty two times before two different judges, without explaining the context that we got into in some detail, without explaining how...
	The judge had to recuse himself and whether or not the guilty plea in front of a judge who subsequently recused himself for conflict of interest may not be a bona fide legitimate confession of guilt.
	Yeah, the judges will summarize the facts in accordance with the conclusion to which they've already come, and good luck on the citizenry to determine what facts were omitted in the summary of the facts, but for the fact that I had been following the Flynn case for months.
	And I knew when something was missing just by reading the summaries, I wouldn't have known.
	And I'm probably not more educated, I'm just more informed on that subject than 95% of the people out there.
	Yeah, when you read the summary of the facts, you're never going to know what was left out of it.
	In as much as when I edit a video, no one's ever going to know what I didn't put in that video.
	So it's nuts.
	But the idea that they are looking at Giuliani and said that what he did...
	Poses such a danger that the interim suspension of his license is warranted.
	Kline Smith, by the way, before I forget, do we know if he's been disbarred, suspended, or sanctioned by the Bar Society for having modified a document, falsified a document that was submitted to the FISA court in order to obtain a renewal of a FISA warrant?
	Has he been sanctioned that we know of?
	Not to my knowledge.
	And most federal prosecutors who are caught even by courts doing bad acts are never disciplined.
	A study found that out of state and federal prosecutors that courts had found engaged in deliberate wrongful conduct, out of 2,000 such cases, only two had ever faced any form of disciplinary action.
	So, I mean, that's the nature of it.
	Now, before we get into some other Rudy Giuliani problems with this case, Just as a factual issue, to give one example, they only identify one factual statement he made to a court that they find problematic, and it's deeply ironic.
	I'd like to see Nate the lawyer do a follow-up on this, because one of his points about the election lawsuits is that Rudy Giuliani admitted in court that his claims were not fraud claims.
	Well, guess what the New York court disciplined Rudy for?
	They said that he said that there were fraud claims, and that that was what was untrue.
	So they directly refute an entire media statement and claim it was a lie because he said it was fraud claimed.
	Well, which is it?
	Was the media lying all along when they said that Rudy said he wasn't pursuing a fraud claim?
	Or is the New York Court of Appeals lying when they say otherwise?
	And by the way, as to that point, the only point Rudy made in the court proceedings was he said this was by process of a fraudulent process and that these laws came about.
	But he wasn't bringing a conventional common law fraud claim that required pleading with particularity.
	Those are two totally different things.
	And the court was completely, New York court, completely misleading about this.
	That transitioned to one of the biggest problems of this, the precedent they're trying to set here, which is they are trying to punish lawyers for the statements they make outside of court that don't specifically relate to a witness or juror or anyone else.
	So the rules have traditionally been interpreted, supposed to be interpreted this way, so that you're only prohibited as a lawyer or you can only be punished by the bar, which is really by the courts.
	People get confused by that because they hear the bar and they think it's like the American Bar Association.
	They don't have any power of a licensure.
	This is almost exclusively courts in every state.
	You might have a bar that's an adjunct to the courts or employed by the courts, but it's all done by the judges.
	The boys in black robes.
	The boys and girls in black robes.
	And by the way, when they say you can't lie in court, yeah, there's one person who can lie in court.
	The one that's wearing the black robes.
	He's got the gavel.
	They can lie in court.
	Good luck trying to get a remedy for that.
	Because guess who gets to discipline them?
	Guess who gets to investigate them?
	Oh, they themselves!
	Isn't that nice?
	It's good to be the king.
	They should just wear a black robe rather than a crown when they're saying that.
	But the other problem with this is...
	And they play games with the nexus of this.
	So at the beginning of the case, they talk about how we're only looking at what Rudy said and his capacity as a lawyer for Trump.
	But very quickly, they get away from everything that actually happened in court because this is critical.
	No court has found in those court proceedings that Rudy did anything wrong.
	That Pennsylvania court didn't sanction him at all.
	Well, that's what I was going to say.
	They're getting into a trial of another trial wherein, even in that original trial, As far as I understood it, he was never sanctioned, reprimanded, or anything.
	And so they come in now and they are basically assessing the evidence that was adduced before other judges, which is like, I can't think of an example, an analogy, but basically they're two steps removed from what actually happened, sanctioning on the basis of what they think happened in those courts, where he was not even sanctioned for what he did in those courts.
	Robert, while you take this, I'm going to go get a dog so he stops barking.
	But carry on on that thought, please.
	Yeah, so about 90%.
	Well, actually, 99%, really, of what they complain about are statements Rudy made in the court of public opinion, not the courts of law.
	And what the ethics rules talk about is you can't make false representations to third parties.
	What they mean by that third party's provision is they're thinking about, or what they claim to be, is witnesses, jurors.
	So if you say something outside of court...
	But it's meant to impact the legal proceeding.
	Let's say you trick someone into signing something away.
	You suborn perjury.
	You extort somebody.
	Those are things that happen outside of the court proceedings, but they relate to, they have a nexus to legal proceedings.
	That's supposed to be the limit.
	There are no accusations of that against Rudy whatsoever.
	Because this is unique.
	No court filed this claim with the New York Attorney General, the New York Attorney Grievance Committee.
	No client filed it.
	No, to my knowledge, no witness filed it.
	This is them acting on their own sua sponte to target someone they don't like politically.
	It's why Dershowitz was so outraged by it right out of the gate.
	And of course, he disagreed sharply with Rudy on a bunch of political issues, including the election.
	So that's one of the big core problems, is their attempt to expand the rules to say, as a lawyer, we now get to govern everything you say.
	And initially, they try to limit it by saying, oh, we're only looking at it when you're doing it in your capacity as a lawyer, even though they're defining that to mean any public statement you make at all concerning any client or any case.
	But then the end of the case reveals they're not even limiting it to that because they say we have to immediately suspend him because he keeps talking about this issue.
	But he's no longer doing it in a legal capacity.
	There is no pending case.
	There is no existing client.
	Their goal is to basically punish speech they don't like and to use their licensure control to do so and to set a precedent with Rudy because if they can do it to the former U.S. attorney and mayor of New York, by golly, they can do it to you.
	And so people out there that think that this was an okay case really need to study what the impact is of that last part of the ruling that says we can say he's an imminent threat to the practice of law based on no practice of law at all, but based on his political public statements that we don't like.
	It's actually shocking, and I hope everyone appreciates that distinction in this.
	I will not speak from my own experience because unless some of these things become public, they will not be public.
	But I can speak from someone's experience who has made it public, Nick Ricada, who noticed that he had never gotten an ethics complaint as an attorney, but the second he started discussing certain things online, that's when you start getting ethics complaint from people who don't like what you're saying.
	And they say, oh, it's a lawyer making these public statements expressing First Amendment rights in the United States.
	I don't like what that lawyer is saying, so what am I going to do?
	I'll go to their bar society and try to get them where they think it hurts.
	And it's an amazing thing where the law society is sort of forced with this dilemma of having to even address discussing what someone who happens to be a lawyer is saying in non-law cases, cases in which they're not involved.
	And basically, it's tantamount to trying to punish someone who happens to be a member of a professional order for statements they make.
	On a totally unrelated basis in the public sphere that are otherwise First Amendment protected.
	And that is effectively the distinction that you're drawing here with Giuliani is the major one is that they're going after him and they said it in the decision.
	Some things he said in court and other things he said in public, but he's allowed having an opinion even if he is a lawyer representing someone in a case and all the more so when he's no longer representing someone in a case to make certain public statements.
	And they're trying to punish him for that and they have effectively punished him for that.
	And if anybody thinks that that's okay for Giuliani, wait until it comes to another subject where you might have said something publicly and been a member of a professional order, I don't know, on other hot issues of the day where someone says, I didn't like your position on the trans athletes debate.
	I'm going to file a complaint with your law society.
	And even though you didn't make those statements in the context of a law file, you can still be suspended.
	It's just the chilling effect on freedom of speech, and this is how they weaponize it against professionals.
	Absolutely.
	And what the law is always about, it's one area where I agree with Michael Malice in his book.
	He republishes a law review or a law professor's argument about the law, that there is an objective law, that our law really comes down to one simple decision.
	And this is a good bridge to our next case, which is who decides.
	The problem with people feeling comfortable with this about Rudy Giuliani is they're forgetting.
	Who's going to decide what's true and false in what you say in the court of public opinion?
	And that's what you're doing.
	You're giving a bunch of judges the power to determine whether your speech was true or not true.
	And good luck with how that turns out because it's almost never been used to benefit ordinary people or dissident causes.
	All right.
	And by the way, let me see what he said.
	Sorry.
	Got stuck.
	Nice to have the lawyer dog make a cameo.
	I gave him the most thorough bath on earth last night because three days camping with the dog, it was the most glorious, liberating thing for the dog, but he was rolling in everything from the fine silt of the St. Lawrence River to, I think it was raccoon poop, but we'll see.
	Okay, Robert, what do we transition to now?
	So in terms of who governs, the Britney Spears case is a revelation to the public about the deep constitutional problems with guardianship and conservatorship law in the United States.
	Let's just do the summary of the fact pattern.
	This is shocking.
	As a lawyer, I used to do these things called motions for confinement.
	And I should say we, as the firm, used to do motions for confinement.
	We would be summoned to court on behalf of a medical institution or hospital to argue for the forced confinement of an individual who was an immediate risk to themselves or to others.
	And, well, first of all, I never liked doing it.
	Because for the same reason I've never wanted to do criminal law or family law in the first place is it touches something fundamental as opposed to just money with civil.
	But you get there and you see what the doctors are trying to do to people who...
	I'm not a doctor, but I come to my own determinations as to their lucidity, their dangerousness, and their dangerousness to themselves.
	And I've had some experience with this as a professional and as an individual who's had...
	I've seen how this forced confinement works.
	Once you're in, there's nothing you can say or do to get out.
	That's basically what Brittany is living through right now.
	She was forced into a conservatorship.
	It has different terms in different jurisdictions.
	Guardianship.
	It was 2008, I think.
	2005-2008 when she had her public breakdown.
	Her father, who...
	Was not involved in her early life.
	Somehow, in tandem with a professional sort of tutorship corporation type thing, we're managing her estate and her assets.
	She was placed into this because she had a public break and because she was deemed to be unfit to manage her own property and her own assets.
	13 years ago.
	Sorry, 2008.
	I never understood the Free Britney movement, but I now understand the Free Britney movement because this is not Free Britney, this is free humans from what is effectively, I don't want to use inflammatory rhetoric, but this is human ownership, and that has a name.
	Britney is nothing but being owned and exploited by this conservatorship for the benefit of those who are being paid from what she generates in revenue to control her and to treat her like an object, like the battery in the Matrix.
	Britney Spears has become the battery that generates the power for this conservatorship and all the people who are just sitting there sucking the energy off Britney.
	But bottom line, when this came up the last time, when she was not challenging the conservatorship but when the issue came to the fore, I think it was 2019, and she made a public statement to the effect that she consented to the conservatorship.
	I'm going to screw the word up the entire time, but the conservatorship.
	And that led me to believe that maybe she understood that she had issues that needed this for 12 years of the best part of her life.
	And now, with her 30-minute telephone speech to the court, she laid it all bare.
	She's basically owned by these people who are milking her dry, controlling every aspect of her life, including reproduction.
	I thought of Buck when I was listening to this, the Buck decision.
	The conservatorship says that Britney shall bear no more children.
	The conservatorship says how she must live, and according to Britney, if she dares to defy them, boom.
	The conservatorship determines that she needs more medication, or she needs lithium.
	It was shocking, and it was stomach-turning, having had my limited experience in the practice of law and with friends.
	It was shocking to see this.
	She's nothing but a prisoner, in no less terms, and I'm weighing my words.
	But Robert.
	From what I understand, this conservatorship under California law is limited to people with degenerating mental issues.
	It's limited to people with irremediable mental issues, dementia, Alzheimer's, and in the exceptional cases, acute issues, drug addiction, psychotic breaks, where once you've regulated the issue, the person goes back to being autonomous, even if that is only to...
	You know, waste their money the way they want to, like any free person should.
	I just thought the irony is that they're accusing Brittany of not being able to manage her wealth.
	Dear goodness, if that's the excuse for conservatorship, there's going to be half of the world that's going to be, you know, warranted to be put under conservatorship.
	How does it work in California and how did this get to the place to where it's gotten?
	It's because conservatorship has always been high risk.
	It's one of those places from a constitutional perspective.
	And the system feeds itself.
	So, I mean, what's been happening to Britney Spears is first the conservatorship is declared.
	Anytime she has tried to contest it, they have made the conditions worse for her.
	So a lot of her so-called consent turns out was coerced, was not informed consent.
	And she actually, her money, she's paying for lawyers to torture her.
	She's paying the state to torture her.
	Because everybody's getting dipped.
	She wasn't allowed to hire her own lawyer.
	A court-appointed lawyer was imposed upon her.
	And shock, shock, that court-appointed lawyer ended up being more on the conservatorship side for too long in the equation.
	Started to reverse recently, but not until recently.
	The other lawyers all being paid out of her money.
	So the other lawyers are paid.
	Can you imagine having to pay someone to steal from you?
	I mean, that's exactly what's been taking place.
	But that turns out to be the least consequential.
	As you know, this is forced sterilization, forced medication.
	This is some of the worst forms of treatment by the state of a human being that can exist.
	And for what?
	Has she been convicted of a crime?
	No.
	Has she been accused of a crime?
	No.
	Has she been shown to be an imminent threat to herself or others?
	No.
	So, I mean, yet she's here.
	And this is why I always oppose conservatorship laws.
	For people out there that are concerned about a loved one...
	There are durable powers of attorney that can get around these conservatorship provisions.
	The state should never have this power.
	It's one of the big loopholes in our Constitution, effectively.
	It's not in our Constitution, but it's one of the courts have carved right out of it.
	And you could drive a Mack truck through it.
	And it's because what happens is how the system builds.
	So first you create a law that's supposed to be for this, and then slowly and steadily, and he starts to expand and expand and expand to where it takes in more and more people.
	Then you create a process that has a self-interested motivation to continue to steal from someone.
	Steal their liberty, steal their property, steal their freedom.
	And that's because everybody gets further rich off of this.
	All these lawyers lose money the moment she's no longer in conservatorship.
	All the people that are conservators no longer make money.
	And it's also these guardians that light them.
	I first met guardians that light them.
	I had the naive view that these are idealistic, hardworking, public conscientious people who just want what's good.
	Because for everybody out there, they know the law says that guardianship is all about protecting Brittany.
	It's all about helping Brittany.
	So, I mean, is that what they're doing?
	No, it's not what they're doing.
	And that's because if you meet a guardian ad litem, first of all, they have a legal IQ around 50. I mean, they're some of the dumbest human beings on the planet.
	The few that aren't, incredibly, that's why they're a guardian ad litem.
	It's why they picked a job, because they can't get real work most of the time.
	Or they're crooks, or they love to boss you around.
	Imagine the worst version of Nurse Ratched.
	Imagine the versions.
	Nurse Ratched is your typical guardian ad litem frequently.
	I dealt with this.
	In Southeast Tennessee.
	Nurse Ratched is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
	Yeah.
	There's even a special series on one of these shows that's just about her as a follow-up to that.
	Yes, and I've always agreed with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
	I understand one consequence can be increase in homelessness, things like that.
	There are ways to address that issue separately, rather than involuntary imprisonment of people who have committed no crime.
	I've never been in favor of that law because, again, it goes back to who decides.
	Britney should decide her life.
	Britney should decide whether she's going to have children or not.
	Britney should decide what medicine she's going to take.
	Britney should decide what's forced into her body.
	Britney should decide what doctors she sees.
	I mean, they are forcing shrinks on her, forcing doctors on her.
	And for anybody who hasn't listened to it, go listen to her.
	It's 23, 25 minute...
	Impassioned speech to the court.
	If what she's saying turns out to be factually correct, where they're not allowing her to remove an IUD, where they're forcing her to go see...
	Imagine being forced to go see a therapist.
	This is like...
	It's more intimate than sexual intercourse.
	And imagine being forced to basically go...
	Spill your most inner secrets and ask for help from a psych who you never wanted to see in the first place and to go see more than one of them.
	And from what Brittany said, some of them are in areas that are not concealed at all.
	So instead of the therapists coming to treat her in her home in a place where she feels comfortable, she's forced to go to these areas where paparazzi are snapping pics of her going in and leaving.
	That she's compelled to see under the conservatorship because apparently it's been worked into various business contracts where she doesn't do it.
	She's in default.
	It's stomach turning to a point where it's not funny and it's not just a celebrity.
	It's not somebody whining who's worth $60 million.
	This is a human being who has been forced into...
	But for the fact that she is who she is, it would be unjustifiable on its face.
	But now everyone's like, well, it's like her celebrity status has somehow justified this.
	It's the worst thing I've ever heard in what has become a mainstream accepted story, or at the very least brushed under the rug.
	But if half of what she says is true is true, it's beyond the pale, unforgivable.
	But the only question is, how do you get out of it?
	Listening to her, you can't get angry talking to the court, because then you're crazy, then you need the conservatorship.
	You can't be out of there.
	You can't say anything that would otherwise be a flub sentence like I get away with because then it justified.
	Hey, can't speak full sentences.
	Justified.
	How do you get out of it?
	Because it's the paradox.
	There's nothing she can say to get out of it.
	Catch-22.
	Britney Spears is living through a combination of Clockwork Orange and 1984.
	I mean, that's the dynamic of it.
	Someday they're going to get to the point.
	I mean, they're using these laws as a pretext for red flag laws.
	They're going to use these as pretext to go down the road to say...
	Oh, you keep talking about your constitutional liberty.
	That's the sign that you have a mental problem and we need to continue to re-educate you.
	We need to continue to limit your liberty.
	We need to control your property.
	I mean, she has been treated like property of the state for more than a dozen years.
	And that is unconstitutional to its core and morally horrendous and offensive at its foundation.
	And hopefully the courts, because of the public attention being brought to this, because a lot of people don't know this exists.
	The few times they hear about it, it's grandma who has Alzheimer's, where it's not really controversial or in question.
	But if you study how these processes work, they often have guardians ad litem who come in.
	The whole system feeds off.
	She's right.
	She compared it to human trafficking.
	That's what it is.
	They're profiting off of human beings, controlling them and governing them and limiting them and restricting them, enriching themselves in the process.
	They have no incentive because they're either power freaks or corrupt actors or nitwits.
	And the combination of the three...
	And sometimes, which is really disturbing, there's still a guardian litem in Bradley County, Tennessee that fits that category, but I won't publicly discuss his name.
	He knows who he is.
	But those kind of individuals who basically the system is designed to enslave people, fundamentally.
	I mean, it's almost every function that slavery provided.
	I mean, it's the equivalent of chattel labor.
	Now you're even controlling...
	I mean, even slaves at times had at least a limited...
	They could at least go to church on their own on Sunday.
	I mean, this is morally horrendous action that hopefully her publication and exposure of it to great risk to herself will bring public attention.
	This being a big problem for everybody everywhere, we need fundamental reforms of our guardianship laws in America.
	I'm going to read this one here.
	This is DTQC says, As someone who had to live through Quebec's CPS, which is Child Protective Services, as a teenager, Britain's story rings too many bells.
	CPS is the children's version of guardianship's abuse in many aspects.
	Your youth years bring money to...
	Power-hungry people.
	And one of the number one places of child abuse and human trafficking occurs in the foster industry.
	And it's often facilitated by CPS people.
	I've had many interactions with CPS people that they're just not people you would recommend.
	Well, what really made me...
	The cherry on top of this nauseating Sunday was after her impassioned speech, she said she didn't want to get off the phone with the court.
	And that, to me, was like, it was finally the lifeline to being heard that she sought after for so long.
	And she doesn't want to lose that lifeline because it's back literally into the cages after she says that.
	What does mainstream media say?
	Britney all smiles as she flies off to Hawaii for a vacation.
	Something tells me.
	Something tells me the guardianship or the curatorship.
	Now I forgot the word for it, but something tells me.
	That they said, we better give her a vacation right now, otherwise it's going to look too weird, or too bad, or too abusive.
	And so they fly her off to Hawaii, and now the media gets to run the headlines of a, paint something of the image of, what does Brittany have to complain about she's flying off to Hawaii after having spoken to the court?
	I never knew the full extent of it, and I was sort of, when I heard her say why she said what she said in 2019, it all makes sense, but then when I hear some of the things that she's alleging, by all accounts, they are in fact controlling in her life.
	Being forced to work so that you can pay these people, the lawyers, everyone just dipping their fingers in.
	It's shocking.
	I don't know what the solution is.
	One anecdote I had when I went to court, it was public, but it's a decade ago, is it was a motion for confinement of someone who clearly, on its face, you don't have to be a doctor, was not a danger to themselves or others.
	And you go in with your medical report, and the medical report is in...
	Code that only doctors and lawyers and judges can understand if they want.
	And you have an individual who is an autonomous human being with thoughts, emotions, family, and everything, saying why they should not be locked up against their will.
	And at some point I said, look, this is what the report says.
	You've heard the testimony.
	Your Honor, it's up to you now.
	And the judge makes the decision and the person thanks me in the hallway afterwards and says, thank you for what you did.
	I didn't do anything.
	All I'm saying is, thank goodness the judge did the right thing.
	What is the judge in this case going to do now?
	In terms of the right thing or the wrong thing, what's the judge going to do now?
	What's the next step in this process?
	What she has requested is the end of the conservatorship.
	And a lot of times the way they end these conservatorships is they give it to a connected shrink who has every incentive and motivation to continue the conservatorship.
	So if they do that routine again...
	It may never end.
	Only the court of public opinion humiliating what's taking place here will lead to her freedom and lead to a change in laws.
	But I hope that that's what occurs out of this.
	I don't know about this judge individually, so I don't know where they are.
	My experience has been that judges often don't understand the constitutional issues implicated by this.
	They're just used to this cattle call process that has just enabled this for decades.
	And the system was designed to perpetrate it.
	To perpetuate itself and perpetrate these kind of abuses.
	And credit to her for the courage to come out and expose it, knowing how the risks she would additionally face for doing so.
	Now, William Screensky, I've never, it's funny, I've never saw this picture of Donald Trump giving the middle finger.
	I take for granted it has to be a real picture.
	Now, could there be criminal implications of the conservatorship?
	I mean, I don't know.
	My feeling is that there couldn't be criminal.
	There can't even be civil because they've been acting under the...
	Protection of the law, Robert, but am I wrong, or could there potentially be, you know, if they discover something totally incriminating?
	Possibly, but...
	I mean, for the sad part is a lot of this conduct, you're right, is greenlit by the court, fundamentally, and that's what makes it so problematic, in my view, constitutionally.
	But where a lot of these people...
	I mean, there was even...
	It was either Netflix.
	Somebody made a whole TV show or movie about how this industry is riddled with fraudsters.
	So that's where there tends to be criminal implications, is they stole money, they lied about something somewhere, they embezzled.
	But the smart ones know how to continue to steal legally.
	That's what makes it so...
	That's the most pernicious aspect of all this.
	All right.
	Look, I'm not jumping on the free Britney bandwagon, because I think it's...
	It looks opportunistic, and I'm not interested in jumping on hashtags.
	This is just shocking.
	And if no one else out there does anything else other than listen to the audio of her speech, which incidentally, they were warned not to record.
	And I think it's online on a number of spots.
	You can go find it easily.
	But they were warned not to record, not to reproduce.
	Which is completely...
	Unconstitutional in my view.
	All these restrictions on recording court proceedings that are required public proceedings to be open to the public.
	Back in the old days, jury trials were done out in the open.
	There were no courthouses.
	The whole community could come and watch.
	The idea that they should be able to artificially and arbitrarily limit who can participate or be able to know what happened by not allowing recording has always been bogus.
	Those laws are crap.
	Now, here's the problem.
	It's like the Giuliani problem.
	You have to go beg judges.
	To set aside their own rules that help cover up their own bad conduct, so that it's another place where our system fails.
	But in my experience, a conscientious court should someday recognize, or maybe a decent legislature, should recognize that you should have a public right to record public proceedings, period.
	Yeah, how far can this go?
	I have my theories as to where the conservators want this to go.
	Because in as much as there's profits to be made in Britney's life, I presume there's a lot of profits to be made in her demise.
	And that's the simple dark side of me.
	If these conservators had honest advertising, they would just say, bring back slavery.
	Because that's where it could ultimately go.
	And I presume she's got an amazing life insurance policy where these conservators, they would shed a tear publicly if God forbid the worst were to happen.
	And they would line their pockets for the rest of their lives, bilking the estate.
	To do what the conservators and the liquidators have to do.
	It's disgusting through and through.
	There's no other word for it.
	It's disgusting.
	And setting aside that she's the biggest pop star ever, this is a human being, and this happens with human beings all too often under the full protection of the law, and it's atrocious.
	I mean, what you had as a kid who was trafficked by the music industry, trafficked by the media, and now trafficked by the courts.
	And it's got to stop at some point.
	So with that said, people, for anyone who didn't know what was going on, this is what's going on.
	We'll see where it goes and we'll be following it.
	But once you know what's going on, you can't look at this the same way ever again.
	Hands down.
	Okay, moving on, Robert.
	I was going to say change of pace.
	I don't think we have anything that's going to be more uplifting.
	So let's just get into Chauvin, I guess.
	The sentencing, the judge dismissing the motion for a new trial.
	Everybody knows what's going on with Chauvin, but the last we left off on this...
	Oh, jeez, I forgot his name now.
	Eric Nelson had filed the motion for a new trial, detailed all of the grievances with the prosecutorial misconduct, other issues affecting the constitutional right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers.
	Judge issues a ruling.
	I think it was two pages at most and three paragraphs.
	I might still do a standalone analysis of this.
	Basically saying...
	I've heard you, and I disagree with you, on all of the issues.
	He got a fair trial.
	There was no prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial, and I'm dismissing it all around.
	And I think it was the same day the judge sentences Chauvin to 22 and a half years, but it looks like 15 years plus 7 and a half supervised release.
	I mean, that's the update.
	What do you have to say?
	And what do you have to say for the rest of the people out there who are saying, we knew it?
	Yeah, I mean, I think the judge was smart on sentencing because he gave a sentence that sounded high.
	You know, the norm is 12 years, and with the aggravating factors, it could go up to 40. The government requested 30. The defense requested probation.
	And it sounded like he sort of split the baby a little bit high by 22 and a half.
	But then you dig in and you find out it's actually just a 15-year sentence with seven and a half years supervised release.
	And the way it works in the state of Minnesota, most of that 15 won't be served usually.
	So usually that's the equivalent of six or seven years.
	Now he faces other risks where his problems are.
	So on the sentence, I thought he made the politically savvy choice.
	Because 15 years is not a coincidence.
	What it is, is the recommended sentence is between 10 and 15 without any of the aggravating factors.
	So if a court determines all of these aggravating factors are wrong, It won't change the sentence because his prison part is only 15. So that's part one.
	But I thought his decision, while it was what I anticipated, I thought it was an embarrassingly poor decision on the new trial motion request because they requested what's called a Schwartz hearing in Minnesota about jury misconduct.
	He's refusing to even conduct such a hearing.
	So it shows where he was biased all along.
	He wanted the perception that it was a fair...
	He wanted him lynched fairly.
	He wanted him lynched in a way that the people had confidence in the rope and confidence in the platform.
	And so my confidence in this court has severely diminished by that ruling.
	He could have ruled that way, come to the same conclusions, but I would have had a lot more respect for it if he had the courage to lay out the law and facts that he thought he was right about.
	He failed to do that, which with a judge like that is usually a sign he doesn't think if he explaining his arguments will make his arguments look better.
	What was the word again for the jury?
	Schwartz.
	Jury shorts, okay.
	And just because collective memory is short, let's all remember, I don't forget the jury member's name, the activist jury member who effectively pulled a runaway jury and lied to get himself on the jury and was an activist through and through.
	We've all forgotten about that.
	And so why would the judge dismissing the request to conduct further inquiry into the jury members seems less egregious if we don't have that factual element front and center of our minds, which...
	99.9% of the general public does not.
	So, to dismiss it, and it's a summary, three paragraph, we've heard you, we disagree, heard you disagree, heard you disagree, but we've all seemed to have forgotten, at the very least, a lot of people, if they never knew in the first place, could not have forgotten, and those who did forgot about that activist jury member who overtly misled it to get onto the jury, and it's water under the bridge at this point.
	Now...
	It's an attempt to white out the history of it.
	Four or five years from now, they're going to pretend this never happened.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	It's Orwellian because it's the most material facts that are just going to get drowned out by the people cheering outside the courtroom when they hear that he got sentenced to 22 and a half years.
	Is there an appeal of the dismissal of the request for a new trial?
	Oh yeah, all of it.
	All of it.
	So the appeal rights have all been preserved and protected.
	Now Chauvin said something like, once all the facts come out, people are going to have different opinions.
	I'm not sure what he's referencing in that regard.
	There's a lot of alternative theories about that I don't quite buy into.
	But who knows?
	We'll see once it's ultimately all resolved.
	Maybe.
	It is an unusual statement for a defendant to make.
	So there may be something else there.
	Another shoe to fall somewhere down the road.
	But mostly I thought...
	The court sentencing was what made sense given what that judge's motivations were.
	I think it was an excessive sentence.
	There's a report out of Minnesota that people that get convicted of felony assault on a police officer on average serve no time at all.
	So it's an interesting comparison.
	Just by the coincidence of the consequences of the assault, that's supposed to make the biggest difference.
	But even people committed the same level of homicide as he did usually got far lesser sentences.
	And all these people that hate the over-incarceration, and I think there's good reasons to criticism over-incarceration in America, suddenly silent when it comes to Chauvin.
	You want conservatives to be on the board of over-incarceration.
	Even if it means letting rapists and murderers free.
	And then you keep your mouth shut when someone like Chauvin gets a crazy sentence.
	You're politically self-discrediting when you do that.
	Well, for Chauvin, and let's take a less controversial example, the January 6th rioters, which we're going to get into, some of whom are still being detained, and we're going to get there in a second.
	But yeah, I started off with confidence in Cahill.
	I started off with my own opinions of the situation.
	I have tempered them, and I've...
	Changed them a little bit, having seen all the evidence, because I've never followed a criminal trial more closely than this one.
	But when Cahill issued his aggravating factors memorandum, then summarily dismisses all the requests for a new trial, then goes into the sentencing.
	Yes, it's not surprising, given Cahill's frame of mind and given the foundation that he's already laid.
	Whether or not it's warranted is another issue.
	I have my own personal opinions on that.
	I've expressed them.
	I saw the trial.
	I saw the evidence.
	I must say I don't feel the same way now that I did at the beginning, although I'm somewhere in the middle and that pisses people off or whatever.
	But seeing Cahill come down with that sentence, it makes sense given the foundation that Cahill has laid, both with the governing of the trial, the dealing with the rogue jury member, the aggravating factors.
	I think that memorandum was over the top in terms of what the judge considered to be aggravating factors, the particular cruelty, which...
	Even the prosecution said was lack of concern.
	The prosecution calls it lack of concern, and the judge takes it as particular cruelty, committed in front of children, when I think we can all agree that that's not exactly how that fact is supposed to be interpreted.
	So it makes sense to be continued, I guess.
	But getting into this issue of, you know, the people on the left, and I say the people on the left not to create divides, just one of the elements of being progressive is...
	Criminal justice reform.
	Get them out of jail.
	Reform don't punish.
	Chauvin's one example, but let's break it up to the January 6th and the updates there, where you still have people detained for...
	Even if the level of violence was what they want you to remember the level of violence being, and it wasn't, but even if it was, they cannot possibly be detaining as many people that they are currently detaining who participated in active and egregious acts of violence on Jan 6th.
	What's the latest on that, Robert?
	So yeah, I've been in a Twitter debate because one person was sentenced this week and then another person cut a plea deal this week with some of the most preposterous claims being made to apologize for the prosecutor's actions in January 6th.
	So the first one is the claim that prosecutors have no influence whatsoever over an arrest.
	And they have this fictional fairyland how you make a bill.
	It's like the equivalent of the old how you make a bill.
	It goes up the steps.
	They're trying to teach the same thing about how the prosecutor has no power over an arrest, no power over bail, no power over indictments, no power over sentencing.
	That's all ludicrous.
	These are self-discrediting claims.
	I feel bad for Carter Page because these are the kind of claims that one of his lawyers is making.
	Then, you know, he does not have the skill set he needs of a lawyer, frankly.
	But, you know, there's a bunch of these people, these fed apologist types, making these preposterous claims.
	And I'll just give one example.
	I mean, in arrest-bail-combo context, I had a client that was coming back in from overseas.
	I didn't know he was coming back in from overseas.
	At the time, I was at the Hotel Daniele in Venice, Venetia.
	Which is also the hotel from the movie The Tourist.
	And I had the same room.
	It would be a beautiful place.
	And I had tickets from one of my top 10 bucket list items.
	I was going to be at the Hotel de Paris in Monte Carlo to see the Monte Carlo race.
	And I was going to be right on top at the end.
	I mean, it was going to be awesome.
	I unfortunately get a call at the Hotel Daniele that my client, unbeknownst to me, had decided to fly back in the United States, believing there was no indictment.
	And he had been led by the prosecutor to believe there was no indictment.
	He gets there.
	He's suddenly arrested at the place.
	What the prosecutor had done was prosecutors control, one, whether you get indicted at all, whether you get investigated at all.
	Now, in the state system, that isn't always the case, but in the federal system, that is almost always the case.
	Then they decide whether to issue an indictment or an arrest warrant or a summons.
	Then they decide when and where to arrest you.
	Why?
	Because sometimes they want you held over the weekend to sort of brutalize your mind and weaken your resistance.
	Sometimes they want to have you arrested in a place where it's difficult for you to get bail, period.
	Sometimes they're doing it to time which judge will handle the proceedings.
	So this particular prosecutor issued a secret indictment believing he would get my client.
	Probably coming in, he knew he was coming in from out of the country, in a jurisdiction where he would be held in a brutal jail, the Brooklyn Detention Center, over a weekend, which, you know, for people who've never been through the criminal justice process, not fun at all, and that by Monday, he knew the magistrate who would be assigned to his case, and he had all lined up for him to coordinate having my client detained without bail on the grounds that he had been outside the country.
	Unfortunately for him, we had our own little sort of death switch process in place.
	So I found out about it as soon as the arrest took place.
	On a Saturday, we took a private flight right back to New York City.
	Missed, unfortunately, my Monte Carlo Top Ten event, but couldn't get any refund either.
	That was a pricey event.
	And I had a good buddy that was one of the top New York defense lawyers that knew the system.
	And we got a judge on a Sunday in the Hamptons.
	To release him completely with no bail conditions pending for release and just to appear in the court in California.
	Because that prosecutor had misgauged how that, I had anticipated this possibility, put things in motion.
	But again, it's all because I understand prosecutors run the arrest process.
	Prosecutors run the bail process.
	Just as an example with sentencing.
	The way prosecutors abuse the sentencing process, these guys were out there pitching the idea that sentencing is just this little calculation that's in a little table, and there's a little pretrial services officer, probation officer who comes forward and fills it out for the judge, and that's what drives 95% of sentencing.
	Complete hogwash.
	Prosecutors have...
	When sentencing guidelines became mandatory, the number one complaint by both courts and defense lawyers alike was that prosecutors then had complete control because they decided what charge you were indicted with in the first place.
	They decided what facts would be alleged to increase your sentence at trial.
	They decide what facts you would plead to.
	So they could completely control your sentencing because they controlled the only discretionary factor.
	That is still true to this day.
	It's just sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, so judges have a little more influence.
	But that's what's happening to these folks in January 6th.
	They're manipulating the indictments, manipulating the timing of arrests, manipulating bail terms and conditions, manipulating discovery, manipulating who their lawyers are almost...
	They have to be D.C. licensed, which is it's tough to get into D.C., or you have to get a local...
	Almost no D.C. licensed lawyer wants to get near these cases.
	The few that do end up being public defenders, most of them ideologically motivated, many of them who want to re-educate their clients away from their diseased mentality and want them to give them one of General Milley's little classes in CRT and white rage.
	I mean, what a fraudster that guy is, but I'll save that for Monday with Richard Barris.
	All of what people are being taught and told by these federal apologists is completely false about prosecutorial power, whether it applies to arrest, to bail, to sentencing or indictments.
	And the Julian Assange case, it was wonderful timing.
	While they're out there, because all this started because they were attacking Darren Beatty and attacking Julie Kelly and attacking Tucker Carlson, saying absolutely no chance that you could have any informants amongst those unindicted co-conspirators.
	And then voila!
	It turns out the main one in the Julian Assange second superseding indictment also was an undercover informant while he was listed as an unindicted co-conspirant.
	So these people are just making stuff up and fabricating stuff, and I don't know what they're falsifying.
	I don't know if they're falsifying their actual experience.
	They're really not that experienced, and they're just sort of making that up.
	Or they're just making up claims, or they really are experienced, then they have to be making up these claims.
	No experienced lawyer would say this.
	I think they have to be justifying the world as they believe it to themselves, where they cannot possibly believe that what they've been led to believe and what they actually truly believe in their ego of egos is actually totally incorrect.
	They have to be stupid for having believed it, and so the only way to avoid thinking of themselves as stupid is to perpetuate the lie to themselves.
	It's the only way I can make sense of it.
	Agreed.
	Cernovich said the same thing I said this week, never hire an ex-Fed.
	There's a few exceptions, but they are rare.
	If you cut a federal prosecutor or you cut an ex-Fed, they still bleed government blue.
	They don't bleed American red.
	I just want to say one thing.
	We are up to 9,500 on YouTube and 2,500 on Rumble, which is 12,000 people watching live, which is mind-blowingly awesome.
	Thumbs up.
	Don't care about it, but do it anyhow.
	It might make things nicer for the thumbs up fairies.
	But, Robert, between Rumble and YouTube, we still have locals.
	And the number one topic of the evening, which I will be morally remiss if we never get to, but we're going to get to it now, is the only one that I know nothing about.
	The Biden administration suing Georgia over the voter laws.
	Robert, I can't even ask the question.
	Please, for the locals community, it was their number one vote.
	What's going on and what's going on?
	Well, it turns out it's racist.
	You know, like that meme where the kid's screaming, it's racist.
	That's the entire basis of the Biden administration's Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland's lawsuit against the Georgia election law reforms.
	They're racist.
	So it's apparently now racist to impose rules that states like Delaware, as Jonathan Turley, Professor Turley noted, have had for decades.
	I mean, some of the things they're claiming are racist are, they're basically claiming every election in the history of Georgia up until 2020 was racist.
	Because until 2020, you didn't have mass mailing of absentee mail-in ballots.
	But they claim the failure, they claim a law that prohibits that is racist.
	Many states still have voter ID.
	They now claim that's racist.
	Most laws don't allow private organizations to give people, the old way you would steal a vote is why they're in line.
	It used to be you didn't have the state on the ballot.
	You'd give them the ballot to make sure they did the right thing.
	Absentee ballots brought back that old school tradition.
	And you'd just give them a bottle of whiskey while they're in line with the ballot.
	Or you'd give them a bottle of whiskey while they're coming out.
	But usually while they were going in frequently in the old days.
	So to get around those kind of problems, you can give them water, all that kind of stuff.
	But no more people giving things to people while they're in voting lines in ways that look bad.
	Well, that too is racist.
	I mean, everything's racist.
	I mean, it's just one thing.
	In my view, now they can get lucky.
	Stacey Abrams' sister is one of the judges that is in the Northern District of Georgia.
	So there's some interesting judges in the Northern District of Georgia.
	So it's possible...
	By the way, you're on mute.
	That'll do it.
	No, I was going to interject and say that Nate, the lawyer, for whatever disagreements any of us have had with him, just put out a great...
	Expose of the fact that the U.S. has voter ID laws, and so anyone making the argument that voter ID laws are racist are probably indicting the existing system itself.
	It was the HAVA, Help Americans Vote Act.
	You know who else you're indicting?
	The whole country of Canada.
	Don't you guys have voter ID?
	Not just voter ID.
	Voter ID up the wazoo.
	You have to show up with voter ID and a utilities bill to prove your current address.
	Well, it turns out that's all racist.
	You've got a bunch of racists up there in Canada.
	It's not just your black-faced prime minister.
	Forget that.
	It's always the people accusing the people of racists that have the most racist propensities or at the very least the most racist track record on social medias.
	It is such a soft bigotry of low expectations to say that voter ID laws are racist.
	I mean, I saw the montage.
	I don't know if it was Steven Crowder, but white people saying why they think voter ID laws are racist.
	Other than it being totally illogical, is it racist to force people to show ID before going into a bar?
	Before going on a plane?
	Getting on a plane?
	And by the way, two-thirds of black Americans and two-thirds of Mexican Americans and Latinos support voter ID requirements.
	So they don't think it's racist.
	I mean, that's where all these provisions that say voter ID and limitations on mail-in balloting, not letting Mark Zuckerberg buy, because these, I mean, this was not a radical reform.
	I would have been for more structural reform to the elections than Georgia did.
	Georgia just put in common sense reforms that used to be the law prior to 2020 in Georgia or are the law somewhere in the United States or the Western world.
	They did nothing unusual or extraordinary at all.
	And yet they're trying to claim that's racist.
	And what Turley mentioned is, I agree with him, This is the kind of case that could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court if it goes a certain direction.
	He thinks it's going to establish the precedent that these claims are patently false, that these claims are racist, and will actually more broadly expand the right for state legislatures to control elections because that's what the Constitution calls for.
	They talk about throughout the complaint the fundamental right to vote, knowing there is no federal right to vote.
	What there is is a right of the state legislatures to elect senators, congressmen, and electors to the presidency.
	Now, if they choose to use the public's right to vote as the means of exercising that authority...
	They then cannot discriminate by race or by gender under the 14th Amendment and the 19th Amendment.
	But that does not mean that there's a right to vote in that sense.
	But now once that right to vote is granted, they can't violate due process or equal protection.
	Though, in my view, they diluted a lot of people's votes in this last election by the unconstitutional alterations that were made.
	But yeah, so that's their whole claim.
	I was very curious what their basis was.
	And I was like, it really does boil.
	And the whole thing reads like a Rachel Maddow complaint list.
	Somebody that's just been watching Rachel Maddow for four weeks, and they put all of it in the complaint.
	These are the kind of idiots and imbeciles at the Department of Justice these days.
	But I think it will backfire on them, like Professor Turley said.
	Well, and not just that, but they're making the accusations of racism in this lawsuit.
	From what I surmise, I haven't read it, so take that for what it's worth.
	At the same time, literally implementing racist policies in terms of attributing COVID relief funds.
	But theirs is good racism, and this is bad racism.
	And when they ban menthol cigarettes because African Americans and Latinos seem to like them more than regular cigarettes, that's good racism.
	But when everyone else does exactly what they're doing, it's bad.
	When they do it, it's good because they are the ultimate protectors of all minorities.
	And that, in and of itself, It's somehow not racism.
	And by the way, the effect this had, there was not disproportionate African-American turnout in Georgia.
	So these election changes that happened in 2020 that gave Biden the ultimate edge was not because of unusual turnout from African-American voters.
	It was from unusual turnout from unusual places.
	And it wasn't African-American voters voting.
	It was, you know, some nursing homes had highly unexpected turnout.
	Some apartment buildings had highly unexpected turnout.
	I'm trying to put it in the fortified language.
	We're putting it in the palatable YouTube terminology context.
	Okay, so we'll see where it goes.
	What's your feeling on the probability of success depends on the judges?
	Yeah, if any reasonable judges assigned, they lose.
	If one of the wacky judges assigned, they could win, but only at the district court level.
	I can't see the 11th Circuit affirming this, and if somehow that happened, I definitely can't see the Supreme Court letting it stand.
	My understanding is Garland and the people close to him did not want to bring the suit, and they were put pressure by the White House to do so.
	I mean, that's how politicized and weaponized.
	And contrast it, because this relates to one of our locals' questions, to Bill Barr.
	I mean, Bill Barr, who couldn't find, you know, the, I mean, it was like a Where's Waldo version of election issues.
	He just couldn't find those issues after the election.
	And now he's out there pretending he got a, you know, very, well, how did they put it?
	They said he got a book deal worth, quote, a lot of money.
	Is that because a whole bunch of people want to read what Bill Barr's written?
	It's not like one of his daddy's books.
	When his daddy, who put Jeffrey Epstein into business, who wrote a little science fiction book that seemed to celebrate underage child sexual abuse, that might be an interesting question about Bill Barr.
	But for the rest of Bill Barr, that will be a future hush-hush episode at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, I think we're going to go over a little bit of time because we have one that we have to get to.
	I think it might be the last one.
	The good judgment coming out of the FBI seizure of the United States private vaults issue.
	For anybody who doesn't know, I did a video on it yesterday, managed to squeeze it out after having driven five hours, oh my god, driving with kids.
	Not relaxing anymore, but it's still fun.
	So the bottom line in that case, everybody knows that there were a bunch of...
	It's a class action lawsuit being filed by the owners of private vaults in the United States private vaults private company system.
	The feds got a warrant for seizure of the United States private vaults assets of the company itself.
	Not of the private vaults of its customers because it's a private vault safety deposit box system.
	In executing their warrant, they nonetheless seize all of the private vaults, the safety deposit boxes of all the customers.
	In executing their warrant, instead of itemizing the boxes or just leaving them intact because nothing can make sure that the items remain intact more than leaving them in the safe deposit boxes, they open them up, mingle them apparently with all the assets.
	Then they file a notice of forfeiture procedure, basically saying we're going to, you're forfeiting all of your stuff, we're seizing all of your stuff because.
	No allegations of criminal accusations, criminal violations, whatever.
	Class action lawsuit filed by a number of the owners of the vaults, but four in particular filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order.
	Effectively enjoining the FBI from seizing and keeping the property.
	And they succeeded on their ex parte motion.
	One thing which I don't know and don't understand, ex parte for everybody who out there doesn't understand, it means in the absence of the opposing party.
	So they say this is such an emergency, we're going to proceed without notifying serving the opposing party and proceed in their absence in front of the judge, which they did.
	In the ruling, the judge notes that the attorneys for the defendants were not present.
	I guess the first question, Robert, we're going to get to the decision itself.
	Why weren't they present?
	Do we know?
	Is it standard protocol?
	Would the judge not have given them an extra day to get the FBI attorneys to make representations?
	I mean, I think it was just because this was on an exigent basis, and I think he saw it as a clear violation of the law.
	So I think it's that he focused on the due process Fifth Amendment issue that they had failed to give specific fair notice.
	Of what the probable cause was to take this property.
	They gave neither the factual basis nor the specific statute.
	They tried to get around just citing like every statute known to man.
	And he called them on it.
	And I think had low tolerance for what they had done.
	That this was so patently unconstitutional that he was not going to broach any further incursion upon this.
	Right?
	I think it's...
	Maybe the seventh or eighth case we called correctly within just the last month because this follows up the various racial discriminatory cases in COVID, the various immigration cases that have been pending, also several Supreme Court cases, including Supreme Court case on cheerleader free speech, as we predicted, a Supreme Court case on hot pursuit not being this broad exception, as we predicted.
	But it was an excellent ruling that made clear that this attempt to...
	Grab power by misusing and abusing civil forfeiture laws to seize people's property under the guise of a Fourth Amendment warrant that didn't apply to their property, could not conform to either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And now the other question I had, I think I might know the answer, but the four petitioners got a judgment in their favor.
	The other plaintiffs were not a party to this.
	Neither were the members of the proposed class.
	But what is going to be the practical impact?
	Is this a de facto victory for everyone in that file?
	Or is the FBI going to say, Well, we can still forfeit the other property, you know, the plaintiffs who are not the movements to the TRO with impunity.
	It was a shot across the bow for them.
	If the FBI is smart, they'll settle it quickly and not allow it.
	Because the last words of the judge were, explain why I shouldn't just issue a permanent injunction in this case.
	So that was pretty clear where he's heading.
	And it's like the case of the CDC judge.
	Another case we predicted accurately.
	The judge gave him a chance at mediation to try it.
	This was a, hey, I'm going to take this one little piece, this emergency TRO side, document how ridiculous what you guys did are, and I'm going to give you a chance to fix things before they go further.
	And we'll see if the feds are smart enough to take that helpful information.
	Well, I'm going to say, LOL, we get it.
	Y 'all are smart.
	I'm going to be very thankful for Robert in that he includes me in the we, and it's a very selfless thing to do.
	But I know where my predictions have been, and I know where I don't make predictions, but I know where Robert has been on point, and that's part of what I get out of these discussions as well.
	Yeah, just phenomenal ruling.
	The judge basically smacks down the FBI and says there was no basis for it.
	You provided no justification.
	Although they were not present, but I guess from the evidence on file, it's clear.
	And tell me why I couldn't just issue this on an injunctive basis going forward, and we'll see where it goes.
	But hey, look, it's nice.
	The taxpayer-paid judge issued a ruling against the FBI, paid for it by taxpayer dollars, and the plaintiffs had to pay their own lawyers from their own money.
	So it's great.
	The plaintiffs get victimized multiple times in this case.
	But segue, actually, we should talk about the Supreme Court decision in the cheerleader case.
	Good decision in that the court basically set out the three-pronged test for when a school could, in theory, seek to govern free speech off-campus.
	And I might mix up the three conditions, but was the speech on-campus or off-campus that sort of sets the guidelines for whether or not the school can intervene?
	If it's on-campus, there's another threshold.
	Was it disruptive?
	To what's going on on school?
	Did it relate to school activities?
	And the third threshold, I forget what it was, but they basically said, the Supreme Court said 8 to 1, that the school had no business regulating or sanctioning this cheerleader for saying FU on her Instagram page on the weekend, not on school campus, not specifically referencing school activities, and that it could not have been disruptive enough to get there.
	I'm just wondering how Clarence Thomas got this one wrong.
	Oh, it's because he's old school about certain issues.
	So his granddaddy probably would have whooped him 10 times if he would have said that.
	And so it's one area where I disagree with him.
	But when it comes to schools and kids, he has an old school approach.
	And he's not someone that could take that kind of language.
	So I think that's what motivates him in that area.
	It's one area where I disagree with him.
	Though he was very righteous in his dissent on another case where...
	The corporatist court, led by the Federalist supporters, said that you no longer have standing to sue even if your rights are violated.
	You have to prove individualized damages even to have a right to sue in the first place rather than limiting the scope of your damages.
	As Thomas noted, that's completely foreign to the whole history of the Constitution.
	Standing itself is an invented doctrine over the last century.
	It's a bunch of hogwash.
	But what we're seeing is a common thread.
	Between this decision and the pro-slavery decision, in fact, that's how I interpret the Nestle decision the week before, is that you're going to have a court that sees itself as platonic, paternalistic guardians who are there to moderate the debates, and they're a very corporatist,
	centrist approach that sometimes will be good on core constitutional liberties where there happens to be a majority for it, but is not driven by constitutional purist instincts at heart, that there's a Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, important trifecta that is going to direct the court in a corporatist, centrist direction as often as possible in ways that will undermine, like even a cheerleader case could have been much better, more robust, and they still left a lot of vagueness in there.
	I was glad to see them limit this loophole, this school loophole of the First Amendment, but they could have limited it a lot more.
	I know, and they left the door open.
	They said, look, there's possibilities for when the school could be justified in doing something.
	But it has to meet certain criteria.
	If it's on campus, okay.
	If it's off campus, dealing with school activities, potentially.
	And, you know, the bar goes lower and lower or the threshold goes higher and higher the further from school you get, but the door is open nonetheless.
	Sorry, go for it.
	Yeah, thanks to Raymond Chamis.
	Our labor, time, and money have been debased right below our noses.
	Yeah, no doubt in terms of how the system operates.
	There was a good ruling on there is no grunt.
	They were trying to do a hot pursuit exception to be able to raid your house to say, well, I was chasing this person down and that's how I got to raid your house.
	And it's an easily abused provision.
	They limited that.
	There, too, they could have limited it a lot more than I would have liked if they limited it a lot more.
	But still, great decision for them to limit it, not carve out another.
	Fourth Amendment exception.
	So that too was mostly a good decision.
	They also interpreted takings.
	California has passed all these laws, and one of them is a right for people to come on your own land.
	And lobby people to either be union members, they were going to expand it ultimately to politics and other things.
	On your own private land, not available to the public, you had to make your land available to some government agent or some other person to lobby against your economic and political interests, which I never understood.
	And the question was, is that a takings?
	And the Supreme Court did a very nice job expanding takings protection under the Fifth Amendment and said, yeah, it's absolutely a takings.
	That when you take away one of the core rights of physical property, That's not a regulatory taking, which has more limited benefits.
	It's a physical taking.
	People focused on the union aspect.
	I see that as very secondary.
	This is about the ability of the state to start stripping you of your ability to own your property without physically possessing it or occupying it.
	The Supreme Court came in and said, no, no, no.
	If you're taking away a core right of that property, a core meaning of what it is to have property, then that is a taking that the state must compensate you for.
	All right.
	Now, I think we should wind this down.
	I'm going to read this.
	Subscribe last week to Viva Barnes on Locals.
	Viva, if you're serious about relocating, you'd love Charleston, South Carolina.
	It's good fishing down there.
	I know that much.
	Robert, why are people asking about UFOs?
	I don't know.
	Oh, there was a report.
	The report came out this week.
	I will get into that in more detail with Richard Barris tomorrow on what are the odds at 2 p.m. Eastern time because Richard's actually polled on the questions of UFOs and has had a lifelong interest in the subject.
	So he likes to talk about it.
	But legally, there's no UFO implications that I know of.
	Just a political news story.
	All right.
	And with that said, everyone wants to see a little bit more of Barney.
	He's still tired from the weekend.
	Winston.
	Winston.
	That is such a deep psychological drama from it that I still hurt for Barney.
	I still love that dog, although I never want to see him again.
	I love Winston.
	Robert, wind us out of this week.
	Lead us into the next week.
	What do we have to be grateful for and what do we have to look out for?
	So, I mean, we saw some of what the risk is with the Supreme Court.
	Big risk of the Giuliani case that needs to be fought back because it's not about Giuliani.
	It's about lawyers' ability to fight for their clients and you as an individual to pick your own lawyer, not have the courts dictate it to you by stripping your lawyer of their licensure.
	But a lot of white pill moments for the week.
	You know, you have Britney Spears.
	Who has been abused and mistreated her whole life in some respect with other people making money off of her and trafficking her effectively, pushing back and taking the willingness to fight back in the courts that have abused her in the court of public opinion, which has mistreated her.
	That by itself is an extraordinary white pill moment.
	The good decisions still on the hot pursuit on the Fourth Amendment in that context and in the FBI forfeiture case.
	Good decision on the First Amendment in the school context.
	A great decision by the Texas Supreme Court limiting the power of big tech to just do whatever they wanted with no consequence.
	So many good cases that are rewarding and encouraging and should continue to incentivize people to fight back in whatever means they have afforded to them.
	And I will be bringing suit over the next several weeks against some of these people trying to push vaccine mandates through against the population in ways that because I believe they violate core constitutional liberties that are protected under multiple areas of law.
	So the battle continues, and there were plenty of good wins this week.
	All right.
	And now, who's the sidebar this week?
	Wednesday, who do we have, Robert?
	Mark Gruber.
	I may be mispronouncing his name.
	He's occasionally been on the Deep State programs with Eric Hundley's Unstructured Podcast.
	Exceptionally well-informed about a wide range of topics.
	That will be a fun, fun conversation.
	So if you like Hush Hush style conversations, it will be a couple hours worth of that.
	Plus a little sneak peek behind the scenes and behind the screens in Hollywood.
	And where politics and power intersect.
	And Friday, we have Sticks, Hecks, and Hammers, 666 at noon our time, 9 o 'clock your time, 6 o 'clock European time.
	Wednesday after that will be Eliza Blue about human trafficking issues.
	She's personally lived it and escaped it, so that I think is an extraordinarily interesting one.
	And the two main political new candidates that we have interviewed are quickly becoming, one already is and one is about to be, the best chances for new populist congressmen and senators in the United States.
	Joe Kent, who continues to continue to just take off.
	We were one of the first people to platform him.
	And J.D. Vance is likely to announce this week he's running for the United States Senate in Ohio.
	And I think he will be one of the great populist advocates and has a great chance to win.
	I've been following Joe on Twitter since before we did the stream, but amazing.
	When you just speak common sense truth without being shy about it, it resonates for a reason.
	I do want to bring up Jason Minard's, glad to see the Finding Nemo tie on Barnes.
	I didn't even see it until I saw it.
	Now I can't unsee it.
	And let me just bring up one last chat.
	If I lost it, I lost it.
	Whatever.
	Okay, let me just do this here.
	All right, Robert, another amazing stream.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you very much for tuning in.
	I'll be posting the highlights throughout the week, but number one highlight tomorrow is going to be the Britney Spears so we can get that out and people can share it so that they can know what's going on because I don't think many people do know what's going on.
	And that's it.
	What do we say?
	I'll be at a live chat right after the show, which I've occasionally checked in on, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Everybody, enjoy the weekend.

▲